Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Back home again! lol
I believe the words are totally trustworthy, but when we add grammatical terms like first person singular speaking to second person singular, confusing the terms as indication of more than one person misses the mark, I think. The terms and their labels were never meant to dictate to us understanding of the Godhead.
Generally speaking, though, language really is based upon multiple human persons, and it just cannot perfectly apply outside of that limitation.
If God really is one person alone, and used our language to interact in his manifestations then you can see how that would pose confusion to us and start a polypersonal doctrine, right? |
I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I want you to really think about what I'm saying before just dismissing it. I see an irrational fear of the word "person" among Oneness Apostolics. For example, one of the definitions from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "person" as being one's "personality" or "self". To me, it is clear that the man Jesus Christ has a distinct sense of "self". In Jesus human center of self-conscious reality that is indeed distinct from the Father. For all intents and purposes, He has a distinct personality from that of the Father. We see Him pray to the Father, speak of the Father with distinction, express love towards the Father, speak of the Father's love towards Him, speak of being sent by the Father, speak of going back to the Father, and speaks of the Father as being His "God". He describes Himself as being "in" the Father and the Father being "in" Him; this clearly expresses a mutual indwelling that speaks of a "oneness" or "union" of being. But Christ's "person" (self-conscious reality, "self", and/or personality) remains clearly distinct from that of the Father.
The only way Jesus could have established that He was indeed the same person as the Father would be to speak as the Father while expressing human limitation. Instead of saying, "The Father is greater than I.", Jesus could have said, "I am greater as the Father." Or, "I, the Father, am one." Or, "I came from being the Father, and return to being the Father." Or, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither me as the Son, but I know all things as the Father." Language would be instrumental in establishing that the person of Jesus was the same as the person of the Father.
Essentially, your arguments are that the distinction of person seen in the man Jesus Christ is only an illusion, a by product of Oneness. However, if Jesus were indeed the same person as the Father, He would express it, speaking as the Father Himself... albeit while also indicating personal limitations.
Now, I don't really have a fear of the word "person". I clearly see a distinct "human person" in the man Jesus Christ. Truth is truth. I'd rather be true to Scripture than an eisegetical angle of theology. Notice, I draw distinction between "human person" and "divine person". So, I contend that I too only see one "divine person" in the man Jesus Christ, the indwelling Father. Even in the "human person" of Jesus, I see the "divine person" of the Father made flesh, for the man Jesus Christ was fashioned in the express image of God's own person. So, between the Father and the Son... only one divine person is revealed.... YHVH.
Threaded Mode
