Religious Cults & False Prophets~ Discussions and DebatesOneness debatehi donny boy!
1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is unitarian? (or that God exist as one Person?) Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude. 2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh (“LORD”), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven? Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., “Us,” “Our,” in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim (“God”) to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7). 3. If God is unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God? Example: in Isaiah 54:5, “Maker” is plural in Hebrew, lit., “Makers”; same with Psalm 149:2 where “Maker” is in the plural in Hebrew. The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, “Remember also your Creators” (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both “Maker” and “Makers” and as “Creator” and “Creators.” He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors. 4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse? Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse. 5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called “Father? The preexistence of the Son 6. If the “Son” has not eternally existed with (personally distinct from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus as the “Father” mode existed prior to Bethlehem). Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10, the “Son” is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia (“though”) is followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case). Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these passages), the preposition indicates “agency” (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. [hereafter BDAG], 225). Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father’s mind when the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) created all things. Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves the Oneness position. This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son created, then, He eternally existed with the Father. 7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” can say, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon, or “shared”] with You before the world was” (emphasis added)? How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with (para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist before Bethlehem? Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus’ high priestly prayer) the “Son” (for Jesus says, “Now, Father”) say that He possessed or shared glory with the Father, before time. To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence of the Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father, only signified the future glory or “plan” in the Father’s mind, thus anticipating the Son’s coming at Bethlehem. But the Son, they say, was not really there with the Father “before the world was.” However, consider the following: Grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, “with Yourself” and para soi, “with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammar or recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage that This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, "with thee") “which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō. . . . (Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:275-76). 8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” is said to be “sent” from the Father “out of heaven”? Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistent Person of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17; 6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4). Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent the Son. If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one would expect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage. John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28. “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ek tou ouranou]: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of the Son of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the “Son of Man” was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem for Oneness doctrine. For the “Son of Man” in Oneness theology was not the Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, but here, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son. Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the “Son” (see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, “existed in the form of God” [literally, “always subsisting as God”] . . . emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant.” Note that the Apostle Paul indicates that the “Son” was always existing as deity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the “Father” (i.e., Jesus’’ divine nature) is God. However, here the “Son” is presented as fully God. For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: “who . . . existed [huparchōn] in the form of God [morphē theou]” (emphasis added). The word translated “existed” is huparchōn (the present active participle of huparchō). The present particle indicates a continuous existence or continually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 638)—the Son was always God. Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or nature (morphē) of God at a certain point in time, rather He always existed as God. Further the “Son” is said to have voluntarily “made Himself nothing, taking [labōn]1 the nature of a servant” (vv. 7-8). Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. “Himself He emptied”) indicates a “self-emptying.”2 Thus, it was not the Father, as Oneness teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v. 8). 9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Example, First and third person personal pronouns: Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26; emphasis added). Repetition of the article: Specifically, the repetition of the article tou (“the”) before each noun and the conjunction kai (“and”) that connects the nouns clearly denote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew 28:19: “in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the [kai tou] Holy Spirit.” Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather as three distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions are observed in 2 Corinthians 13:14: The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added). In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as two distinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tō: To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added). “To Him who sits” (tō kathēmenō [lit. “to the one sitting”—the Father]) “and the Lamb” (kai tō arniō—the Son) are grammatically differentiated by the repeated article tō (“the”), which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction kai (“and”). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou (“the”) and the repeated preposition meta (“with”): we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with [meta] us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasis added). There are many other passages where this construction applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23). Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”5 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me” (John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit: For through Him [di’ autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18). 10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine of the apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical* by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds? Example, Theodotus (the first known dynamic monarchianist) was excommunicated by Victor, the bishop of Rome, around A.D. 190; Noetus (the first known modalist) was condemned by Hippolytus and by the presbyters around the same time; Praxeas was marked as a heretic by Tertullian; Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Third Council in Antioch (A.D. 268); Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius bishop of Rome along with many important church Fathers condemned Sabellius and his teachings as Christological heresy. Moreover, significant Christian church councils affirmed the Trinity and explicitly rejected Oneness doctrine: e.g., Council of Nicea (325); Chalcedon Creed (A.D. 451); Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381); etc. Consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian, not Oneness—for obvious reasons. The church has branded Oneness theology as heretical since the days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Moreover, when it found its way in the twentieth century, departing from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, it was again rejected by the church. Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity—it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. To be sure, modalism embraces another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concerned as to the false beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, as he gives this warning: Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23). By promoting the Son as a temporary mode or a role of the unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem, denies the Son, as well as the Father. Taken from- http://christiandefense.org/10%20QUESTIONS.htm#q2 |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame