How Christ became subject to the Father.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
I am going to focus on the person of Jesus in this post. In my previous post I covered Christ in the trinity, but here I want to cover the person of Christ. Not to prove that he is the messiah or God, but to show who Christ thought of himself as. We know he is the Son of God, but what does that mean? First, Christ and the Father made the decision that he would become the Son, and second that Christ then became subject to the Father by choice. He was equal to God, yet he chose to be his slave. So let's get to the first point.
Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
In verse 8 we have a conversation of God amongst himself. If you do not believe in the trinity you will regect this truth. Yet scripture will show that this is the case. The conversation also includes Isaiah who says "send me". So Isaiah was sent to prophecie, but it was Christ who was being instructed to say this. Here are some of the verses.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
This fulfillment of prophecy is written about in all four of the gospels. Christ spoke in parables to leave those who will not believe in him blind and deaf. So the conversation that Isaiah overheard was the Father instructing his Son on what to say or how to say it. So even before he was born as a man, Christ had became subject to the Father. Here is another verse.
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Once again, we have a conversation between Father and Son. The Father declares the Son to be his,tells him what he will give him, and tells him what he will do. If you read on in these verses you will see the Father instruct people how to act toward the Son.
So now that we see it was by choice and pre-planned, I want to look at what Christ did to become subject to the Father.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
I will start in verse 6. First Christ, who was in the form of God. Christ is the express image (exact duplicate) of the person of God (Heb 1:3). So it follows that he would not think he was stealing anything away from the Father by being equal to him. So the Son is equal in all ways to the Father because he is a carbon copy of him. Now on to verse 7 to explain how one who was equal became a subject.
In verse 7 He "made himself of no reputation". In the Greek this word is kenoo. Theologins call this the "kenosis". Even though many will say Christ emptied himself of nothing, nothing could be farther from the truth. I will give examples of Jesus either laying aside or giving up his rights or however you want to explain it, and becoming completely like a man. He gave up his wisdom and power, and I will address them in that order.
wisdom/knowledge
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Very simply, if he still had all of his knowledge he could not increase in wisdom. He was either all knowing or not.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.If the Son did not know the day or hour he was not all knowing. Also notice the Holy Spirit is not in this list.
Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
How could the Father teach him if he already knows everything?
power
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Christ says the Father does the works here. If you read the rest of 14, you will get a much clearer picture of this relationship. John clearly explains the Son being subject to his Father. Not less of a being, but positionally less.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
If Christ never laid down his power, how could it be given to him? Christ will also in the future become subject to the Father. (1 Co 15:28)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The trinity
The trinity
Since I attacked oneness it is only fair that I defend the trinity. While it is true that the bible does not use the word "trinity" nor does it directly say "God is three persons in one essence" it does explain God in this way. Oneness theologians say "one means one", yet when it comes to John 17 (read the previous post on oneness for an explanation) they make excuses. So here are some scriptures that explain the correct view.
First two verses that name them separately. Before I get started here I want to explain the definite article "the". here is a definition.
The definite article is generally used to indicate a specific thing or set of things (e.g. "the book" as opposed to "a book," etc). There is also an important reflexive use of the definite article, in which it is used in a reflexive sense to indicate someone or something that belongs to, has some relation to, or is a physical part of the subject (e.g. when the Greek literally says "the boy reads the book," it may actually mean "the boy reads his book"). The context will determine when the definite article is being used in this reflexive sense.
So with this in mind, let's go through these verses.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There are three things or persons here. Three bear record. The Father, The Word, The Holy Ghost. Not the Father who becomes the Word but the Word. As in there are many things generically called the word but this is the Word.
When we get to John 1 this will become very important.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
In this verse we need to look at the sentence structure. Lets say I asked for a cup of coffee, cream and sugar. A waiter would get me a cup of coffee with cream and sugar in it. Now let's say I asked for a cup of the coffee, a cup of the cream, and a cup of the sugar. If they did not bring me three cups they would be fired. In the previous verse the term "in the name" is implied before each title. So instead of "in the name of the Father,Son,And Holy Ghost" it is "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost". Three separate commands, three separate persons. To explain this clearer, I want to get into John 1.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When the article "the" is used, it indicates a specific thing. When it is not used, it does the opposite. There is no indefinite article. Let's say I said "in a beginning was a word". You would have no idea when this beginning was nor who this word was. Now in context of the Bible, do we know when the beginning is? Gen 1:1 tells us the beginning was when God created. So creation is the context of beginning. Also the Word is Christ in context. Now in the Greek "the" is not before beginning in this verse. So beginning does not mean creation here but it means beginning. When is that? We don't know. But we do know "the" is before Word. So the word spoken about here is the Word. not a concept or something that existed in God's mind, but the Word. How do I know? Because the Word was πρός (with) God. Here is the definition of the greek translated "with".
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.
So the Word was face to face with God, not in his mind. The Word exsisted in a beginning we don't know face to face with the Father. Really simple if we look at what the word is saying instead of reading our own doctrine into it.
Now Hebrews 1. I will go through these verses and put notes in them.
Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
God is speaking here about his Son. This is important to understand so we can read this passage in context.
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Express image in the greek is charakter, which means exact copy. The other word translated "image" when it refers to Christ is eikon which means likeness. So he is not the Father, but an exact copy of him. When you make a copy of a paper you do not have one but two pages. They are just identical. Also the Son here sits at the right hand of God. You can sit by yourself but you cannot sit beside yourself. Of course you can be beside yourself with worry....
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Christ was not an angel. That being said, what is meant by begotten? God did not mate with Mary. So is it possible that Christ already exsisted and he "became" the Son? When I married my wife she had three sons. They became my sons. Remember God was speaking to the Son here telling him he was begotten.
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Let all the Angels worship him. Not worship the Father through him or worship the Father in him, but worship him. Worship the Son. Worship him because he is God.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
The Father himself just called the Son God. This destroys any theory that the Son has a human spirit. It also means that Father and Son are having a conversation. That requires two unless your crazy.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
God calls him Lord and says The Son created.
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
There is more ground to cover that I dont have time for here. So here is a verse list I made so you can study this.
Proverbs 8,Psa 33:6,
I cut and pasted this for a study.
The F., S., & H.S. are each called God (F., Phil. 1:2), (S., John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), (H.S., Acts 5:3-4). Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each is all knowing (F., 1 John 3:20), (S., John 16:30; 21:17), (H.S., 1 Cor. 2:10-11), Each speaks (F., Matt. 3:17), (S., Luke 5:20., (HS., Acts 8:29; 13:2).
Since I attacked oneness it is only fair that I defend the trinity. While it is true that the bible does not use the word "trinity" nor does it directly say "God is three persons in one essence" it does explain God in this way. Oneness theologians say "one means one", yet when it comes to John 17 (read the previous post on oneness for an explanation) they make excuses. So here are some scriptures that explain the correct view.
First two verses that name them separately. Before I get started here I want to explain the definite article "the". here is a definition.
The definite article is generally used to indicate a specific thing or set of things (e.g. "the book" as opposed to "a book," etc). There is also an important reflexive use of the definite article, in which it is used in a reflexive sense to indicate someone or something that belongs to, has some relation to, or is a physical part of the subject (e.g. when the Greek literally says "the boy reads the book," it may actually mean "the boy reads his book"). The context will determine when the definite article is being used in this reflexive sense.
So with this in mind, let's go through these verses.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There are three things or persons here. Three bear record. The Father, The Word, The Holy Ghost. Not the Father who becomes the Word but the Word. As in there are many things generically called the word but this is the Word.
When we get to John 1 this will become very important.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
In this verse we need to look at the sentence structure. Lets say I asked for a cup of coffee, cream and sugar. A waiter would get me a cup of coffee with cream and sugar in it. Now let's say I asked for a cup of the coffee, a cup of the cream, and a cup of the sugar. If they did not bring me three cups they would be fired. In the previous verse the term "in the name" is implied before each title. So instead of "in the name of the Father,Son,And Holy Ghost" it is "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost". Three separate commands, three separate persons. To explain this clearer, I want to get into John 1.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When the article "the" is used, it indicates a specific thing. When it is not used, it does the opposite. There is no indefinite article. Let's say I said "in a beginning was a word". You would have no idea when this beginning was nor who this word was. Now in context of the Bible, do we know when the beginning is? Gen 1:1 tells us the beginning was when God created. So creation is the context of beginning. Also the Word is Christ in context. Now in the Greek "the" is not before beginning in this verse. So beginning does not mean creation here but it means beginning. When is that? We don't know. But we do know "the" is before Word. So the word spoken about here is the Word. not a concept or something that existed in God's mind, but the Word. How do I know? Because the Word was πρός (with) God. Here is the definition of the greek translated "with".
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.
So the Word was face to face with God, not in his mind. The Word exsisted in a beginning we don't know face to face with the Father. Really simple if we look at what the word is saying instead of reading our own doctrine into it.
Now Hebrews 1. I will go through these verses and put notes in them.
Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
God is speaking here about his Son. This is important to understand so we can read this passage in context.
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Express image in the greek is charakter, which means exact copy. The other word translated "image" when it refers to Christ is eikon which means likeness. So he is not the Father, but an exact copy of him. When you make a copy of a paper you do not have one but two pages. They are just identical. Also the Son here sits at the right hand of God. You can sit by yourself but you cannot sit beside yourself. Of course you can be beside yourself with worry....
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Christ was not an angel. That being said, what is meant by begotten? God did not mate with Mary. So is it possible that Christ already exsisted and he "became" the Son? When I married my wife she had three sons. They became my sons. Remember God was speaking to the Son here telling him he was begotten.
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Let all the Angels worship him. Not worship the Father through him or worship the Father in him, but worship him. Worship the Son. Worship him because he is God.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.
The Father himself just called the Son God. This destroys any theory that the Son has a human spirit. It also means that Father and Son are having a conversation. That requires two unless your crazy.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
God calls him Lord and says The Son created.
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
There is more ground to cover that I dont have time for here. So here is a verse list I made so you can study this.
Proverbs 8,Psa 33:6,
I cut and pasted this for a study.
The F., S., & H.S. are each called God (F., Phil. 1:2), (S., John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), (H.S., Acts 5:3-4). Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each is all knowing (F., 1 John 3:20), (S., John 16:30; 21:17), (H.S., 1 Cor. 2:10-11), Each speaks (F., Matt. 3:17), (S., Luke 5:20., (HS., Acts 8:29; 13:2).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Why oneness theology is wrong
The scripture will show here why oneness theology is wrong.First I will explain three views of oneness that I have found. Christ the created being (the created son, not the created angel), Christ the human with God dwelling in him (he himself is human but the Father dwells in him), and Christ the Father robed in flesh(there is no other mind or conciseness in him only the Father). I am sure there are many more, but these three are the ones I will focus on.
To the first one, Gen 1:1 kills this idea. The belief is that the Father created the Son, and the Son created everything else. If the Son was created, he cannot be God. So if he is not God, then the verse would have to say "in the beginning the Son created". I'm sure they have an answer for this, but simple logic tells us it is impossible. In all other areas it is most like the second view.
The second view is that Christ is human, with God dwelling in him. Sounds ok right? God dwelt in human form, we all believe that. The difference here is that they believe Christ had a human spirit and that the Father dwelt in him. So Christ himself is not deity, but the Father is. When Christ claimed deity, it was the Father talking. When he claimed his humanity, the Son spoke. My first question to a group of these people was "how do we know who is speaking?" They said by what is being said. If he says "before Abraham was I AM" that is the Father talking. If he says "I must be about my Fathers business" that is Christ. Now that you know the background, let's look at some verses that kill this theology.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Let's dissect this verse. First we learn that the one speaking here came down from heaven. Then we learn he is not doing his own will. Then we learn he was sent by someone and that persons will is what he is doing. So is this God or the human speaking? Can't be God because he can not do another's will. Can't be the human because he was born, not come from heaven. When I presented this verse to a group there answer was "souls come down from heaven". Really? Where is that in the bible? No answer. Does the bible say Adam's soul came down from heaven? God breathed into his nostrils "and man became a living soul." Here's another.
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is common for this group of oneness to separate the Father in Christ from the human in Christ by calling the human part the "Son of man" which points to his humanity. Of course this verse destroys that notion because the "son of man" was in heaven before and is going to return there. There are many verses like this but to save space here I will move on to the third group.
This group is nearest to my heart because this is the group I grew up in. The idea here is that God robed himself in flesh to live among us and to die for our sins. Sounds orthodox on the surface. But they mean that the Father robed himself in flesh, not the Son. They believe the Father became the Son when he did this. That there is no other mind in Christ but the Father(who had become the Son). So you may ask how they answer the Father speaking from heaven or who Christ was always praying and speaking to? What about in Hebrews 1 when the Father calls the Son God? Are they not having a conversation? Here is the answer(as best I can recall) given by the speaker on the radio show "there is hope for today" which is a u.p.c.i.(united pentecostal church international) radio ministry. God knowing ahead of time what he would ask and need, and knowing the miracles he would perform, pre-did these things in the past before he became the Son. So when as the Son he arrived at these events in history, God was performing these works. It's like a string of cosmic trip wires. as Christ crossed them, he triggered an event. This is not exact of course, but it gives you an overview of the theology. It answers allot of these questions. The two verses I used to discredit the second oneness view are explained by this theology. There are two problems with this theology though. The first is it does not exist. Look the bible over from cover to cover you will not find this anywhere. It is what is called "circular logic". Because God is singular, and this verse seems to deny that thought,then this must be correct. It is an attempt to justify theology rather than to explain a bible truth. Now that being said, I will give two sets of verses that clearly deny this teaching.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
I am not alone, but I and the Father. Wow what a statement! Christ does not say him and his former self, but I and the Father. Now if you still believe after the first statement that God is one in person, then you make Christ a liar or a deceiver after the second statement, that He and the Father make two witnesses. If God the Father and God the Son are the same person just in different roles, then Christ lied here when he claimed there are two that bear witness. Now if you thought that was plain, read the next one.
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
You really should read all of John 17 if you want a good picture of the relationship of Father and Son. But I want to focus on the word one. If God the Father and God the Son are the same person, and that is what he means by "one", then how are we going to be one as they are? Does that mean that we will cease to exist as individuals? Verse 11 says "that they may be one, as we". If they are the same person, then we will be absorbed into God. 23 says "that they may be made perfect(completed) in one". We will be complete when we are one with God, not absorbed by him. John 17 shows the relationship between Father and Son, not between God's identities.
To be fair, I will give an answer for the trinity in my next post.
To the first one, Gen 1:1 kills this idea. The belief is that the Father created the Son, and the Son created everything else. If the Son was created, he cannot be God. So if he is not God, then the verse would have to say "in the beginning the Son created". I'm sure they have an answer for this, but simple logic tells us it is impossible. In all other areas it is most like the second view.
The second view is that Christ is human, with God dwelling in him. Sounds ok right? God dwelt in human form, we all believe that. The difference here is that they believe Christ had a human spirit and that the Father dwelt in him. So Christ himself is not deity, but the Father is. When Christ claimed deity, it was the Father talking. When he claimed his humanity, the Son spoke. My first question to a group of these people was "how do we know who is speaking?" They said by what is being said. If he says "before Abraham was I AM" that is the Father talking. If he says "I must be about my Fathers business" that is Christ. Now that you know the background, let's look at some verses that kill this theology.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Let's dissect this verse. First we learn that the one speaking here came down from heaven. Then we learn he is not doing his own will. Then we learn he was sent by someone and that persons will is what he is doing. So is this God or the human speaking? Can't be God because he can not do another's will. Can't be the human because he was born, not come from heaven. When I presented this verse to a group there answer was "souls come down from heaven". Really? Where is that in the bible? No answer. Does the bible say Adam's soul came down from heaven? God breathed into his nostrils "and man became a living soul." Here's another.
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is common for this group of oneness to separate the Father in Christ from the human in Christ by calling the human part the "Son of man" which points to his humanity. Of course this verse destroys that notion because the "son of man" was in heaven before and is going to return there. There are many verses like this but to save space here I will move on to the third group.
This group is nearest to my heart because this is the group I grew up in. The idea here is that God robed himself in flesh to live among us and to die for our sins. Sounds orthodox on the surface. But they mean that the Father robed himself in flesh, not the Son. They believe the Father became the Son when he did this. That there is no other mind in Christ but the Father(who had become the Son). So you may ask how they answer the Father speaking from heaven or who Christ was always praying and speaking to? What about in Hebrews 1 when the Father calls the Son God? Are they not having a conversation? Here is the answer(as best I can recall) given by the speaker on the radio show "there is hope for today" which is a u.p.c.i.(united pentecostal church international) radio ministry. God knowing ahead of time what he would ask and need, and knowing the miracles he would perform, pre-did these things in the past before he became the Son. So when as the Son he arrived at these events in history, God was performing these works. It's like a string of cosmic trip wires. as Christ crossed them, he triggered an event. This is not exact of course, but it gives you an overview of the theology. It answers allot of these questions. The two verses I used to discredit the second oneness view are explained by this theology. There are two problems with this theology though. The first is it does not exist. Look the bible over from cover to cover you will not find this anywhere. It is what is called "circular logic". Because God is singular, and this verse seems to deny that thought,then this must be correct. It is an attempt to justify theology rather than to explain a bible truth. Now that being said, I will give two sets of verses that clearly deny this teaching.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
I am not alone, but I and the Father. Wow what a statement! Christ does not say him and his former self, but I and the Father. Now if you still believe after the first statement that God is one in person, then you make Christ a liar or a deceiver after the second statement, that He and the Father make two witnesses. If God the Father and God the Son are the same person just in different roles, then Christ lied here when he claimed there are two that bear witness. Now if you thought that was plain, read the next one.
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
You really should read all of John 17 if you want a good picture of the relationship of Father and Son. But I want to focus on the word one. If God the Father and God the Son are the same person, and that is what he means by "one", then how are we going to be one as they are? Does that mean that we will cease to exist as individuals? Verse 11 says "that they may be one, as we". If they are the same person, then we will be absorbed into God. 23 says "that they may be made perfect(completed) in one". We will be complete when we are one with God, not absorbed by him. John 17 shows the relationship between Father and Son, not between God's identities.
To be fair, I will give an answer for the trinity in my next post.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Welcome
I am starting this blog because there is a need for the Bible to be explained by someone other than people who have let there theology get in the way of interpreting the Bible. When you view scripture through your theology, you will be wrong most of the time. We need to stop asking the Calvins, Wesleys, and Luthers for their permission to believe what the Bible says is true. Do we believe Calvinists who say that God picks and chooses who He will save whether we like it or not? Or the followers of Wesley who say we are born sinless and can live in sinless perfection? It's time we read the Bible for ourselves and come to know Christ in truth. I will begin posting as I have the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
