Do Oneness Pentecostals teach 2 persons? [Archive]

TheLayman

01-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Does today’s Oneness teach two persons?

When I ask, “Does today’s Oneness teach two persons” let me be clear in my meaning. When speaking of the Father and the Son, do Oneness teach two persons or one? I can say from the outset that I have only known one Oneness person who ever said that there were two persons in view with regard to the Father and the Son, and that with equivocation, so I will not count that one. So, the question is not whether or not Oneness say “we teach two persons” but rather whether or not Oneness in fact teach two persons are in view with regard to the Father and the Son.

A fundamental question that must be answered is whether or not Oneness are truly modalists. If a claim is to be made that Oneness Pentecostals teach that the Father and the Son are only one person, then the claim must be made that they are modalists. I have seen the discussions regarding “sequential modalism” verses “concurrent modalism.” This issue is irrelevant with regard to the number of persons posited by modalism as it must always “one” to be modalism. Allow me to explain:

Modalism is both a theology proper and a Christology. This is why in the Christological sense it was also referred to as “Patripassian” (i.e. the Father suffered). Now, I have heard some say that there are those that believe the Father suffered with the Son, and while that would qualify as a Patripassian, that would not be a modalist. A modalist can not say “the Father suffered with the Son” but must posit that the Father suffered “as the Son.” There can be no “with” as modalism posits only one personal subject.

In spite of this, all the Oneness I have spoken to in the past several years all teach personal distinctions between the Father and the Son. Personal distinctions arise only from distinction of persons. Even Oneness Apologists teach these personal distinctions. Ross Drysdale would appear to teach that Jesus was a man who was indwelt by God. He states:

So we can see from this that the Son "Came into being" hence He cannot, as the Son, be eternal.Neither could He have existed from all eternity in heaven, for He was a "male child, born of a woman." And such contradictions do not obtain in Heaven! The Son of God is a man, howbeit a perfect and sinless manIf the Son was the Second Divine Person of the Godhead why did he say he could do "nothing?" The answer is obvious: "Son" does not refer to a "divine" person, but to a human "person," who in his own power can do nothing. Christ implies however that there is another "self" or "power" in him when he says, "Can do nothing of himself." Then who or what is doing these works? The answer we already know is the Father, who is resident in Him.The Son, being a man, did not have eternal immortal life dwelling in him inherently. It is not the property of men to have divine and original God-life in them. (Ross Drysdale, If ye knew these things).While these quotes would be great to show that apparently this particular apologist doesn’t believe the Son is God that is not the point. The point here is that to the Trinitarian, Drysdale is teaching two persons, one who is God, one who is man. Indeed, I would lump this in with Unitarian and Adoptionist Monarchian type Christologies.

David Bernard is decidedly Nestorian in his Christological mechanics (which, I suppose, is why he defends Nestorius to some extent). However, Nestorian mechanics also posits two persons internal to Christ, one divine and one human.

The Prayers of Christ (ch. 8)What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God…. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-8). This was not a struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself, for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men… Rather, we say the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man. (David Bernard)Love Between Persons (Ch. 8)John 3:35, 5:20, and 15:9 state that the Father loves the Son, and John 17:24 says the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world. In John 14:31 Jesus expressed love for the Father. All of these statements do not mean separate persons. (Is it not strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?) What these verses express is the relationship between the two natures of Christ. The Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all humanity and the man Jesus loved God as all men should love God. Remember, the Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest Himself as the Son. He loved that plan from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the beginning of time. (David Bernard) With regard to prayers Bernard defines “nature” with “personal attributes.” In other words, a nature does not pray or hear prayers, a person does. Prayers are attributable only to an intelligent, rational, self aware person, not nature. He also says that “as a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.” A person submits, and if there is only one person in Christ He does not need to pray to Himself to submit to anything. But the main point I want to make is that Bernard attributes the attributes of “person” to “nature.” An intelligent, rational, self aware person composes and offers prayer, not a nature. However, attributing “personal attributes” to “nature” is an equivocation, and Trinitarians obviously see Bernard teaching two persons, one God and one a man (Nestorian style).

With regard to “love,” natures do not love, people do. Love is as about as “personal” as you can get. Love is a “personal relationship,” not a “nature relationship.” Bernard has a relationship of love between two natures. Again, he has assigned personal attributes to nature, thus equivocating. So while he does not say “two persons” he does in fact teach two persons absent equivocation. Actually, Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle would agree:
Jesus PrayersIf Jesus was not praying because He truly needed divine assistance, then His prayers were deceptive because He made them seem like genuine prayers. Jesus was nothing more than a good actor, a hypocrite. If He faked His prayers for the sake of being an example, then did He fake His love and compassion toward those who came to Him seeking help for their souls? Jesus was not deceptive, and neither were His prayers….To explain the prayers of Jesus as the human nature of Jesus praying to the divine nature of Jesus poses problems. For one, natures do not pray, people do. Secondly, the Scripture declares that He prayed to the Father, not Himself. It would make no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself. Surely if this was the case, there would have been no need for verbal expressions of prayer because Jesus could have communicated to the deity within Him in some transferable, telepathic manner. This is not the view of Scripture. (Dulle)Love in the Godhead?Some have tried to explain this exchange of love as Jesus’ human nature loving Jesus’ divine nature, and vice-versa. Trinitarians have particularly criticized this explanation, pointing out that it reads something into Jesus’ words that He did not say, and makes Jesus’ statements meaningless when interpreted according to the normal use of language. We must agree that Jesus did not say His divine nature loves His human nature. Also, such an approach assumes an unbiblical definition of "Son," attributing it strictly to Jesus’ humanity, to the exclusion of His whole person which includes His deity. (Dulle)Avoiding the Achilles Heels…Furthermore, Jesus said, "…even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love. Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love. (Dulle)Continued in next post (Part 2)

TheLayman

01-13-2007, 03:33 PM

Venist

01-13-2007, 04:17 PM

I am not Pentecostal, but rather Apostolic. My Bishop taught me that Jesus Christ is God. He also taught that there is not 2 or 3, but only one. Jesus Christ being that only one.

Jesusissavior

01-13-2007, 04:25 PM

Polaris

01-13-2007, 05:01 PM

Thank you for your informative lay-out of theological thought on this subject. I've often been dismayed by people who claim to be interested in this topic, and who even pontificate against those of us who are Oneness, and yet who haven't got the slightest idea as to what our beliefs entail beyond the fact that we do not believe God to be eternally existing in three persons. Let me try to answer your question.

Let's talk about the spirit of God Almighty, himself, prior to the incarnation. As Oneness believers, we see God as entirely, comletely one. Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, and ancient Jews understood Deut. 6:4 as saying that God is indivisibly one, period. We don't believe he exists in three persons, or that there are three persons who, in some mysterious way that our finite minds cannot understand, are "really" all one God. If God were three persons, he could have plainly said so, but he didn't say that. The very fact that we call God "He" as opposed to "they" tells us that God is one. And by the way, we note that there are scriptures that tell us both that there is one God, AND that God is one.

At the incarnation, God had a son. His son was a man...not a person of the godhead. He was not "God the Son", but "the son of God". What made him divine was a fusion of divinity and humanity. Jesus wasn't JUST a man, but God took on the flesh of His son and came to earth in the body of His son, for the purpose of redemption. This gave Jesus a dual nature: both human and divine. Jesus openly declared "my father and I are one", so the Jews wanted to stone him for supposedly making himself God. But Jesus was God in flesh (and the flesh was not just a shell or a husk, but was a man).

The scriptures tell us a lot about the son of God: he grew in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man. He became obedient, even to the death on the cross. He was heard in that he feared. He cried out on the cross "Father, forgive them", and "into thine hands I commend my spirit". In the garden, we see the son of God surrendering his will. We see obedience, humility, and total submission to the will of the Father. What we never see, however, is anything about this supposed person of "God the Son". We note that the scriptures tell us that it was the FATHER who dwelt IN the son who did the miracles, and it was the Father's words that were being spoken during Jesus's ministry. In John 14, Jesus said that the Father who dwelt IN him did the works.

When we as Oneness believers say "God", we're talking about the Father who was IN the son. This is where the confusion lies: we don't believe that the Father IS the son (one and the same), and we don't believe that the son was divine in his own right ("God the Son"), but we see a fusion of God and human flesh...the man, Christ Jesus. God is a spirit (John 4:24), He is invisible, and He is omnipresent. The scriptures say that no man hath seen God at any time. Have people seen the Son? Was Jesus not more than a the Spirit of God, but flesh also? Of course. But what was divine about the son was the Spirit of the Father who dwelt in him. Through that incarnation, Jesus became "Immanuel...God with us". Acts 20:28 says that God shed his blood for the church--the only blood God ever had was that of his son, in whom the Father came to earth. II Cor. 5:19 says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto HIMSELF....". Colossians 2:9 tells us that in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead, BODILY" and I Timothy 3:16 tells us that "God was MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH...".

So what about "oneness" and "two-ness"? When we're talking about the spirit of God, we're talking about absolute oneness. When you receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that is the same spirit of God almighty that was in Christ, doing miracles and annointing His divine words to be spoken.

On a strictly finite, human level, there is a human man who was born of Mary, who knew that he was the son of God. I don't believe in "the divine play-act" theory that would have us to believe that Jesus was only God taking on a husk of flesh and going through the motions of being his own son...how absurd! The scriptures teach that this man, the son of God surrendered his will, died (something God can't do), was resurrected, and was taken to Glory...and will come again. But this humanity not a person of the Godhead. The son of God is not divine in his own right. Only God (the Father), through the fusion caused by the incarnation, made the son divine. Think of a single glass of ocean water, cast into the ocean....if the ocean were God and that glass were the son of God, we could say that the ocean was in the glass and the glass in the ocean...but we wouldn't say that the glass in itself WAS the ocean. By the same token, Jesus was God manifested in the flesh...he said "I am in the Father and the Father in me"--but the son OF God is a man...not a divine spirit apart from the Father.

Jason Dulle’s Christology also makes these personal distinctions and readily admits that it would make “no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself.” He admits that natures do not pray or love, persons do. Unlike Bernard, Jason has made these distinctions of persons external to the Son rather than internal to the Son. I have referred to this as both “ultra-Nestorian” and “neo-arian.” Bottom line, distinctions of persons. I wish to be clear, Jason also does not say “two persons,” but he assigns personal attributes to two distinct personal subjects, one who is not the other. This is why Jason equivocates on such terms as I, me, myself, you, he, we, us, etc. But once again, it is not my intention at this point to give an exhaustive critique of Dulles theology/Christology. My point is that once again, the Trinitarian recognizes two persons in what he is teaching, equivocation notwithstanding.

Keep in mind, it is also not my intention to proffer an argument that asserts such divergent explanations of Oneness prove Oneness wrong (it would be an illogical argument for one thing) although they differing views are mutually exclusive. I have given these examples of divergent Christologies from among Oneness apologists to emphasize my point that none of them teaches modalism, though Bernard claims this is what modern Oneness are. And when both the Father and the Son are in view, none of them teach one person (though they attempt to assert it), which is a universal claim of Oneness Pentecostals.

In modalism, just as there is no “person” of the Son to suffer, only the Father, so with all else. Within the context of the current examples, in that only a person can pray (not nature) and love (not nature), then in true modalism, there can only be one person who prays and one who loves. So the modalist must explain the prayers of Jesus away in some fashion that does not teach he was truly praying to another. Years ago a true modalist attempted to argue that all of his prayers were only an example. The same can be said of love. There can not be a relationship of love between the Father and the Son in modalism, as there is only one personal subject. That same modalist I spoke to years ago attempted to argue that passages regarding love between the Father and the Son were merely parabolic language. Of course, this is just the beginning of problems for the true modalist, but I point this out to give you a point of reference.

It is my hope that at this point you have at least a basic idea of why Trinitarians see the explanations proffered by Oneness Apologists, and every Oneness Pentecostal I have spoken with over the last several years, as teaching two persons. This is why Trinitarians have a hard time communicating with Oneness. For example, some of the questions that CARM recommends (or did recommend and that have been posted here at the GNC) is to ask some assorted questions about the prayers of Christ (I won’t quote them here; the specific questions are irrelevant at this point). The idea behind the questions is the presupposition that Oneness Pentecostals are modalists. However, when Trinitarians ask these questions the answers they receive from Oneness posit two persons (without using “the word” person).

My question would be, do you understand what I’m saying? Do you understand why someone such as myself view Oneness Pentecostals by far an large as being Twoness and not Oneness. Incidentally, I sometimes use the word Twoness to describe Oneness Christology. By twoness I do not mean binatarian, as that would refer to theology proper. When I say twoness, I mean simply that Oneness when responding to issues such as the few I have raised in this post posit two distinct personal subjects in their responses and not one.

I look forward to your thoughts, comments, and input.

Blessings,
TheLayman

TheLayman

01-13-2007, 05:47 PM

Properly defined, I believe that that Father and Son are two persons: The Father is the only divine "person" in existance, and the human Son of God is a human "person." The interactions between the Father and Son are not make believe interactions, but real ones between the one true God, and His Son Jesus Christ.

Thank-you for your clear response. You are basically a Biblical Unitarian holding Pentecostal beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit and Baptism. But I think the bigger issue is that you are not "Oneness" (i.e. a modalist). Now, if a Trinitarian understands your Christology as clearly as you just stated it above, your conversations will be much more enlightening to those on both sides, and much easier to understand. Incidentally, I have read this board, FCF when it was around, and NFCF, and I have not seen a modalist on either board. Which means that, as I said, every person claiming to be "Oneness" is really "Twoness."

Blessings,
TheLayman

OriginalPraxeas

01-13-2007, 05:51 PM

In spite of this, all the Oneness I have spoken to in the past several years all teach personal distinctions between the Father and the Son. Personal distinctions arise only from distinction of persons. Even Oneness Apologists teach these personal distinctions. Ross Drysdale would appear to teach that Jesus was a man who was indwelt by God. He states:

So we can see from this thatthe Son "Came into being" hence He cannot, as the Son, be eternal.Neither could He have existed from all eternity in heaven, for He was a "male child, born of a woman." And such contradictions do not obtain in Heaven! The Son of God is a man, howbeit a perfect and sinless manIf the Son was the Second Divine Person of the Godhead why did he say he could do "nothing?" The answer is obvious: "Son" does not refer to a "divine" person, but to a human "person," who in his own power can do nothing. Christ implies however that there is another "self" or "power" in him when he says, "Can do nothing of himself." Then who or what is doing these works? The answer we already know is the Father, who is resident in Him.The Son, being a man, did not have eternal immortal life dwelling in him inherently. It is not the property of men to have divine and original God-life in them. (Ross Drysdale, If ye knew these things).While these quotes would be great to show that apparently this particular apologist doesn’t believe the Son is God that is not the point. The point here is that to the Trinitarian, Drysdale is teaching two persons, one who is God, one who is man. Indeed, I would lump this in with Unitarian and Adoptionist Monarchian type Christologies.
I reject Ross Drysdales explanation. Whether or not though he literally believes in two persons or he just explains his view in such a way that can be taken that way I don't know. A lot of OPs equate "man" with "human nature" and they have sort of a "nestorian" way of explanation which I have opposed here.

David Bernard is decidedly Nestorian in his Christological mechanics (which, I suppose, is why he defends Nestorius to some extent). However, Nestorian mechanics also posits two persons internal to Christ, one divine and one human.

Do you have quotes of DB defending Nestorius? Was he just saying that Nestorius was falsely accused? The reason I asked is while some may agree with Nestorius's view of Jesus the man was still a Trinitarian who believed all three were persons.

The Prayers of Christ (ch. 8)What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God…. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-8). This was not a struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself, for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men… Rather, we say the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man. (David Bernard)Love Between Persons (Ch. 8)John 3:35, 5:20, and 15:9 state that the Father loves the Son, and John 17:24 says the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world. In John 14:31 Jesus expressed love for the Father. All of these statements do not mean separate persons. (Is it not strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?) What these verses express is the relationship between the two natures of Christ. The Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all humanity and the man Jesus loved God as all men should love God. Remember, the Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest Himself as the Son. He loved that plan from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the beginning of time. (David Bernard)

It does seem DB has a nestorian explanation, which I have pointed out before. However I do believe there is a revision in the works or some other book that has come out recently...which I only recently heard of. I don't know if he changes anything, however in the debate with Cook he was asked point blank about the natures praying and he explained that natures do not pray, persons pray. Whether or not that means DB sees two persons, a Divine person and a human person, I can't say. There also must be an explanation of how DB would be using the term "person"...is he using it like "prosopon" or is he using it like "hypostasis"?

A lot of people seem to be using the term person with regards to humanity, equal to the human nature....sort of an outward person (prosopon) and an inward person (hypostasis). So then perhaps what they view is 1 Hypostasis that puts on a human prosopon. You can say that is two persons, but we both know that means two different things.

With regard to prayers Bernard defines “nature” with “personal attributes.” In other words, a nature does not pray or hear prayers, a person does. Prayers are attributable only to an intelligent, rational, self aware person, not nature. He also says that “as a man Jesus submitted [U]Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.”[/i] A person submits, and if there is only one person in Christ He does not need to pray to Himself to submit to anything. But the main point I want to make is that Bernard attributes the attributes of “person” to “nature.” An intelligent, rational, self aware person composes and offers prayer, not a nature. However, attributing “personal attributes” to “nature” is an equivocation, and Trinitarians obviously see Bernard teaching two persons, one God and one a man (Nestorian style).
Here is the quote I was looking for. You highlite "Himself" yet you assume that Bernards intention is to use the masculine pronoun to teach a separate or distinct person. Think about this...DB believes Jesus is God (person and nature) and DB is saying "as a man Jesus (God the person) submitted HIMSELF to and receives strength from the Spirit of God". Yes a person submits but where in that statement is DB saying this is a second hypostasis?

With regard to “love,” natures do not love, people do. Love is as about as “personal” as you can get. Love is a “personal relationship,” not a “nature relationship.” Bernard has a relationship of love between two natures.
I disagree with your premise, for persons do not love apart from nature. It takes nature AND person to love...to do anything. We WILL through what ever nature we have. It's our nature that determines what SORT of will we have. We have a human nature so thus our persons have a Human will.

Again, he has assigned personal attributes to nature, thus equivocating.
It does sound like that is what he is doing. Or it just might be a bad way of explaining (considering what I have heard the man say outside of this one book you are quoting). He may be explaining the differences and the prayer and the love etc etc, reside in the differences in nature. It's still a person that is praying and loving etc etc, but what makes them different is the fact that he has a different nature. The Divine PERSON has a Human nature, which gives Him a human psyche

OriginalPraxeas

01-13-2007, 05:51 PM

So while he does not say “two persons” he does in fact teach two persons absent equivocation. Actually, Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle would agree:Jesus PrayersIf Jesus was not praying because He truly needed divine assistance, then His prayers were deceptive because He made them seem like genuine prayers. Jesus was nothing more than a good actor, a hypocrite. If He faked His prayers for the sake of being an example, then did He fake His love and compassion toward those who came to Him seeking help for their souls? Jesus was not deceptive, and neither were His prayers….To explain the prayers of Jesus as the human nature of Jesus praying to the divine nature of Jesus poses problems. For one, natures do not pray, people do. Secondly, the Scripture declares that He prayed to the Father, not Himself. It would make no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself. Surely if this was the case, there would have been no need for verbal expressions of prayer because Jesus could have communicated to the deity within Him in some transferable, telepathic manner. This is not the view of Scripture. (Dulle)Love in the Godhead?Some have tried to explain this exchange of love as Jesus’ human nature loving Jesus’ divine nature, and vice-versa. Trinitarians have particularly criticized this explanation, pointing out that it reads something into Jesus’ words that He did not say, and makes Jesus’ statements meaningless when interpreted according to the normal use of language. We must agree that Jesus did not say His divine nature loves His human nature. Also, such an approach assumes an unbiblical definition of "Son," attributing it strictly to Jesus’ humanity, to the exclusion of His whole person which includes His deity. (Dulle)Avoiding the Achilles Heels…Furthermore, Jesus said, "…even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love. Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love. (Dulle)Continued in next post (Part 2)

As a side explanation of what Jason Dulle teaches and believes...I want to note first of all that no explanation is given as to how he is using pronouns...does he mean a hypostasis...the ego? Or does he mean it in another way? I have seen this happen before where JDs words were taken out of context to try to force the idea that JD believes in two persons and in fact in personal emails to me JDs own view is that there is one ego or Hypostasis that is both Father and Son and that the Son is NOT hypostatically someone other than the Father but is psychological someone other than the Father because of the human nature.

From "A Oneness View of Jesus's prayers"
Oneness theology maintains that God is uni-personal in nature. This uni-personal God Himself became a man, and yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as the transcendent and exclusive Spirit as He always had prior to the incarnation. The deity of the Son and the deity of the Father, then, are not two distinct divine persons in the Godhead as in Trinitarian theology, but the same person in two distinct modes1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm#foot1) of existence. God now exists as a genuine man in the incarnation (Son), and yet continues to exist as God beyond the incarnation (Father). The Father is deity alone, while the Son is that same personal deity in metaphysical union with human nature, and thus a real human being.

Such an understanding is no different in principle than the Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation wherein God the Son comes to exist as man, and yet continues to exist as God the Son beyond the incarnation, all the while without becoming two persons

A nature is the generic substance that is common to all men, being that which makes humanity what it is; a nature is a set of essential characteristics or properties which mark off what sort of thing an individual is. A person, however, is immaterial conscious substance, a personality; a person is a particular individual who consists of a certain nature, or the particularization of a generic substance. A person is the concrete conscious self, the ego, defining who it is who is of a particular substance.13 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm#foot13) It takes a concrete person (hypostasis) to actualize the generic nature (physis).14 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm#foot14) In the case of Christ, the person who actualizes the human nature is God, not a separate human person.

God came to exist as man by uniting human nature to His divine person, acquiring a human existence complete with all the properties inherent to human nature (human soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, etc.), not by assuming a human person. Because He assumed a human nature and not a human person Jesus' humanity is not an individual person in itself, but is human nature individualized (hypostasized) by the divine person.
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm

Bartholomew

01-13-2007, 06:04 PM

OriginalPraxeas

01-13-2007, 06:06 PM

I love Jason Dulle's wriings, I think they are the most explanatory about christology I ever read.

What makes a person a person? a spirit? Did Jesus had a human spirit as wel as the divine spirit in Him? I believe this to be so.

Trinitarian writtings show that the Son was fully and completely human as well as being God AND that he had two wills...a Divine will and a Human will. Yet they do not say Jesus is two persons.

TheLayman

01-13-2007, 06:11 PM

Thank you for your informative lay-out of theological thought on this subject. I've often been dismayed by people who claim to be interested in this topic, and who even pontificate against those of us who are Oneness, and yet who haven't got the slightest idea as to what our beliefs entail beyond the fact that we do not believe God to be eternally existing in three persons. Let me try to answer your question.

Let's talk about the spirit of God Almighty, himself, prior to the incarnation. As Oneness believers, we see God as entirely, comletely one. Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, and ancient Jews understood Deut. 6:4 as saying that God is indivisibly one, period. We don't believe he exists in three persons, or that there are three persons who, in some mysterious way that our finite minds cannot understand, are "really" all one God. If God were three persons, he could have plainly said so, but he didn't say that. The very fact that we call God "He" as opposed to "they" tells us that God is one. And by the way, we note that there are scriptures that tell us both that there is one God, AND that God is one.

I understand that those claiming to be Oneness state that God is a unipersonal being. In the example that I have in my original post this was true in each one. It is also true that modalism states that God is a unipersonal being. But the similarities between the different flavors of Oneness I outlined in my original post and modalism ends there. All of the examples I gave of Oneness teach that that Father and Son are two separate persons, the Father being God and the person of the Son being a created man. Modalism never posits two persons, denies that there are real personal distinctions, denies that there is a real personal relationship between the Father and Son, and so forth.

At the incarnation, God had a son. His son was a man...not a person of the godhead. He was not "God the Son", but "the son of God". What made him divine was a fusion of divinity and humanity. Jesus wasn't JUST a man, but God took on the flesh of His son and came to earth in the body of His son, for the purpose of redemption. This gave Jesus a dual nature: both human and divine. Jesus openly declared "my father and I are one", so the Jews wanted to stone him for supposedly making himself God. But Jesus was God in flesh (and the flesh was not just a shell or a husk, but was a man).

You state that the son was "a man", "not just a shell or a husk, but was a man." So, when the Father and Son are in view, you have two separate persons in view, God the Father and the man, His son.

The scriptures tell us a lot about the son of God: he grew in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man. He became obedient, even to the death on the cross. He was heard in that he feared. He cried out on the cross "Father, forgive them", and "into thine hands I commend my spirit". In the garden, we see the son of God surrendering his will. We see obedience, humility, and total submission to the will of the Father. What we never see, however, is anything about this supposed person of "God the Son". We note that the scriptures tell us that it was the FATHER who dwelt IN the son who did the miracles, and it was the Father's words that were being spoken during Jesus's ministry. In John 14, Jesus said that the Father who dwelt IN him did the works.

When we as Oneness believers say "God", we're talking about the Father who was IN the son. This is where the confusion lies: we don't believe that the Father IS the son (one and the same), and we don't believe that the son was divine in his own right ("God the Son"), but we see a fusion of God and human flesh...the man, Christ Jesus. God is a spirit (John 4:24), He is invisible, and He is omnipresent. The scriptures say that no man hath seen God at any time. Have people seen the Son? Was Jesus not more than a the Spirit of God, but flesh also? Of course. But what was divine about the son was the Spirit of the Father who dwelt in him. Through that incarnation, Jesus became "Immanuel...God with us". Acts 20:28 says that God shed his blood for the church--the only blood God ever had was that of his son, in whom the Father came to earth. II Cor. 5:19 says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto HIMSELF....". Colossians 2:9 tells us that in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead, BODILY" and I Timothy 3:16 tells us that "God was MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH...".

You will forgive me but the specific issue I am highlighting is that fact that Oneness, yourself included, make personal distinctions between the Father and the Son. In fact, just as you have done, they make the Father and the Son two separate persons. And you will forgive me again if I say that I will not be diverted into a discussion on the Trinity here as my belief will not change the facts I presented in my original posts.

So what about "oneness" and "two-ness"? When we're talking about the spirit of God, we're talking about absolute oneness. When you receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that is the same spirit of God almighty that was in Christ, doing miracles and annointing His divine words to be spoken.

On a strictly finite, human level, there is a human man who was born of Mary, who knew that he was the son of God. I don't believe in "the divine play-act" theory that would have us to believe that Jesus was only God taking on a husk of flesh and going through the motions of being his own son...how absurd! The scriptures teach that this man, the son of God surrendered his will, died (something God can't do), was resurrected, and was taken to Glory...and will come again. But this humanity not a person of the Godhead. The son of God is not divine in his own right. Only God (the Father), through the fusion caused by the incarnation, made the son divine. Think of a single glass of ocean water, cast into the ocean....if the ocean were God and that glass were the son of God, we could say that the ocean was in the glass and the glass in the ocean...but we wouldn't say that the glass in itself WAS the ocean. By the same token, Jesus was God manifested in the flesh...he said "I am in the Father and the Father in me"--but the son OF God is a man...not a divine spirit apart from the Father.

And Polaris, I thank-you for being clear regarding your Christology. You too admit to two persons, the divine person of God the Father, and the human person of His son. Just as I did in my response to the previous poster I see this in different shades from all Oneness though they are loathe to admit it for the most part, which is why I will be interested to see other responses.

I did want to respond to your glass in the ocean analogy in that I have seen similar analogies before. The problem is that the ocean is not personal (a person). But lets assume that it is, and that it is unipersonal (one person). If you put a glass into the ocean and the water inside the glass begins to interact with the water outside the glass on a personal level, even to the point of a loving relationship between two persons, the impersonal and equivocating analogy notwithstanding. And that is the point I am making.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Polaris

01-13-2007, 06:40 PM

The point of ambiguity is when we say "two persons". To be totally clear on the point I am making, Oneness believers do not believe in two persons in the godhead--God is a spirit. To reiterate for clarity, on a strictly finite, HUMAN level, yes, there is a human son of God who died on a cross, was resurrected, and was taken to Heaven. How that squares with what ancient modalists believed is hard to ascertain...and quite immaterial as far as we're concerned. When Christ prayed in the garden, that was the human man born from Mary who was praying to God, his father. It was not an example of one divine person praying to another (by any means), nor was it an example of God acting out the role of a son. The reason why many Apostolics seem loathe to talk about the son of God from the human aspect is because of semantics--when people start saying "two persons", they automatically resort to a trinitarian theological view of persons and think we're saying that God almighty is two persons on that level--and that's not what we're saying at all. We're saying that there is one divine person of God...the flesh was the finite, human side...still every bit a man, but not a DIVINE separate person in his own right.

The glass of water in the ocean analogy has some flaws, the most glaring one being that the ocean, while big, is sill finite. However, it is simply an analogy. Trinitarianism could be compared to saying Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian are all "Ocean"--and "yet there are not three waters, but one water". Rather than thinking of the son as a person of the godhead on that level (I.E. "Pacific and Atlantic", or "Atlantic and Indian"), we see the man Christ Jesus more in terms of a small glass while the rest of the ocean is the Father himself.

Hope that makes more sense!---and P.S., no one is trying to divert you into a discussion of the trinity, but it helps to be able to use something by way of comparison.

I understand that those claiming to be Oneness state that God is a unipersonal being. In the example that I have in my original post this was true in each one. It is also true that modalism states that God is a unipersonal being. But the similarities between the different flavors of Oneness I outlined in my original post and modalism ends there. All of the examples I gave of Oneness teach that that Father and Son are two separate persons, the Father being God and the person of the Son being a created man. Modalism never posits two persons, denies that there are real personal distinctions, denies that there is a real personal relationship between the Father and Son, and so forth.

You state that the son was "a man", "not just a shell or a husk, but was a man." So, when the Father and Son are in view, you have two separate persons in view, God the Father and the man, His son.

You will forgive me but the specific issue I am highlighting is that fact that Oneness, yourself included, make personal distinctions between the Father and the Son. In fact, just as you have done, they make the Father and the Son two separate persons. And you will forgive me again if I say that I will not be diverted into a discussion on the Trinity here as my belief will not change the facts I presented in my original posts.

And Polaris, I thank-you for being clear regarding your Christology. You too admit to two persons, the divine person of God the Father, and the human person of His son. Just as I did in my response to the previous poster I see this in different shades from all Oneness though they are loathe to admit it for the most part, which is why I will be interested to see other responses.

I did want to respond to your glass in the ocean analogy in that I have seen similar analogies before. The problem is that the ocean is not personal (a person). But lets assume that it is, and that it is unipersonal (one person). If you put a glass into the ocean and the water inside the glass begins to interact with the water outside the glass on a personal level, even to the point of a loving relationship between two persons, the impersonal and equivocating analogy notwithstanding. And that is the point I am making.

Blessings,
TheLayman

OriginalPraxeas

01-13-2007, 08:10 PM

Jason Dulle’s Christology also makes these personal distinctions and readily admits that it would make “no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself.” He admits that natures do not pray or love, persons do. Unlike Bernard, Jason has made these distinctions of persons external to the Son rather than internal to the Son. I have referred to this as both “ultra-Nestorian” and “neo-arian.” Bottom line, distinctions of persons. I wish to be clear, Jason also does not say “two persons,” but he assigns personal attributes to two distinct personal subjects, one who is not the other. This is why Jason equivocates on such terms as I, me, myself, you, he, we, us, etc. But once again, it is not my intention at this point to give an exhaustive critique of Dulles theology/Christology. My point is that once again, the Trinitarian recognizes two persons in what he is teaching, equivocation notwithstanding.

You use your Trinitarian understanding and definition of pronouns to mean two hypostasis where as Jason never made that distinction. Jason is very explicit to point out there is one hypostasis that "actualizes" the Human nature or personalizes it. Yet it's still the same ego or hypostasis.

Additionally has the Trinitarian here defined what "person" means? Is Jesus a Human person to you? Is he a Divine person with a human mask? As I see it, Jason has not taught nor equivocated two persons. He was very clear to teach 1 hypostasis who does NOT become a second person. It's the same one ego or hypostasis that has a complete human nature. He wills or has his psyche through the Human attributes. Even Trinitarians would not say God the Son becomes a nother PERSON when he becomes that "man Christ Jesus". Yet they HAVE said Christ has two wills due to the two natures.

Keep in mind, it is also not my intention to proffer an argument that asserts such divergent explanations of Oneness prove Oneness wrong (it would be an illogical argument for one thing) although they differing views are mutually exclusive. I have given these examples of divergent Christologies from among Oneness apologists to emphasize my point that none of them teaches modalism, though Bernard claims this is what modern Oneness are. And when both the Father and the Son are in view, none of them teach one person (though they attempt to assert it), which is a universal claim of Oneness Pentecostals.
ok

In modalism, just as there is no “person” of the Son to suffer, only the Father, so with all else. Within the context of the current examples, in that only a person can pray (not nature) and love (not nature), then in true modalism, there can only be one person who prays and one who loves. So the modalist must explain the prayers of Jesus away in some fashion that does not teach he was truly praying to another. Years ago a true modalist attempted to argue that all of his prayers were only an example. The same can be said of love.

In Modalism even the Father is a mode of the Unipersonal Deity. In all three cases that mode is the PERSON of God in another "mode". How can it be said that OPs that believe the One True Unipersonal God who becomes the Son at the incarnation are not modalist? There are some here that for sure teach the Son is another person and you rightly said they are Unitarian, as I have said that here many times (at least we agree on something haha)

There can not be a relationship of love between the Father and the Son in modalism, as there is only one personal subject. That same modalist I spoke to years ago attempted to argue that passages regarding love between the Father and the Son were merely parabolic language. Of course, this is just the beginning of problems for the true modalist, but I point this out to give you a point of reference.
I disagree that there can't. In fact that is putting you in an absolute position to say what can or can't happen...with regards to something that is actually beyond your ability to understand (as well as mine)...that is that a Transcendent being becomes Human, having all the human attributes of humanity. Do we understand such a thing that no man has nor can experience? Love is not purely an attribute of personhood. All things that we are or do are attributes of being a person WITH a nature.

Can you say absolutely you know that the Unipersonal God whose perception in the incarnation is now through a human nature CAN'T feel and perceive and experience existence as though he were someone else from God and thus can't also love the other mode as though the other mode was another person?

If Christ has a complete Human nature so much so that it makes the way he thinks and feels through that nature distinct from how that same person would exclusively through the Divine nature, how can you say in absolute terms that love could not exist between them? Do you really know with knowledge the dynamics involved in such a thing? Does any of us truely understand the metaphysical realities of such a union? Of the hypostatic union? Of the incarnation? If Christ is hypostatically the same as the Father but psychologically not the same through the Human nature, who is to say HE can't CAN'T in absolute terms (you know this for a fact) experience two different forms of existence being distinctly conciously aware of Himself in those two different modes so that it makes the Son functionally someone other than the Father and that love be real, the prayers e real? At least to Him?

It is my hope that at this point you have at least a basic idea of why Trinitarians see the explanations proffered by Oneness Apologists, and every Oneness Pentecostal I have spoken with over the last several years, as teaching two persons. This is why Trinitarians have a hard time communicating with Oneness. For example, some of the questions that CARM recommends (or did recommend and that have been posted here at the GNC) is to ask some assorted questions about the prayers of Christ (I won’t quote them here; the specific questions are irrelevant at this point). The idea behind the questions is the presupposition that Oneness Pentecostals are modalists. However, when Trinitarians ask these questions the answers they receive from Oneness posit two persons (without using “the word” person).

My question would be, do you understand what I’m saying? Do you understand why someone such as myself view Oneness Pentecostals by far an large as being Twoness and not Oneness. Incidentally, I sometimes use the word Twoness to describe Oneness Christology. By twoness I do not mean binatarian, as that would refer to theology proper. When I say twoness, I mean simply that Oneness when responding to issues such as the few I have raised in this post posit two distinct personal subjects in their responses and not one.

I look forward to your thoughts, comments, and input.

Blessings,
TheLayman
I don't know about Drysdale, but I only read some of what he wrote and personally did not care for it enough to finish. I would point out that I can find any number of Trinitarians that might write something on the Trinity that would probably not sit well with you or with the historical doctrine of the Trinity,

Bernard....I have long been vocal about my opinion that DB needs to rewrite the Oneness of the Godhead. It is my understanding that he has written OTHER works that offer a better explanation and I have heard him refute the sort of Nestorian view he makes in that book OOTG. It is my opinion that DBs view is not to far away from JDs but in explanation it lacks something and I think is misleading to many OPs.

Jason Dulle...this will come as no surprise to you haha but I think you are totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what Jason says. This is not based on any in herit problem we Oneness folks have or Jasons. Person means one thing and one thing only to you Trinitarians usually and the use of a pronoun by anyone to a Trinitarian can ONLY mean that same definition of the term PERSON.

However Jason never made that distinction. It seems that Trinitarians, in the case of Jason, are actually the ones to equivocate what Jason wrote. When Jason says "himself" or "Jesus prayed to someone other than Himself" he does NOT mean a second hypostasis but he means psychologically.

I explained that before at CARM. It's possible to make a grammatical distinction too and NOT be intending a philosophical distinction. We can refer to ships as "she" and not be intending to teach something philosophically or theologically

If taken IN context and not quoted out of context. Jason's words end up being explained.

There is one ego or hypostasis who becomes psychologically different when He unites a second complete Human nature to Himself.

if one wants to say there are two prosopons, so being it, but there is only one hypostasis.

I can see too a Trinitarian reading what any OP says, even JD and concluding something entirely different from what JD meant, particularly when taken out of context. Why? Because the whole basis of the Trinitarian thinking of distinct persons is based on a grammatical distinction of pronouns. Yet the bible never uses the term persons to make a distinction.

Second, rarely do Trinitarians themselves define what a person is. Even a mode can end up being a person. It would not be too hard to take Trinitarian theology and definitions, use that as a standard to interpret what someone else writes while ignoring the explicit explanations, and come to the conclusion that such an author has two persons in view

Shauna

01-13-2007, 11:40 PM

Your post is very lenghthy and scholarly but I'll keep my response simple: I believe that Jesus Christ is God almighty. There are no "persons". "Persons" are pagan. The Lord has many aspects, but no "persons". There are several Jehovahistic titles in the Bible that describe some of these aspects, yet they all describe Jesus.

Does today’s Oneness teach two persons?

When I ask, “Does today’s Oneness teach two persons” let me be clear in my meaning. When speaking of the Father and the Son, do Oneness teach two persons or one? I

Bartholomew

01-14-2007, 05:23 AM

OriginalPraxeas

01-14-2007, 07:06 PM

ISn't Jason Dulle on the faculty board of the Urshan graduate school of theology of which david Bernard is the president??
Its weird that their christology views somehow differ, unless DB had updated his views the last 20 years!

If they differ they do not differ enough to matter much. However I don't think their christological views differ as much as their explanations have...how they word things.

Bro.Sam

01-14-2007, 09:15 PM

ISn't Jason Dulle on the faculty board of the Urshan graduate school of theology of which david Bernard is the president??
Its weird that their christology views somehow differ, unless DB had updated his views the last 20 years!

I haven't read all of Bro. Bernard's book and I haven't read anything from Bro. Dulle. I doubt if they are that far apart in their beliefs. I'm sure they both believe in one God and that that one God came to live among us in the person of Jesus in order to give His life on the cross. I'm sure they both believe that God has revealed Himself to humankind as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, when they try to explain this great truth too thoroughly they get into some problems with their words which can be misunderstood by those of us who read their writings. Maybe we are trying too hard to understand something which should just be taken by faith.

Mike Williamson

01-14-2007, 11:04 PM

Thank-you for your clear response. You are basically a Biblical Unitarian holding Pentecostal beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit and Baptism. But I think the bigger issue is that you are not "Oneness" (i.e. a modalist). Now, if a Trinitarian understands your Christology as clearly as you just stated it above, your conversations will be much more enlightening to those on both sides, and much easier to understand. Incidentally, I have read this board, FCF when it was around, and NFCF, and I have not seen a modalist on either board. Which means that, as I said, every person claiming to be "Oneness" is really "Twoness."

Blessings,
TheLayman

Nope, wrong. We do not believe God is two, we believe He is ONE. As "JesusisSavior" said, correctly, there is only one divine "person"...What you're saying is a second "person" is not a person of the godhead at all, but rather the humanity of the son, Jesus Christ. Yes, there are two persons, but only one of them is God. The flesh of the man Jesus was not and is not God.

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 01:16 AM

Mike

01-15-2007, 01:53 AM

Nope, wrong. We do not believe God is two, we believe He is ONE. As "JesusisSavior" said, correctly, there is only one divine "person"...What you're saying is a second "person" is not a person of the godhead at all, but rather the humanity of the son, Jesus Christ. Yes, there are two persons, but only one of them is God. The flesh of the man Jesus was not and is not God.

I agree with this post fully. God is only one. No other God exists besides him as YHWH. And in another MODE of being namely MAN he is a human PERSON.

I have heard enough talk about "natures" praying or loving.

One God and one man.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim. 2:5

This is true Oneness doctrine. Just dont lose sight of the fact it is Jesus who is BOTH!

34: For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35: Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36

Yeshua is BOTH YHWH and Adon. Lord and Christ. God and man.

I count myself as a Oneness because I believe Jesus deity is YHWH.

It matters little to me to be called Oneness though. As a disciple of Jesus Christ the truth is all that matters.

Mike Williamson

01-15-2007, 09:20 AM

Oh man. You just PROVED his point. TLM isn't saying you believe in two persons in the Godhead. He is saying you believe in two PERSONS...one is God and the other was some dude....a man. What he is saying is true...that's not Oneness that is Unitarianism. That is what I have been pointing out on this board for the last several weeks.

Additionally your last statement sounds almost as if you are equating nature with person.

When one is referering to the trinity (threeness) they are referring to three DIVINE persons in the Godhead. When one is referring to Oneness, they are referring to one DIVINE person in the Godhead. Thus, when you refer to "Twoness", it would be assumed that you are referring to two DIVINE persons in the Godhead...

Are you suggesting that the man Jesus wasn't a person at all?

Or maybe that the flesh of Jesus was not truly flesh, but rather Spirit?

Mike

01-15-2007, 09:56 AM

Sam said:

However, when they try to explain this great truth too thoroughly they get into some problems with their words which can be misunderstood by those of us who read their writings.

Me:

This I agree with.

Sam:

Maybe we are trying too hard to understand something which should just be taken by faith.

Me:

No I just think some try to go deeper than what God has shown in scripture. As to understanding the info God HAS given consider this:

10: Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:10

God wants us to know, believe, and understand that he is the First and the Last and beside him there is none else!

And yes it certainly gets complicated at times in the attempt to rightly divide the word of truth. Yet God uses even that for his glory. Then HE can by divine revelation shed light on the full gospel.

After all the truth IS HID from many not simply laying there in the Bible for just anyone to discover.

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 02:26 PM

When one is referering to the trinity (threeness) they are referring to three DIVINE persons in the Godhead. When one is referring to Oneness, they are referring to one DIVINE person in the Godhead. Thus, when you refer to "Twoness", it would be assumed that you are referring to two DIVINE persons in the Godhead...

Are you suggesting that the man Jesus wasn't a person at all?

Or maybe that the flesh of Jesus was not truly flesh, but rather Spirit?
The Layman is NOT refering to the Trinity though. He is refering to YOU as a person that claims to believe in Oneness and saying that you have two persons. You have 1 person that is God and another person that is a man...that's Unitarian as he said.

I am Oneness and I do not believe that the Son is a second "human" person. He is the same One personal God with a Human nature.

Im suggesting the man Jesus Christ was NOT another person from the same Person we call God. At the incarnation (what does that word mean?) God became that man by adding a human nature to His own person. Nature is not Person. Nature is what we are. That man Is a person, but the question is WHICH person?

You and some others on here have a doctrine that is really Unitarian where you have God who is one Person and then you have the man Christ Jesus who is some other guy.....that's Unitarianism.

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 02:28 PM

I agree with this post fully. God is only one. No other God exists besides him as YHWH. And in another MODE of being namely MAN he is a human PERSON.

I have heard enough talk about "natures" praying or loving.

One God and one man.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim. 2:5

This is true Oneness doctrine. Just dont lose sight of the fact it is Jesus who is BOTH!

34: For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35: Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36

Yeshua is BOTH YHWH and Adon. Lord and Christ. God and man.

I count myself as a Oneness because I believe Jesus deity is YHWH.

It matters little to me to be called Oneness though. As a disciple of Jesus Christ the truth is all that matters.

If Jesus is a PERSON and Jesus is both God and man, Father and Son then Father and Son are NOT two persons...then God and that man Christ Jesus are not two persons and therefore you would actually disagree with what Mike Williamson said.

jnix

01-15-2007, 02:48 PM

Jesus is the visible image of the invisible 1 God....

Mike Williamson

01-15-2007, 03:12 PM

If Jesus is a PERSON and Jesus is both God and man, Father and Son then Father and Son are NOT two persons...then God and that man Christ Jesus are not two persons and therefore you would actually disagree with what Mike Williamson said.

Jesus IS a person, and Jesus IS both God and man...Father and Son. The FAther IN the Son...The son isn't God...that would make him God the Son...The son is flesh...human...created...God is not flesh, not human, not created...He is Spirit...eternal, without begining. Jesus died...God can't die, for He is life.

It gets confusing when we start referring to an infinite, omnipresent God as a "person"

Polaris

01-15-2007, 04:59 PM

Jesus IS a person, and Jesus IS both God and man...Father and Son. The FAther IN the Son...The son isn't God...that would make him God the Son...The son is flesh...human...created...God is not flesh, not human, not created...He is Spirit...eternal, without begining. Jesus died...God can't die, for He is life.

It gets confusing when we start referring to an infinite, omnipresent God as a "person"

Personally, I don't have a vested interest in "making" the scriptures come out to say one thing or another. If the Bible taught that God was three persons or that Jesus was "God the Son", I'd gladly believe it, and never look back. But the scriptures don't teach that. The scriptures teach that there is one God...and that this God is one. The scriptures also clearly show the deity of Jesus...he was God in flesh, without question. The scriptures also teach a real SON of God, and that's about all there is to it. I don't care what that "makes" it, if that seems "dualisitic" or seems "Nestorian-like", or whatever...it's still what the scriptures plainly teach. The man Christ Jesus was more than just a shell of otherwise inanimate flesh, he was a man. And God didn't become his own son, he HAD a son. God didn't pray to himself, didn't cry out to himself on the cross and ask himself why he forsook himself, and he didn't commend his spirit to himself, either.

In the garden, that was God's son sweating as it were great drops of blood, saying not my will by thine be done...God was not surrendering his will to himself. When Jesus said "my father is greater than I", that wasn't God saying he was greater than himself, or that this particular image of himself is weaker than another image of himself. And by the way, God is not a narcissist: when the scriptures say that the Father loves the son, that wasn't God somehow loving an image of himself.

God didn't grow in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man--and when Jesus said that the son of man didn't know when the second-coming would occur, that wasn't God pretending he didn't know.

Jesus was both human and divine....God in all his fulness AND the son OF God who was a complete human being. His divinity came from being the incarnation of the Father, and his humanity came from being a man born of Mary. Humanity and divinity were fused together. When we attempt to diminish one or the other, we end up with an incomplete view of the Lord.

I know that it can be hard to understand, especially when we're trying hard to establish an absolute oneness in every sense, but let's not wrest the scriptures, either, in an attempt to make them say something that they do not say. If we don't understand the TRUE humanity of Jesus, then half the scriptures about the son of God become an absurd, hollow sham (not to mention awfully close to a trinitarian "God the Son" motif).

The son of God is a human man...not a "husk of flesh", not just a shell, and not just a nature. "Natures" can't die on crosses, and "husks of flesh" don't grow in wisdom. And when God said "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well-pleased", he wasn't saying he was pleased with himself. One final thought...was God heard in that he feared? Did God love himself because he became obedient to himself? God didn't put on a divine play act for us by becoming his own son.

Mike Williamson

01-15-2007, 05:31 PM

The son of God is a human man...not a "husk of flesh", not just a shell, and not just a nature. "Natures" can't die on crosses, and "husks of flesh" don't grow in wisdom. And when God said "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well-pleased", he wasn't saying he was pleased with himself. One final thought...was God heard in that he feared? Did God love himself because he became obedient to himself? God didn't put on a divine play act for us by becoming his own son.

WOW!!! Excellent thought!

Norman

01-15-2007, 06:21 PM

I maintain that God is not a person; He is Spirit, and does not have any limitations implied by the word "person."

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 07:52 PM

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 07:53 PM

I maintain that God is not a person; He is Spirit, and does not have any limitations implied by the word "person."
There are NO limitations implied by the word "person" other than what you might place on it. The Word Person does not mean "a human". It simply means an individual self or who...

If God is not a person then God is a non-personal thing...an it...sort of like Star Wars and the force.

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 07:58 PM

God didn't put on a divine play act for us by becoming his own son.
Nobody here would believe He did. When God became the Son He became human by adding a Human nature to His own being. That gave him a Human mind and will...a human psyche. Otherwise what you have is Unitarianism.

Oneness for years was labeled a modalistic "cult" because it believed in modalism. That belief is that God is a single solitary "self" or person who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But now we got several people on this forum all claiming to be Oneness who teach that God was NOT the Son but the Son was someone other than God...two persons...God the Father and the Son of God who was just a man.

That's Unitarianism and not truely Modalism and thus historically not really Oneness either.

How many of you guys go to a church that claims to be Oneness? I know Adam Pastor here would readily admit to being a Unitarian (Biblical Unitarian) and NOT Oneness yet he believes exactly what you guys do.

Mike Williamson

01-15-2007, 08:17 PM

Nobody here would believe He did. When God became the Son He became human by adding a Human nature to His own being. That gave him a Human mind and will...a human psyche.

So God said to Himself "Not my will, but thine be done" ????

Otherwise what you have is Unitarianism.

Labels labels labels. Call it what you like...Oneness, unitarianism...You say "otherwise what you have is Unitarianism" as if there's some scriptural mandate against what YOU call Unitarianism.

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 08:30 PM

So God said to Himself "Not my will, but thine be done" ????
Sounds just like a Trinitarian....God became HUMAN and added a complete Human nature which gave him a Human will and mind. God as the Son with a human psyche said to the Father "Not my will but yours be done".

But what is really ultimately more important here is the topic. TheLayman is correct....you guys are not really Oneness. You are Unitarians. Unitarians see two persons. God and the Son. Not one person in two or three different modes, which is what Modalists are and what Oneness have been accused of since the Oneness movement started at the beginning of the last century with Jesus name baptism.

Labels labels labels. Call it what you like...Oneness, unitarianism...You say "otherwise what you have is Unitarianism" as if there's some scriptural mandate against what YOU call Unitarianism.
I am calling it what I like and what it is. Labels labels labels...that's what this thread is about didn't you know? TheLayman is pointing out that Oneness is or was Modalism...Modalism teaches that God is a singular person who is all three..Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Unitarians see God as singular but He is only Father and the Spirit is just his essence the the Son is some other person from him.

That is what the topic is about.

Jesusissavior

01-15-2007, 09:10 PM

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 09:40 PM

If the Father and the Son are not two persons, or self-conscious individuals, then explain the following passage of scripture:

Jhn 8:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=14&version=kjv#14) Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Jhn 8:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=15&version=kjv#15) Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Jhn 8:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=16&version=kjv#16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Jhn 8:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=17&version=kjv#17) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Jhn 8:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=18&version=kjv#18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

I've jumped through all the hoops already on this issue in the General section. The point here is that you guys are unitarians, not Oneness, as TLM stated. He is right. You are making the exact same arguments Trinitarians do to prove the Son is someone other than the Father when they debate Oneness Pentecostals.

I can refer you though to some articles you can read through or you can go to the threads I did on the general folder regarding who the Son is etc etc. There I answered all these questions of how the Son and Father are distinct and yet are the same "person" (Hypostasis) in two different modes of being.

Are you interested?

Jesusissavior

01-15-2007, 09:43 PM

TheLayman

01-15-2007, 10:18 PM

I've jumped through all the hoops already on this issue in the General section. The point here is that you guys are unitarians, not Oneness, as TLM stated. He is right. You are making the exact same arguments Trinitarians do to prove the Son is someone other than the Father when they debate Oneness Pentecostals.

I can refer you though to some articles you can read through or you can go to the threads I did on the general folder regarding who the Son is etc etc. There I answered all these questions of how the Son and Father are distinct and yet are the same "person" (Hypostasis) in two different modes of being.

Are you interested?

Greetings Prax (and the others who have offered their comments):

First, I'd like to point out that my intent in beginning this thread was not to attack or debate, but to enlighten, to explain. Prax, at least to some extent, you are understanding my point.

Let me add some emphasis to the point of my point. Trinitiarians almost universally think Oneness are modalists (as modalists are the only true Oneness, but that specific point can wait for another time and another thread). Matt Slick at CARM for example approaches Oneness as Modalists. The questions from CARM that John Atkinson posted here were questions designed for "modalists." So a Trinitarian says to a Oneness Pentecostal, "What about this passage of Scripture, how do you explain this?:"

Jhn 8:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=14&version=kjv#14) Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Jhn 8:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=15&version=kjv#15) Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Jhn 8:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=16&version=kjv#16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Jhn 8:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=17&version=kjv#17) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Jhn 8:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=18&version=kjv#18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

But the Oneness Pentecostal is using the same passage of Scripture, Scripture that would absolutely doom the argument of a modalist. So both the Trinitarian and Oneness are scratching their heads. I think it was on the old Faith Child Forum that I said, "Trinitarians and Oneness argue with each constantly, and yet neither one is arguing what the other believes because Trintarians aren't tritheists like Mormons and Oneness are modalists. If they understood one another they would still disagree, but at least their efforts would be spent are really communicating and discussing the real differences in their beliefs."

Prax, not all the Christologies are Unitarian/Adoptionist type beliefs. Some are more Nestorian. All involve two persons though whether they use the word or not. The interesting thing is that if folks would simply be more up front it would be a lot easier to communicate. The very fact that most people actually have two persons in view means that you don't have to keep slaughtering grammar like a modalist.

Prax, I have avoided responding to you regarding Jason Dulle in this thread since he and I had a debate (which Mizpeh printed out and was 111 pages long, and that isn't even all of it) about the specific topic of Chalcedonian Christological mechanics which he claims you find in his Christology. In short, he misrepresents Trinitarian teaching and thought (I used to say he misunderstood, but he's been corrected and he continues the misrepresentation). There's the short form and the long form of explaining it. I'll give you the short form here. Trinitarian (i.e. Chalcedonian) Christology does not divide the divine person of the Son into an exclusively divine Son and a Son who is divine and human, so the incarnation does not create a 4th person. Dulle's Dulleism has an incarnation that results in a person who is exclusively divine, and a person who is divine and human, and they interact with each other, love one another, etc. Dulle's Christology is contradictory, incoherent, and internally inconsistant. But as I said, another time and another thread.

Blessings,
TheLayman

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 10:22 PM

Sure why not. I'll look at them.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinoneness.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ugstsymposium.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/dualnature.htm

The three above include historical theological positions. The second one was part of the Oneness Symposium at Urshan Graduate School

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/becomeman.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayerstango.htm

OriginalPraxeas

01-15-2007, 10:31 PM

Greetings Prax (and the others who have offered their comments):

First, I'd like to point out that my intent in beginning this thread was not to attack or debate, but to enlighten, to explain. Prax, at least to some extent, you are understanding my point.

Let me add some emphasis to the point of my point. Trinitiarians almost universally think Oneness are modalists (as modalists are the only true Oneness, but that specific point can wait for another time and another thread). Matt Slick at CARM for example approaches Oneness as Modalists. The questions from CARM that John Atkinson posted here were questions designed for "modalists." So a Trinitarian says to a Oneness Pentecostal, "What about this passage of Scripture, how do you explain this?:"

Jhn 8:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=14&version=kjv#14) Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Jhn 8:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=15&version=kjv#15) Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Jhn 8:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=16&version=kjv#16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
Jhn 8:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=17&version=kjv#17) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Jhn 8:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=18&version=kjv#18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

But the Oneness Pentecostal is using the same passage of Scripture, Scripture that would absolutely doom the argument of a modalist. So both the Trinitarian and Oneness are scratching their heads. I think it was on the old Faith Child Forum that I said, "Trinitarians and Oneness argue with each constantly, and yet neither one is arguing what the other believes because Trintarians aren't tritheists like Mormons and Oneness are modalists. If they understood one another they would still disagree, but at least their efforts would be spent are really communicating and discussing the real differences in their beliefs."

Prax, not all the Christologies are Unitarian/Adoptionist type beliefs. Some are more Nestorian. All involve two persons though whether they use the word or not. The interesting thing is that if folks would simply be more up front it would be a lot easier to communicate. The very fact that most people actually have two persons in view means that you don't have to keep slaughtering grammar like a modalist.

Prax, I have avoided responding to you regarding Jason Dulle in this thread since he and I had a debate (which Mizpeh printed out and was 111 pages long, and that isn't even all of it) about the specific topic of Chalcedonian Christological mechanics which he claims you find in his Christology. In short, he misrepresents Trinitarian teaching and thought (I used to say he misunderstood, but he's been corrected and he continues the misrepresentation). There's the short form and the long form of explaining it. I'll give you the short form here. Trinitarian (i.e. Chalcedonian) Christology does not divide the divine person of the Son into an exclusively divine Son and a Son who is divine and human, so the incarnation does not create a 4th person. Dulle's Dulleism has an incarnation that results in a person who is exclusively divine, and a person who is divine and human, and they interact with each other, love one another, etc. Dulle's Christology in contradictory, incoherent, and internally inconsistant. But as I said, another time and another thread.

Blessings,
TheLayman
In talking about JD misrepresenting Trinitarianism and then going into Chalcedonian Christology I am not sure if you are intending to say that Jason believes Trinitarians or Chalcedon teachs that the Son was "divided" into an exclusively Divine Son and a Son who is both Divine and Human in the incarnation. If that is the case I've not read Jason saying that. From what I gather regarding Jason's point on Chalcedon is simply that God became human and came to have two distinct natures and as well could have two distinct wills (the Kenosis is another issue)

I've not read Jason arguing that from his articles. That may be the case though in your previous discussions.

However, just out of curiosity...did the Son exist in any way external or apart from the incarnation when the incarnation took place?

Did the Son continue to be omnipresent? Will the Son continue to be that way even after all things come to pass prophetically?

I know this is off the topic and if you don't want to answer perhaps can you do so in another thread or to me in PM?

Thanks
OP

TheLayman

01-15-2007, 10:44 PM

In talking about JD misrepresenting Trinitarianism and then going into Chalcedonian Christology I am not sure if you are intending to say that Jason believes Trinitarians or Chalcedon teachs that the Son was "divided" into an exclusively Divine Son and a Son who is both Divine and Human in the incarnation. If that is the case I've not read Jason saying that. From what I gather regarding Jason's point on Chalcedon is simply that God became human and came to have two distinct natures and as well could have two distinct wills (the Kenosis is another issue)

I've not read Jason arguing that from his articles. That may be the case though in your previous discussions.

However, just out of curiosity...did the Son exist in any way external or apart from the incarnation when the incarnation took place?

Did the Son continue to be omnipresent? Will the Son continue to be that way even after all things come to pass prophetically?

I know this is off the topic and if you don't want to answer perhaps can you do so in another thread or to me in PM?

Thanks
OP

Hey again Prax:

You caught me before I had to leave my office. Listen, these are excellent questions and I will get back to you on them as soon as I get some time. I have to be careful in the way I explain this as it there are times when it may sound as if Jason is saying the same thing. Let me say this to you, it all comes down to this (but I will explain in more detail when I get the chance as I said). Jason does indeed claim to use Chalcedonian mechanics for one thing, which is why he will erroneously say "Even Trinitarians say such and such..." I should say that in fact there are times when Trintarians may say such and such but Jason isn't understandinng what they mean.

So, the difference in real Chalcedonian mechanics (such as a Trinitarian such as myself teaches) and what Jason believes are Chalcedonian mechanics is that Chalcedon unites two natures in one person while Jason divides one person into two natures. That's why his incarnation results in two persons interacting with each other and real Chalcedonian mechanics forbid any division of the person in any way.

BTW Prax, I want to thank-you for clarifying some of the issues to the others in this thread. It may be easier for them to hear you than me. And of course I think Biblical Unitarians and Arians are wrong also, so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just trying to communicate. But again, thanks for helping to clarify.

BTW, when I do get time would you prefer PM or a thread on those questions and answers?

Blessings,
TheLayman

jnix

01-15-2007, 11:33 PM

What type of faith does the layman believe?...i know he is trinty,but is he a baptist or church of God ect...

mizpeh

01-15-2007, 11:44 PM

What type of faith does the layman believe?...i know he is trinty,but is he a baptist or church of God ect...

I think he is evangelical.

Jesusissavior

01-15-2007, 11:44 PM

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinoneness.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ugstsymposium.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/dualnature.htm

The three above include historical theological positions. The second one was part of the Oneness Symposium at Urshan Graduate School

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/becomeman.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayerstango.htm

I quickly broused through the articles, and although I think that Jason Dulle is an excellent theologan, I reject his view of the incarnation, which is more or less so based upon a misinterpretation of John 1:14.

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 12:12 AM

Hey again Prax:

You caught me before I had to leave my office. Listen, these are excellent questions and I will get back to you on them as soon as I get some time. I have to be careful in the way I explain this as it there are times when it may sound as if Jason is saying the same thing. Let me say this to you, it all comes down to this (but I will explain in more detail when I get the chance as I said). Jason does indeed claim to use Chalcedonian mechanics for one thing, which is why he will erroneously say "Even Trinitarians say such and such..." I should say that in fact there are times when Trintarians may say such and such but Jason isn't understandinng what they mean.

So, the difference in real Chalcedonian mechanics (such as a Trinitarian such as myself teaches) and what Jason believes are Chalcedonian mechanics is that Chalcedon unites two natures in one person while Jason divides one person into two natures. That's why his incarnation results in two persons interacting with each other and real Chalcedonian mechanics forbid any division of the person in any way.

BTW Prax, I want to thank-you for clarifying some of the issues to the others in this thread. It may be easier for them to hear you than me. And of course I think Biblical Unitarians and Arians are wrong also, so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just trying to communicate. But again, thanks for helping to clarify.

BTW, when I do get time would you prefer PM or a thread on those questions and answers?

Blessings,
TheLayman

thank you. If you are comfortable answering in another thread....it might be helpful to others too.

Mike

01-16-2007, 12:42 AM

Prax,

I believe you are falsley calling some of us Unitarians. As to the Godhead yes I am Unitarian which means God is one. But the belief I hold which is there is One God and one man that is both Jesus is far from what YOU are labeling "Unitarian".

You said we believe like Adam Pastor. He does NOT believe Yeshua is God. We do. And at the same time we believe he is a man.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Tim. 2:5

Is the one God a person or a nature?

Is Christ Jesus a person or a nature?

Paul did not say there was One nature of God and one nature of man. He just said there was one God and one man.

I believe it is Jesus who is both similtaneously.

Please name one "Unitarian" so called group who teaches this. I would be glad to meet them.

Mike

01-16-2007, 12:48 AM

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 02:36 AM

I quickly broused through the articles, and although I think that Jason Dulle is an excellent theologan, I reject his view of the incarnation, which is more or less so based upon a misinterpretation of John 1:14.

So you also reject the view of Daniel Segraves and David Bernard too?

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 02:45 AM

Prax,

I believe you are falsley calling some of us Unitarians. As to the Godhead yes I am Unitarian which means God is one. But the belief I hold which is there is One God and one man that is both Jesus is far from what YOU are labeling "Unitarian".

Unitarian teaches there is One God and one man and that the man is not the same person as God....They deny the Son is God. He is a man. He is someone other than God.

You said we believe like Adam Pastor. He does NOT believe Yeshua is God. We do. And at the same time we believe he is a man.

How can two different persons be the same Jesus?
Adam Pastor would not say Jesus is two different persons either. He would not say Jesus is God and Jesus is a man as two different persons. See when Adam Pastor says Jesus is not God he is saying that man, the Son of God is not God. Do you believe that man, the Son of God is God? Or is he someone other than God?

Is the one God a person or a nature?

The One God is a person with a Divine nature and in the incarnation added a Human nature too

Is Christ Jesus a person or a nature?
Jesus Christ is the Person of God with a human nature added.

Paul did not say there was One nature of God and one nature of man. He just said there was one God and one man.

What do you think a nature is? The word nature simply means "those attributes or charactoristics that makes one what they are"...thus you are a human because you have a human nature or you have those qualities that makes someone human

I believe it is Jesus who is both similtaneously.
You believe Jesus is both what similtaneously? You believe Jesus is two different persons similtaneously? One God and one man?

Please name one "Unitarian" so called group who teaches this. I would be glad to meet them.
Talk to Adam Pastor. He, like many of you guys, believes the Son is someone OTHER than God and is only human. He believes God is one person...a divine person and the Son is a human person and they are not the same persons.

What it really boils down to is that many here have two Jesus's and they say "Jesus is not God" then they say "Jesus is God as the Father" and yet they say the Father and Son are two different "persons"

Sounds unitarian or adoptionist to me

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 02:48 AM

Prax said:

There I answered all these questions of how the Son and Father are distinct and yet are the same "person" (Hypostasis) in two different modes of being.

Me:

Two modes of being. I have said that many times.

That's good, but recently you indicated the son was another person from the Father....not a mode of being....or was it you agreed with the statement someone else made wherein they indicated the Son was another person from the Father...not two modes or forms of the same Person, one mode being Father and Divine and the other being Son and having a human nature.

Rather two persons...one is the Father and is God and the other is just a man that God was inside of.

If you believe the Son and the Father are teh same Person but in two different modes then you are Oneness. If you believe the Father and Son are two different persons and the Son is just human I would call that adoptionism or unitarianism....

Mike

01-16-2007, 10:28 AM

Unitarian teaches there is One God and one man and that the man is not the same person as God....They deny the Son is God. He is a man. He is someone other than God.

How can two different persons be the same Jesus?
Adam Pastor would not say Jesus is two different persons either. He would not say Jesus is God and Jesus is a man as two different persons. See when Adam Pastor says Jesus is not God he is saying that man, the Son of God is not God. Do you believe that man, the Son of God is God? Or is he someone other than God?

The One God is a person with a Divine nature and in the incarnation added a Human nature too

Jesus Christ is the Person of God with a human nature added.

What do you think a nature is? The word nature simply means "those attributes or charactoristics that makes one what they are"...thus you are a human because you have a human nature or you have those qualities that makes someone human

You believe Jesus is both what similtaneously? You believe Jesus is two different persons similtaneously? One God and one man?

Talk to Adam Pastor. He, like many of you guys, believes the Son is someone OTHER than God and is only human. He believes God is one person...a divine person and the Son is a human person and they are not the same persons.

What it really boils down to is that many here have two Jesus's and they say "Jesus is not God" then they say "Jesus is God as the Father" and yet they say the Father and Son are two different "persons"

Sounds unitarian or adoptionist to me

I will get back with you but I notice you cannot name one so called Unitarian group who believes Jesus is God and Man similtaneosly. Thats why I say you are branding us "Unitarians" falsely. Adam Pastor is NOT an example of what we believe.

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 04:09 PM

I will get back with you but I notice you cannot name one so called Unitarian group who believes Jesus is God and Man similtaneosly. Thats why I say you are branding us "Unitarians" falsely. Adam Pastor is NOT an example of what we believe.
I never said I could name one Unitarian group who believes Jesus is two persons God and man similtaneously.

That's beside the point. Unitarians believe there are two persons, One is God and the other is man. The mere fact that you have two Jesus's that are two different persons does not alter the fact that you have two persons, one is God and the other is just a man. It does not alter the fact that if you really indeed view God as one person and His Son as a completely different person who is only a man that such a doctrine is unitarian or adoptionist in nature,

Adam Pastor IS an example of what many of "you" believe..I don't know who "we" is when you say "we". He need not believe ALL of what you believe or word it the way you do, but Adam Pastor DOES deny the Son is God. Adam Pastor DOES see two persons, Father and Son. Adam Pastor DOES see the Father is all God and the Son is not God at all but is a human person.

He has 1 God=Father who is a Divine Person
He has 1 man=Son who is a human person
2 persons. The mere fact that you name both Jesus and they say "Jesus is God, does not alter the fact that both deny the Son is God and has a Son that is a separate or distict person from the Father.

Im Oneness. I have been for years. In all that time I have always believed that God is a singular individual who is similtaneously Father, Son and Holy Ghost in three different modes or manifestations and not three or two different persons..as opposed to the idea that God is one Person (Jesus) who is two persons (Father and Son)....and if that is the case why oppose the Trinity? If you can have one Jesus that is two Jesuses why can't there be 1 God in three persons?

If you think that misrepresents what you believe then let's revisit it here for clarification.

First of all by "person" I mean it the way it has been uses theologically for some time...an individual self or a who...historically called a hypostasis
By nature it is meant those charactoristics and attributes that makes an individual self what they are. Thus nature is not equal to person. Persons have nature. Natures are whats.

Are the Father and Son two different persons (selfs)?

Is the Son God in person?

Is the Son God in nature?

Is the person of the Son the same person of the Father with a human nature?

Is the One unitary Deity Yahweh Himself Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time?

When you say "Jesus is God" are you refering to the Son?

Do you see two Jesuses? Father and Son? Is Jesus two persons or is Jesus one person who is both Father and Son?

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 05:22 PM

HSdad

01-16-2007, 06:01 PM

Prax, thank you to you and all the bible teachers that have helped you construct the following position:

First of all by "person" I mean it the way it has been uses theologically for some time...an individual self or a who...historically called a hypostasis
By nature it is meant those charactoristics and attributes that makes an individual self what they are. Thus nature is not equal to person. Persons have nature. Natures are whats.

My attempt to construct a kind of stack of realities proposed by your position:

1. A single person can have two natures.
This despite
2. The natures define the “What” a person is.
3. The same person can have a God-self/nature and a human-self/nature

Now in my words, the following must flow as an extension of your position pertaining to the CHRIST, the Son of God.

1. The person is the essence of the identity, but attached to that core are two natures that can be simultaneously lived.

2. A single person can have two wills because this one person has two natures orchestrated by this single person.

3. in the case of your view pertaining to the son, the resident natures are distinct but the governor in the “wheelhouse” is one person.

4a. Somehow you have managed to get a person’s natures to be something separate from the core person,
OR
4b. You have found a way for the central person/self to purposely forget he was God almighty when he was experiencing creation through his human (added) nature.

So,
Jesus was tempted in all manner as we and God cannot be tempted. So somewhere in your composite/dual-natured person, the person in the control seat had to stop being God or the scriptural witness conflicts your Christology.

Also, your single person with dual natures bore witness that his single person self can satisfy “the law” pertaining to two witnesses (the Son himself + the father were spoken by the Son as = two witnesses).

If my one nature or my other nature are both the same person, how did I get a legal fulfillment of two witnesses? Can anything other than a person be a witness?

In your single person with a two nature composite Son, you would then say that God so loved the world that he gave his human nature. So our greatest example of relational love is the love God’s divine nature had for his own human nature.

Please count me in the AdamPastor category, it feels much safer to read the scriptures with that perspective. I guess I am just still enough child-like to believe that love is not experienced by two natures within a single person.

mizpeh

01-16-2007, 06:03 PM

A friend of mine wanted me to recommend his book. It examines the use of the term "persons" in regards to the trinity

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Examination-Persons-Trinity-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/sr=8-1/qid=1168982221/ref=sr_1_1/104-6840222-0806323?ie=UTF8&s=books

I brought the book in December but haven't had time to read it. Have you read it OP? And if you have what did you think of it?

Mike

01-16-2007, 07:13 PM

Ok how about this?

Is YHWH a person?

Is Jesus a person?

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 09:26 PM

My attempt to construct a kind of stack of realities proposed by your position:

1. A single person can have two natures.
This despite
2. The natures define the “What” a person is.
3. The same person can have a God-self/nature and a human-self/nature
In number 3 your strawman fallicy is evident. You say you were going by my definition, however you just equated nature with self, where as I pointed out that a person is a self...a who and is not equivelent to nature and therefore you equating nature to self is where you are in error.

Now in my words, the following must flow as an extension of your position pertaining to the CHRIST, the Son of God.

1. The person is the essence of the identity, but attached to that core are two natures that can be simultaneously lived.

2. A single person can have two wills because this one person has two natures orchestrated by this single person.

3. in the case of your view pertaining to the son, the resident natures are distinct but the governor in the “wheelhouse” is one person.

4a. Somehow you have managed to get a person’s natures to be something separate from the core person,
OR
4b. You have found a way for the central person/self to purposely forget he was God almighty when he was experiencing creation through his human (added) nature.
The Son does have two natures and through the human mind/will he doesn't operate the Divine mind/will. I would not go so far as to say he forgets something. He may have knowledge or awareness of His divine nature, however according to Paul even though he existed in the form of God he took upon him the form of a servant being made in the likeness of man and humbled himself to obeidence to death on the cross. How that happens probably no human can understand, but Paul did say it.

So,
Jesus was tempted in all manner as we and God cannot be tempted. So somewhere in your composite/dual-natured person, the person in the control seat had to stop being God or the scriptural witness conflicts your Christology.
the person has a complete human nature, having a human existence. I don't think it conflicts. He became Human. He picked up those qualities and or attributes that makes a person human. He did not need to cease being God or the same person he always was. He need only have those qualities that makes a human human.

Also, your single person with dual natures bore witness that his single person self can satisfy “the law” pertaining to two witnesses (the Son himself + the father were spoken by the Son as = two witnesses).

If my one nature or my other nature are both the same person, how did I get a legal fulfillment of two witnesses? Can anything other than a person be a witness?
Natures aren't persons. Two natures aren't "the same person"...rather a person has two natures. Additionally the Father is not one nature and the son another. Rather the Father is the same person in a different form or mode of being. It is the same God existing transcendently willing exclusively through the Divine nature. The Son is the same person existing incarnate willing exclusively through the Human nature. So as a matter of speaking the Son is psychologically someone other than God, but not ontologically nor hypostatically. He is "functionally" someone else.

In your single person with a two nature composite Son, you would then say that God so loved the world that he gave his human nature.

No I would say "God so loved the world that He gave His only unique Son"...The Son is not a human nature. The Son is Yahweh hypostatically united with a human nature....

Seriously this is all beside the point of this topic. I addressed and explained all this in the threads in the general section one of which I started asking "who is the Son" and the other was "is the Son God"...additionally I gave some links to explain this more. At issue in this thread is do some folks claiming to be Oneness believe in two persons....one God and one Human? What do you say to that notion and what TLM said? Are they Oneness (modalist) or are they Unitarian/Adoptionist or even so called "Nestorian"?

Please count me in the AdamPastor category, it feels much safer to read the scriptures with that perspective. I guess I am just still enough child-like to believe that love is not experienced by two natures within a single person.

It's not love between the two natures of the Son....The Son is not communicating to His other nature within himself.

Anyways, you are welcome to be counted with AP....at least you are realistic about it and admit that you are a Unitarian and not Oneness.

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 09:27 PM

I brought the book in December but haven't had time to read it. Have you read it OP? And if you have what did you think of it?

Not yet

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 09:28 PM

Ok how about this?

Is YHWH a person?

Is Jesus a person?

WHo are you asking? If you are asking me can you answer my questions too?

YHWH is a person. Jesus is a person. I believe they are the same Person. Jesus is the Ego Eimi

Mike

01-16-2007, 10:11 PM

WHo are you asking? If you are asking me can you answer my questions too?

YHWH is a person. Jesus is a person. I believe they are the same Person. Jesus is the Ego Eimi

Sorry Prax,

Im done. One person 2 modes of being. Within the options available that is pretty good.

TheLayman

01-16-2007, 10:25 PM

Greetings:

First HSdad, I just wanted to compliment you. You see, talking about person, nature, substance, subsistence, essence, and all of that can get real confusing. However, you have explained yourself in such a way as I understand you.

Prax, HSdad has, as far a I can tell, pointed out the error in Dulle's Christology in layman's (no pun intended) terms. Let me take you down to that point and then when I answer your questions in a new thread we can talk more about it. Anyway, down to 4a and 4b or HSdad's post:

Prax, thank you to you and all the bible teachers that have helped you construct the following position:

My attempt to construct a kind of stack of realities proposed by your position:

1. A single person can have two natures.
This despite
2. The natures define the “What” a person is.
3. The same person can have a God-self/nature and a human-self/nature

Now in my words, the following must flow as an extension of your position pertaining to the CHRIST, the Son of God.

1. The person is the essence of the identity, but attached to that core are two natures that can be simultaneously lived.

2. A single person can have two wills because this one person has two natures orchestrated by this single person.

3. in the case of your view pertaining to the son, the resident natures are distinct but the governor in the “wheelhouse” is one person.

4a. Somehow you have managed to get a person’s natures to be something separate from the core person,
OR
4b. You have found a way for the central person/self to purposely forget he was God almighty when he was experiencing creation through his human (added) nature.

Prax, 4a and 4b on HSdad's post highlights the contradiction of Dulle's Christology. You see, when Dulle speaks of the Son, he wants his one divine person to be the Son and not the Father (otherwise their would be no distinction). The Son must pray (meaning he must be a person) to someone [person] other than Himself [person].

You see Dulle tries to have his one divine person possess humanity (son) and not possess humanity (Father) at the same time in the same way. In other words the contradiction is that he tries to assert that his incarnation results in one divine person who does and does not possess human nature. This contradiction of Jason's is so obvious it literally screams and you'll forgive me when I say I still can not believe that he could not see this in our "discussion." But a little more on that when I answer your questions. What I do want to point out is HSdad has a valid point with regard to Dulle's mechanics. This is why in my orginal post I included Dulleism in saying that once you create personal distinctions between the Father and Son, you have created distinction of persons.

Blessings,
TheLayman

jnix

01-16-2007, 10:51 PM

I think he is evangelical.

so thats like the assembley of God?...he does believe in Holy Ghost baptism...

TheLayman

01-16-2007, 10:54 PM

Seriously this is all beside the point of this topic. I addressed and explained all this in the threads in the general section one of which I started asking "who is the Son" and the other was "is the Son God"...additionally I gave some links to explain this more. At issue in this thread is do some folks claiming to be Oneness believe in two persons....one God and one Human? What do you say to that notion and what TLM said? Are they Oneness (modalist) or are they Unitarian/Adoptionist or even so called "Nestorian"?

Hello Prax:

Also wanted to point out that Dulle would not claim to be a "modalist" even though he uses the phrase "mode of being." In fact, a modalist is more formally called a modalist monarchian which Dulle disagrees with, to wit:

A quite different attempt to reconcile this dilemma was made in the form of Modalistic Monarchianism.2 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ugstsymposium.htm#foot2) They maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit were three modes of the one person of God. The Modalists had two basic approaches to solving the theological problem. The first approach was to argue that "Son" referred strictly to Jesus' humanity, while "Father" referred strictly to Jesus' deity. Hippolytus, in The Refutation of all Heresies IX said of Callistus' teaching that he did not want to say that the Father suffered, but only the Son, and the Father along with him. Such an explanation clearly demonstrates the tendency to ascribe "Son" only to Christ's humanity, rather than His whole person. And again in book X he said of Callistus, " And he is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him." Tertullian, in Against Praxeas ch.27, also recorded such theological tendencies in Praxeas' theology. Seeing that the angel told Mary, "Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God," Tertullian said the followers of Praxeas argued that since "it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God." He went on to say against Praxeas and his followers:
"They endeavor to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather than uniting them. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and the Father is Christ."
Such a use of the Biblical terms cannot be justified from Scripture, and Trinitarians such as Tertullian were quick to point this out. See Appendix I and II for a fuller discussion on the proper use of "Son" and "Father."

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/ugstsymposium.htm

And at the risk of repeating myself I still find it hard to believe he can not see the same fundamental problems in his own Christology.

Blessings,
TheLayman

OriginalPraxeas

01-16-2007, 11:47 PM

Sorry Prax,

Im done. One person 2 modes of being. Within the options available that is pretty good.

Cool....it had seemed from a previous post of yours that you saw Father and Son as two different persons. Thanks

mizpeh

01-17-2007, 12:02 AM

Layman,

I see a fallacy of logic in how you are understanding Dulle. I think you would call it a strawman.
You see Dulle tries to have his one divine person possess humanity (son) and not possess humanity (Father) at the same time in the same way.
This statement I believe is contradictory to what Dulle teaches in his articles. Let me put how I think Jason teaches it or how I understand Jason to teach it. He has one divine person possessing humanity which is the Son (God/flesh) and at the same time remaining Spirit (God). God possess both natures, divine and human, simultaneously. Which is equivalent to saying God was transcendent and incarnate concurrently. Or God had two natures.
Your strawman would be that Jason is saying God possesses humanity and God does not possess humanity making two, one who is God and one who is man. Whereas I think Jason says God possesses humanity in the incarnation (for all of God was not made flesh but all the fullness of God) and God remains transcendent to the incarnation.
In other words the contradiction is that he tries to assert that his incarnation results in one divine person who does and does not possess human nature.
Again, I think you are wrong in your assessment of Jason's Christology. Jason asserts that God added or took on human nature to Himself. The same person of God who became the Son, remains omnipresent. He acknowledges that a divine person is not divine without his nature and therefore the divine nature is resident in Christ yet is not taken advantage of. Meaning God laid down his some of his prerogatives and attributes to become in all things like unto us.
This is why in my orginal post I included Dulleism in saying that once you create personal distinctions between the Father and Son, you have created distinction of persons.
God becoming man was not God forgetting He was God but truly He became man. He as a man had to grow in wisdom, stature, knowledge just like us. I don’t know how He did it, and the passion behind the Mighty God humbling Himself to do such a thing is truly amazing.

Creating personal distinctions between two subjects, Father and Son, God Transcendent and Incarnate, Spirit and Spirit/flesh does not necessarily have to mean two different persons. If the Son (God/flesh) percieves himself as human because he purposely functions through his human nature, he would not think of himself as God, you see, but as human, Son of man, that he is. Psychologically Jesus is other than God, as OP has said, but ontologically He is God as to person.

OriginalPraxeas

01-17-2007, 12:25 AM

Prax, 4a and 4b on HSdad's post highlights the contradiction of Dulle's Christology. You see, when Dulle speaks of the Son, he wants his one divine person to be the Son and not the Father (otherwise their would be no distinction). The Son must pray (meaning he must be a person) to someone [person] other than Himself [person].
Aside from thatever contradiction you believe there to be I must point out that Jason never speaks of the Divine person being the Son and not the Father. Jason has stated explicitly, not implied but explicitly that the same hypostasis of the Father is the same one that is the Son with a Human nature. The distinction is in the nature and in mode of being. The Father is that same person who wills exclusively through the Divine nature external to the Son. The Son is the same person incarnate and with an added human nature. Two ways the same one hypostasis exists.

It is true though that the distinction is not due to separate hypostases but the distinction is found in the distinction of nature and existentionally.

Here is the thing though. If a person's mind and will are the result of whatever nature they possess then it's not only possible for Christ to have two wills and minds because he has two natures then theoretically it would be possible for a transcendent being to retain that mode of being through the Divine mind and will and also have a temporal mode of being and will or have ones mind through the Human nature.

Jason is not making two persons out of the two natures. Jason very explicitly states it is the One hypostasis of God that "undergirds" the Human nature or "actualizes" it...I guess you can say "personifies" it...not a newly created Human ego or hypostasis....Im not sure of Jason's wording at the moment.

At this point I have to ask how you view the Kenosis....Was Jesus a completely and fully functional human?

You see Dulle tries to have his one divine person possess humanity (son) and not possess humanity (Father) at the same time in the same way. In other words the contradiction is that he tries to assert that his incarnation results in one divine person who does and does not possess human nature.
Well don't you have a similiar contradiction in the Son who has two natures where as the human nature is not the Divine nature? You have 1 Person that is two "things" as it were that are not the same. If Jesus is "the man Christ Jesus" and Jesus is God distinctly not mixed the How is Jesus not "God and Not God" all at the same time?

Also you have one Divine Being that is Father and Not Father (Son). I mean, in the Trinity you don't just have 3 persons that share the same sort of being or same sort of essence. You have 3 persons that are the same being...

BTW why wouldn't that be modalism on Jasons part? He has the same person who is both Father and Son and only as the mode of the Son does he possess the human nature....

Also too it just occured to me that at NO time does the same person never really NOT possess the Human nature. That is a fallicy. He always possesses the Human nature. The one Hypostasis does not never NOT possess the Human nature. See in order for that to be true you would have to say as the Son God possesses and does not possess the Human nature.

I don't think that is comparable to saying the same person has two modes or forms....can it be said Jesus has 2 eyes? Sure....but if Jesus has a divine nature that is Spirit in essence it can be said that in His divine nature he does NOT have 2 eyes. Thus it can be said that Jesus in His humanity has two eyes but in His diety does not have two eyes....same person...two natures.

Perhaps it would make more sense if said
As the Father the person of God "functions" external or outside the mode of the human son and nature. That does not mean the person of God has and does not have the Human nature. The person of God does not stop possessing the Human nature at any time. However the person of God does have a continued existence that extends beyond and outside of the Human mode of being and as such that same person "operates" exclusively through the Human nature. It does not mean he suddenely no longer possesses the Human nature. He always possesses it, but possession of the Human nature is limited in sphere and the Deity of God is not limited to the incarnation.

Maybe the issue is in the word possess and "have" like in "have access too"...realize we are talking about a transcendent being so words are often inadequate. He always possesses the Human nature...the person does. He is one person. It's His nature now....but as the Father His "sphere" of existence is external to the Human nature

This contradiction of Jason's is so obvious it literally screams and you'll forgive me when I say I still can not believe that he could not see this in our "discussion." But a little more on that when I answer your questions. What I do want to point out is HSdad has a valid point with regard to Dulle's mechanics. This is why in my orginal post I included Dulleism in saying that once you create personal distinctions between the Father and Son, you have created distinction of persons.

Blessings,
TheLayman

I think the problem is in perception of what Jason is doing or trying to do. Jason does not say "personal distinction", but you would interpret it that way. However the distinctions Jason says are not on a hypostatic level but on a functional level....and psychological. None of which would be possible without the human nature

God bless

TheLayman

01-17-2007, 01:06 AM

Mizpeh:

Help me out here, honestly. You don't understand Trinitarian theology or Christology. You don't understand Jason's Christology. I know this because you don't even understand how the term person is used in theology yet. So why would you want to debate me on this in any way? Why don't you learn about it before you argue it?

Layman,

I see a fallacy of logic in how you are understanding Dulle. I think you would call it a strawman.

This statement I believe is contradictory to what Dulle teaches in his articles. Let me put how I think Jason teaches it or how I understand Jason to teach it. He has one divine person possessing humanity which is the Son (God/flesh) and at the same time remaining Spirit (God). God possess both natures, divine and human, simultaneously. Which is equivalent to saying God was transcendent and incarnate concurrently. Or God had two natures.
Your strawman would be that Jason is saying God possesses humanity and God does not possess humanity making two, one who is God and one who is man. Whereas I think Jason says God possesses humanity in the incarnation (for all of God was not made flesh but all the fullness of God) and God remains transcendent to the incarnation.

Guess who says this Mizpeh:

wrote: (Avoiding the Achilles Heels …)

The Father is the deity of the Son, but the Son has a distinct existence from the Father because "Son" speaks of God's existence as man, while "Father" speaks of God's continued existence beyond the incarnation.

The Son, because His human nature is in hypostatic union with His divine nature has a theandric existence (divine-human), while the Father as exclusive Spirit beyond the incarnation has a purely theistic existence (divine).

Mizpeh, if you begin with one divine person who adds human nature to his person without divesting Himself of divinity, then you have one person with a theandric existence, period. You don't have, as Jason asserts above, a person with a purely theandric existence (Son=divine and human) and purely theistic (Father=divine-not human).

And Mizpeh, you say: Whereas I think Jason says God possesses humanity in the incarnation (for all of God was not made flesh but all the fullness of God) and God remains transcendent to the incarnation." Not all of God was made flesh???? Mizpeh, if you are using the term God as a proper name of a divine person, then God was not "made" flesh, the divine person added human nature to His person. If you are speaking of the nature of God, the nature of God was not made flesh. The nature of God is the nature of God, and flesh is flesh. One is not the other.

Again, I think you are wrong in your assessment of Jason's Christology. Jason asserts that God added or took on human nature to Himself. The same person of God who became the Son, remains omnipresent. He acknowledges that a divine person is not divine without his nature and therefore the divine nature is resident in Christ yet is not taken advantage of. Meaning God laid down his some of his prerogatives and attributes to become in all things like unto us.

You say the divine nature is resident in Christ. I assume since you said "divine nature" then the term Christ must actually be referring to the one person in Jason's theology/Christology. So, while this one person isn't taking advantage of his divine prerogatives, who's running the universe. Now if you are going to tell me the Father who transcends the incarnation, I'm going to point out the painfully obvious contradiction that you are asserting one person does and does not utilize divine prerogatives.

God becoming man was not God forgetting He was God but truly He became man. He as a man had to grow in wisdom, stature, knowledge just like us. I don’t know how He did it, and the passion behind the Mighty God humbling Himself to do such a thing is truly amazing.

Creating personal distinctions between two subjects, Father and Son, God Transcendent and Incarnate, Spirit and Spirit/flesh does not necessarily have to mean two different persons. If the Son (God/flesh) percieves himself as human because he purposely functions through his human nature, he would not think of himself as God, you see, but as human, Son of man, that he is. Psychologically Jesus is other than God, as OP has said, but ontologically He is God as to person.

Yeah, and I wish people wouldn't throw words like "ontologically" around unless it has some meaning with regard to what's being discussed and use the term correctly.

At any rate Mizpeh, you are asserting that you have one person who is God and is other than God. I have news. That is called violating the law on non-contradiction. You can go back to Jason saying the Father is "purely theistic" and the Son is "theandric" to see where his Christology collapses as a result of a contradiction, or you see that he has divided his "one divine person" into two persons as a result of the incarnation. His Christology begins with one divine person and ends up with a person who is purely theistic and one who is theadric (two persons). Chalcedonian Christology begins with a divine person who is incarnated and ends with that one person being theandric. That's why Jason divides one person into two natures (creating a second person), while Chalcedonian Christology unites two natures in one person (which begins and ends with one person).

But if you think you have a good grasp of all of this here some easy questions Mizpeh. Please don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature and all of that, the only thing I want to know in the following questions regards person, WHO.

1.) When the Son was praying, WHO (what person) was praying to WHO (what person)?

2.) The Father loved the Son, and the Son loved the Father. What PERSON was loving WHAT person? WHAT PERSON (WHO) was in a personal relationship with WHAT PERSON (WHO)?

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

01-17-2007, 01:08 AM

Hi TLM,

I would like to add that I do not agree completely with Dulle's Christology. I can see how the scriptures fit well with parts of what he teaches but not all of it.

Blessings to you in Christ,
Mizpeh

TheLayman

01-17-2007, 01:19 AM

Greetings Prax:

I need to get to a new thread, but a quick response. You can also read what I wrote to Mizpeh.

Aside from thatever contradiction you believe there to be I must point out that Jason never speaks of the Divine person being the Son and not the Father. Jason has stated explicitly, not implied but explicitly that the same hypostasis of the Father is the same one that is the Son with a Human nature. The distinction is in the nature and in mode of being. The Father is that same person who wills exclusively through the Divine nature external to the Son. The Son is the same person incarnate and with an added human nature. Two ways the same one hypostasis exists.

And I have told you (and Jason) that his Christology is contradictory, inchorent, and internally inconsistent. That is not an insult. Those words have real meanings, and I proved them all in my discussion with Jason.

My point? I wish you would quit telling me what Jason asserts. If a person posits a contradiction, then asserts it is not a contradiction, it doesn't mean that it still isn't a contradiction, the persons assertion notwithstanding. If a person begins with one person and ends with with two, the assertion that he does not have two persons doesn't make it so.

So, before I go any further, Jason states explicitly that it would make no sense for Jesus to pray to himself. Jason also states Jesus has two natures, human and divine. So this is very simple. Before I continue, WHO, what person was the person of Jesus praying to? Now remember, Jesus is divine and human, and it makes no sense for him to pray to himself, i.e. his own person. So WHO, pray tell, was he praying to?

Blessings,
TheLayman

Polaris

01-17-2007, 03:32 AM

Polaris

01-17-2007, 04:22 AM

VERY good points, Mike! By the way, I have never met a Unitarian yet who believed that Jesus was God.

So God said to Himself "Not my will, but thine be done" ????

Labels labels labels. Call it what you like...Oneness, unitarianism...You say "otherwise what you have is Unitarianism" as if there's some scriptural mandate against what YOU call Unitarianism.

mizpeh

01-17-2007, 08:08 AM

TLM,

I don't want to debate you. I was explaining my understanding of Jason's Christology from his article and how I thought it differed from yours. I haven't read Jason's article on Avoiding the Archilles heel.

If a person is the self then I do understand what it is. Admittedly I do not agree with how it is defined theologically because I find it empty, vacuous, and void of reality. Nevertheless, I do understand how it is being used when say you or OP are using the word, person.

And Mizpeh, you say: Whereas I think Jason says God possesses humanity in the incarnation (for all of God was not made flesh but all the fullness of God) and God remains transcendent to the incarnation." Not all of God was made flesh????

If all of God was made flesh or manifest in the flesh, then the heavens would be emptied of God. All of who God is or all the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ bodily.

Mizpeh, if you are using the term God as a proper name of a divine person, then God was not "made" flesh, the divine person added human nature to His person. If you are speaking of the nature of God, the nature of God was not made flesh. The nature of God is the nature of God, and flesh is flesh. One is not the other.
I am not speaking of the nature of God. I am exchanging "Word" for "God" Joh 1:14 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:14&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

I suppose I could have said "took on the seed of Abraham". Heb 2:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+2:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) also.

I am not supporting the Chalcedon creed nor do I agree it. I am only explaining what I think Dulle is saying.

Mizpeh, if you begin with one divine person who adds human nature to his person without divesting Himself of divinity, then you have one person with a theandric existence, period. You don't have, as Jason asserts above, a person with a purely theandric existence (Son=divine and human) and purely theistic (Father=divine-not human).

Just curious, if any divine person divested himself of divinity(divine nature) how would that person remain divine? What would make that person anything other than whatever nature defined who it was? So when that divine person adds human nature to itself, it would no longer be divine but human and therefore could not be called God.

You say the divine nature is resident in Christ. I assume since you said "divine nature" then the term Christ must actually be referring to the one person in Jason's theology/Christology. So, while this one person isn't taking advantage of his divine prerogatives, who's running the universe. Now if you are going to tell me the Father who transcends the incarnation, I'm going to point out the painfully obvious contradiction that you are asserting one person does and does not utilize divine prerogatives

According to what I understand of persons and nature, a person possesses a nature and directs the actions of that nature. The nature is all the attributes and characteristics that make that person the type of being they are, whether divine or human. Without its nature, we would not know what type of person a person is. If the human nature is added to the person of God without its divine nature, then it is only a human person.

At any rate Mizpeh, you are asserting that you have one person who is God and is other than God. I have news. That is called violating the law on non-contradiction. You can go back to Jason saying the Father is "purely theistic" and the Son is "theandric" to see where his Christology collapses as a result of a contradiction, or you see that he has divided his "one divine person" into two persons as a result of the incarnation. His Christology begins with one divine person and ends up with a person who is purely theistic and one who is theadric (two persons). Chalcedonian Christology begins with a divine person who is incarnated and ends with that one person being theandric. That's why Jason divides one person into two natures (creating a second person), while Chalcedonian Christology unites two natures in one person (which begins and ends with one person).

Like I said before I tried to explain what I think Dulle says. I am not saying his Christology is truth nor do I believe Chalcedon is correct. Chalcedon cannot work without more than one person being called God. I believe Chalcedon started out with that presuppostion. Can God be restrained by our understanding of how He was made flesh and then existed in two ways as man and God?

http://www.reformedspokane.org/Doctrine_pages/Christian%20Doctrine%20pages/Eccumenical%20Creeds/Creed%20of%20Chalcedon.html

Jas 3:13 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=jas+3:13&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

God bless you,
Mizpeh

Sorry the fonts are all messed up. I couldn't figure out how to fix them.

TheLayman

01-17-2007, 08:27 AM

TLM,

I don't want to debate you. I was explaining my understanding of Jason's Christology from his article and how I thought it differed from yours. I haven't read Jason's article on Avoiding the Archilles heel.

If a person is the self then I do understand what it is. Admittedly I do not agree with how it is defined theologically because I find it empty, vacuous, and void of reality. Nevertheless, I do understand how it is being used when say you or OP are using the word, person.

If all of God was made flesh or manifest in the flesh, then the heavens would be emptied of God. All of who God is or all the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ bodily.

I am not speaking of the nature of God. I am exchanging "Word" for "God" Joh 1:14 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:14&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

I suppose I could have said "took on the seed of Abraham". Heb 2:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+2:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) also.

I am not supporting the Chalcedon creed nor do I agree it. I am only explaining what I think Dulle is saying. Whether you think his Christology is inconsistent is irrelevant to me.

Just curious, if any divine person divested himself of divinity(divine nature) how would that person remain divine? What would make that person anything other than whatever nature defined who it was? So when that divine person adds human nature to itself, it would no longer be divine but human and therefore could not be called God.

According to what I understand of persons and nature, a person possesses a nature and directs the actions of that nature. The nature is all the attributes and characteristics that make that person the type of being they are, whether divine or human. Without its nature, we would not know what type of person a person is. If the human nature is added to the person of God without its divine nature, then it is only a human person.

Like I said before I tried to explain what I think Dulle says. I am not saying his Christology is truth nor do I believe Chalcedon is correct. Chalcedon cannot work without more than one person calling themself God. How is the man, Christ Jesus, God if the divine nature is not part of his person? Thomas calls Jesus God not the second person of the Trinity God. Can God be restrained by our understanding of how He was made flesh and then existed in two ways as man and God?

http://www.reformedspokane.org/Doctrine_pages/Christian%20Doctrine%20pages/Eccumenical%20Creeds/Creed%20of%20Chalcedon.html

Jas 3:13 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?query=jas+3:13&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

God bless you,
Mizpeh

Sorry the fonts are all messed up. I couldn't figure out how to fix them.

Mizpeh:

You always get in over your head and then you get your feelings hurt. I don't want to hurt your feelings. It is fairly apparent to me that you just aren't following here at all. If you were, not only would you have not talked right past my response to you, but I figure you would have been happy to answer those couple of simple questions I asked you. Not only did you not answer them, but you cut them out of your response entirely. Here they are:

But if you think you have a good grasp of all of this here some easy questions Mizpeh. Please don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature and all of that, the only thing I want to know in the following questions regards person, WHO.

1.) When the Son was praying, WHO (what person) was praying to WHO (what person)?

2.) The Father loved the Son, and the Son loved the Father. What PERSON was loving WHAT person? WHAT PERSON (WHO) was in a personal relationship with WHAT PERSON (WHO)?

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

01-17-2007, 09:14 AM

Mizpeh:

You always get in over your head and then you get your feelings hurt. I don't want to hurt your feelings. It is fairly apparent to me that you just aren't following here at all. If you were, not only would you have not talked right past my response to you, but I figure you would have been happy to answer those couple of simple questions I asked you. Not only did you not answer them, but you cut them out of your response entirely. Here they are:

But if you think you have a good grasp of all of this here some easy questions Mizpeh. Please don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature and all of that, the only thing I want to know in the following questions regards person, WHO.

1.) When the Son was praying, WHO (what person) was praying to WHO (what person)?

2.) The Father loved the Son, and the Son loved the Father. What PERSON was loving WHAT person? WHAT PERSON (WHO) was in a personal relationship with WHAT PERSON (WHO)?
Blessings,
TheLayman

Good morning TLM,

My feelings are not hurt. I was not offended by your comments in your last post to me. I expected your response but hoped for a different approach. I didn't answer your questions because it was 2:30 am my time after reading your post,starting to type a response, and checking some things on line when I went to bed. I was too tired to respond any further so I saved my reply to a word document and finished it when I woke up. I will get to those questions later.

In Christ,
Mizpeh

Mike

01-17-2007, 10:24 AM

Cool....it had seemed from a previous post of yours that you saw Father and Son as two different persons. Thanks

Well I am trying to exricate myself from the discussion for now but of the available options one person with 2 modes of being does sound good and I have used it for a long time. However 2 modes of being does suggest two beings.

I would be quick to say One of them God and one of them man. If (human) being and person are the same I wind up with the same understanding. Two persons or 2 beings. YHWH himself manifest as man.

Polaris

01-17-2007, 12:00 PM

The problem is that we are trying to use the lanuage of the early catholic theologians in order to eludicate, never stopping to think that they used that same terminology all along in order to obfuscate. Give them credit for one thing: they had their work cut out for them trying to invent a doctrine of God in which three separate individuals could all be one God without losing their individuality. That took a lot of toying around with words and semantics.

Let's look at the word "hypostasis". Sounds nice and scholarly, doesn't it? And if you banter it about, you sound well-read, like you've been to semanary or something. Well, the word literally means "that which stands under", and surprise, surprise, it has a lot of ordinary uses outside of theolgoical circuses (ahem....make that "circles"). It is still used in modern Greek today, in fact, to mean the underlying "stuff" that something is made of, or even an underlying plan or purpose. When talking about wealth, it can mean the material substance of someone or something. Think of words like "underlying", "backing", and "substance" or "essence" to get a feel for it.

The word was used by Aristotle and the Neoplatonists (no surprise there), and it means the essence of something. And to "hypostatize" something means to symbolize it in a concrete form or to ascribe material existence to it (I.E. something abstract). In this regard, we could say that concentration camps and mass crematoriums were the hypostasis of Naziism, or that smiles and laughter are the hypostasis of happiness.

Back to theological terms, it's use goes far beyond trinitarian double-speak for "persons" in the godhead. This is shown beautifully in a few scriptures such as Hebrews 11:1 where we're told that faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for. Isn't it beautiful to see what that REALLY means? What you hoped for is taken from the abstract realm and brought into concrete existence by faith...an exciting thought!

And Hebrews 3:14 talks about holding the beginning of our CONFIDENCE (hypostasis) stedfast until the end...in otherwords, the "stuff" that is really inside you needs to be held onto.

So how did things get so mixed up, and how did this word start getting used by trinitarian theologians to describe the persons in their godhead? The trinity is described as three hypostases in one "ousia"...meaning roughly three substances in one essence. It's a bunch of gobbledygook because it's supposed to be. "It's a mystery that our finite minds can't understand" they say (no one ever stopping to consdider that it doesn't make sense because it's illogical and absurd). Then they started to mix up the word hypostasis with the word "prosopon", which they were pleased to call "person", despite the history of THAT word. A little bit of linguistical hocus pocus later and Ta-DA (or Ta-Duh, depending on your perspective) you've got a scholarly, erudite-sounding, doctrine that says that God is three, but he's really one.

So what about a "hypostatic union"? All that means is that the divine and human natures were united in Christ...nothing more, and nothing less. And with that, I've got a suggestion: why don't we side step all of this silliness by refusing to debate about non-Biblical terminology and just get down to what the Bible says? Why should we trip ourselves up and fall all over ourselves trying to prove we believe or don't believe something when we're borrowing the terminology of "christianized pagans" to start with? These are the people who gave us amulates, scapularies, and praying before statues. These people would used this terminology right in the same writings in which they talked about Mary being the "ever-virgin mother of God"--and they burned, tortured, and killed people who didn't agree with them.

The Bible shows us that there is one God, who is an invisible spirit, and that God is one. The Bible shows us that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, that he was "God with us", and that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself". In fact, it says that all the fulness of the godhead dwelt in Christ bodily. The Bible shows us that God had a son, the man Christ Jesus, and as far as I'm concerned, the Bible also clearly shows that the son of God was very much a real human being, in verse after verse after verse. But more than being a just a man, Jesus said "my father and I are one" and "he that hath seen me hath seen the father", showing the union or fusion of humanity and deity. I can say all of that without one word about persons, hypostases, ousia, or prosopon.

Well I am trying to exricate myself from the discussion for now but of the available options one person with 2 modes of being does sound good and I have used it for a long time. However 2 modes of being does suggest two beings.

I would be quick to say One of them God and one of them man. If (human) being and person are the same I wind up with the same understanding. Two persons or 2 beings. YHWH himself manifest as man.

mizpeh

01-17-2007, 02:18 PM

Polaris,

It took Trinitarians 300 years to formulate a creed about the nature of God being a Trinity with much dispute I might add and then another 100 years to define how God was manifest in flesh, and now they have had over 1500 years to perfect this error. The principles that had to be agreed are that God is one in number, Jesus Christ is God, and there is a distinction between God and Jesus. To make these principles agree especially the third they came up with three persons in one substance who could relate to each other and are eternally related to each other.

I am tired of these terms as well. Unfortunately Dulle uses these terms to teach his Christology. It is hard to avoid them.

Human nature being added to a divine person is so vague. We are talking about an eternal omnipresent Spirit who has life in Himself and who creates life, becoming (being made) part of his creation (coming into the world). This same life giving Spirit who Jesus describes as "living water" fills every believer. John 7:38-39, John 4:10 How does that happen if the Holy Spirit is considered to be one person? How can we all have the mind of Christ if we define Christ as a person? 1 Corinthians 2:16, and Romans 8:10 And if Christ be in you....

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:

The concept of person as it pertains to God is inadequate IMO. Since God is the same everywhere at the same time, how do you find a person to add human nature to especially since God exists outside time and space. The LORD's nature apart from his "person" does not fill heaven and earth, with the "person" remaining in a localized area such as heaven but God himself, is everywhere.

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee:

Jeremiah 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

mizpeh

01-18-2007, 12:08 AM

Hello TLM,

But if you think you have a good grasp of all of this here some easy questions Mizpeh. Please don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature and all of that, the only thing I want to know in the following questions regards person, WHO.
Do you want my understanding of the prayer in the garden? If you do, then why are you from the outset trying to cut me off by saying "don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature"?

1.) When the Son was praying, WHO (what person) was praying to WHO (what person)?

The Son of God was praying to God, his Father. (I don't equate "who" with "person" unless the "who" is human)

2.) The Father loved the Son, and the Son loved the Father. What PERSON was loving WHAT person? WHAT PERSON (WHO) was in a personal relationship with WHAT PERSON (WHO)?

It seems you have answered your own question in the first line.

I am willing to give an explanation from my Oneness point of view, but your questions are worded bluntly and don’t call for anything other than a blunt answer. If you want me to define who the Son and Father are and how the Son being the same as the Father only in a different mode (6 a : a manifestation, form, or arrangement of being; specifically : a particular form or manifestation of an underlying substance) can pray without pretence or talking to himself, I will, but the wording of your questions don't call for it.

God's blessing to you,
Mizpeh

TheLayman

01-18-2007, 03:35 AM

Hello TLM,

Do you want my understanding of the prayer in the garden? If you do, then why are you from the outset trying to cut me off by saying "don't give me a bunch of stuff about human nature"?

No, I don't want your understanding of the prayer in the garden, I thought I said that already. I just wanted to know WHO was praying to WHO. That is a simple question. Incidentally Mixpeh, if someone is not yet talking (or writing) they can not be "cut off." Starting to sound like a victim already.

The Son of God was praying to God, his Father. (I don't equate "who" with "person" unless the "who" is human)

As I said earlier, you don't know how the term person is used in "theology" so I don't know why you would dive into this particular conversation. I'll help you out. If you go back and read my original posts that started this thread (that would be the topic) what I said, in a nutshell, was that if anyone asserts that Jesus Christ the Son of God was actually praying to someone other than Himself, then it necessarily requires two persons. This is using the same criteria that Trinitarians use for defining terms in their own theology. In fact, for those who assert that God is unipersonal (like Oneness Pentecostal), it not only requires that the Son is a separate person from the Father, he is also a separate created being.

It seems you have answered your own question in the first line.

I'm sorry Mizpeh, I had no idea my question was that confusing. I did not ask because I don't know the answer, I asked because I wanted your answer, so it would have been difficult for me to answer for you. But don't bother, I usually find some information even in non-answers.

I am willing to give an explanation from my Oneness point of view, but your questions are worded bluntly and don’t call for anything other than a blunt answer.

Actually Mizpeh, my questions were worded very simply and very specifically. But that victimhood is just rising up in you.

If you want me to define who the Son and Father are and how the Son being the same as the Father only in a different mode (6 a : a manifestation, form, or arrangement of being; specifically : a particular form or manifestation of an underlying substance) can pray without pretence or talking to himself, I will, but the wording of your questions don't call for it.

No, my questions called for what they called for and in the context of the Dullian Christology you decided you understood and would weigh in on. And you can equivocate and rationalize all day Mizpeh, and it will not change the point I made in my original post even one little bit. If you assert that Jesus Christ the Son of God truly prayed to someone other than Himself, if with regard to the Father you believe He truly had a loving relationship with someone other than Himself, then the Trintarian is immediately going to recognize that you are teaching two separate persons, two separate beings, your equivocations and rationalizations notwithstanding. Just a few posts back you said:

Creating personal distinctions between two subjects, Father and Son, God Transcendent and Incarnate, Spirit and Spirit/flesh does not necessarily have to mean two different persons. If the Son (God/flesh) percieves himself as human because he purposely functions through his human nature, he would not think of himself as God, you see, but as human, Son of man, that he is. Psychologically Jesus is other than God, as OP has said, but ontologically He is God as to person.

See where you said "the Son perceives himself" and where you said "he would not think of himself as God"? If you have one person, you have one "himself". And if your one himself does not think of himself as God, you have a Godless universe.

And you should really stop throwing around words you don't understand Mizpeh. This nonsense of "Psychologically Jesus is other than God...but ontologically He is God as to person." You know, a psychology does not pray or love, a person does. And if Jesus is "ontologically God as to His person," then He can not be psychologically other than his person. Sorry. This is just more double speak to avoid the use of the term "person." And avoiding it does not keep the Trinitarian from recognizing it. Remember Mixpeh, you can not be other than yourself (i.e. your own person), it is a contradiction of terms.

Lastly Mizpeh, I have told you before that arguing is a bad way to learn something. I can see where this is going. I will not "argue" this with you further because you're sporting for an argument, and you wear your feelings way to far out on your sleeve, you are in way over your head, and you are going to get your feelings hurt and get mad. Besides, as I said, the point of my original post was really quite easy to understand. Perhaps there are some that learned something from it. In fact if one understands the point I made you would know that trying to argue against it is a completely untenable position.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Banditt

01-18-2007, 04:02 AM

I have a question for the guy who has all the answers.

1)When God was a baby, was part of Gods mind aware that he was on Pluto as well as earth & the other part of Gods mind only knew he was on earth? or as a baby his baby mind only knew whatever babies know.(?)

2)When God was two months old, Was the 'big mind' of God looking down at himself & God was aware of when he had a poopy diaper & when he was breast feeding, while the baby mind (human nature) of God was not aware of his baby ways & baby mind?
I mean, what age did the 'baby man mind' catch up to the 'God mind' & become aware of such things- that is of course if we believe he was truly 100% a man.

Some people make it sound like God is schizophrenic & has two different minds like, especially with the dual nature stuff.
not that I care either way what people believe because it always sounds like moosh to me, but just wondering for those who claim to have oneness theory all figured out.:huh:
What say ye?

Banditt

01-18-2007, 04:05 AM

As I said earlier, you don't know how the term person is used in "theology" so I don't know why you would dive into this particular conversation.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Maybe the 'theology' terms & definitions are all wrong. (?)
:shrug:

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 04:35 AM

Praxeas, I don't have the time nor feel the need to defend myself against your labeling and denigrating, except to say this: I have been a practicing Apostlic Pentecostal for thirty years now. I believe that God is one, that Jesus is God, and in the born again experience described in Acts 2:38.
First of all I don't recall addressing you and denigrating you. Second of all I did not denigrate anyone. I never chided or rebuked or condemned anyone for their beliefs. I simply pointed out that to view Father and Son as two different persons is not modalism. To view the Son as just a man that was another PERSON from God is Unitarianism.

So pardon me, but I'm really not too concerned about your conclusion that I'm not an Apostolic.
Once again, I don't recall saying you were not Apostolic.....in fact I don't recall even addressing you personally.

If you honestly believe that the Apostolic, Oneness movement consists only of those who share your eccentric views about God becoming his own son, then I'm afraid you were never more mistaken.
My view is not eccentric and I don't see the need to become hostile. I never called anyone names. But unitarian is unitarian and adoptionist is adoptionist and modalist is modalist...My view that Father and Son are not two different persons is quite frankly very common in the Oneness movement.

I presented several clear examples from scripture of instances where God's son was shown to be a man, and where the notion that God had simply become his own son would have been absurd.
I never denied the Son is a man. This thread isn't or wasn't supposed to be about arguing over scriptures. TLM made a point that many people that claim to be Oneness believe in two persons. He is correct. He also stated that such a view is not Modalistic but Unitarian. He is correct. Oneness has ,since the it's beginning in the last century, been known to be a Modalistic type theology. Nobody is arguing on whether or not Jesus is a man...we all agree on that.

Rather than dealing with what I said, you declared that I wasn't an Apostolic, said I sound just like a trinitarian, said I was a unitarian or an adoptionist, and declared that I believed in "two persons".
Again you will have to quote me but I don't recall saying anyone here is not Apostolic. I don't even call Adam Pastor "not Apostolic" and I respect his views though I think he is wrong. But he admits his view is Unitarian in nature. Second as for sounding Trinitarian, I made a comment about certain arguments that sound Trinitarian...They do!

I have never EVER heard these arguments coming from a non Trinitarian until I encountered people claiming to be Oneness on this board. In fact the very argument and questions being made you can find in Trinitarian publications on "how to witness to a Oneness person"...so it's odd to hear a Oneness person making the same sort of attack as a Trinitarian.

Second I read posts here that declared the Son is someone OTHER than the Father...I read posts here that declare the Father and Son are NOT the same person. Posts here I am reading are arguing that Father and Son are two different persons. One is God and the other is a man. If you believe Father and Son are the same Person then my points don't apply to you. However if the Son is someone other than God...historically that Theology is called Unitarianism (when the Son is not God but is someone other than God and is only a man.

Then you came up with something about believing in "two Jesus's". Talk about ad hominem arguments.
An Ad Hominem argument is where someone personally attacks the other person...like if I called you an idiot...I did not do that and I am not implying it. Saying someone believes in two Jesuses is not an ad hominem argument.

Next Yes I think some here DO see two Jesus's...They have argued Father and Son are two different Persons. They have argued the Son is NOT God at all but just a man and they have argued the FAther IS God. They have then argued that Jesus IS God and Jesus IS a man...so Jesus is the Father (person A...just God) and Jesus is the Son (Person B...just a man)...it sounds like two persons and two Jesuses.

Praxeas, did you even bother to READ what I WROTE?
There are so many posters here. Im not even sure I was replying to you....can you give me a post number were I was replying directly to you?

Why don't you deal with what I presented rather than going on the attack mode?
As I said, I don't recall even directly addressing you or what you believe. However as I pointed out to someone ELSE...this thread is about another subject. On the other subject of whether or not the Son is just a man and not also God and is another person from the Father...I done that and then some only recently on a couple other threads.

I'm not really interested in repeating myself. So I refered that person to the other thread I started and another thread someone else started where we went into the subject at depth. If you want to make some specific points that are NOT pertaining to what TLM started here start a new thread and if I am interested in rehashing something I just got finished doing just weeks ago I will address whatever point or question you bring up as I have before on this forum. However if you just want a war of words and want to lob pejoratives then Im not really all that interested

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 04:36 AM

If you honestly think I am missing something or that I am mistaken, then explain things from your angle, and let's see who has the more tenable position.
Like I said, I don't even recall addressing you specifically. However the issue here is TLM's point that many Oneness persons really believe in two persons and that one of them is God and that the other is a man. That, no matter how it is repackaged, is a form of Unitarianism or Adoptionism and not Modalism

Unitarians don't believe in the deity of Jesus, Prax, and adoptionists do not accept the fusion between deity and humanity.
My previous comments were for those people here that say the Son is just a man, just flesh...no deity whatsoever AND that HE is another person from the Father. That is not modalism that is a form of Unitarianism and Adoptionism. Also let's be clear. Unitarians deny the SON is God. They deny the Deity of the Son. Many OPs though speak of Jesus as though He is two persons (two Jesuses)...one is God as the Father and the other is not God as the Son. Is Jesus one person and is that person both Father and Son? Or is the FAther one person and the Son another and Jesus is both? Im just asking questions...please don't get upset. Is Jesus 1 person that is 1 God person and then 1 Human person at the same time?

Or is Jesus 1 Person that is both Father and Son as two different modes or forms of being? Are Father and Son two different persons (the word person does not mean human it simply means an individual WHO or Self).

See Unitarians have two persons. One is Father and One is Son. The FAther is God. The Son is only a man (not Deity). The Adoptionist have something similiar except that he sort of became.

See often when OPs say "Jesus is God" they don't mean the Son. They mean the Father. Then they can turn around and say Jesus is not God because the Son is not God and Jesus is the Son. But Unitarians also don't believe the Son is God. That is why what some folks here are saying sounds like two Jesuses

The bit about two Jesus's is too ridiculous to be dignified with a response, so I'm not going to bother answering it. And as for sounding "just like a trinitarian", no, my brother, you've got that backwards...it is YOU who sounds like a trinitarian. Your position sounds so similar to the "God the Son" position that I'm inclined to ask what the difference is.
God the Son is a person in the Trinity that is someone OTHER than the Father....much like the Trinitarians, Arians (JWs) and Unitarians. Except Arians see him as a lessor deity and Unitarians see him as only a man. The term God the Son is used to imply that there is a person that has existed as God only, distinct person from the Father, before there ever was an incarnation.

I don't believe that. The Son is NOT someone other than the Father. They are the same 1 Personal Deity in different ways of being. So my view is so NOT like Trinitarians at all. Second the Son did not eternally exist as the Son. Before the Son was born there was only God. I do believe in the incarnation, much like Bernard does...God was the one that put on the human nature...not someone other than God. It was HIM. He was incarnate. Not two persons, but one. Neither Trinitarians, nor Unitarians nor Arians believe the Son is the same person as God in a different mode of being. Rather they all see the Son as another person from God.

I don't know everything, and I'm trying to learn more all the time. If you think I'm not seeing something correctly, I'll gladly hear you out, and I'm more than willing to change my position if I'm wrong. But from what I've seen so far, you've got a terribly sophomoric, incomplete Oneness Christology. In your zeal to defend the oneness of God and the deity of Jesus, you leave out the lamb of God, the MAN Christ Jesus, reducing God's beloved son to nothing more than God taking on a human role whereby he demonstrates sonship
Not at all. I have never once in any of my posts denied that Jesus is truely human. He has all the attributes and charactoristics that makes someone human. But WHO is Jesus? is Jesus two persons? Is Jesus one person that is two persons? BTW God did not take on a human "role"..I said He added a complete Human nature MAKING Him Human. That is what we have. We have a human nature. We have those human attributes and charactoristics that make us human.

And then you publicly condemn those who don't see it your way. Well, attacking us isn't going to make what we are saying go away, and it's sad that you feel the need to do that.
I never condemned anyone. Please show me where I condemned anyone? I never attacked you guys personally. I am telling you my opinion on what some folks are saying about the Father and Son being two different persons..one is God and one is man.

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 05:03 AM

Well I am trying to exricate myself from the discussion for now but of the available options one person with 2 modes of being does sound good and I have used it for a long time. However 2 modes of being does suggest two beings.

yes but the word "being" does not necessarily mean "person"...the word being means "exist"...even a rock exists...Let me put it this way. The Unipersonal Deity at the incarnation began to exist in two different ways.

He had his current Transcendent Omniscient, Omnipresent etc etc existence still and then he began to have a new way of existing which was as that man Christ Jesus. It was the same PERSON, but in a different way of being now with the Human attributes that makes someone human. Because He has this human nature it makes him functionally and psychologically different from the Father even though the core person, the hypostasis...is the same person.

having now a human nature...being Human...having a Human existence (Im using all those terms synonomously because a human being is a human being because they have human nature) this person's awareness is human.

Im avoiding the mechanics of trying to explain all that so this issue does not get clouded. That is what is happening with this thread. TLM is attempting to show that some OPs believe in two persons, which is NOT the same as Modalism which is what Oneness has historically been compared to. I think he is right, however I do disagree with him on other issues and on what Jason himself says and believes. But that is all getting off the topic.

That is why words like hypostasis and persona and prosopon are valuable. When we use just every day words we have a different notion of what those words mean. One person here thinks the word "person" means human. So when I say "the person of God" then think I mean something totally different from how I am using it...

I also use words like self, ego, who and what to try to simplify it more and yet still be accurate.

God is a who with a what (divine nature) Having a Divine nature is what makes God "God". The word nature simply means "those charactoristics that makes something or someone what they are" or what kind of person. Angels are persons with an angelic nature (divine). God is a person with The Divine nature (just one, unique). Humans are persons with a human nature.

I would be quick to say One of them God and one of them man. If (human) being and person are the same I wind up with the same understanding. Two persons or 2 beings. YHWH himself manifest as man.
A Person exists therefore a person is a being, but the two words are not equal. A human is a person, but a person is not necessarily human. An angel is a person. Angels, humans and God are all beings AND they are all persons. They all have natures. They all have some form of existence. They are persons.

But the word being itself does not imply person though it can be applied to a person. I am saying the one Person of God has two unique ways HIS person exists or has being.

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 05:06 AM

And with that, I've got a suggestion: why don't we side step all of this silliness by refusing to debate about non-Biblical terminology and just get down to what the Bible says?

I can say all of that without one word about persons, hypostases, ousia, or prosopon.

Hypostasis is a biblical word, used in Heb 1:3 in the KJV translated as "express image of His person".

prosopon is also a biblical term translated often as face, presence and sometimes as person.

TheLayman

01-18-2007, 05:41 AM

Maybe the 'theology' terms & definitions are all wrong. (?)
:shrug:

That is too funny. I'm always appreciative when someone like yourself denomstrate how your are going to approach a topic so I know whether to interact with that person in the future. How can a definition of a word be "wrong" if it is a definition that is understood? In other words, in theology the word "person" has a certain meaning which is understood and accepted, as do all words. Words are the smallest linguistic unit we have to communicate ideas (and from them we form things like sentences).

Now you may not use the term, you may not even understand the term as it is used in theology, but that does not mean that the word does not communicate a certain specific meaning within that discipline. Words are simply common points of reference to communicate ideas, concepts, and thoughts. Then when we construct sentences we have grammar, which of course involves things like subject/object distinctions.

Banditt

01-18-2007, 08:51 AM

That is too funny. I'm always appreciative when someone like yourself denomstrate how your are going to approach a topic so I know whether to interact with that person in the future. How can a definition of a word be "wrong" if it is a definition that is understood? In other words, in theology the word "person" has a certain meaning which is understood and accepted, as do all words. Words are the smallest linguistic unit we have to communicate ideas (and from them we form things like sentences).

Now you may not use the term, you may not even understand the term as it is used in theology, but that does not mean that the word does not communicate a certain specific meaning within that discipline. Words are simply common points of reference to communicate ideas, concepts, and thoughts. Then when we construct sentences we have grammar, which of course involves things like subject/object distinctions.

how can the definition/term be wrong? easy- unbiblical terms & definitions- just as the entire concept(s) can be wrong. which is why people never make any sense except to themselves. funny how that grammar/definitions change when it is convenient for each different theory on the market:shrug:

Banditt

01-18-2007, 09:16 AM

Polaris

01-18-2007, 10:00 AM

Yes, words do have meaning...but sometimes words are chosen because of their ambiguity, and when those same terms are repeated for hundreds of years, that nebulous aspect is still there...it never goes away. When it comes to discussions of the godhead, people still have a nebulous, "anything goes", "kinda-sorta" understanding of what a "person" is. That's why they have to split hairs between a "hypostasis" and an "ousia".

The early trinitarian didn't want to come out and say "beings", because that would seem polytheistic enough to scare people off, so they used /persona/--that way people could think of an actor putting on different masks. But they didn't really mean to imply that much singularity, either, so they redefined it--all in an effort to say that there are three thinking "centers of intelligence" (how's that for a buzz word?) in one "being"...but not three beings.

Funny thought: I have a cat. She is intelligent, as cats go. She meows when she's hungry and communicates clearly that she wants me to follow her into the kitchen to give her something to eat. Just because she is a thinking being, is she a person? Of course not...we all understand what a person really is. By the way, when she was born, the other kittens in her litter were of the same substances as she...did that unify them enough to make one feline being? Again, of course not. The point is, even in the natural realm we can point out the absurdity of what these early trinitarian theologians were trying to pull off. If they didn't mean person, then they should have said what they meant, not created a new definition of the word to suit themselves.

But what does absurdity matter to people who can torture and kill those who don't accept their position? When all else fails, they could always say "it's a mystery"...just like their definition of a person.

That is too funny. I'm always appreciative when someone like yourself denomstrate how your are going to approach a topic so I know whether to interact with that person in the future. How can a definition of a word be "wrong" if it is a definition that is understood? In other words, in theology the word "person" has a certain meaning which is understood and accepted, as do all words. Words are the smallest linguistic unit we have to communicate ideas (and from them we form things like sentences).

Now you may not use the term, you may not even understand the term as it is used in theology, but that does not mean that the word does not communicate a certain specific meaning within that discipline. Words are simply common points of reference to communicate ideas, concepts, and thoughts. Then when we construct sentences we have grammar, which of course involves things like subject/object distinctions.

mizpeh

01-18-2007, 12:38 PM

No, I don't want your understanding of the prayer in the garden, I thought I said that already. I just wanted to know WHO was praying to WHO. That is a simple question. Incidentally Mixpeh, if someone is not yet talking (or writing) they can not be "cut off." Starting to sound like a victim already.

As I said earlier, you don't know how the term person is used in "theology" so I don't know why you would dive into this particular conversation. I'll help you out. If you go back and read my original posts that started this thread (that would be the topic) what I said, in a nutshell, was that if anyone asserts that Jesus Christ the Son of God was actually praying to someone other than Himself, then it necessarily requires two persons. This is using the same criteria that Trinitarians use for defining terms in their own theology. In fact, for those who assert that God is unipersonal (like Oneness Pentecostal), it not only requires that the Son is a separate person from the Father, he is also a separate created being.

I'm sorry Mizpeh, I had no idea my question was that confusing. I did not ask because I don't know the answer, I asked because I wanted your answer, so it would have been difficult for me to answer for you. But don't bother, I usually find some information even in non-answers.

Actually Mizpeh, my questions were worded very simply and very specifically. But that victimhood is just rising up in you.

No, my questions called for what they called for and in the context of the Dullian Christology you decided you understood and would weigh in on. And you can equivocate and rationalize all day Mizpeh, and it will not change the point I made in my original post even one little bit. If you assert that Jesus Christ the Son of God truly prayed to someone other than Himself, if with regard to the Father you believe He truly had a loving relationship with someone other than Himself, then the Trintarian is immediately going to recognize that you are teaching two separate persons, two separate beings, your equivocations and rationalizations notwithstanding. Just a few posts back you said:

See where you said "the Son perceives himself" and where you said "he would not think of himself as God"? If you have one person, you have one "himself". And if your one himself does not think of himself as God, you have a Godless universe.

And you should really stop throwing around words you don't understand Mizpeh. This nonsense of "Psychologically Jesus is other than God...but ontologically He is God as to person." You know, a psychology does not pray or love, a person does. And if Jesus is "ontologically God as to His person," then He can not be psychologically other than his person. Sorry. This is just more double speak to avoid the use of the term "person." And avoiding it does not keep the Trinitarian from recognizing it. Remember Mixpeh, you can not be other than yourself (i.e. your own person), it is a contradiction of terms.

Lastly Mizpeh, I have told you before that arguing is a bad way to learn something. I can see where this is going. I will not "argue" this with you further because you're sporting for an argument, and you wear your feelings way to far out on your sleeve, you are in way over your head, and you are going to get your feelings hurt and get mad. Besides, as I said, the point of my original post was really quite easy to understand. Perhaps there are some that learned something from it. In fact if one understands the point I made you would know that trying to argue against it is a completely untenable position.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Layman,

If you had read my posts to you, you would have seen there was no arguing going on. My first post was trying to explain what I think Dulle teaches. It was an explanation.

My second post was more explanations of explanations and a couple of observations.

My last post was an answer to your questions which didn't leave much room for an answer. I thought they were hard to answer from my point of view because your wording included words I would not have used to describe the Son and the Father.

If you thought I felt I was being victimized, you were wrong. I felt you were trying to control the conversation by limiting me to what you wanted me to respond to.

Double speak? If I can show you what I mean with scriptures that God manifest in flesh walked on this earth with a human mind and thought of himself that way, as human, would it still be called double speak?

Mizpeh

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 03:44 PM

I see pejoratives have replaced rational explanation and dialogue...yet again

Polaris

01-18-2007, 09:23 PM

Hi, Prax,

I appreciate you going through all of this to answer what I said. I could go back through the posts and specifically cut and paste the things I bristled about, but what would be the point? You said you didn't mean anything personal, and I accept that. I just REALLY felt it was terribly presumptuous to come off like an "I'm Apostolic...and YOU'RE NOT" over a difference in our views about the son of God. But hurt feelings aside, let's examine this a little more closely, shall we?

It may be of interest to you to know that, in the early years, it was quite common for Apostolics to be referred to as Pentecostal Unitarians. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Unitarian Universalism or the Unitarian church...it was simply a way of distinguishing us from the trinitarian Pentecostals. I really don't mind the term.

I want to explain to you where I am coming from on this issue.
I really do think I understand your sonship doctrine. I understand that you believe the son of God was God adding to himself a human nature, etc. We're in agreement even with that, really, Praxeas...but where we differ is that I believe the flesh God took on was actually a human being, not just a nature, and not just a shell. I couldn't possibly care less about whether or not this makes it "two persons"...I have no vested interest in making the Bible come out to be saying one thing or another, and I'm not going to have such a reaction against what the trinitarians say that I end up in error myself by having the pendulum swing so far in the other direction that I deny the real, complete, son of God.

The reason I cannot and do not accept the notion that God's son was simply God adding a human nature to himself and becoming his own son is because I don't see a shred of Biblical evidence to support it. Where is this ever explained in the Bible? What verses back up the notion? Instead, I see a real man here whom God loved, and who knew he was God's son. I see the early church praying to God, and referring to "thy holy child Jesus". What an odd way to pray if they didn't recognize that God had a child named Jesus! Can you imagine someone from your faction of the Oneness movement praying like that?

I see a man telling his disciples "the father is greater than I". I see a man on the cross saying "my God, my God why has thou forsaken me." I see a man in the garden sweating (as it were) great drops of blood, praying "not my will but thine be done". I see a man on the cross saying "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". Was God putting on a charade for us? Was the Father robing himself in flesh so he could act like he was a man? I could go on, and on, and ON...what does all of that say about Jesus "really" just being God in a human form, "being" his own son?

The other problem I have with that position is that much of the Bible seems to become hollow and pointless if God didn't really have a child, a son of his own, a man who grew in favor with Him, and who surrendered his will to Him. The scriptures say "the Father loveth the son and hath given all things into his hand". They say that Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and favor WITH GOD and man. They say that God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all. The scriptures say that Jesus was heared in that he feared, and that he learned obedience through the things which he suffered, that he became obedient, and that the father loved him because he always did those things which pleased Him. God's son was more than just an image--either God loved his son and yet delivered him up for us, or that was just God himself doing what a son would do. Did the Father love his son? Did he give his son? Did Jesus really learn obedience? When Jesus died on the cross, that wasn't God's BELOVED son--someone He loved, who grew up in His sight? I know that God was in Christ and experiencing it with him...but that doesn't detract from the reality of this being God's son suffering for us. I simply can't accept that these were all just a divine demostrations of sonship, or that it was really just God in his "mode of sonship", somehow going through the motions of being a son. If that IS the case, then WHERE'S THE BIBLE for it? Where are the scriptures where that is explained?

Why don't the scriptures ever teach us that this was "really" simply God in human form, or God having taken on a human nature...why do they always talk about God's son on such individual terms?

Like I said, I don't even recall addressing you specifically. However the issue here is TLM's point that many Oneness persons really believe in two persons and that one of them is God and that the other is a man. That, no matter how it is repackaged, is a form of Unitarianism or Adoptionism and not Modalism

My previous comments were for those people here that say the Son is just a man, just flesh...no deity whatsoever AND that HE is another person from the Father. That is not modalism that is a form of Unitarianism and Adoptionism. Also let's be clear. Unitarians deny the SON is God. They deny the Deity of the Son. Many OPs though speak of Jesus as though He is two persons (two Jesuses)...one is God as the Father and the other is not God as the Son. Is Jesus one person and is that person both Father and Son? Or is the FAther one person and the Son another and Jesus is both? Im just asking questions...please don't get upset. Is Jesus 1 person that is 1 God person and then 1 Human person at the same time?

Or is Jesus 1 Person that is both Father and Son as two different modes or forms of being? Are Father and Son two different persons (the word person does not mean human it simply means an individual WHO or Self).

See Unitarians have two persons. One is Father and One is Son. The FAther is God. The Son is only a man (not Deity). The Adoptionist have something similiar except that he sort of became.

See often when OPs say "Jesus is God" they don't mean the Son. They mean the Father. Then they can turn around and say Jesus is not God because the Son is not God and Jesus is the Son. But Unitarians also don't believe the Son is God. That is why what some folks here are saying sounds like two Jesuses

God the Son is a person in the Trinity that is someone OTHER than the Father....much like the Trinitarians, Arians (JWs) and Unitarians. Except Arians see him as a lessor deity and Unitarians see him as only a man. The term God the Son is used to imply that there is a person that has existed as God only, distinct person from the Father, before there ever was an incarnation.

I don't believe that. The Son is NOT someone other than the Father. They are the same 1 Personal Deity in different ways of being. So my view is so NOT like Trinitarians at all. Second the Son did not eternally exist as the Son. Before the Son was born there was only God. I do believe in the incarnation, much like Bernard does...God was the one that put on the human nature...not someone other than God. It was HIM. He was incarnate. Not two persons, but one. Neither Trinitarians, nor Unitarians nor Arians believe the Son is the same person as God in a different mode of being. Rather they all see the Son as another person from God.

Not at all. I have never once in any of my posts denied that Jesus is truely human. He has all the attributes and charactoristics that makes someone human. But WHO is Jesus? is Jesus two persons? Is Jesus one person that is two persons? BTW God did not take on a human "role"..I said He added a complete Human nature MAKING Him Human. That is what we have. We have a human nature. We have those human attributes and charactoristics that make us human.

I never condemned anyone. Please show me where I condemned anyone? I never attacked you guys personally. I am telling you my opinion on what some folks are saying about the Father and Son being two different persons..one is God and one is man.

OriginalPraxeas

01-18-2007, 10:38 PM

I just REALLY felt it was terribly presumptuous to come off like an "I'm Apostolic...and YOU'RE NOT" over a difference in our views about the son of God. But hurt feelings aside, let's examine this a little more closely, shall we?
I believe what I DID say was "I am Oneness"...not "I am Apostolic"...Oneness refers specifically to a theological view of the godhead. I never implied others here did not believe in Acts 2:38.

We're in agreement even with that, really, Praxeas...but where we differ is that I believe the flesh God took on was actually a human being, not just a nature, and not just a shell.
I have never described the Human nature as a shell. In fact I repudiate such a notion many times. A "nature" as I explained before...is not an empty body of a shell that God went into. The word NATURE simply means those charactoristics that makes one what they are. And I also said explicitly verbatim that he was a human BEING. God became that human being by adding a human nature to His own person...not by going inside an empty shell of a body. But the word person is not equal to the word being. It was the PERSON of God that formed with the human nature a complete Human being. See? Two beings, but not two different persons. The word being also has as its basic meaning "existence"...and as I pointed out to Mike a rock has being...the question is what is the NATURE of that being?

I couldn't possibly care less about whether or not this makes it "two persons"...I have no vested interest in making the Bible come out to be saying one thing or another, and I'm not going to have such a reaction against what the trinitarians say that I end up in error myself by having the pendulum swing so far in the other direction that I deny the real, complete, son of God.
But the POINT is TLM's thread is about whether or not some OPs have two persons...is one of those persons just a man and the other God? that's Unitarian or Adoptionist. Is both of them God? that is binatarianism or Trinitarianism (with an extra person). Is one of them a lessor god? that is Arianism. That is the issue. You may not care but all I am doing is pointing out that to have two persons where one is God and the other is just a man is Unitarian like Adam Pastor.

Where you don't believe like Adam Pastor is another issue....Im not even sure I understand it what some are saying but by saying Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Father and they are two persons sounds like two jesuses to me. Now I have to deal with folks telling me THEIR opinion here that I have a son that is his own father....I think if they can say that or ask me questions I can state what their theology sounds like to me. It's not intended to be insulting. Its my observation

The reason I cannot and do not accept the notion that God's son was simply God adding a human nature to himself and becoming his own son is because I don't see a shred of Biblical evidence to support it. Where is this ever explained in the Bible? What verses back up the notion?
The problem I see, and one that i am constantly explaining, is what you believe the word "nature" means. You said a shell...an empty shell. But I said specifically explicitly that adding a human nature means God became a human BEING.

As for the scriptures I started a thread called "Who is the Son" that addresses that.

Instead, I see a real man here whom God loved, and who knew he was God's son.
I see a real man too! Adding a human nature to Himself MEANS exactly that....that He became a real genuine human. But the PERSON that now has that human nature and existence is the same Yahweh.

I see the early church praying to God, and referring to "thy holy child Jesus". What an odd way to pray if they didn't recognize that God had a child named Jesus! Can you imagine someone from your faction of the Oneness movement praying like that?
I have never denied that God did not have a real child Jesus.

I see a man telling his disciples "the father is greater than I".
I DO TOO!!!

I see a man on the cross saying "my God, my God why has thou forsaken me." I see a man in the garden sweating (as it were) great drops of blood, praying "not my will but thine be done". I see a man on the cross saying "Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit". Was God putting on a charade for us? Was the Father robing himself in flesh so he could act like he was a man? I could go on, and on, and ON...what does all of that say about Jesus "really" just being God in a human form, "being" his own son?
I see a genuine real human being. Because He had a genuine REAL human nature.

The other problem I have with that position is that much of the Bible seems to become hollow and pointless if God didn't really have a child, a son of his own, a man who grew in favor with Him, and who surrendered his will to Him.

He really had a son, a child. He really was a man. He really did surrender His will. When God added a human nature He got a Human WILL. It is distinct from the Divine will

God's son was more than just an image--either God loved his son and yet delivered him up for us, or that was just God himself doing what a son would do. Did the Father love his son? Did he give his son? Did Jesus really learn obedience?
yes..please see my post to Mike. I've never said he was just an image...

Why don't the scriptures ever teach us that this was "really" simply God in human form, or God having taken on a human nature...why do they always talk about God's son on such individual terms?
It DOES teach He was God in a human form. See my thread on "who is the Son" for the scriptures.

Norman

01-22-2007, 05:24 PM

The Son is NOT "just his flesh"...even David Bernard concedes that the term "Son" refers to both Deity and Humanity together.

I don't agree with that. The Son is that human person that was born at Bethlehem and whose mother was Mary, and Mary was not the mother of God.

Mike Williamson

01-22-2007, 06:00 PM

I don't agree with that. The Son is that human person that was born at Bethlehem and whose mother was Mary, and Mary was not the mother of God.

THANK you!!!

If the flesh is God, then we have a "God the son". THAT would make us "twoness"

TheLayman

01-22-2007, 06:12 PM

THANK you!!!

If the flesh is God, then we have a "God the son". THAT would make us "twoness"

I beg to differ. I used the term "twoness" and defined my meaning, I was not ambiguous. I specifically said that by "twoness" I did not mean binatarian (that would be two divine persons). I said simply that with regard to the Father and Son Oneness posit two persons as you and Norman just did. And once again, the bigger point I am making is that Trinitarians when discussing these issues with Oneness are not aware of this fact and so someone like myself can watch everyone talk past each other all day and not even understand the other one.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Mike Williamson

01-22-2007, 06:15 PM

I beg to differ. I used the term "twoness" and defined my meaning, I was not ambiguous. I specifically said that by "twoness" I did not mean binatarian (that would be two divine persons). I said simply that with regard to the Father and Son Oneness posit two persons as you and Norman just did. And once again, the bigger point I am making is that Trinitarians when discussing these issues with Oneness are not aware of this fact and so someone like myself can watch everyone talk past each other all day and not even understand the other one.

Blessings,
TheLayman

I wasn't referring to you or anything you said in my comment.

mizpeh

01-22-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=253696#post253696)
I don't agree with that. The Son is that human person that was born at Bethlehem and whose mother was Mary, and Mary was not the mother of God.

THANK you!!!

If the flesh is God, then we have a "God the son". THAT would make us "twoness"

I'm not sure I understand either of you. Do you believe this verse is true?

1Ti 3:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=1ti+3:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If yes, who was manifest in the flesh _______, who was justified in the Spirit______, who was seen of angels _____, who was preached unto the Gentiles ______, who was believed on in the world ______, and who was received up into glory ______?

Or this verse: Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

Who purchased the church with his own blood?________

One more verse: Heb 1:8 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+1:8&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

What is the Son called in this verse _______. This is prophetically speaking of the Son and His throne.

OriginalPraxeas

01-22-2007, 09:45 PM

THANK you!!!

If the flesh is God, then we have a "God the son". THAT would make us "twoness"

The problem here is that Neither I nor David Bernard says "the flesh is God"...

When we say "The Son is God" you wrongly interepret the word "Son" to mean "just his flesh only"...

That is NOT how we are using the word Son. The word Son refers to HIM (God) who was incarnate IN Flesh. Deity and Humanity together. The Son is the person of God WITH both a Divine nature and a Human nature.

It was the Human nature that Mary conceived.

The SON said "when you have seen me you have seen the Father"....The SON said "Before Abraham was, I AM"....

OriginalPraxeas

01-22-2007, 09:47 PM

I'm not sure I understand either of you. Do you believe this verse is true?

1Ti 3:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=1ti+3:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If yes, who was manifest in the flesh _______, who was justified in the Spirit______, who was seen of angels _____, who was preached unto the Gentiles ______, who was believed on in the world ______, and who was received up into glory ______?

Or this verse: Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

Who purchased the church with his own blood?________

One more verse: Heb 1:8 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+1:8&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

What is the Son called in this verse _______. This is prophetically speaking of the Son and His throne.

I think you see the same problem I have. They are equating the term Son with flesh only. And then when I say "The Son is God" they go "The flesh is
God"..This why it's so important to distinguish between a WHO and a WHAT...person and nature.

Mike Williamson

01-23-2007, 09:23 AM

The problem here is that Neither I nor David Bernard says "the flesh is God"...

When we say "The Son is God" you wrongly interepret the word "Son" to mean "just his flesh only"...

That is NOT how we are using the word Son. The word Son refers to HIM (God) who was incarnate IN Flesh. Deity and Humanity together. The Son is the person of God WITH both a Divine nature and a Human nature.

It was the Human nature that Mary conceived.

The SON said "when you have seen me you have seen the Father"....The SON said "Before Abraham was, I AM"....

That, I think, is where some of the confusion is...when I say "son" I am referring to the human, fleshly part of Jesus...the part that was conceived, born, grew up, etc.

I think we agree on much more than we disagree on.

Polaris

01-23-2007, 09:52 AM

In Jesus, Deity (the Father) experienced humanity, and humanity (the son of God) experienced deity. There is a fusion and a crossover between the identity of both "sides", such that Jesus was both God in flesh and God's son. However, God most emphatically did NOT become his own son. God is a spirit, and God is the Father.

What do we mean when we say human nature? Natures can't die on crosses (or be born of a woman, for that matter). Think about it---no man hath seen God at any time---was the son invisible? God cannot be tempted with evil, yet the son was tempted in all points as are we, yet without sin. God cannot die--did Jesus "REALLY" die on the cross?

All of that to say that the son was more than God taking on a human nature. On a strictly finite, human level, the son of God was a man.

That, I think, is where some of the confusion is...when I say "son" I am referring to the human, fleshly part of Jesus...the part that was conceived, born, grew up, etc.

I think we agree on much more than we disagree on.

davidkc

01-27-2007, 09:12 PM

I have found this a very interesting thread with some thought-provoking contributions. Thanks.

It seems to me that Layman has asked questions which have not been fully answered in the writings of Bernard and Dulle. There is an inescapable ‘twoness’, a duality, when considering Jesus and God. There are two centres of consciousness, and two wills, and so on.

For example consider the prayer of Jesus, to be genuine it needs two - one praying and one being prayed to. As Layman points out, one ‘nature’ cannot pray to another ‘nature’.

Dulle and Bernard
I have just read Dulle's Christology. I like his emphasis on the claim that everything Jesus said and did he did as a man anointed by God. He has a formula ‘latent deity in genuine humanity’. Although this is not a biblical phrase, there are scriptures to support it. Dulle’s account makes more sense than Bernard’s view which is (as I understand it) that at some times Jesus acts out of his humanity and at some times out of his deity (the Oneness View of Jesus Christ) – although I must add that Bernard also insists that Jesus was fully human and had an integrated consciousness.

So far, so good, with Dulle. But then how can the claim that Jesus is God be reconciled both with Jesus' humanity and with the oneness of God? Dulle, after describing Jesus’ genuine humanity and latent deity, in order to account for Jesus’ prayer, suddenly (it seems) introduces God outside Jesus. Instead of one God, there are now two – Jesus who is God and also God as well to whom Jesus prays.

Bernard has a similar difficulty I think, but he describes the ‘twoness’ in terms of Jesus’ dual nature or of God transcendent and God immanent. He has the added problem of asserting that Jesus was truly human and has an integrated consciousness while also saying that he speaks at times as God and at other times as a man.

Both writers have a ‘twoness’ not a oneness. Perhaps this is inevitable – but it should be recognised.

Oneness Pentecostal Christology has, I believe, two main challenges
1) how to account for Jesus’ prayer and his relationship with God
2) how to interpret sayings of Jesus that suggest a heavenly origin eg John 6:38 and John 17:5

1) I have already discussed.
To try to explain 2), Bernard and others interpret ‘I came down from heaven’ in John 6:38 as God talking. Then the challenge is how to interpret the second half of the sentence ‘not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me’. (Recently I had an interesting correspondence with Bernard on this verse.)

Trinitarian Christology
My understanding of Trinitarian Christology leads me to conclude that it is fatally flawed because it interprets Jesus’ talk about his relationship with ‘the Father’ in terms of the relationship between two Persons in the Godhead. Thus, the Trinitarian has a natural interpretation of John 6:38 – ‘God the Son’ came down from heaven to do the will of ‘God the Father’. What could be the problem with that?

The problem is that the Trinitarian account then has Jesus speaking sometimes as man and sometimes as ‘God the Son’. I believe that this contradicts Jesus’ genuine humanity (essentially the same problem as for Bernard described above). Jesus has a consciousness of his identity as ‘God the Son’, with memory of the time with the Father before the world was, somehow co-existing with a human consciousness and no memories before his birth in Bethlehem. Impossible, I say, if Jesus has an integrated personality and is genuinely human.

Suggestions
1) It might be helpful if we did not use the term ‘person’ so glibly when talking about God. Agreed Jesus was, and I think still is, a human person. But God is God. God is other than man. God is transcendent. God is the Almighty. God is a spirit. We should beware of talk that brings Him down to our level, which talk about Him as a ‘person’ tends to do.

2) It should be recognised there is a ‘twoness’, but this is better described as the twoness of the man Jesus Christ and God, rather than two ‘persons’ which have the same kind of existence. (Bernard I think has at times written in these terms).

3) It should also be recognised that this ‘twoness’ must persist post-resurrection, and our accounts must be consisten with that. I believe that this is often ignored on the Oneness Pentecostal side. I do not believe Dulle addresses it. Jesus continues to be a mediator after his ascension (I Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-8:1)

4) If Jesus is God, then he cannot be God in the same way that he is man. I am no expert on ‘Chalcedonian mechanics’, but I have read and heard a lot of glib assertions that Jesus is fully God as well as fully human, without any real understanding of the problems that Jesus being God might pose for the understanding of his humanity. I do not think that Jesus’ deity can be understood as somehow ‘bolted on’ to his humanity.
But perhaps Layman will help me out on this point!

Anyway, here's to the spirit of co-operation to discover the truth together (the idealist in me speaking there) ...

mizpeh

01-27-2007, 10:15 PM

Hello David,

3) It should also be recognised that this ‘twoness’ must persist post-resurrection, and our accounts must be consisten with that. I believe that this is often ignored on the Oneness Pentecostal side. I do not believe Dulle addresses it. Jesus continues to be a mediator after his ascension (I Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-8:1)

I had emailed Jason Dulle a month ago asking if the divine nature of Jesus would remain "latent" once 1Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. was fullfilled. The answer was yes. He attached an unpublished article which addressed the issue and also this paragraph: Yes, so long as the incarnation is permanent...and it is. Jesus will forever be God's human mode of existence. So long as Jesus is human, He experiences human limitations. But of course we know that the divine person who became man in Christ did not cease being and functioning as God transcendent to the incarnation. So it's not as if an everlasting kenosis somehow limits God. God is no more limited by an everlasting kenosis than He was limited while Jesus walked the Earth. See my article titled "Can God be God if the Incarnation is Permanent (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/godbegod.htm)" for further reading.

There is also an thread on this site which addresses your concern about Jesus continuing on as mediator after the resurrection and Jesus having a God. Re 3:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+3:12&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) It is called "The dual nature" by Donny Cage.

Anyway, here's to the spirit of co-operation to discover the truth together (the idealist in me speaking there) ...

I sincerely hope so. :)

mizpeh

01-27-2007, 11:16 PM

Oneness Pentecostal Christology has, I believe, two main challenges
1) how to account for Jesus’ prayer and his relationship with God
2) how to interpret sayings of Jesus that suggest a heavenly origin eg John 6:38 and John 17:5

1) I have already discussed.
To try to explain 2), Bernard and others interpret ‘I came down from heaven’ in John 6:38 as God talking. Then the challenge is how to interpret the second half of the sentence ‘not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me’. (Recently I had an interesting correspondence with Bernard on this verse.)

David,

I'd appreciate your thoughts on how I interpret John 6:38.

I believe in John 6:38, Jesus spoke as a man throughout the whole sentence. I agree with Dulle that Jesus did not take advantage of his divine nature when He walked this earth as a man anointed of God. Jesus knew where He came from. He stated He came out of God and proceeded forth from the Father. This knowledge was revealed to Him by God just as the words He spoke and the miracles He did were given to Him by His Father. When He was 12 y/o, He wanted to be about His Father's business. If Jesus functioned through his human nature at all times and was made in all things like as we are, how did Jesus know his Father was the Holy Spirit if it was not revealed to Him? Was Jesus born with preexistent knowledge? I don't think so. The Father showed Him all things.

So Jesus knew He came down from heaven (meaning He came from God) and as man He has a will other than his Father's will.

keith4him

01-27-2007, 11:42 PM

I will not be labor on this point, I am no scholar on the oneness of God, others are and I appreciate their work. I have chosen to focus on other areas. But the term oneness can be a misnomer, the originators of this term believed that there was a real distinct 3 ness to the Godhead but drew a line so as to emphasis God's essential oneness versus the trinitarian concept that emphasis God's threeness.

The old timers AD Urshan and Haywood, Goss and others had no problem using terms like the 3 in one God, or the tri-une God (I am doing this from memory so I am open to a reference that disputes this).

I went to Bible College and Seminary with Dulle and he has become a capable scholar. I appreciate his concerns to bring some correctives to the Oneness movement.

OriginalPraxeas

01-28-2007, 03:57 AM

mizpeh

01-28-2007, 07:39 AM

In Dulle's Theology the Latent Deity that is in Christ is not another God from God "outside" Christ.

That's really not a correct understanding of what Dulle is teaching. According to Jason the Father and Son are ontologically the same as far as the Divine essence goes...not simply "of the same stuff"....like you and I might be. They have the same nature...not "have the same type of nature".

The PERSON of Father and Son are the same.

It's not "a God that is outside the Son"...it's rather the same PERSON that exists both AS the Son and AS the Father which is both IN the Son and EXTERNAL to the Son. The same Divine essence of the Father is both In the Humanity and as well continues to exist undivided outside the humanity.

I understand and agree with what you are saying but I also believe Christ was anointed of God apart from who He was ontologically.

The very "self" of Christ is God, yet functioning as a human through a genuine human nature. And because He functioned as a man and not as God (His divine nature was "latent" due to the kenosis) Jesus could say truthfully He could do nothing of his own self. Therefore Jesus needed to be anointed of God or filled with the Holy Ghost to do the works and say the words of the Father. Joh 5:30 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:30&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 5:20 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:20&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 14:10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+14:10&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 17:8 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+17:8&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 12:49 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+12:49&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 5:19 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:19&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 7:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+7:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Lu 4:18 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+4:18&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Ac 10:38 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+10:38&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Lu 4:1 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+4:1&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

I hope I have made myself more clear. If not, go here: The Ministry of Christ as it Relates to the Kenosis (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/christology.htm#Anchor6)

OriginalPraxeas

01-28-2007, 04:56 PM

I understand and agree with what you are saying but I also believe Christ was anointed of God apart from who He was ontologically.

The very "self" of Christ is God, yet functioning as a human through a genuine human nature. And because He functioned as a man and not as God (His divine nature was "latent" due to the kenosis) Jesus could say truthfully He could do nothing of his own self. Therefore Jesus needed to be anointed of God or filled with the Holy Ghost to do the works and say the words of the Father. Joh 5:30 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:30&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 5:20 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:20&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 14:10 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+14:10&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 17:8 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+17:8&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 12:49 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+12:49&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 5:19 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:19&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Joh 7:16 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+7:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Lu 4:18 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+4:18&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Ac 10:38 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+10:38&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Lu 4:1 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+4:1&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)

I hope I have made myself more clear. If not, go here: The Ministry of Christ as it Relates to the Kenosis (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/christology.htm#Anchor6)

Everything starting with BUT I never even addressed in my post. My point was only that the person I was quoting wrongly said Jason had two Gods...not understanding that there is no division of the Divine nature

TheLayman

01-28-2007, 05:33 PM

Hello David:

In answering your post I have the opportunity to emphasize the point that I was making in my original post which I think some my have missed. So, I will attempt to clarify that point and emphasize it further down below.

I have found this a very interesting thread with some thought-provoking contributions. Thanks.

It seems to me that Layman has asked questions which have not been fully answered in the writings of Bernard and Dulle. There is an inescapable ‘twoness’, a duality, when considering Jesus and God. There are two centres of consciousness, and two wills, and so on.

For example consider the prayer of Jesus, to be genuine it needs two - one praying and one being prayed to. As Layman points out, one ‘nature’ cannot pray to another ‘nature’.

Dulle and Bernard
I have just read Dulle's Christology. I like his emphasis on the claim that everything Jesus said and did he did as a man anointed by God. He has a formula ‘latent deity in genuine humanity’. Although this is not a biblical phrase, there are scriptures to support it. Dulle’s account makes more sense than Bernard’s view which is (as I understand it) that at some times Jesus acts out of his humanity and at some times out of his deity (the Oneness View of Jesus Christ) – although I must add that Bernard also insists that Jesus was fully human and had an integrated consciousness.

So far, so good, with Dulle. But then how can the claim that Jesus is God be reconciled both with Jesus' humanity and with the oneness of God? Dulle, after describing Jesus’ genuine humanity and latent deity, in order to account for Jesus’ prayer, suddenly (it seems) introduces God outside Jesus. Instead of one God, there are now two – Jesus who is God and also God as well to whom Jesus prays.

Bernard has a similar difficulty I think, but he describes the ‘twoness’ in terms of Jesus’ dual nature or of God transcendent and God immanent. He has the added problem of asserting that Jesus was truly human and has an integrated consciousness while also saying that he speaks at times as God and at other times as a man.

Both writers have a ‘twoness’ not a oneness. Perhaps this is inevitable – but it should be recognised.

Oneness Pentecostal Christology has, I believe, two main challenges
1) how to account for Jesus’ prayer and his relationship with God
2) how to interpret sayings of Jesus that suggest a heavenly origin eg John 6:38 and John 17:5

1) I have already discussed.
To try to explain 2), Bernard and others interpret ‘I came down from heaven’ in John 6:38 as God talking. Then the challenge is how to interpret the second half of the sentence ‘not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me’. (Recently I had an interesting correspondence with Bernard on this verse.)

Good place to stop in order to clarify the point I was making in this thread (and you are certainly getting part of the point). There is actually a thread on page 2 that I will bump to the top that was written by a Oneness Pentecostal. The question regarding the nature of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is what is it that Oneness Pentecostals must have in common in order to be considered "Oneness." He gives many more examples of differing views of Oneness than I gave in my original post. The conclusion in the post is that to be Oneness you must reject the Trinity, i.e. you must reject mulitple persons. This is why you may see me refer to Oneness theology/Christology as anti-doctrine rather than doctrine in that it defines itself by what it is against much more than codifying an affirmative belief.

With that one must assume that when one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity that they understand what it is they are rejecting. For example, if one rejects the three persons of the Trinity they are using the definition that Trinitarians use regarding "person" and not using a defintion defining them as "people." I say this with the understanding that even after thousands of converstations I have never met a Oneness Pentecostal who really knew what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Thus my point, to wit:

If I look at Oneness Pentecostal teachings and take the elements of those teachings and use the same criteria to define them as I would use in my own (Trinitarian) theology/Christology, Oneness Pentecostals have a theology/Christology which teaches:

Two persons; one divine and one human
Two beings; one divine and one human

Whereas Trinitarian theology/Christology teaches:

Three persons; all divine
One being
One of the divine persons added human nature to Himself without suffering and division whatsoever.

Once again I emphasize that when I use the same criteria for determining being, person, nature for both Trinitarian and Oneness explanations, that is the result in your basic nutshell. So the question in reality becomes, do Oneness Pentecostals have an aversion to a word (regardless of its meaning) or to what is actually taught? As Origen said:

"Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty..." Origen (c. 225, E), 4.380

This is what I tried to explain to Praxeas. Jason even goes so far as to claim he does not create an additional person according to Trinitarian definitions when in fact, that is exactly what he does, he creates another person, indeed, another being.

Trinitarian Christology
My understanding of Trinitarian Christology leads me to conclude that it is fatally flawed because it interprets Jesus’ talk about his relationship with ‘the Father’ in terms of the relationship between two Persons in the Godhead. Thus, the Trinitarian has a natural interpretation of John 6:38 – ‘God the Son’ came down from heaven to do the will of ‘God the Father’. What could be the problem with that?

The problem is that the Trinitarian account then has Jesus speaking sometimes as man and sometimes as ‘God the Son’. I believe that this contradicts Jesus’ genuine humanity (essentially the same problem as for Bernard described above). Jesus has a consciousness of his identity as ‘God the Son’, with memory of the time with the Father before the world was, somehow co-existing with a human consciousness and no memories before his birth in Bethlehem. Impossible, I say, if Jesus has an integrated personality and is genuinely human.

I'd say you have two forms of incorrect methodology above. The first one is that your description of Trinitarian methodology is incorrect. You said, "Thus, the Trinitarian has a natural interpretation of John 6:38 – ‘God the Son’ came down from heaven to do the will of ‘God the Father’." Trinitarian doctrine does not, did not begin with dogma as a theological construct which it strains Scripture through. Trinitarian doctrine was obtained from Scripture. In other words, Trinitarians don't read their doctrine into Scripture, but obtain their doctrine from it. This is very important to understand.

On the other hand Oneness begin with a theological construct which, as I said above is more anti-doctrine than doctrine in the affirmative. It begins with the notion that there can not be more than one "person" (some of the problems with that proposition have already been highlighted). So it is most usual for a Oneness Pentecostal to approach a Scripture with that construct and say, "It can't mean..." John 17:5 "can't mean the Son was with the Father before the universe existed." Phil. 2:5-8 "can't be talking about the preincarnate Son of God condescending to become man." John 1:1-18, Col. 1:12-1:17, Heb. 1:1-2 can not be talking about the the Son of God actually existing with His Father not only before creation, but being the one through whom all things were created. And so on.

In short, it is in my view inevitable that the Oneness construct (i.e. dogma) that these passage will be strained through begin with the assumption of "they can't mean what they say." Everything from the context, to the word, to the grammar itself will be done violence until almost nothing of what the passage actually said is left. The Trinitarian will argue that it meas what it says, it means what it says in the English, it means what it says in the Greek, they will go to context, words, and grammar. Or perhaps claim that anachronisms exist even though they don't exist and therefore can't be demonstrated within the text.

Lastly, and this is also very important, you said: "What could be the problem with that? The problem is that the Trinitarian account then has Jesus speaking sometimes as man and sometimes as ‘God the Son’." The problem with this is you have basically read Jason's Christology into the Trinity. Trinitarians do not have the Son speaking sometimes as "man" and sometimes as "God the Son." Trinitarians ever and always have the Son speaking only as the Son who possesses both divine and human natures. When the Son hungered, it was because of human nature, but there was not another "purely theistic Son" somewhere else who did not hunger. The one person of the Son added human nature to his person, and therefore, the one person of the Son hungered. It is called the "communicatio idiomatum." But that is beyond the scope here.

TheLayman

01-28-2007, 05:34 PM

Suggestions
1) It might be helpful if we did not use the term ‘person’ so glibly when talking about God. Agreed Jesus was, and I think still is, a human person. But God is God. God is other than man. God is transcendent. God is the Almighty. God is a spirit. We should beware of talk that brings Him down to our level, which talk about Him as a ‘person’ tends to do
.

I don't know in what sense you are using the term "person." Secondly, God uses anthropomorphic language Himself. That which is "personal" ontologically speaking is a person (not necessarily a human being). Personal pronouns are used of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, indeed, emphatic personal pronouns.

2) It should be recognised there is a ‘twoness’, but this is better described as the twoness of the man Jesus Christ and God, rather than two ‘persons’ which have the same kind of existence. (Bernard I think has at times written in these terms).

David, this is simply trying to equivocate your problem away which may work for those that wish to believe as you do. But once again, applying the same criteria to your belief as mine and using the same terminology for both, you will have two persons, two beings, one created and one not. Trinitarians will have three persons who are ONE uncreated, immutable being.

3) It should also be recognised that this ‘twoness’ must persist post-resurrection, and our accounts must be consisten with that. I believe that this is often ignored on the Oneness Pentecostal side. I do not believe Dulle addresses it. Jesus continues to be a mediator after his ascension (I Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-8:1)

4) If Jesus is God, then he cannot be God in the same way that he is man. I am no expert on ‘Chalcedonian mechanics’, but I have read and heard a lot of glib assertions that Jesus is fully God as well as fully human, without any real understanding of the problems that Jesus being God might pose for the understanding of his humanity. I do not think that Jesus’ deity can be understood as somehow ‘bolted on’ to his humanity.
But perhaps Layman will help me out on this point!

I believe I can help you with #4 but it will have to wait for another thread and another day. I will check in over the next couple of weeks but my time is pretty much spoken for and some work I must absolutely finish.

Again, I don't know in what way you are using the word "glib" so it makes it hard for me to comment. I would only say very briefly that a Trinitarian believes the Son, who has always been, was incarnated meaning He assumed humanity (nature, not a person), humanity did not assume Him.

Anyway, here's to the spirit of co-operation to discover the truth together (the idealist in me speaking there) ...

That would be nice. We will have to be very specific in each thread what we are discussing and not stray. As I said, I don't have much time at all over the next few weeks and as I was tpying the end of this post we received a phone call saying my brother-in-law is in the hospital and my be dying. So I have to tend to the hearts of my wife and mother-in-law, and be about some prayers.

Blessings,
TheLayman

davidkc

01-28-2007, 08:10 PM

HI Layman
You have said a lot there. Sorry to hear about your personal circumstances. Best wishes for you and your family.

In the light of that, maybe not appropriate to make detailed comments now. I think I will post some in a few days time.

But briefly,
1) I was not trying to 'equivocate my problem away'. I was trying to make what I think is a perfectly valid point, that Jesus and God do not have the same kind of existence and that it may mislead to describe them as two 'persons'.

2) Contrary to the spirit of Origen's statement, I think that a great deal rests on the meaning and use of the word 'person'. It has had different meanings in the history of doctrine, as I think we are well aware. These different understandings persist to this day. I try to highlight these in my book, but I know that many others have as well. You cannot have a constructive debate if the protaganists have different understandings of the key words used.

3) You dispute that Christ according to the Trinity thinks and speaks sometimes as a man and sometimes as 'God the Son', saying he always speaks as the Son who has both divine and human nature.

Yet there are times when the divine nature is operating aren't there, such as when he is considered to have omniscience (John 21:17?) and when he displays memory of his time with the Father (John 17:5) and of his mission to earth (John 6:38). My point is that no genuine human being could have those memories or know all things without his sanity being questioned. If Jesus is not to be considered to have a split personality, then the Trinitarian account calls his humanity into question. I repeat my point, that one cannot just ‘bolt on’ divinity to a genuine human nature and expect it to stay authentically human (I speak conceptually). Nothing I have read about trinitarian Christology has answered this point. It is not enough, I say, to simply assert that God the Son has a genuine human nature and leave it there.

So, anyway I am sure that you will be able to improve my understanding of trinitarianism on this point (no sarcasm intended). It will be good to be able to go a little deeper into how Chalcedon is supposed to work.

Blessings

David

essaias

01-30-2007, 06:34 PM

I repeat my point, that one cannot just ‘bolt on’ divinity to a genuine human nature and expect it to stay authentically human (I speak conceptually).

Why not?

davidkc

01-30-2007, 07:57 PM

Why not?

Hi Essaias

I tried to explain why in the paragraph that you took this quote from. The trinitarian claim is that Jesus is the same person as a divine 'God the Son' and yet also genuinely human. But a genuine and sane human being cannot (for example) exercise omniscience, or be conscious of being the Second Person of a Trinity or remember his time with a 'First Person' before the world was. This is the point I make in my book
(plug coming ...)
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

I have not seen any really satisfying answer to this from the trinitarian side. I have seen plenty of assertions that Christ was completely human and also God the Son, but without any real explanation as to how this can be - beyond the usual 'It is a mystery'.

essaias

01-31-2007, 04:07 AM

Hi Essaias

I tried to explain why in the paragraph that you took this quote from. The trinitarian claim is that Jesus is the same person as a divine 'God the Son' and yet also genuinely human. But a genuine and sane human being cannot (for example) exercise omniscience, or be conscious of being the Second Person of a Trinity or remember his time with a 'First Person' before the world was. This is the point I make in my book
(plug coming ...)
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

I have not seen any really satisfying answer to this from the trinitarian side. I have seen plenty of assertions that Christ was completely human and also God the Son, but without any real explanation as to how this can be - beyond the usual 'It is a mystery'.

I am not seeing how God could not assume to Himself a complete human nature and still retain sanity, which seems to be what you are saying.

For a man to have memories of life prior to incarnation would be considered "insane" only by modern, secular psychological theories, which deny the pre-existence of the human soul. The vast majority of non secular cultures have accepted the concept of either transmigration, or pre-existence, hence "insane" is a completely relative concept.

For a man to have memories of being God would be considered insane by those same standards (secular). They would be considered blasphemous or symptomatic of demon possession among many 1st century pious Jews.

But again, the "insanity" charge is a matter of perspective. Would such an awareness BE the "insanity"? In that case, then the insanity only consists in a man holding to an opinion of himself which is denied by others. IE a matter of "opinion". Or perhaps you are suggesting that a man with such awareness would descend into a state in which he could no longer function mentally?

Is that what you are suggesting? That a man with an awareness of himself as being both a man and the omnipotent, omnipresent God, could not function in any ordinary sense? Suffering mental breakdown and dissociative problems, inability to carry on rational thought processes, etc?

Besides all that, is it not possible for God to assume a human nature to Himself WITHOUT causing the human nature to "go insane" or otherwise breakdown from the supposed "strain" of such knowledge?

I really don't see the evidence that supports your contention. Perhaps I misunderstand your contention to begin with...???

complete

01-31-2007, 05:19 AM

mizpeh

01-31-2007, 08:55 AM

Essaias,

Do you think the man, Jesus Christ, spoke sometimes as God and sometimes as a human? What would that suggest to you, psychologically speaking, if He did speak in such a way?

davidkc

01-31-2007, 07:06 PM

davidkc,

Do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, can you give us a satisfying answer as to how that came about? Be very specific.

Hi finishedwork

I am not sure I see the relevance of the question to the thread or to my quoted comment. But about the virgin birth, I would take my cue from Luke 1:34 " ... I know not a man". As to how it came about, Luke 1:35 would sum up my belief. Were you wanting something more specific than that? If so, I am not sure I can provide it.

Blessings

David

davidkc

01-31-2007, 08:02 PM

I am not seeing how God could not assume to Himself a complete human nature and still retain sanity, which seems to be what you are saying.

Essaias

Thanks for this.

I did not actually say that God could not assume to Himself a complete human nature and still retain sanity. I was more specific, and directing my criticism at the particular form of the ‘God-man’ which I believe that the Trinity hypothesis requires. If you read what I wrote in the full context, I hope you will see that.

The first question might be to ask what is meant by 'assumes a complete human nature' - not to reject, but to clarify. I think it is important to try to define what we mean - especially with technical theological phrases like this which are not found in the Bible. My argument is that, whatever it does mean, it cannot be a ‘bolt on’ of divinity on top of genuine humanity.

By divinity ‘bolted on’ to humanity (I welcome the chance to clarify) I mean in that in the man Jesus Christ there are for instance 2 sets of memories (one dating from Nazareth, one dating from the beginning with ‘the Father’) and 2 sets of knowledge (one omniscience, one limited by human ignorance). I argue that the co-existence of such ‘bolt-on’ divinity in the single person of Christ, although not impossible, would contradict genuine humanity.

For a man to have memories of life prior to incarnation would be considered "insane" only by modern, secular psychological theories, which deny the pre-existence of the human soul. The vast majority of non secular cultures have accepted the concept of either transmigration, or pre-existence, hence "insane" is a completely relative concept.

For a man to have memories of being God would be considered insane by those same standards (secular). They would be considered blasphemous or symptomatic of demon possession among many 1st century pious Jews.

But again, the "insanity" charge is a matter of perspective. Would such an awareness BE the "insanity"? In that case, then the insanity only consists in a man holding to an opinion of himself which is denied by others. IE a matter of "opinion". Or perhaps you are suggesting that a man with such awareness would descend into a state in which he could no longer function mentally?

I take your points about sanity. Certainly, if our God ever wished to occupy a human body and share it with a human personality in such a ‘bolt on’ way I am sure He could do so without mental breakdown resulting. But I do not believe that is the truth of the incarnation.

Is that what you are suggesting? That a man with an awareness of himself as being both a man and the omnipotent, omnipresent God, could not function in any ordinary sense? Suffering mental breakdown and dissociative problems, inability to carry on rational thought processes, etc?

Besides all that, is it not possible for God to assume a human nature to Himself WITHOUT causing the human nature to "go insane" or otherwise breakdown from the supposed "strain" of such knowledge?

I am not suggesting that a man with an awareness of himself as a man and as God could not function. But I am suggesting that such a man would manifest a split personality, and thus represent more of a ‘Clark Kent/Superman’ type of existence than genuine humanity. I hope that my point is clear here.

I think that on this matter I am saying the same as Jason Dulle in his Christology paper, if I understand him correctly. I like it that Dulle asks the difficult questions which Trinitarians often gloss over. Dulle argues that Jesus in his earthly life functions as an anointed man. I argue in my book that Jesus in his earthly life thought and spoke as a man at all times, even when he functioned 'as God' eg when forgiving sins or performing miracles.

I am arguing against the Trinitarian view that the ‘I’ of Jesus, a single Person with a human nature and a divine nature, could talk about his descent from heaven to do the Father’s will in John 6:38 and his time with the Father before the world was in John 17:5, and still be completely human with an integrated personality. I would argue that such sayings as these need to be interpreted differently, and that there was never a time when a ‘God the Son’ descended from heaven to do the will of a ‘God the Father’, nor was there any time in the beginning when two divine personages existed side by side sharing glory together.

I am aware of how fallible and imperfect we are in our search for the truth about our Lord, and how easy is to stray into doctrine that is unsupported by scripture. Certainly I would not claim to have the final word - far far from it. But I do believe that the phrase 'fully God and fully man' is sometimes used by both Oneness and Trinitarian in a rather glib way without an appreciation of the implications of the 'fully God' for the 'full humanity' of Jesus. I think this is what Dulle tries to tackle, and in my book I attempt to do so as well.

Glad to discuss further. God bless.

complete

02-01-2007, 05:07 AM

Hi finishedwork

I am not sure I see the relevance of the question to the thread or to my quoted comment. But about the virgin birth, I would take my cue from Luke 1:34 " ... I know not a man". As to how it came about, Luke 1:35 would sum up my belief. Were you wanting something more specific than that? If so, I am not sure I can provide it.

Blessings

David

davidkc,

I know you're having difficulty in understanding. Please give it some more thought.

My question begs a very specific answer on the mechanics of the virgin birth...the inner workings if you will. Explain, with very exacting detail the conception...etc. etc. In other words provide a satisfying answer for me other than "it is just a mystery"...Ok?

Also, please observe that you used Bible text to provide an answer to my question.

thank you

davidkc

02-01-2007, 11:13 AM

davidkc,

I know you're having difficulty in understanding. Please give it some more thought.

My question begs a very specific answer on the mechanics of the virgin birth...the inner workings if you will. Explain, with very exacting detail the conception...etc. etc. In other words provide a satisfying answer for me other than "it is just a mystery"...Ok?

Also, please observe that you used Bible text to provide an answer to my question.

thank you

Dear finishedwork,

I am not quite sure where you are going with these questions, nor can I see the relevance to Layman's question at the beginning or the relevance to my comment which you quoted. So I am obviously having difficulty understanding. Could you explain please?

Also your observation that I used Bible text to try to answer your question seems to suggest that it is somehow illegitimate to do so. Do you believe there is a problem in citing scripture to to try to deal with doctrinal points?

essaias

02-01-2007, 11:46 AM

Essaias

Thanks for this.

I did not actually say that God could not assume to Himself a complete human nature and still retain sanity. I was more specific, and directing my criticism at the particular form of the ‘God-man’ which I believe that the Trinity hypothesis requires. If you read what I wrote in the full context, I hope you will see that.

The first question might be to ask what is meant by 'assumes a complete human nature' - not to reject, but to clarify. I think it is important to try to define what we mean - especially with technical theological phrases like this which are not found in the Bible. My argument is that, whatever it does mean, it cannot be a ‘bolt on’ of divinity on top of genuine humanity.

By divinity ‘bolted on’ to humanity (I welcome the chance to clarify) I mean in that in the man Jesus Christ there are for instance 2 sets of memories (one dating from Nazareth, one dating from the beginning with ‘the Father’) and 2 sets of knowledge (one omniscience, one limited by human ignorance). I argue that the co-existence of such ‘bolt-on’ divinity in the single person of Christ, although not impossible, would contradict genuine humanity.

I take your points about sanity. Certainly, if our God ever wished to occupy a human body and share it with a human personality in such a ‘bolt on’ way I am sure He could do so without mental breakdown resulting. But I do not believe that is the truth of the incarnation.

I am not suggesting that a man with an awareness of himself as a man and as God could not function. But I am suggesting that such a man would manifest a split personality, and thus represent more of a ‘Clark Kent/Superman’ type of existence than genuine humanity. I hope that my point is clear here.

I think that on this matter I am saying the same as Jason Dulle in his Christology paper, if I understand him correctly. I like it that Dulle asks the difficult questions which Trinitarians often gloss over. Dulle argues that Jesus in his earthly life functions as an anointed man. I argue in my book that Jesus in his earthly life thought and spoke as a man at all times, even when he functioned 'as God' eg when forgiving sins or performing miracles.

I am arguing against the Trinitarian view that the ‘I’ of Jesus, a single Person with a human nature and a divine nature, could talk about his descent from heaven to do the Father’s will in John 6:38 and his time with the Father before the world was in John 17:5, and still be completely human with an integrated personality. I would argue that such sayings as these need to be interpreted differently, and that there was never a time when a ‘God the Son’ descended from heaven to do the will of a ‘God the Father’, nor was there any time in the beginning when two divine personages existed side by side sharing glory together.

I am aware of how fallible and imperfect we are in our search for the truth about our Lord, and how easy is to stray into doctrine that is unsupported by scripture. Certainly I would not claim to have the final word - far far from it. But I do believe that the phrase 'fully God and fully man' is sometimes used by both Oneness and Trinitarian in a rather glib way without an appreciation of the implications of the 'fully God' for the 'full humanity' of Jesus. I think this is what Dulle tries to tackle, and in my book I attempt to do so as well.

Glad to discuss further. God bless.

Okay, I get what you are getting at now, now that I got to read your post. :)

Question: Does your understanding/explanation regarding Christology posit two persons, one human (Jesus Christ) and one Divine (God)? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a distinct person, fully human, from God?

I personally tend to believe that God became a man, and therefore Jesus "acted" like a man. This may seem to suggest a "two person" Christology, where one person (Jesus Christ) is human, and the other person (God) is divine. However, I have a problem with defining God as "a person".

I do believe there is one God, and that the man Jesus Christ is, in some perhaps inexplicable manner, God, that He is "our great God and saviour", that He is "God manifest in the flesh".

I do also believe that this is indeed a "mystery", per Paul, and that it is THIS issue - the incarnation - that will tend to defy human comprehension.

I have enjoyed reading your posts. I will search back and read some more.

Also, you mentioned your "book". How may I obtain a copy of the book?

davidkc

02-01-2007, 01:02 PM

Okay, I get what you are getting at now, now that I got to read your post. :)

Question: Does your understanding/explanation regarding Christology posit two persons, one human (Jesus Christ) and one Divine (God)? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a distinct person, fully human, from God?

I personally tend to believe that God became a man, and therefore Jesus "acted" like a man. This may seem to suggest a "two person" Christology, where one person (Jesus Christ) is human, and the other person (God) is divine. However, I have a problem with defining God as "a person".

I do believe there is one God, and that the man Jesus Christ is, in some perhaps inexplicable manner, God, that He is "our great God and saviour", that He is "God manifest in the flesh".

I do also believe that this is indeed a "mystery", per Paul, and that it is THIS issue - the incarnation - that will tend to defy human comprehension.

I have enjoyed reading your posts. I will search back and read some more.

Also, you mentioned your "book". How may I obtain a copy of the book?

Thanks Essaias
I appreciate the comments. Seems a fruitful area for debate.
I will try to reply later when I have more time
Can I just quickly give the link to my book (downloads free- plug!)
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

davidkc

02-01-2007, 08:31 PM

Okay, I get what you are getting at now, now that I got to read your post.

Question: Does your understanding/explanation regarding Christology posit two persons, one human (Jesus Christ) and one Divine (God)? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a distinct person, fully human, from God?

I personally tend to believe that God became a man, and therefore Jesus "acted" like a man. This may seem to suggest a "two person" Christology, where one person (Jesus Christ) is human, and the other person (God) is divine. However, I have a problem with defining God as "a person".

Like you I have a problem defining God as a person. That was one of the points on my original post on this thread. Jesus is undeniably a human person. But God is WHO HE IS, the Almighty, the Creator. He is a spirit. I think we should beware of trying to define God with our tiny minds and using the concepts that we employ when talking about human persons.

Re your question, I do believe that the Bible consistently shows Jesus Christ as a distinct person from God, and fully human. This is not to gainsay or deny the well-known texts that indicate deity in some sense. But the whole pattern of his ministry and his life shows a man dependent on God, praying to God as outside himself, giving all glory to God, receiving authority from God (eg Matt 28:18, John 5:17). He said “I can of mine own self do nothing …” (John 5:30). In 1992 I attended a seminar that Brother Robert Sabin gave to the UPC Conference in the UK, and he made this point very strongly. It made a big impression on me. I think that Dulle makes the same point.

Jesus had to be human through and through, in order to be the mediator (1 Tim 2:5) the great high priest ever living to make intercession (Hebrews 7:25ff) and the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14). Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, but this does not subtract from his humanity. Our Trinitarian friends may perhaps not disagree with this (it is after all ‘without controversy’!). I would however, disagree with their explanations in terms of a 'God the Son' and their interpretations of Jesus’ sayings like John 6:38 and 17:5.

I do believe there is one God, and that the man Jesus Christ is, in some perhaps inexplicable manner, God, that He is "our great God and saviour", that He is "God manifest in the flesh".

I do also believe that this is indeed a "mystery", per Paul, and that it is THIS issue - the incarnation - that will tend to defy human comprehension.

I would heartily agree that the Incarnation is the mystery that will defy our understanding – but we may still say and talk about what God says about it in his Word, and we may reject what is inconsistent with that. David Bernard makes the point very strongly that the Trinity is an unbiblical, man-made, mystery, whereas the Incarnation is a biblical, divine, mystery.

We may agree that this mystery has been partly unveiled in the Word. I would argue as well that we know enough from the Bible to know that Jesus being God manifest in the flesh does not mean that he is ‘God’ in the same kind of way that he is human, that his ‘divinity’ is not something ‘bolted on’ (in the sense I described above) to his humanity, and that he is not the incarnation of a Second Person of a Trinity.

Blessings

David

OriginalPraxeas

02-01-2007, 09:06 PM

Okay, I get what you are getting at now, now that I got to read your post. :)

Question: Does your understanding/explanation regarding Christology posit two persons, one human (Jesus Christ) and one Divine (God)? Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ is a distinct person, fully human, from God?

I personally tend to believe that God became a man, and therefore Jesus "acted" like a man. This may seem to suggest a "two person" Christology, where one person (Jesus Christ) is human, and the other person (God) is divine. However, I have a problem with defining God as "a person".

I do believe there is one God, and that the man Jesus Christ is, in some perhaps inexplicable manner, God, that He is "our great God and saviour", that He is "God manifest in the flesh".

I do also believe that this is indeed a "mystery", per Paul, and that it is THIS issue - the incarnation - that will tend to defy human comprehension.

I have enjoyed reading your posts. I will search back and read some more.

Also, you mentioned your "book". How may I obtain a copy of the book?
Everytime I word it like that, despite my explanation to the contrary...someone suggests I meant "pretend"...so I use the word "functioned" instead hoping it might be a better word

OriginalPraxeas

02-01-2007, 09:11 PM

Like you I have a problem defining God as a person. That was one of the points on my original post on this thread. Jesus is undeniably a human person. But God is WHO HE IS, the Almighty, the Creator. He is a spirit. I think we should beware of trying to define God with our tiny minds and using the concepts that we employ when talking about human persons.

Re your question, I do believe that the Bible consistently shows Jesus Christ as a distinct person from God, and fully human. This is not to gainsay or deny the well-known texts that indicate deity in some sense. But the whole pattern of his ministry and his life shows a man dependent on God, praying to God as outside himself, giving all glory to God, receiving authority from God (eg Matt 28:18, John 5:17). He said “I can of mine own self do nothing …” (John 5:30). In 1992 I attended a seminar that Brother Robert Sabin gave to the UPC Conference in the UK, and he made this point very strongly. It made a big impression on me. I think that Dulle makes the same point.

Jesus had to be human through and through, in order to be the mediator (1 Tim 2:5) the great high priest ever living to make intercession (Hebrews 7:25ff) and the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 9:14). Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, but this does not subtract from his humanity. Our Trinitarian friends may perhaps not disagree with this (it is after all ‘without controversy’!). I would however, disagree with their explanations in terms of a 'God the Son' and their interpretations of Jesus’ sayings like John 6:38 and 17:5.

I would heartily agree that the Incarnation is the mystery that will defy our understanding – but we may still say and talk about what God says about it in his Word, and we may reject what is inconsistent with that. David Bernard makes the point very strongly that the Trinity is an unbiblical, man-made, mystery, whereas the Incarnation is a biblical, divine, mystery.

We may agree that this mystery has been partly unveiled in the Word. I would argue as well that we know enough from the Bible to know that Jesus being God manifest in the flesh does not mean that he is ‘God’ in the same kind of way that he is human, that his ‘divinity’ is not something ‘bolted on’ (in the sense I described above) to his humanity, and that he is not the incarnation of a Second Person of a Trinity.

Blessings

David
Saying God is a person is NOT ascribing humanness to God. It's a biblical word used for God in the KJV. And the same greek word used for Jesus "person" is used of God. It's prosopon and it has been translated as person, face and presense. The only other word is hupostasis which the KJV translates as person.

The "person" there is the WHO...or the inward part of an individuals being...God is a WHO...He is the I AM. And Jesus identified Himself in this mannor also...as the I AM.

Trinitarians say Father, son and Holy Ghost are three WHOs or SELFS...three hupostasis.

What it seems that some OPs are doing is literally claiming two WHO's or hupostasis...one is God and one is Human.

OriginalPraxeas

02-01-2007, 09:14 PM

davidkc

02-02-2007, 11:58 AM

BTW Jason might agree that the scriptures grammatically portray Jesus speaking as a distinct person from God but Jason would not say Jesus is in fact someone other than God hypostatically. He says they are the same ego, same self...the same person...the same hypostasis.

He does go on to explain that the human nature makes Jesus functionally someone other than God and infact the Son is someone other than God on a psychological level.

I've already presented all the quotes from Jason verbatim

Praxeas
Thanks for the link to Dulle's article on Jesus' prayer. I will read it and post a comment later maybe.

But in the meantime, could I say that it does sound to me that Dulle (and you?) are saying that Jesus and God are the same self, the same person. If so, how do we account for 'My Father is great than I'? and how can we explain Jesus' prayer as a pattern for us, if Jesus was praying to the same 'self', the same 'hypostasis' as himself, while our prayers to God are to a different 'hypostasis' from ourselves.

OriginalPraxeas

02-02-2007, 08:43 PM

Praxeas
Thanks for the link to Dulle's article on Jesus' prayer. I will read it and post a comment later maybe.

But in the meantime, could I say that it does sound to me that Dulle (and you?) are saying that Jesus and God are the same self, the same person. If so, how do we account for 'My Father is great than I'? and how can we explain Jesus' prayer as a pattern for us, if Jesus was praying to the same 'self', the same 'hypostasis' as himself, while our prayers to God are to a different 'hypostasis' from ourselves.
I've explained that in detail many times. As I said Jesus is hypostatically the same but psychologically he is not, He has a complete Human nature and like Essias said about acts..I prefer function...the human nature is so real that it gives him a distinct human mind and will. Thus he is functionally someone other than God...He acts as though he was someone other than God. Not acting as in a play, but function.

He has a human will...he can say My FAther is greater than I because he can say "Not my will, but yours be done"..

complete

02-03-2007, 08:33 AM

...avenue to help you understand my point. The statement that follows is yours. You had to think about what you typed before you typed it. You had to formulate some sort of a thought process even before that. Here it is:

Originally Posted by davidkc
Hi Essaias

I tried to explain why in the paragraph that you took this quote from. The trinitarian claim is that Jesus is the same person as a divine 'God the Son' and yet also genuinely human. But a genuine and sane human being cannot (for example) exercise omniscience, or be conscious of being the Second Person of a Trinity or remember his time with a 'First Person' before the world was. This is the point I make in my book
(plug coming ...)
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

I have not seen any really satisfying answer to this from the trinitarian side. I have seen plenty of assertions that Christ was completely human and also God the Son, but without any real explanation as to how this can be - beyond the usual 'It is a mystery'.

Now, the Trinitarian claim is fully supported by Scripture: Heb 2 and 3, Phil 2, John 1 etc. etc. As I have read several of your posts, you do not accept that view. Correct?

You are not satisfied with the Creedal answers. Correct? You are not satisfied with explanations in the current topic. Correct? BTW, can you define what you would accept as a real explanation? (as you state above)

If I can speculate for a moment....you want exacting answers..correct?
Something you're satisfied with. Well, from your one post in this thread (above) I am asking you why you do not accept the Bible's answer to your dilemma? The Bible states Jesus existed as the Son, previous to His incarnation; the Bible states He has a father; the Bible states His reign the Son, will never end; the Bible states (and Jesus Himself says) He is God; the Bible states etc. etc. It seems you want to know exactly and precisely the mechanics of how an infinite God can perform, if you will, this revealing of Himself. What answer will you accept? We give an answer from the Bible. As a matter of fact, you did the same for me when I asked you to give me exacting details of the virgin birth. See where I'm going here?

Hopefully, this answer sparks some thought.

If another thread needs to be started, we can do that.

thank you

davidkc

02-03-2007, 08:49 PM

I've explained that in detail many times. As I said Jesus is hypostatically the same but psychologically he is not, He has a complete Human nature and like Essias said about acts..I prefer function...the human nature is so real that it gives him a distinct human mind and will. Thus he is functionally someone other than God...He acts as though he was someone other than God. Not acting as in a play, but function.

He has a human will...he can say My FAther is greater than I because he can say "Not my will, but yours be done"..

Thanks Praxeas.
I am sorry that I have missed your previous explanations - unless they were on this thread. I am fairly new to this forum, and new to Dulle's writings.

I have just read Dulle's paper on Jesus' prayer which you linked to. I am afraid I am confused by some aspects, although some parts make a lot of sense. According to Dulle, natures do not pray, people pray (p11) (I would agree!). So it must be Jesus the person who is praying. But Dulle also insists (p3, 11) that God is the only personal subject in Christ. So I deduce that Dulle means that when Jesus prays, it must be God praying, and therefore God is praying to himself. However I do not believe that Dulle wishes to draw that conclusion. That is why I am confused.

In my comment I expressed the thought that Jesus’ prayer had to be a pattern for us, therefore it has to be a man praying to God who is different, a different personal subject from himself. I do not see Dulle’s explanation as according with this principle.

I am also confused by whether Dulle thinks Jesus had an integrated personality. He insists on it, yet he seems to agree with what he thinks is the Trinitarian idea that Jesus had both human and divine consciousnesses (p9). That seems to contradict the idea that Jesus had an integrated personality.

Regarding your answer, thanks. I understand you saying that Jesus acts as though he were someone other than God, but he is not really someone other than God – yet this is not a play act. I wonder if Jesus knew that he was not really someone other from God when he said ‘My Father is greater than I’? When Jesus speaks, it must be God speaking – as I understand Dulle and yourself saying, as God is the only personal subject in Christ. So when he said ‘My Father is greater than I’, did he know he was not speaking the truth?

I ask these questions not to try to pick holes for the sake of it. I want to get to as near the truth as the Lord wishes us to go. I believe in the oneness of God, and that explanations of Jesus’ deity in terms of a ‘God the Son’ are futile and unbiblical. But I am still having trouble with Dulle’s explanations. Help!

davidkc

02-03-2007, 08:59 PM

...avenue to help you understand my point. The statement that follows is yours. You had to think about what you typed before you typed it. You had to formulate some sort of a thought process even before that. Here it is:

Now, the Trinitarian claim is fully supported by Scripture: Heb 2 and 3, Phil 2, John 1 etc. etc. As I have read several of your posts, you do not accept that view. Correct?

You are not satisfied with the Creedal answers. Correct? You are not satisfied with explanations in the current topic. Correct? BTW, can you define what you would accept as a real explanation? (as you state above)

If I can speculate for a moment....you want exacting answers..correct?
Something you're satisfied with. Well, from your one post in this thread (above) I am asking you why you do not accept the Bible's answer to your dilemma? The Bible states Jesus existed as the Son, previous to His incarnation; the Bible states He has a father; the Bible states His reign the Son, will never end; the Bible states (and Jesus Himself says) He is God; the Bible states etc. etc. It seems you want to know exactly and precisely the mechanics of how an infinite God can perform, if you will, this revealing of Himself. What answer will you accept? We give an answer from the Bible. As a matter of fact, you did the same for me when I asked you to give me exacting details of the virgin birth. See where I'm going here?

Hopefully, this answer sparks some thought.

If another thread needs to be started, we can do that.

thank you

Thanks Finshedwork

I can see where you are going a bit more clearly. I would maintain that doctrine should be supported by scripture. However I would argue that the Trinity is not stated in Heb 2 and 3, Phil 2 or John 1, and that the Bible does not say that Jesus existed as the Son previous to his incarnation. What may be crystal clear to you is not so to me.
I tried to deal with eg John 1 and Phil 2 in my book. Have a look if you like, downloads are free.
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

Glad to discuss - yes maybe another thread. Maybe you could start it up, or would you like me to?

Thank you for being so clear. I appreciate your insistence on seeking the authority of scripture.

Blessings

David

OriginalPraxeas

02-03-2007, 09:08 PM

Thanks Praxeas.
. So I deduce that Dulle means that when Jesus prays, it must be God praying, and therefore God is praying to himself. However I do not believe that Dulle wishes to draw that conclusion. That is why I am confused.

God is praying, but He is praying THROUGH His human nature. Because in the Son God has a human mind and will He is able to pray as though He were someone other than God. As I said, He is psychologically different from the Father. He is not hypostatically someone other than the Father...as the Son he is Psychologically someone other than the Father

In my comment I expressed the thought that Jesus’ prayer had to be a pattern for us, therefore it has to be a man praying to God who is different, a different personal subject from himself. I do not see Dulle’s explanation as according with this principle.
That, historically, is Unitarianism though..or adoptionism. I have never known Oneness to be a twoness...two personal subjects or two hypostasis. Trinitarians, Unitarians, Adoptionists, Arians and even Islam all teach that. Modalism, on the other hand, has one personal subject that assumes three different modes of being...

Have you heard of the economic Trinity? I've never even heard Bernard say two personal subjects. And even more...others here will be angry with me...it doesn't make sense to say "Jesus is God" and yet say Jesus is the Father and Son...It sounds like there are two Jesus's.

Other OPs had 1 personal subject named Jesus and they in turn made Father and Son just his two natures. You seem to be fully aware that a nature is not a person. So it becomes even more confusing to me to find Oneness Pentecostals that made two personal subjects out of Father and Son and yet say Jesus is God and there is just one Jesus....even though they say Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Father.

How is there One Jesus in that case? How is Jesus 1?

I am also confused by whether Dulle thinks Jesus had an integrated personality. He insists on it, yet he seems to agree with what he thinks is the Trinitarian idea that Jesus had both human and divine consciousnesses (p9). That seems to contradict the idea that Jesus had an integrated personality.
I have no idea what you mean by "integrated personality"...in fact I don't even know what you mean by integrated or personality.

I don't think Jason ever says "two conciousnesses"...rather He says the person of God becomes conciously aware of Himself throught he human nature/attributes/mind and will etc etc.

BTW you seemed to be denying that Jesus had a human conciousness and a divine one....are you either saying Jesus is God and not human or Jesus is Human and not God?

Regarding your answer, thanks. I understand you saying that Jesus acts as though he were someone other than God, but he is not really someone other than God – yet this is not a play act. I wonder if Jesus knew that he was not really someone other from God when he said ‘My Father is greater than I’? When Jesus speaks, it must be God speaking – as I understand Dulle and yourself saying, as God is the only personal subject in Christ. So when he said ‘My Father is greater than I’, did he know he was not speaking the truth?
How is it not the truth? If he felt as though he were someone other than God how is that not the truth? If His reality and perception is as someone other than God..how is that not the truth? If his mind and will are distinct from the Divine mind and will, now is that not the truth? If he was FUNCTIONALLY someone other than God...how is that not the truth. He did not act as in taking a role to play. When I say act I mean the word like function..like taking action. If I said "it's time to act, we need to reach the lost" I don't mean something like an actor pretending to do something.

I ask these questions not to try to pick holes for the sake of it. I want to get to as near the truth as the Lord wishes us to go. I believe in the oneness of God, and that explanations of Jesus’ deity in terms of a ‘God the Son’ are futile and unbiblical. But I am still having trouble with Dulle’s explanations. Help!
No oneness person is saying a God the Son. The Deity of the Son is the Deity of the Father. A God the Son implies a second divine PERSON that has always been a divine person

davidkc

02-04-2007, 08:11 PM

Thanks Praxeas

I need to consider what you have said and study some more
But here are some comments on how I understand you.
I asked you some questions about Dulle, and I am not sure that you have answered them. Maybe you have! I will read and reflect.

You have asked me some questions and I will try to answer them.

I do wish that I had a fully worked-out Christology like it seems that you and Dulle have. Sometimes I feel that the more I study and pray, the less certain I am about who Jesus is - although I become more and more certain that he is not a 'God the Son'

God is praying, but He is praying THROUGH His human nature. Because in the Son God has a human mind and will He is able to pray as though He were someone other than God. As I said, He is psychologically different from the Father. He is not hypostatically someone other than the Father...as the Son he is Psychologically someone other than the Father

I hear what you say I think, but it sounds to me like you are saying Jesus is praying as though he were someone other than God. So it must be different from our prayer mustn't it - because we pray as beings actually different from God. That was the point I was trying to make.

That, historically, is Unitarianism though..or adoptionism. I have never known Oneness to be a twoness...two personal subjects or two hypostasis. Trinitarians, Unitarians, Adoptionists, Arians and even Islam all teach that. Modalism, on the other hand, has one personal subject that assumes three different modes of being...
Perhaps you are correct here, although labels can be misused and misunderstood. I take it you do not mean Unitarian in the same sense in which Trinitarians describe Oneness Pentecostals. I used to be an out and out modalist when I became an apostolic. Then I read Bernard's book, and after a while started to wonder if saying 'Jesus is the Father' is a truly biblical sentiment. Then I heard that other oneness believers disagreed with that as well.

Have you heard of the economic Trinity? I've never even heard Bernard say two personal subjects. And even more...others here will be angry with me...it doesn't make sense to say "Jesus is God" and yet say Jesus is the Father and Son...It sounds like there are two Jesus's.

Other OPs had 1 personal subject named Jesus and they in turn made Father and Son just his two natures. You seem to be fully aware that a nature is not a person. So it becomes even more confusing to me to find Oneness Pentecostals that made two personal subjects out of Father and Son and yet say Jesus is God and there is just one Jesus....even though they say Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Father.

How is there One Jesus in that case? How is Jesus 1?

Yes I have heard of the economic Trinity? Some theologians (eg Barth)who have studied the Trinity have realised that the only way they can understand it is in economic terms.
When you say 'other OPs' are you referring to me? I am not sure I can identify what I believe in that paragraph.

I have no idea what you mean by "integrated personality"...in fact I don't even know what you mean by integrated or personality.
Sorry, I thought we all know what was meant, and I thought Dulle was claiming that for Jesus. I mean a single centre of consciousness, single memory, single will, single everything that makes up a man’s personality. Opposite of what might be called a split personality.

I don't think Jason ever says "two conciousnesses"...rather He says the person of God becomes conciously aware of Himself throught he human nature/attributes/mind and will etc etc.

BTW you seemed to be denying that Jesus had a human conciousness and a divine one....are you either saying Jesus is God and not human or Jesus is Human and not God?
I gave the page numbers. Dulle seems to be quite clearly saying that Jesus has both a human and a divine consciousness.

You are asking me about what I believe. I was I was as certain as you guys. Maybe I will be, some day! Yes I am denying Jesus had two consciousnesses. I say so in my book. (Have you had a chance to download it?)
That does not mean I do not believe Jesus is God – but I do not believe he is God in the sense of two parallel consciousnesses inhabiting the same body. (does Dulle say this? He seems to deny it and then to affirm it?)
I certainly believe that Jesus is genuinely human, and that him being God (as the Bible says) must be in a way that does not subtract from it or invalidate it.

How is it not the truth? If he felt as though he were someone other than God how is that not the truth? If His reality and perception is as someone other than God..how is that not the truth? If his mind and will are distinct from the Divine mind and will, now is that not the truth? If he was FUNCTIONALLY someone other than God...how is that not the truth. He did not act as in taking a role to play. When I say act I mean the word like function..like taking action. If I said "it's time to act, we need to reach the lost" I don't mean something like an actor pretending to do something.

Thanks, point taken.
But I think my problems still remain. I do not understand how a human being can be 'functionally' other than God without being a different personal subject.
And I do not yet see how Dulle (and yourself) understand sayings of Jesus that Trinitarians use as evidence of a previous existence with 'the Father' eg John 6:38, 17:5.

Blessings

mizpeh

02-04-2007, 08:41 PM

OriginalPraxeas

02-05-2007, 02:22 AM

Thanks Praxeas
I hear what you say I think, but it sounds to me like you are saying Jesus is praying as though he were someone other than God. So it must be different from our prayer mustn't it - because we pray as beings actually different from God. That was the point I was trying to make.
We pray as beings and persons distinct from God. The word being means "exist" and the question is HOW? How did the Son exist? Yes Father and Son are the same "person", but the Son is a human being. The Father is a Divine being. WHY do we pray as beings different from God? Because we have a human nature, human attributes with a human will and mind.

God united a complete Human nature to Himself. He became Human. He had everything we have to make us distinct beings from the Father. Having a complete human nature makes Him functionally someone other than God, even though Father and Son are hypostatically the same person. It's the reality of the human qualities that makes it so

Perhaps you are correct here, although labels can be misused and misunderstood. I take it you do not mean Unitarian in the same sense in which Trinitarians describe Oneness Pentecostals. I used to be an out and out modalist when I became an apostolic. Then I read Bernard's book, and after a while started to wonder if saying 'Jesus is the Father' is a truly biblical sentiment. Then I heard that other oneness believers disagreed with that as well.
Unitarian=belief that God is singular in person and that the Son is someone other than God and is just a man. Oneness is historically more modalistic in nature

Yes I have heard of the economic Trinity? Some theologians (eg Barth)who have studied the Trinity have realised that the only way they can understand it is in economic terms.
When you say 'other OPs' are you referring to me? I am not sure I can identify what I believe in that paragraph.
I've asked some simple questions in an attempt to narrow down what people believe around here. It seems some of the board members here see two persons. The Father and Son and with the Son being merely human.

Sorry, I thought we all know what was meant, and I thought Dulle was claiming that for Jesus. I mean a single centre of consciousness, single memory, single will, single everything that makes up a man’s personality. Opposite of what might be called a split personality.
1 Concious person who becomes conciously aware of himself through the Human nature/psyche. Is memory an attribute of the brain? Is it part of the human nature? Will? Mind? The Son has a human mind and will because He has a human nature. Not because a new human person was created.

I gave the page numbers. Dulle seems to be quite clearly saying that Jesus has both a human and a divine consciousness.
I think you are rewording what Jason says, this is why when I reply I word it differently. As I said the single person of God becomes conciously aware of Himself through the Human nature...as a human. Person and nature are not equal terms

You are asking me about what I believe. I was I was as certain as you guys. Maybe I will be, some day! Yes I am denying Jesus had two consciousnesses. I say so in my book. (Have you had a chance to download it?)
I don't think I asked if Jesus had two conciousnesses. See the problem is we are not speaking the same language...Im not sure what it is I am saying that you interpret to mean conciousness. I asked you about intergrated personality...I don't recall Jason using those words exactly and so perhaps you mean something completely different and perhaps you are misunderstanding what Jason is saying. What do you mean by intergrated and what do you mean by personality?

Is personality from being a person or is it more a result of the nature? or is it a combination of the two? What do you mean by intergrated

That does not mean I do not believe Jesus is God – but I do not believe he is God in the sense of two parallel consciousnesses inhabiting the same body. (does Dulle say this? He seems to deny it and then to affirm it?)
See you didn't quote jason saying "two parallel conciousnesses inhabiting the same body"...somehow you are interpreting the words Jason says and then rewording them. Jason never EVER refers to there being two conciousnesses parallel or other wise (whatever that means) IN the same body. Rather he says it's ONE Hypostasis or "Self" who is both FAther and Son with the Son operating exclusively through the Human nature and thus has a human mind. In that "mode" He becomes conciously aware of Himself THROUGH the Human psyche.

And the Father remains the same Diety willing through the Divine nature externally to the Son.

I certainly believe that Jesus is genuinely human, and that him being God (as the Bible says) must be in a way that does not subtract from it or invalidate it.
WHen you say "Jesus" what do you mean? You called Jesus, who is Genuinely Human a "Him" and says "Him being God"...is Jesus a person? Is that Person both human and God? Yet you've indicated that human was a PERSON and a different person from the Father. That's confusing to me

Here is what it sounds like...
Person 1=Jesus=God
Person 2=Jesus=man
2 persons...Jesus is both persons...1 person is both persons. That's confusing. And it really does sound like, if there are two persons and both are Jesus then there are two Jesuses. Im not trying to be crude here.

Thanks, point taken.
But I think my problems still remain. I do not understand how a human being can be 'functionally' other than God without being a different personal subject.
Because he has a complete human nature which gives him a human mind and will and psyche etc etc. Thus His person is not another person but FUNCTIONS like another person. It's due to his having a very real human nature

And I do not yet see how Dulle (and yourself) understand sayings of Jesus that Trinitarians use as evidence of a previous existence with 'the Father' eg John 6:38, 17:5.
Previous existence? do you believe two persons had eternal previous existence with one another? I didn't think that was the issue. I though the issue was HOW are Father and Son distinct...How can Jesus say "not my will" or How can Jesus say the Father is greater than I and there yet be one personal subject. Let's not get confused onto another topic when we have not resolved this one yet :D

davidkc

02-05-2007, 07:49 AM

Hello David,

There are two things I know for sure:1) there is only one God who calls Himself "I am" in the OT. He is not a plurality of persons, perhaps a plurality of attributes that are personified and distinct yet not separate from who He is such as: the Word, Wisdom, His Name.

2)This same God became human and as a man did not speak or think of Himself as God. It is as if God revealed in flesh is another person than God nonincarnate. This is a great mystery which no one disagrees with according to Paul.

God is an omnipresent Spirit, who is everywhere present at the same time and can say "I am here" to me when I pray in the USA and at the same time say "I am here" to you when you pray in England. This is only one of His divine attributes! How does an infinite God became man is something I have been studying for months now. I tend to agree with a lot of what Dulle says except for the use of the word "person" and the hypostatic union.

I have a question for you. Do you believe Jesus has a human mind and a human spirit?

Hi Mizpeh
Yes, I believe that Jesus has a human mind and a human spirit. According to Hebrews 2:17f Jesus was made in all things like his brethren so that he may be a merciful and faithful high priest and so that he can help those who are tempted.

I do not believe that Jesus could be God by missing out on some part of genuine humanity to make room, as it were, for his divinity. This idea dates back to Apollinaris in the 4th century, who is reported to have suggested that Jesus lacked a human spirit (or lacked a soul, some say he said earlier in his life) to make room for the divine Spirit, in other words that the divine Spirit replaced the human spirit in Jesus.

It was an ingenious idea, trying to account for the unity of Christ's person, his divinity and his humanity all at the same time. However Apollinaris' suggestion was rejected because it made Jesus out to be other than human. I think Dulle says the same thing. One theologian, one of the Gregorys I think, said that Apollinaris' 'solution' solved the problem by depriving Christ of that part of man which is most akin to God, his spirit.

mizpeh

02-05-2007, 08:28 PM

Hi Mizpeh
Yes, I believe that Jesus has a human mind and a human spirit. According to Hebrews 2:17f Jesus was made in all things like his brethren so that he may be a merciful and faithful high priest and so that he can help those who are tempted.

I do not believe that Jesus could be God by missing out on some part of genuine humanity to make room, as it were, for his divinity. This idea dates back to Apollinaris in the 4th century, who is reported to have suggested that Jesus lacked a human spirit (or lacked a soul, some say he said earlier in his life) to make room for the divine Spirit, in other words that the divine Spirit replaced the human spirit in Jesus.

It was an ingenious idea, trying to account for the unity of Christ's person, his divinity and his humanity all at the same time. However Apollinaris' suggestion was rejected because it made Jesus out to be other than human. I think Dulle says the same thing. One theologian, one of the Gregorys I think, said that Apollinaris' 'solution' solved the problem by depriving Christ of that part of man which is most akin to God, his spirit.

David,

I've read what Gregory wrote against Apollinarius when I was searching as to whether Jesus had a complete human makeup or not, and something Gregory had said stuck with me as well. But the scripture you refer to in Hebrews is the most convincing.

I am seeking God as to how his divinity and humanity existed at the same time without creating two persons in the man, Jesus Christ, similar to what Nestorius was accused of. I like what Dulle has to say but....I don't agree fully with him as to the definition of the word, person, and the hypostatic union.

How do you "marry" the divinity and humanity of Christ and maintain one upon whom all the words and actions are predicatd on or as you say "an integrated personality"?

I can see how TheLayman from his perspective as a Trinitarian (his definition of person and his adherence to the hypostatic union) would see Oneness as creating two persons which in effect in his mind creates two separate beings (one who is the Father and one who is the created Son), but I reject his definitions and likewise Dulle's. Although Dulle unlike TLM never says Christ speaks as God (through his divine nature) but only as man (through his human nature).

The man, Jesus Christ, calls himself the Son of God and the Son of man. How do you understand what He means when He says these things of Himself?

Mizpeh

essaias

02-06-2007, 02:12 PM

The Bible states Jesus existed as the Son, previous to His incarnation;

Where does the Bible state that "Jesus existed as the Son previous to His incarnation"???

davidkc

02-07-2007, 04:15 PM

We pray as beings and persons distinct from God. The word being means "exist" and the question is HOW? How did the Son exist? Yes Father and Son are the same "person", but the Son is a human being. The Father is a Divine being. WHY do we pray as beings different from God? Because we have a human nature, human attributes with a human will and mind.

God united a complete Human nature to Himself. He became Human. He had everything we have to make us distinct beings from the Father. Having a complete human nature makes Him functionally someone other than God, even though Father and Son are hypostatically the same person. It's the reality of the human qualities that makes it so

Thanks Praxeas (apologies for delay in replying)
You have made your view clearer. It seems clear that, for you, Jesus' prayer is real prayer, even though Jesus is hypostatically the same as that to whom he prays. My question was how could that be the same kind of prayer as that of an ordinary human, who is 'hypostatically' distinct from that to whom he prays. I understand you answering by saying that 'functionally' Jesus' prayer is the same as ordinary prayer. Please correct me if I have you wrong.

You use the words 'functionally' and 'hypostatically'. These are not, of course, biblical words. I wonder how confident we can be about using unbiblical terms to define the great mystery of the incarnation. Are we all confident that a) we know what we mean by them b) everybody else shares the same understanding.

Can we all make sense of and agree about the possibility of two subjects, two entities, being 'functionally' different but 'hypostatically' the same? The examples which come to my mind is an actor playing a role, or somebody impersonating someone else. However the problem with these examples is that one of the 'functional' roles is real, the other is not. We all agree that Jesus' humanity is real, not a play-act or an impersonation.

Unitarian=belief that God is singular in person and that the Son is someone other than God and is just a man. Oneness is historically more modalistic in nature
Thanks

I've asked some simple questions in an attempt to narrow down what people believe around here. It seems some of the board members here see two persons. The Father and Son and with the Son being merely human.
Personally, I see two because Jesus himself said there were two (John 8:16-18). But I would not say two persons. Jesus is definitely a human person, but God is God. I hesitate to call God a person.
Nor would I, speaking personally, say that the Son is 'merely' human. I believe he is God manifest in the flesh, the word of God made flesh.
But other board members will say different things.

1 Concious person who becomes conciously aware of himself through the Human nature/psyche. Is memory an attribute of the brain? Is it part of the human nature? Will? Mind? The Son has a human mind and will because He has a human nature. Not because a new human person was created.
I have trouble with thinking of somebody having a human mind and will but not being a human person.

I think you are rewording what Jason says, this is why when I reply I word it differently. As I said the single person of God becomes conciously aware of Himself through the Human nature...as a human. Person and nature are not equal terms

I don't think I asked if Jesus had two conciousnesses. See the problem is we are not speaking the same language...Im not sure what it is I am saying that you interpret to mean conciousness. I asked you about intergrated personality...I don't recall Jason using those words exactly and so perhaps you mean something completely different and perhaps you are misunderstanding what Jason is saying. What do you mean by intergrated and what do you mean by personality?

Is personality from being a person or is it more a result of the nature? or is it a combination of the two? What do you mean by intergrated

See you didn't quote jason saying "two parallel conciousnesses inhabiting the same body"...somehow you are interpreting the words Jason says and then rewording them. Jason never EVER refers to there being two conciousnesses parallel or other wise (whatever that means) IN the same body. Rather he says it's ONE Hypostasis or "Self" who is both FAther and Son with the Son operating exclusively through the Human nature and thus has a human mind. In that "mode" He becomes conciously aware of Himself THROUGH the Human psyche.

It is probably more productive for us to discuss using our own words and beliefs rather than talk about what Jason Dulle did or did not say. So I take back what I said about him.
About integrated consciousness, I tried to define it in the previous post - in Jesus there is one centre of consciousness, one will, one mind, one memory, one of everything that makes us human.

And the Father remains the same Diety willing through the Divine nature externally to the Son.

WHen you say "Jesus" what do you mean? You called Jesus, who is Genuinely Human a "Him" and says "Him being God"...is Jesus a person? Is that Person both human and God? Yet you've indicated that human was a PERSON and a different person from the Father. That's confusing to me

Here is what it sounds like...
Person 1=Jesus=God
Person 2=Jesus=man
2 persons...Jesus is both persons...1 person is both persons. That's confusing. And it really does sound like, if there are two persons and both are Jesus then there are two Jesuses. Im not trying to be crude here.
How Jesus can be divine and also human is of course the big mystery. I have tried to say that, for me, the sense in which Jesus is divine cannot be one which subtracts from his essential humanity. And I have also questioned the idea that God can be called a 'person' -although Jesus is most definitely a human person.

Previous existence? do you believe two persons had eternal previous existence with one another? I didn't think that was the issue. I though the issue was HOW are Father and Son distinct...How can Jesus say "not my will" or How can Jesus say the Father is greater than I and there yet be one personal subject. Let's not get confused onto another topic when we have not resolved this one yet :D
Agreed, although I raised this on my first post on this thread
Let us talk about it another time.