It is the idea of "only one," and in this context, would refer to the idea that God is only a single person--the teaching of Oneness theology.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
- Status
It is correct. I suggest you do the study yourself and see if I am wrong. It should be easy to prove.
Yes, it goes without saying in a discussion on the Trinity, where I have been arguing for the truth of the Trinity.
This is in violation of the ToS. Do not misrepresent another person's position.
No, they are distinct. One God existing as three distinct, coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial, divine persons, each fully and truly God. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. These are distinctions the Bible continually and consistently makes and so we must be consistent with that.
And, yet, that is not the biblical view. See John 1:1.
He is; he just isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit.
Neither of those is an argument against the Trinity. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity in human flesh.
One more violation of the ToS and you will be removed from this discussion. Stick to the topic and do not make personal remarks, especially about things you cannot know anything about.
Of course you don't. They are two very different concepts.
Monotheism.
Yes, we are one in spirit. This differs from saying we are one spirit. God does not change so He does not add human spirits to His Spirit. I assume this addresses the point you are making.
I basically agree. The human brain is adequate enough to know the timing of Christ return... I assume the divine Spirit had not giving him this information.
You didn't address my premises and conclusion.... oh well.
Gotcha. Thx Gotquestions says a recycling of modalism which I had come across.
Mark 12:29 tells us that the Lord our God is one Lord.
And it also stands on its own as a bastion of spiritual truth. Therefore, as we see it in the Greek language, we can take it at face value as it is related to us in the Greek.
A "Lord" is a singular Person.
That is proof enough for me.
But I don't think that I am in violation of the ToS to exhort you to look up Hebrews 3:7-8, Hebrews 3:15, and Hebrews 4:7 concerning your continued rejection of the truth that I am attempting to bring to you.
You have re-defined distinct as separate here, it seems to me.
Clearly, if the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost, then they are separate rather than distinct; no matter how much you may want to protest otherwise by applying a word to your doctrine that does not fit its definition (saying that you believe in a distinction between the Persons when you actually believe that they are separate).
I don't see how John 1:1 contradicts my point of view.
For, Jesus rose to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); even to exist Omnipresent outside of time; and therefore the pre-incarnate Word would have existed side-by-side with the risen Christ in the beginning.
The Father and the Spirit aren't YHWH?
I'm sorry, in my view that places Him as being either 1/3 of God or else as being a 2nd God.
If He is eternally begotten, as you say, then He is a 2nd God next to the Father.
But if He is begotten in the incarnation (as it is written in Luke 1:35), then He is the Father come in human flesh; therefore He is YHWH and not a 2nd God in eternity.
Last edited:
It doesn't say that we are one "in" spirit.
It says:
1Co 6:17, But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
It is. It's a strange compromise between the Trinity and Modalism. It's like Oneness is trying to appeal to Trinitarians while retaining Modalism's singular person. Perhaps we should call it Concurrent, Coexistent, or Coterminous Modalism.
So, you're saying that God's adds our spirit to His spirit and thus God is not immutable even though scripture says God is immutable?
Bedtime.
Aside: Maybe like a man and woman getting married. They become one in a sense... but that sense is not the there is not one spirit.
Our spirit becomes one with His Spirit when we are born again.
In this, our spirit is radically changed.
God's Spirit doesn't change...it is our spirit that changes.
Believe it or not, Oneness Pentecostals are members of the body.
As such they should not be ostracized as members of a cult.
This doctrine will bring unity to the body of Christ in that Oneness believers will accept the Trinity and some who are Tritheists will also come to accept the Trinity as it really is.
And, yet, it is a quote of the Shema in Deut 6:4. It is a statement of monotheism, not the nature of God. In both cases, the Greek word heis and the Hebrew 'echad are the equivalent of the English word "one," and simply mean "one." They neither prove nor disprove the Trinity, but they leave the door open for a compound unity. 'Echad doe not, however, refer to the concept of an absolute unity, and so creates difficulties for Oneness ideology.
It depends. I have no idea what you are trying to say with those verses. If you're implying that I am not saved, then you certainly would be violating the ToS.
They are distinct. They are each fully and truly God, being of the same substance, and mutually indwell each other. A father is never his own son nor is a son ever his own father. They are of the same nature, although in the human experience, they are of course separate.
Firstly:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)
"In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. "Was the Word," that is, when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, had always been in existence. "And the Word was with [the] God"--"God" contains the article, and is therefore a reference to the Father (at a minimum). "With," being pros, means "intimate relationship" or "communion." "The Word was God" refers to the nature of the Word, as "God" doesn't have the article.
John's whole point is who the Word is. To sum then, the Word had eternal pre-existence, in intimate relationship with God (the Father), and was in nature deity himself. Yet, we know there was only one God; there is plurality within the one God.
Secondly:
The Son was involved in creation, and so was the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the originator. There is very much a reason why Gen 1 says that God created by speaking and why John 1:1 says that the divine logos was in the beginning "with God." As Vern S. Poythress says:
"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking."
To sum, it is very interesting and seems to be very purposeful, that John 1:1 speaks of plurality within the one God, just as Gen 1:26-27 do so as well. John was not only very specific in his grammar, as I have pointed out, he was intentional in bringing Genesis 1 to bear on his description of who the Word is.
Except that John 1:14 says "the Word became [egeneto] flesh." That is, the Word entered time. The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.
Of course they are. Please take everything I say together, not in bits and pieces, which is akin to proof-texting from Scripture. I had already stated that "each fully and truly God."
That might be your view, but that isn't the Trinitarian view.
No, he is the Son, the second person of the Trinity, the one God.
Is that what Luke 1:35 actually says?
And yet, I have given numerous verses in this discussion that clearly say the Son was sent by the Father. Not a single time does the NT ever state that it was the Father that came in human flesh. Never. It is always the Son, the Word, who was sent by the Father.
The "Trinity as it really is" is the Trinity that has been believed for hundreds and hundreds of years, not the Oneness idea of it that is about 100 years old. Really, why the compromise? If God can exist as three distinct persons now, why could he not have done so for eternity past, prior to creation?
That equals three Gods or else a singular God who is divided into thirds.
Now I agree that He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity but not that He was eternally begotten. It is clear to me from my reading of holy scripture that He was begotten in the incarnation.
That means that Jesus will ultimately carry the name of "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6-7);
For He is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 14:7-11); and the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24). I conclude that the Father is the Spirit of Jesus.
Also, in the same passage, Philip asks Jesus to shew them the Father; and Jesus points to Himself: Have I been so long with you and yet thou hast not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.
Yep.
That is qualified by Hebrews 10:5. The Son, being the same Spirit as the Father (John 4:23-24, John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4), says to the Father that He has prepared a body for Him. This Person of the Son, in the hypostatic union (as being God in the flesh), is the Person who is sent by the Father.
Because if He was eternally begotten, that is a 2nd God formed beside Him. I think that you may have to search through the book of Isaiah to find the verse that I am thinking of; but there is a specific verse or verses in that book that do not allow for such a thing.
The Oneness idea is in fact 100 yrs old but that does not make it untrue.
In Acts 2:38-39, we find that the promise of the Holy Ghost is given to "all that are afar off" and I believe this is referring to the Oneness generation.
When the councils were taking place, there were few who had actually been baptized in Jesus' Name who were allowed to contend for their concept of the Trinity; for the formula by that time had been switched over unilaterally to that of Matthew 28:19.
The councils missed a few important truths when they formulated their creeds.
1) the creeds deny that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), stating that the Son is uncreated.
2) the creeds state that He was "eternally begotten" which is in denial of the plain meaning of Luke 1:35.
There may be a few other discrepancies between the creeds and biblical teaching; but I don't think I have a need to be a nitpicker about it. The two that I have stated above create an understanding, when you accept biblical truth on the matter, that will change your point of view on the nature of the Trinity substantially; and in accepting biblical truth on the matter, you will come to a biblical knowledge of what the Trinity is truly all about.
It is sufficient if it is stated in the OT.
Nevertheless, John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11 tell us clearly that the Spirit of Jesus is the Father.
I think that monotheism is the nature of God (James 2:19).
Last edited:
Here, you agree that Jesus is YHWH but deny that He is the Father or the Spirit. Thus I asked the question,
If Jesus is YHWH but is not the Father or the Spirit, it follows that neither the Father nor the Spirit are YHWH.
But you deny the truth in other of your statements.
Well, maybe you should read them.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi Annagrace
I can't remember if I welcomed you to the forum.
I'd like to say that Christianity is based on the belief in the Trinity.
It is not a blasphemous belief because the early church believed Jesus is divine.
Trinitarians do not believe there are 3 Gods.
As the bible teaches, there is only one God.
It would be easier if we knew what we each adhere to kn doctrine. For instance, are you a JW? Are you a oneness Pentecostal?
Because you believe something, does not make others wrong.
- Status