10 Arguments against Jesus Only. (2 views) Subscribe   
  From:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   2/22/2002 11:11 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 4)  
 
  324.1  
 
Here are a series of problems that I have with the Oneness Pentecostal Christology, which some people also call 'Jesus Only'. It is my contention that Oneness has a completely wrong view of the Son of God, because it strips him (the Son) of his divine attributes, making him only a created being. Although a small group of better educated Oneness Pentecostals do indeed call the Son God, he is still only a god, who is created, and is not omnipresent, or eternal and who never created the universe. 
Oneness people wrongly claim that Jesus is both God the Father, and also the Son of God. Therefore questions about the Son being loved (Jn 17:24) or making the world (Heb 1:2), are usually explained away by them as Jesus being loved, and Jesus being the creator. Through this change in context from Son to Jesus, the Oneness believer has now actually made God the Father (whom he confusingly also calls Jesus) the entire context of his reply. In this way, many clear texts which I have listed in my following 10 points, which state that the Son, existed and did things such as create the worlds, are ignored, through this constant Oneness shift of emphasis from the Son to Jesus. I call this the Jesus Trick, and Oneness people use it constantly to claim that Jesus the Father possesses divine attributes, but that Jesus the Son possesses no divine attributes at all, as he is a mere created being. 

1. John 6:62 states that the Son of man came down from heaven to this earth at Bethlehem: What then if you should see the Son of man ascend where he was before. This clearly implies that the Son of Man had a pre-existence in heaven before the incarnation, (which Oneness Pentecostals deny). The words where he was before, are also a past tense, and confirms that the Son of man had a real existence in heaven, before coming into this earth. This verse thus contradicts the Oneness assertion, that the Sonship only dates from Bethlehem. 

2. Oneness people also vigorously quote 1 Timothy 3:16; God was manifested in the flesh (KJV rendering). Then claim that this verse should be taken literally, and that this verse proves that God the Father, was the one who was manifested, even though the actual words God the Father are not used in this text. I would firstly agree that 1st Timothy 3:16 (KJV) should always be interpreted literally, and that God did indeed become incarnate in flesh. I would then secondly ask the Oneness believer to confirm that the word manifested, proves that God who is the subject of this passage had a pre-existence, outside of this world, before his manifestation into it. I would then thirdly suggest, that God is not necessarily always applicable to God the Father, for the Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8), as is also the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). 

Fourthly, I would then read 1st John 3:8, which states; For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, and point out that God who is mentioned in 1st Timothy 3:16, is actually the Son of God, who is clearly and specifically mentioned in 1st John 3:8. Unless there are two different incarnations, or Jesus Christ is eternally both the Father and the Son which neither Trinitarians or Oneness believers affirm. 

I would then help the Oneness believer to see that it would be inconsistent to interpret each of these verses completely differently: 1st Timothy 3:16 God was manifest and 1st John 3:8 the Son was manifested. It is wrong to take (as they do) the reference to God literally, but the reference to the Son figuratively. Also, this manifestation of the Son is from outside of this world, and then into this world, see chapter four where Jesus Christ is said to have come in the flesh (1st John 4:2-3). John also expressly states that the Son mentioned here is not the Father, but the Son of the Father in (2nd John 3). So the reference to Jesus Christ come in flesh 1st John 4:2-3, refers to the Son, and not to God the Father. 

Lastly, we read three times in 1st John 4:9,10, 14, that the Son is sent into this world from outside of it, thus implying a prior pre-existence outside of this world before his birth at Bethlehem; God has sent his only begotten Son into the world (1st John 4:9). The Son existed before his birth in Bethlehem as spirit, for God is spirit (John 4:24). He was then sent into this world of flesh and physical elements, from outside of it (the spiritual dimension), by God the Father himself. 

3. John 14:23 is another difficult verse for the Oneness position. We will come to him and make Our home with him. It uses a first person plural form of the verb to be that is; we (as in we are), and also the word Our for both of them. This verse states that both the Father and the Son indwell us, and if they indwell millions of Christians today, then they must be omnipresent to be able to do this. Now if the Son of God is not omnipresent (as Oneness vehemently affirms), why does the Bible use the words We and Our of the Son, together with God the Father? Oneness teaches that Jesus Spirit is God the Father. But it denies the eternity and omnipresence of the Son, by teaching that the Son is only the flesh or humanity, who is then indwelt by God the Father. Oneness people need to explain the pronouns We and Our, as they prove the omnipresence of the Son. 

Continued 


The Bagge is the host of the: 
"THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS FORUM" at 

http://www.delphi.com/Bagge/messages
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   2/22/2002 11:12 pm  
To:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   (2 of 4)  
 
  324.2 in reply to 324.1  
 

4. Because Oneness Pentecostals would deny that the Son of God existed before his incarnation at Bethlehem, Matthew 11:27 is another difficult verse for them to explain away. No one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he whom the Son wills to reveal Him (Mt 11:27b). If we cant know God, except through his Son, who then reveals the Father to us. The obvious consequences of believing the Oneness position of a created Son, is that before the date of the Sons creation nobody did or even could know God. Oneness groups thus struggle to explain verses such as Exodus 33:11, and James 2:23, for how could Abraham and Moses know God, when this is only possible through somebody (the Son), who did not exist until 4 BC, according to them? 
5. Oneness people need to also explain the use of the verb to be in first person plural in John 10:30; I and my Father are one. Thus verse does not have Jesus saying; I am the Father, as they claim, for this would be the verb to be in the first person singular. John 10:30 rather applies a plural verb to both the Father and also to the Son; are as in we are. 

Secondly why is the neuter word hen for one used here, rather than the masculine word heis in the Greek? This masculine word is always used in the Greek, to describe God as one in the numeric sense, and would be the only word which Jesus could use to claim that he is the Father in an absolute and literal sense. Whilst the neuter word hen simply means to be one in agreement with another person. So what would the Oneness explanation be for the use of this neuter word, and plural verb be here? 

Continued 


The Bagge is the host of the: 
"THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS FORUM" at 

http://www.delphi.com/Bagge/messages
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   2/22/2002 11:12 pm  
To:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   (3 of 4)  
 
  324.3 in reply to 324.1  
 
6. Oneness people would deny that the Son of God existed (as the Son), before his birth in Bethlehem. Would they please explain to me John 17:24; you loved me before the foundation of the world, and 17:5; the glory which I had with you before the world was. We read here that the Son had glory with the Father, and was also loved by the Father (in eternity past) before the world was. Please also notice that the context for this passage is the word Son, found in verse 1: Father the hour has come glorify your Son. So God the Father had glory with the Son before the creation of the world. But how can this be when Oneness makes the Son a created being, who never literally existed other than as a plan or thought in the Fathers mind before 4 BC, when he was born at Bethlehem. 
John writes previously of this glory (Yahwehs glory) in John 12:34-41, where he says in verse 41 that Isaiah saw actually YHWH's glory. However the context for this entire passage from verse 27 to 41 is the 'Son of Man' mentioned in verse 34. Thus in conclusion John is claiming that Isaiah actually saw the glory of the Son of God, not only confirming that the Son existed (as the Son) before his birth, but also implying that the Son is himself YHWH, the one true and eternal God. 

7. Oneness, wrongly claims that the 'Son of God' was begotten or created at his birth, so the Son could not have created the worlds, as he did not exist until his birth at Bethlehem in 4 BC. The Bible however refutes this theory, and Hebrews 1:2 states that God (the Father) made the worlds (aeons or ages) through His Son. The masculine pronoun His implies a personal existence of the Son, and the word through (dia), also implies a relationship, for which an actual existence is again necessary. The standard Oneness explanation of this, is a claim that the Father alone was the creator, but that he made the universe with the Son in mind, or the Son as a plan or thought in his mind. Therefore they are claiming that the word through (dia) really can be ignored, as the Son really has no existence in Heb 1:2. An analogy would be for me to claim that I go through the door out of the room. Now to walk through a door, it would have to have an actual and literal existence, as you cant walk through something which does not exist. So likewise, for the Father to make the worlds through the Son, the Son had to actually exist. 

8. Remaining on the subject of creation, Colossians 1 clearly teaches the fact that the Son existed and was active in creation before 4 BC, the approximate date which Oneness people give to his creation. Colossians 1:13 tells us that the Son is the ruler of 'the kingdom.' Then we read in verse 14, that we have redemption through the blood of his Son, in verse 15 that this Son (of verse 13) is the image of the invisible God. Then in verse 16 and 17 of Colossians 1, we read that all things were created by Him and for Him. This is still a reference to this Son mentioned in verse 13, and not to the Father. 

The standard Oneness explanation is to try to make God the Father the context of creator of verses 16 and 17. They do this by ignoring the word Son in verse 13, and then using what I call the Jesus trick. This is a technique where the name Jesus is introduced, but used in a unique way to imply that Jesus is really God the Father here. Thus they will claim that Jesus (who is the Father) is both the invisible God and the image of the invisible God in verse 15. They also ignore the word Son in verse 13 and end up claiming that Jesus, by whom they mean God the Father, and not the Son of God, is the firstborn from the dead of verse 18. But Scripture states that the Son, and not the Father died for us: the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20). 

9. How can the logos only be a thought or plan in the Fathers mind as Oneness claims at John 1:1, when in verse 3 we read that all things were made through him. Also how can a mere impersonal thought, which has no real existence actually be said to be with God (Jn 1:1). We also find that the masculine pronouns he and him are used to describe the logos in verses two and three. 

10. If Jesus is indeed God the Father, as Oneness claims. Why then does Jesus never once say outright I am the Father, and why does the Father, never once say I am Jesus or I am the Son? I would agree with them that the Father does indeed indwell the Son (John 14:9-10). But the use of the word in in this passage; I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me, clearly refutes the claim that Jesus is here saying that he is himself God the Father. This leaves Oneness people with two problems. Firstly, that Jesus is said to be the Son of the Father (2nd John 3), but he never once does he say I am God the Father. Secondly, Jn 14:9-10 also teaches the omnipresence of the Son, which Oneness also denies. For what else can I am IN the Father mean, other than the omnipresence of the Son. 

Continued 


The Bagge is the host of the: 
"THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS FORUM" at 

http://www.delphi.com/Bagge/messages
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   2/22/2002 11:13 pm  
To:  Limey Bob (TheBagge)   (4 of 4)  
 
  324.4 in reply to 324.2  
 
Summary. 
Most Oneness believers would regard the Son as merely the flesh or humanity, which is then indwelt by God the Father. They would explain their belief in this way; that when Jesus was speaking to his Father, the flesh or humanity was addressing the deity. Such a belief clearly denies the Scriptural truth that the Son is himself God. This view is easy to refute, by demonstrating that the Son actually possesses two natures, both deity and humanity, and that this Oneness position denies the deity of the Son. A second and much smaller, but better educated association of Oneness believers, may affirm the deity of the Son, by claiming that the Son is not just flesh alone, but rather the Father enfleshed. However these people would still DENY that the Son possesses any divine attributes such as eternity, omnipresence, and creatorship of the universe. 

So in Oneness theology, the Son is neither eternal, nor omnipresent. He is not even the creator of the universe, which even the Jehovahs Witnesses correctly affirm. Oneness does not; honour the Son just as they honour the Father (John 5:23b). This is a necessary belief for our very salvation. For if we either deny that the Son is himself God, or call him God but then claim that he does not possess any divine attributes, then the Bible states that we will die in our sins (Jn 8:24). Notice that the name Son of man (Jn 8:28), gives us the context for the speaker in verse 24, being the Son of God. John says that to deny the Son as God, is antichrist (1st Jn 2:22-23). 


The Bagge is the host of the: 
"THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS FORUM" at 

http://www.delphi.com/Bagge/messages
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
