3 in 1 - I'M MORE ONENESS THAN YOU ARE ...

[sola gratia]

I actually have a very good working knowledge of both views and can discuss them with a great deal of confidence and comfort. Some are correct in stating that oneness and Trinitarians have quite similar views on the GODHEAD, but that is limited to certain areas, other areas are quite different. The most problematic issue is the scriptural support of the views – both Trinitarian and oneness. We(op’s) think that we have all this revelation and textual support… do you really think the Trinitarians don’t think the same thing? LOL! What they are just a bunch of dummies or lemmings? LOL!


With great confidence and knowledge they can dismantle the oneness view as quickly as op’s try and dismantle theirs – so in that we have to realize the issues of the godhead, for all but the ostrich with his head in the sand, are very difficult – past examples of debates have been flawed by those involved – there are many who take a very spiritual and wise approach to GOD and HIS composition – in fact in many ways their scriptural approach to GOD is more supported – wisdom and respect are the mantra here – it can be shouted all day long they are pagans and their view comes from pagans(thanks David Bernard for that little bit of sentiment) but its not true……

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

No sir... I was raised oneness and still consider myself oneness.

But I have begun to weigh wether there is a more of a distinction to be made between the son and the father.

The scriptures I posted in another thread along these lines are enough, in my opinion, to make one stand back and take another look.

Where do I stand? Where I was raised basically... but I am in a process of studying this issue out for myself. It really appears to me that the apostles seem to have drawn a strong distinction between the father and the son.

In all things... I desire that the word of God ring true and every man... beginning with myself... a liar.

I believe what the word says. It is just a process of fearful study and prayer to actually find out what that might be.

At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being that Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).

[sola gratia]

Originally Posted by Chan

At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).

more than that bro - we could really start a fire here

[sola gratia]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

AOG ministers that say aspects are not really being Trinitarian. They are being closer to modalism or Oneness. I have a friend who was a member of my church until they decided against standards. Eventually they moved to northern Ca and attended an AOG. She did a lot of talking with the Pastor and he decided the term "person" was probably not the best word so instead he said "aspects"...however that is really NOT the modern theological useage of the term and that is also NOT the AOG official position.

The term Person theologically means an individual self....the ego..the WHO you are as opposed to the WHAT you are

When Trinitarians say "Persons" they do NOT mean "God is one person who has three manifestations"...they really do believe each so called manifestation is indeed an individual self/person/who

We believe there is 1 who who is 1 what (Divine) and became a Human by adding a second Human nature (a what) to His own person (who)

Yes and no to this post – Trinitarians certainly place a greater deal of distinction, and are not at all modalistic as some suppose – the terms “persons” is not a mask or role – it is an individual. Praxeas is correct in that. The manner in which the “person” of the GODHEAD is individualized is where I think I would contend this post –

The aspect of GOD know as SON of God is recognized for HIS individuality, yes, HIS distinctive actions and existence, but not his separate ego, or being – in that manner HE is fully GOD, and cannot be separated in the manner where he is so individualized as is assumed by the post – I’d like to include a few thoughts from the Anthanasian Creed – he sort of was the one who first incorporated the word “person” –

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things is necessary to hold the universal Christian faith.
2. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. But this is the universal Christian faith: That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son; another of the Holy Ghost.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is the Holy Ghost.
8. The Father is uncreated; the Son is uncreated; the Holy Ghost is uncreated.
9. The Father is incomprehensible; the Son is incomprehensible; the Holy Ghost is incomprehensible.
10. The Father is eternal; the Son is eternal; the Holy Ghost is eternal.
11. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal.
12. And also there are not three uncreated; nor three incomprehensible; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty; the Son is almighty; and the Holy Ghost is almighty.
14. And yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
From this it is important to note that the Trinitarians of this day and the creed of all to come was to note the distinctions present – and they are present biblically – none can argue that – but to maintain a strict monotheism. As you peruse this creed it is easily discernable that they do not mean to state there are these three guys hanging out in heaven – but that GOD in scripture is one GOD who seems to exist as Father, Son and Holy Ghost and has operated in this manner – not incarnationally – but eternally – There is scriptural support this – I have no beef with Anthanasia’s statement

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I've debated with Trinitarians including seminary students and professors. When they say "we don't mean persons the way we normally think" they usually mean "not people" or in other words not human persons.

But the vast majority if Trinitarians mean person to mean individual or self or who.
In all the Trinitarian books, debates, cult ministries etc etc they use the term person to mean an individual self, the who, the ego, the hypostasis :-)

I would agree with this – but you have to qualify this more – modalists don’t mean when GOD morphed into the Son the throne was vacant – or the Father ceased to exist – so the statement is too narrow to be taken at face value

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No person did not mean Persona, Rather person COMES from the word persona but theologically speaking....because we are discussing theology....the term Person has come to be used to express the individual self..the WHO. That is how the word person has been used theologically for quite a while now.

And really...the issue is really about confusion. When you talk to a Trinitarian are you going to say "Oh yeah. I believe in three persons too"? When you and I both know to him the word person means an individual self?

It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him? He prayed in that manner – not just incarnationally but eternally as well – to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian? To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Yes I think there are distinctions in the manifestations of The True God.
But not distinctions in personages of three persons in a godhead.

How are you defining "personages"?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

What are some clear distinctions that you see in the Word, SG? Can the word persons be use if properly qualified?

I don't think the English word "persons" is at all appropriate. It does not communicate the doctrine set forth in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds. A better English word would be the word "personas" (plural of the English word "persona"). This latter English word corresponds with the Latin word persona (and its plural, personae). The Latin word is a translation of the Greek word "prosopon." It (prosopon) is used 78 times in the KJV New Testament and has the following meanings:

1. the face
2. the front of the human head
3. countenance, look
   1. the face so far forth as it is the organ of sight, and by it various movements and changes) the index of the inward thoughts and feelings
4. the appearance one presents by his wealth or property, his rank or low condition
   1. outward circumstances, external condition
   2. used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one's judgment and treatment of men
5. the outward appearance of inanimate things

Cyril objected to the use of prosopon (and, for that matter, persona) because he felt it was too close to Sabellianism. (One of the mistakes various theologians made around that time was to go out of their way to distinguish their doctrine from whatever doctrine was out of favor at the time; they tried so hard not to sound like the disfavored doctrine that they ended up corrupting their own doctrine).

[sola gratia]

Originally Posted by Chan

At the very least, one must admit to a distinction between Jesus' humanity and the divine being Jesus called "Father." Jesus did, after all, say He was going to ascend "to my God and to your God" (John 20:17).

Eternal distinctions …..

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. (the WORD- JESUS CHRIST- was GOD and HE was with GOD at the same time – this is an eternal distinction)

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.(God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son)

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (JESUS wishes to return to the former glory he had with HIS Father- eternal distinction)

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (God – meaning the Father – sent His pre-existent son – HE was then made or a woman)

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (yes – I know not in the original text right! Well quite quoting Mark 16:16 to back up baptismal regeneration and then the trinnies will budge on this one! ROFL!)

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.(we still have this high priest – present tense)

Originally Posted by Felicity

It can have a broader meaning than that. Ever hear tell of the word "persona"?

The word "persona" is not the word "person."

[mizpeh]

It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him? He prayed in that manner –

– to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian? To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions

Hello SG,

What do you mean when you say the Son prayed eternally? Are you saying there is an eternal aspect of God that prayed to God (himself) outside of the incarnation (man)?

Sorry, I should have read further in the thread.

Originally Posted by Sam

I'm not trying to argue. But, didn't our word "person" used to mean "persona" or have the same meaning as the word "persona" and isn't that what Trinitarians mean when they use the word "person" in their creed?

Don't trinitarians (and I guess it's impossible to lump all trinitarians together like it would be impossible to lump all oneness together) but anyway, don't most trinitarians believe:
1. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the holy Ghost is Lord but there is only one Lord.

2. Jesus lives in our heart, the Holy Spirit lives in our heart, the Spirit of God lives in our heart, the Spirit of the Father lives in our heart, but only one Spirit lives in our heart.

3. Jesus is the visible manifestation of God and the only way we will see God is in the person of Jesus Christ.

The original Creeds do not use the word "person." Those who formulated the early Creeds (the Nicene, Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Creeds, not the Athanasian Creed) used the Greek word "prosopon" or the Latin word "persona" to distinguish Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually. Cyril, trying to create a clear division between his doctrine and Sabellianism, insisted that the Church stop using prosopon or persona and start using hypostasis (which is the word used in Hebrews 1:3 in reference to God and is translated "person" in the KJV).

There are different versions of the trinity doctrine and I've even heard some trinitarians define "persons" as "beings" while others, in describing their doctrine, say the same thing oneness folks would say.