Oneness people aren't saved?

[Hoovie]

Father and Son are not "natures" of Jesus.

Father is God himself, apart from humanity in parental role to the Only Begotten. The Son is God as he has shown Himself to us in and through the incarnation.

[Norman]

An Eternal Son is a contradiction. To be a son, you have to be born. Jesus is literally the Son of God; Luke chapter 1 explains this. Jesus is eternal not due to being an "eternal Son," but due to being the Word made flesh. That is not my opinion; that is fact. John 1:1-14.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Quote:
Trinitarians and Oneness believers have certain things in common like a belief in the full deity of Jesus and the full humanity of Jesus, yes. We both believe that Jesus is one Person, yes. But when we unpack this stuff we see just how drastically different these seeming commonalities are. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is one person: the Son. We believe that he’s the Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit and that he’s been such from all eternity. We believe that from the time of the Incarnation he has possessed two natures fully: deity & humanity. I believe that this understanding of Jesus is supported by Scripture. Oneness believers believe that Jesus is one person with two natures as well, but they see these two natures as the Father/deity and the Son/humanity. The Son has not been the Son from all eternity but became the Son in the Incarnation with the addition of humanity. The Son is the Son in relation to the Father but this relation is neither personal since the Father and the Son are the selfsame person, i.e., Jesus, nor is it eternal since the Son only became the Son in the Incarnation. This is an understanding of Jesus that I don’t believe is supported by Scripture.


The Son is only the humanity?
That's all there is to the Son of God?
Just a human?

That does appear to be the writer's take on Oneness theology - and I agree with him to an extent.

Oneness, to me, has failed to answer the simultaneous aspect of God fulfilling all "three Roles." Oneness has said, "Father in Creation, Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the church!"

This strictly successionist form of Modalism seems to fail to be flexible enough to embrace such passages as John 1:1, and Ephesians 4:6.

Oneness fumbles John 1:1-4, by saying "But that's just God's word. God's idea and plan..." And then they add "the Son" (Jesus, born in Bethlehem) was "God in the flesh!" (See Matthew 1:23; Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9, etc.).

* David Bernard actually helps us out a bit here - See the newer editions of Oneness of God, pp.58, " (John 1:1,14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented among us. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses prove that Jesus is God—that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh. "

But the frustration of trying to get Oneness people past the "...Just God's Word" stage is still almost unpalatable.

John 1:14, states that the WORD which "was WITH God" in the beginning was made flesh. So, this "plan" or "idea that God had" wasn't "just God's sayings and thoughts" - it (He) was God Himself (see John 1:1, again).

AND - the Word or Logos co-existed WITH God from eternity past.

I think most Trinitarians might be more successful in their conversations with Oneness people if they dropped "Eternal Son" and do like Dr. Walter Martin had done and just stick with Biblical terminology and say, "eternal Logos, or Word."

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Good call, Dan! Facial hair tickles

Brian -- great guy. Though he's gone the way of not just seeing Christology through the lens of diversity, but outright rejecting his Oneness roots.

But yes, he has a brilliant mind. The conversation on the comment thread there is blowing up.

Interesting list of names chiming in ... JG, JD and even our own Praxeas.

I don't play with Godhead ninjas.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

Interesting list of names chiming in ... JG, JD and even our own Praxeas.

I don't play with Godhead ninjas.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Norman

An Eternal Son is a contradiction. To be a son, you have to be born. Jesus is literally the Son of God; Luke chapter 1 explains this. Jesus is eternal not due to being an "eternal Son," but due to being the Word made flesh. That is not my opinion; that is fact. John 1:1-14.

An eternal Son is not a contradiction... But it takes some careful examination to realize how this can be.

You say that the Son had a beginning because he came after the Father. But I say that no matter what moment you choose to look at that the Father existed at that moment. I also say that no matter what moment you choose to look at that the Father not only existed then but he existed before that moment also. I also say that if the Father had a Son that his Son proceeded forth from him the moment after he had been around for the least amount of time. Therefore, let the Father exist in some arbitrary moment. Let the Son exist in the arbitrary moment immediatly after that. Since the Father also existed the moment before that arbitrary moment, then the Son must have existed in that arbitrary moment because he existed the moment after the Father. Therefore, for any arbitrary moment you choose, I can prove that the Son also must have existed in that moment. Therefore assuming the Son is eternal then he existed in every moment that the Father has.

I know I have done a poor job of relating this concept. But think about it, it does make sense

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Sam,

This guy describes EXACTLY the teaching I was raised with growing up in the WOTCCC and, as an adult, in the UPCI.

He didn't say anything out place.

I almost think he has a valid point, except that his thinking would lead me to believe that he is almost a "Tri-theist".

Oneness, such as in David Bernard's books, does not teach the Son is just flesh.

It teaches the Son is the human incarnation of the one Personal Deity Yahweh and that His Divine nature is ontologically united with the Human, making the Son a person with a Divine and human nature

BTW what is WOTCCC?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

That does appear to be the writer's take on Oneness theology - and I agree with him to an extent.

Oneness, to me, has failed to answer the simultaneous aspect of God fulfilling all "three Roles." Oneness has said, "Father in Creation, Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the church!"

This strictly successionist form of Modalism seems to fail to be flexible enough to embrace such passages as John 1:1, and Ephesians 4:6.

Oneness fumbles John 1:1-4, by saying "But that's just God's word. God's idea and plan..." And then they add "the Son" (Jesus, born in Bethlehem) was "God in the flesh!" (See Matthew 1:23; Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9, etc.).

* David Bernard actually helps us out a bit here - See the newer editions of Oneness of God, pp.58, " (John 1:1,14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented among us. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses prove that Jesus is God—that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh. "

But the frustration of trying to get Oneness people past the "...Just God's Word" stage is still almost unpalatable.

John 1:14, states that the WORD which "was WITH God" in the beginning was made flesh. So, this "plan" or "idea that God had" wasn't "just God's sayings and thoughts" - it (He) was God Himself (see John 1:1, again).

AND - the Word or Logos co-existed WITH God from eternity past.

I think most Trinitarians might be more successful in their conversations with Oneness people if they dropped "Eternal Son" and do like Dr. Walter Martin had done and just stick with Biblical terminology and say, "eternal Logos, or Word."

Oneness as far as I know was NEVER successionist. Oneness asserts Father, Son and Spirit, since the incarnation, are similtaneous

Id say the Logos "co-existed with God" is an interpretation.

The Logos was WITH God. With is from the greek pros with has the meaning towards generally. In the accusative it can mean pertaining to and has been translated "within" in certain cases like the Pharisee praying within himself.

John later explains the Logos is Eternal Life pros God. Eternal Life can't be separate or distinct from the Father, particularly since the Father is the SOURCE of Eternal life.

[jpr7]

Originally Posted by DAII

Interesting list of names chiming in ... JG, JD and even our own Praxeas.

I don't play with Godhead ninjas.

What is a "Godhead ninja" anyway?

[Nitehawk013]

Godhead Ninja may be one of the coolest terms I have heard in a long time. LOL.