Is the Father the Son?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Believer, Did you read my response to your initial post? I already answered your question Is the Son the Father in that post.

The same God who manifests himself as the Father also manifested himself as the Son.

I also said you are misapplying the terms, Father and Son, to different ways God has revealed himself (manifestations)

As for Isa 9:6, it says what is says and is very clear to me. The Son shall be called the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God. Please know that the Son is a human being, God with us. The Son is a different mode of existence of God. Here is my initial response in which I made a distinction between the manifestation of God as Father and as Son which you failed to acknowledge in your question to me:

It doesn't matter to me if someone disagrees with me whether it is a Trinitarian, or Oneness, or a pastor, or a theologian. If they can prove I'm wrong with scriptures then I'll concede to an incorrect understanding.

If I miss a post here and there I'm sorry. I have so many posts to read and respond to. I'm trying to stay away from the confrontational posts because I can get banned where a Oneness will not.

Now, concerning Isaiah 9:6.

Do you believe that the Son is the Father?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

Do "coequal persons" pray to one another?

Haven't you read Romans 8:26?

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Trinitarians interpret this as the Spirit interceding for the believer with groanings APART from being indwelled within the believer! One coequal eternal person praying to another coequal eternal person who possess the same mind. Convoluted to say the least.

I find their interpretation inconsistent with the context of Romans 8.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We don't have to play by CARM's definition of person. Please go to the Bible and elucidate the definition of person from the scriptures.

But let's take CARM's definition and see if we find that the Trinity is in fact tritheism.

If each person of the Trinity has his own will then there are three Gods. They can each independently decide what to do and therefore there is the possibility of disagreement. One being who is called God disagreeing within himself is inconsistent and ridiculous.

All Trinitarians agree that God only has one will. The difinition I posted doesn't all apply to God. One cannot help but notice the "personal pronouns" applied to each of the "Persons" in the Godhead.

The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Bump for KP

Dan,

Do natures talk or love? What is your answer to that question? What is human nature? Or what constitutes human nature in your opinion?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

Jesus in humanity did.

What does this mean?

Jesus in his humanity prayed to God. Are you Nestorian Trinitarian?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Believer

Oh, so Jesus is not God? Yikes! What did Jesus (the Son) say about this?

Unless you believe that I AM [egō eimi] you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Jesus is very much God, and all of our salvation rests in that fact.

I meant to say "When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT trying to say the Son is the Father"...I explained this enough that it just seems like you are being argumentative

You just contradicted yourself. If you say that Jesus is the Father (who is God) and also reveals Himself as the Son, then you have the Father who is God, (remember, the Father is not the Son) and the Son who is God, you have two distinct "persons" who are the same God.

Then you have the same problem when you say the Son is God and the Father is God but the Father is not the son. What you are doing here is ignoring my explanation entirely to build a strawman argument.

Jesus is both Man and God according to you...using your logic His Divine nature is His Human nature.

But you would explain that. Yet why can't you just accept our explanation of what we are saying?

How about this? The PERSON of the Father IS the PERSON of the Son, however the Father is Distinct from the Son in nature (Human nature). Even a Trinitarian would argue Father and Son are not just distinct persons but that the Son possesses a nature the Father does not.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Haven't you read Romans 8:26?

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Trinitarians interpret this as the Spirit interceding for the believer with groanings APART from being indwelled within the believer! One coequal eternal person praying to another coequal eternal person who possess the same mind. Convoluted to say the least.

I find their interpretation inconsistent with the context of Romans 8.

Probably because your understanding is wrong. I have never heard anyone, not even a Oneness believer ever say such a thing.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Believer

All Trinitarians agree that God only has one will. The difinition I posted doesn't all apply to God. One cannot help but notice the "personal pronouns" applied to each of the "Persons" in the Godhead.

The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever

But the definition you gave was of person...if the persons are distinct persons, ie not the same persons, then using that definition it stands to reason there are three wills.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Based on what you posted here and I embolded, can you comment on these quotes and explain them in relation to this post from CARM where will is an attribte of Person and not nature. Also, how many minds did the Son have? How many minds does the Trinity have? Are three three minds and wills or just one?

The heresy that there is only one will in in the incarnate Christ is called monothelitism and arose from the Monophysite heresy (which said that there was only one nature in Christ). Christ distinguishes his will from that of his Father in John 6:38, Matt 26:39, etc. Christ's relationship of obedience to the Father only makes sense if Christ has a human will.

Athanasius said in his treatise on the Incarnation in 365 AD, "And when [Christ] says, "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet, not My will be done, but Yours;" and "the spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak," He gives evidence therein of two wills, the one human, which is of the flesh, and the other divine, which is of God. That which is human, because of the weakness of the flesh, shrinks from suffering. That, however, which is divine, is ready. Then too, Peter, hearing about the passion, says, "Cheer up, Lord;" but the Lord, chiding him, says, "Get behind me Satan; you are a scandal to Me, because you are mindful not of the things of God but of the things of men." This too, then, is to be understood in the suffering; but being God and, in accord with the divine substance, really being not subject to suffering, He readily accepts suffering and death" (Quotation from Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens). The Council of Chalcedon said, "Similarly we promulgate, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him are also two natural wills and two natural modes of working, unseparated, untransformed, undivided, unmixed; and these two natural wills are not opposed to each other as the impious heretics maintained." (Quoted from Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Denzinger 291)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...t/monothel.htm

Monothelitism (a Greek loanword meaning "one will") is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus, known as a Christological doctrine. Specifically, Monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology, which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures. Monothelitism is a development of the Monophysite position in the Christological debates. It enjoyed considerable support in the 7th century before being rejected as heretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism

Bump for Believer. thank you

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I meant to say "When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT trying to say the Son is the Father"...I explained this enough that it just seems like you are being argumentative

Come on prax, please don't start playing the victim. I'm not here to argue with you. Calm down.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Then you have the same problem when you say the Son is God and the Father is God but the Father is not the son. What you are doing here is ignoring my explanation entirely to build a strawman argument.

Not true, because we say that they are not the same "person." If I say the Father is God and the Son is God, doesn't mean they are the same "persons" within the Godhead. But you know that already.....

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jesus is both Man and God according to you...using your logic His Divine nature is His Human nature.

Using my logic, the Son added humanity to Himself. It was the Son of God that was manifested, not the Father.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But you would explain that. Yet why can't you just accept our explanation of what we are saying?

How about this? The PERSON of the Father IS the PERSON of the Son, however the Father is Distinct from the Son in nature (Human nature). Even a Trinitarian would argue Father and Son are not just distinct persons but that the Son possesses a nature the Father does not.

If the "person" the Father is the same "person" of the Son, then they are the same "person" which would make the Father the Son. it won't work. No matter how you put it, you have two "persons."