Is the Father the Son?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sadly ... the adverb in this sentence gives added meaning to the context of this swipe.

Oh brother...milk it as much as you want Dan...keep it up Brother. You might just finally score.

Sadly, yes it IS sadly. You do it often and it appears to OTHERS, not just me, that you are taking the Trinitarian side. Your appear divisive and an advocate to the Trinitarians anti-Oneness views. I thought you were just playing devils advocate and though I do find that a sad thing to constantly see here on this board, perhaps you aren't trying to play devils advocate....which makes us wonder if you aren't really leaning towards Trinitarianism. Perhaps you don't see it....the other members here do. You join ranks with the Trinitarians when they are having a discussion with Oneness advocates here. You resort to mockery and insults too against the OP but not the Trinitarian...then you claim it's all in the name of tolerance.

My suggestion was that you are playing Devils advocate in a misguided attempt at tolerance. Sadly...yes sadly I think that is what you do, I say sadly because it appears to be divisive and there are others that are frustrated by it as well. Im not the only one that sees this. I just happen to be the only one you were told to lay off of and now you are just begging for something to pick on. Devils advocate. You know what it means. I could have said "Sadly It seems like Dan is just taking the opposing side for the sake of argument" same thing..

Devils advocate means you are in cahoots with the devil?? give me a break

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Dancing w/ the stars ... my posts speak for themselves.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

BTW, there are Oneness believers that believe in Eternal Sonship ...

This issue is only an issue to most PAJC Oneness believers primarily because of their soteriological view, namely a baptismal formula ....

as long as that's the case ... you will see those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and enter into a binding relationship w/ him ... as lost ... and just well-intentioned.

If they are born of God and are filled w/ His Spirit .... they are my brethren .. . regardless if I view their explanation of God as lacking.

Your focus is in being able to explain God ... when He yearns for relationship.

My prayer is that of Jesus ... make us one .... as He and the Father are One.

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Mizpeh, I am concerned that Dan may only be a professing "oneness folk"... but in reality, in his mind the only difference between oneness and trintarians are semantics. What I have observed from Dan in this thread is a constant assault on basic oneness logic and presentation of their theology. The problem here is when a person fails to realize the real difference between oneness and trinitarian theology, they have in effect accepted a theology that embraces a godhead that is contrary to the God presented in the bible. The three-in-one God of the trinitarians is a completely foreign concept from the God of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek New Testament. Any theology that presents God as anything else but ONE is not a biblical theology. Three-in-one IS NOT one.

Deut 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Bob, why didn't Moses you the Hebrew word that means “absolute one,” instead he used the word that also means “compound unity?”

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...

This knife cuts both ways. I didn't call you a liar. I truly don't understand why you chide Oneness folks who are discussing doctrine with Trinitarians.

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.

This is not Elpey's thread which questions whether Trinitarians are lost, but a doctrinal thread on who the Son is and basically on the Oneness doctrine. None of us are condemning this Trinitarian to hell or even questioning his salvation. If we were I could understand your defense of this Trinitarian but we are discussing doctrine on God. So why are you continually cheerleading the Trinitarian point of view or at the least being extremely sypathetic to the point of opposing your fellow Oneness believers? That is what is confusing me. I put it down to your decision to be tolerant but your doing it at the expense of alienating your brethren. This Trinitarian doesn't need a protector on this site. He appears able to handle the discussion.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}

Rehashing an accusation from another thread. An inappropiate accusation but not related to the discussion on this thread.

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.

Dan, you're more Oneness than I am, so why don't you defend it?

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.

Dan, I just don't want to explain myself to a fellow Oneness believer who appears to be siding with an opposite belief whether its JW or Mormonism or Trinitarianism.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum.

I was asking you to spread the love around, Dan. Give it up for your Oneness brethren once in awhile who are promoting the Oneness of God.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

He was responding to what I said about the doctrine of an eternal Son, as in eternal generation and the second person of the Trinity. I'm not sure why he mentioned eternal Sonship.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

The word they used means a numerical one.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

Willy Dan isn't talking about the Sonship ENDING. He's talking about a Sonship that has always existed...like Trinitarians..Father and Son before the world began

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Bump

I'll try to answer the question from a Trinitarain perspective. Any Trinity folks can correct me if I'm off. Here Goes.

5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

According to the Bible, Jesus is shown to be the Son of God only. So the subject is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Jesus Christ, existed (continually existing) in the form of God..i.e. Spirit.

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Jesus Christ took on the form, added humanity to himself. He didn't empty himself of deity, just the glory, which his later prayer in John 17:5 asked the Father to glorify him with the glory he had with the Father before the world was.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It was Jesus who was found in the appearance of a man, not the Father. No man has ever seen the Father (Jn 6:46)

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

It was because Jesus came to do the Father's will that God highly exalted Him. So to answer your question, Jesus willing sujected himself to do the Fathers will. So, in his humanity the Father is greater than the Son.

10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father. Jesus is still Lord, and it is to Jesus that every knew will bow.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Willy Dan isn't talking about the Sonship ENDING. He's talking about a Sonship that has always existed...like Trinitarians..Father and Son before the world began

Well, if dan said the Son always existed, then that would speak to the future as well? I took it as meaning eternally.