mlculwell: Again, I will refer to the writer of the following blog to whom I address in using the initials *DR*: for *Day of Reckoning* and it's writer of said Blog.
DR:The historic Christian understanding of the Logos of John 1 is that the Logos is the eternal Son of God.
mlculwell: Now notice the following from the same writer who chides another(J.L Watts) for submitting historical accounts from Encyclopedia's of Religion,New Bible Dictionary Etc. of writers who are themselves trinitarian but admit the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preaching originally but rather the doctrine was developed and contrived. From the day of reckoning blog we get the following from it's writer:
DR:"Let God be true, and every man a liar. The Trinity is the only doctrine of God that satisfies God's revelation of Himself in the scriptures.".
mlculwell: No, the trinity is the only doctrine that satisfies the trinitarain since it was developed by the trinitarian, it is actually a very contradictory doctrine. If it were to "satisfy God" it would have been inspired of God and written about in scripture, but no such doctrine exists in scripture and was never written about of any Apostle or writer of the New Testament.
DR:The majoritive oneness understanding of the Logos is a radical departure from the historical /reformed interpretation.
mlculwell: As Oneness we should not base our doctrines upon the "majoritive understanding of the Logos." The Catholics were at One time claimed the majoritve understanding of salvation (because they were the majority) and the Reformed were outside that majority. So the above quote by our friend is not sound in proving he has truth or that his doctrine is true that is done with scripture.
DR:To the oneness person, the Logos is the knowledge, wisdom, and reason of the divine monad. The Logos is not distinct in any way from God and is certainly not the Son of God until John 1:14. In other words, the oneness Logos is the unrealized wisdom or reason of God that is realized in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
mlculwell: "Unrealized wisdom or reason"??? We make no such claim, I do not even know what that means and is a blatant lie.
DR:considering these two opposing truth claims, one must objectively survey both the entirety of God's revelation and the goal or purpose behind each interpretation. Doctrines hold together much like a home;
mlculwell: There are no"opposing truth claims" as what you have set up for us is not our claim, this is not the Oneness view of the Logos.
The Logos is the all powerful way in which God creates by his spoken word. (Psalm 33:6)
By the Word/Logos(The Septuagint) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
DR:the essential doctrines compose it's foundation, and the secondary or non-essential doctrines compose the remainder of the house. The doctrine of God is unarguably a foundational doctrine, and the understanding of the Logos is a large part of that doctrine.
mlculwell: Neither the trinity nor your understanding of the Logos form any part of the essential, foundational doctrines of God and his word, that is simply pompously assumed based on years of finally hijacking the view into a(so called) majority that is held by both Catholics and protestants.(trinitarains)
DR:One's interpretation of John 1:1-2 will, in a nutshell, explain who the Son of God is. If a home's foundation is undermined, that house will inevitably fall. Likewise, if either the Trinitarian or oneness interpretation of the Logos is incorrect, the theological implications would be devastating and would virtually leave no doctrine untouched.
mlculwell: Well let's look at the "trinitarain view" and see the blatant contradiction, as the trinity folk believe the word was the pre-existent "God the son."
In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the father, and the son was the father.
The above is how the trinitarain views the passage but when you try and pin them down they say we misrepresent their view. Yes, the view is devastating but not for the Oneness view.
DR:What then are the goals of the Trinitarian and oneness understanding of the Logos of John 1? Trintarians look to the John 1:1-2 text to define and defend the eternality and divinity of the Son of God.
mlculwell: Yes, trinitarains do try and define and defend the eternality and divinity much to their demise in which they continually wiggle and squirm out of the further contradictions of their contrived doctrines even after compounding contradiction after contradiction much as we see with their view concerning the Logos and to further the compounded contradiction and add insult to injury they claim The Greek word for with(*Pros* pronounced Pr-aas) means: face to face so that my submitted son was the father is true of their claims and is not a misrepresentation of their view.
DR: Oneness believers derive the origin of the Son of God, and look to the text to remove any misconception that God is anything other than one undivided, simple being. Simple in that, within God there is no complexity of persons or relationships.
mlculwell: This is completely untrue! We believe there was the real The father as Spirit was that which overshadowed the virgin and caused the conception(Math. 1:19) and the father existed before the son as that is how that usually works except with the trinity doctrine.
The relationship between the father and the son was of spirit and flesh not of two persons with in God who were eternally existing calling one the father and the other son which would be *multiple personality disorder*. So that actually the Human persons that have such disorder are really made in God's image and those of us who do not are less than normal. This is the resulting absurd contradictions that we get from their doctrines.
DR:Which claim is true? Lets examine the actual text and see what John tells us about the Logos.
* "In the beginning was the Word," Greek: "En arche en ho logos,"
Here the Logos is presented as having existed in eternity past. the Greek word "en" indicates an unending beginning or timelessness.
mlculwell: It makes sense to me that God could not be seperated from the all powerful way in which he creates and that their never was a time that he could be separated from that power.
DR: So, from this verse fragment, we can derive that the Logos is eternal. At this point, the text is compatible with both the Trinitarian and oneness doctrines. God's wisdom and reason must maintain eternal continuity with God.
mlculwell: We see from (Isaiah 11:2) Jesus was given wisdom, not that he was wisdom prior to his incarnation he most certainly was the wisdom of God because he was made such not because he pre-existed.. Once again the logos is the all powerful way in which God creates and it is explained by (Psalm 33:6) in way in which we as humans scan understand by stating the word by the breath of his mouth likened to speech not simply reason or anything else.
DR: This seems like a rather obvious statement. In fact, so obvious that it begs the question; What God-fearing person reading John's gospel would doubt the eternality of God's wisdom or reason, especially in light of the fact that the Jewish understanding of God included immutability (Malachi 3:6)?
* "and the Word was with God," Greek: "kai ho logos en pros ton theon,"
Here in part two of verse one, John tells us that the Logos was "with" God. John indicates an actual interpersonal relationship held between the Logos and God. Unfortunately only when we examine the text in the original language, does this point show through. The Greek indicates an eternal fellowship, held between the Logos and God. The two key words here are "en" and "pros." "En" tells us of the eternality of the "pros" if you will. The word "pros" literally means to be with someone. So, to put it another way, the Logos was with God in fellowship for eternity.
mlculwell: I believe the trinitarains are on the right track but miss the mark completely in trying to prove their doctrine is correct. (Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. A couple of blaring contradictions come to mind when I read this passage. First; this is speaking of eternity, so why is "God the son" being shown that he would be slain, if he actually could be? The answer is he did not exist, therefor he would not be shown anything and that God was looking forward to the incarnation and did have his son view throughout eternity and all of creation was predicated on his coming. The Second is it is the plan of God to redeem mankind highlighted by the fact he as the lamb( sinless, innocent, Flesh) was slain.
If "pros" literally means to be with someone then God was *with eternal life* as a person in a personal relationship also in (1st.John 1:2) who would God be giving eternal life too in Eternity? Eternal life is for those outside of eternal life eternal life was in the sacrifice of flesh of the sinless son of God.(1st. Cor. 15:21) God the son would not be able to purchase anyone's salvation as he would not and could not be our kinsmen redeemer.
DR:This literal interpretation falls directly in line with the historic Trinitarian understanding of the Logos. If as the Trinitarians say, the Logos is the eternal Son of God, then the Logos had to have shared a Father/Son relationship eternally.
mlculwell: The father and son to the trinitarain are supposed to be the "One God" but with in that "one God" there are persons calling each other father and son *in name only*? This is a most ridiculous doctrine and One trinitarains have tried to hang on Oneness believers in saying our God was had a multiple personality disorder which is actually their own doctrine and them trying to hide in plain site by projecting their own ridiculous beliefs upon us.
DR:How does the oneness interpretation fare? Remember that the Logos is to the oneness person God's impersonal reasoning and wisdom (in the sense that the Logos is an imminent plan or idea existing only in the mind of God).
mlculwell: Paul himself being Lawyer of the Jews and intimately understanding the O.T.scriptures in (Psalm 33:6) and an Apostle and writer of the New Testament himself Used the term logos/word of two individuals evil plan(2nd Tim. 2:17) in the same sense modern Oneness use the term.
If Paul understood the Logos/logos as the trinitarains understood it, he most certainly would not have soiled it with such a common usage of two individuals evil plans, he would have been more careful to guard the term and not at all use it in the way in which he did which confirms the Oneness usage and understanding.John Being and Apostle would have been in agreement with both the Psalmist and Paul.
DR:This literal translation of the second fragment of John 1:1 does not bode well for the oneness doctrine. In fact it poses an extremely difficult and perhaps fatal problem.
mlculwell: It does absolutely zero damage to "our understanding."
DR: How can an idea have fellowship or interaction with the individual who thought it? If God is unitarian, John's description of the Logos in this text is absolutely befuddling. Can a thinking God personally interact or be face to face with His own thought?
mlculwell: Just Like the lamb was being slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in the plan for future redemption God the father by himself and alone Looked to the time of the incarnation when he himself would come down to mankind and redeem said mankind.
DR:Perhaps He could. This would require the oneness God to be somehow divided from His own reason or wisdom, thereby rendering Him more than a monad.
mlculwell: God's plan for redemption was with him but Could not be separated from him as He was the the plan, that being God himself would take the flesh of of his only begotten son and redeem mankind through the sacrifice of the sinless flesh.
DR: * "and the Word was God." Greek: "kai theos en ho logos."
This text again inserts the eternality of the subject with the word "en." If we were to identify the literal meaning of what the text says, we would have "and the Word was eternally God."
mlculwell: What is "perplexing" has nothing to do with our doctrine but rather it is that in trying to make the distinction between the father, and son, you destroy your own doctrine.
The word was "God the son" according to you and distinct from *God the father* to whom you say he was *with* and then further you make him God the father to whom you say he was *with*.
DR:This text is quite perplexing since just just told us that the Logos shared an eternal fellowship with God.
mlculwell: please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? This bodes very well with all of the council of God and the Oneness understanding and does not contradict scripture as does your understanding.
DR;The only logical and objective conclusion that could be made is that John is telling us that the Logos is both eternal and divine. The obvious goal of John 1:1 is to describe the Logos. The identity of God in the text, is assumed.
mlculwell: The Logos cannot be separated from God the word was both with and was at the same time God thus both eternal and divine ut most certainly not a separate person of God.
DR:For the Trinitarian this harmonizes well. It is an assertion of the eternality and deity of the Son of God. For the oneness position, this verse fragment seems redundant and emphatic.
mlculwell: What this shows me is that the trinitarian is being dishonest to highlight his way of thinking on the passage as the trinity view of John 1:1 is foreign to the scriptures and is a new understanding never before considered by either the Apostles or of the psalmist in the old Testament.
DR: The oneness translation might say, "God's reason and wisdom is eternally God." Or perhaps "God's plan or idea of the Son was eternally God." In retrospect, the oneness understanding of the text of John 1:1 would seem to simply emphasize the obvious to the reader, and thereby complicate an ordinary and presumed truth.
mlculwell: God's word was both with and was God(God is nothing less than eternal and it would ridiculous to think otherwise. The plan of the eternal God to redeem mankind came from eternity into this world in time(Gal. 4:4) when the fullness of time was come God sent forth his son(Where God?) *Made of a woman* Made under the law. he sent his son from time and entered himself as God(The father) from eternity. The trinitarain understanding is foreign to scripture and is forced upon the text to contradict when read as they see it.
DR:The Trinitarian understanding of the word logos is a departure from the common Greek understanding of the word. Whereas the oneness interpretation falls directly in line with the common Greek understanding of the word logos.
mlculwell: This is not the first time that the Apostles adopted a pagan understanding and used it to the good, such as Paul addressing the *unknown God at Mars hill* or adopting the name Christian as the believers were called Christians first at Antioch by unbelievers outside of their fold. But the understanding of the term word was already used in (Psalm 33:6) long before John or Paul came about to use the term.
DR:This adds an interesting point to the argument. The Trinitarian position seems to be using a semantically unorthodox definition of the word,
mlculwell: That has been my point all along they use it in new way that has never before been used nor is it the way in which Paul used the term which lines up with the Oneness understanding(2nd. Tim.2:17) Who would have been in agreement with john as an Apostle which you contradict Paul by the way!
DR: making somewhat of a symbolic/typic hybrid. Lets consider hermeneutics for a moment. Hermeneutics tells us that in scripture, words must take on only the meaning that the context has given them. Does the context of the Johannine prologue permit the Trinitarian understanding of the Logos? Absolutely. The oneness understanding renders the passage clumsy and unnecessary.
mlculwell: This is is a blatantly dishonest assessment of the Oneness view! it is actually the trinity view which is clunky and contradicts all known use's of the term and adds a new meaning never before seen anywhere in scripture.
DR:This reality is rather ironic as well. It is common for oneness advocates to assume a Greek philosophical derivation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately, it seems that the oneness doctrine is derived from a Greek origin, at least in regards to the Logos. At this point, an examination of John 1:2 would only serve to add insult to injury to the oneness position.
mlculwell: Paul himself gives us the understanding of the way in which he used the term logos of two individuals and if it were the way in which you have stated he again would not have soiled the term in using it of such a common understanding but of course he did and I believe it was to blatantly shoot down the coming false doctrine of the trinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment