One Blogger writes the following: With the Title heading: Jesus Christ the eternal son of God. first off, a son as old as his daddy just does not make sense.
Second, the son is the same God as his daddy but as two distinct persons of God . neither of which is logical or scriptural.
"2Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.(esv)
This text echoes the sentiments of Philippians 2:6-8. The essence of this text and that of the text in Philippians, stresses the humility shown by the Son of God in obeying the Father by becoming incarnate. In greater context of this chapter, specifically verse five, the text clearly distinguish God the Father from the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we do know with certainty that Paul was speaking of Jesus, the Son of God."
None of this is a problem for the Oneness view as their thesis above is wrong in the first place, the doctrine is contrived and invented and is forced upon the texts, something not really said. This person uses a vague passage as an opportunity to force their doctrine upon scripture.
Both of the above passages are starting from the incarnation. How do I know that? Is my thinking also something that I have contrived and forced? No, it is because the above view contradicts scripture.
The view is faulty because it isolates one passage to come up with a doctrine not considering other and all passages that deal with same subject on the matter.(vacuum isolation)
(Heb.11:3) Says the things which are made ( or seen) were not made of things which were seen or appear. Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col.1:16) In the incarnation Jesus is that which is seen,(the invisible) his deity(God the father in him DOING THE WORKS John 14:10) is that creative Force (in him) NOT SEEN. Yes, Jesus is the creator because of the incarnation.
Now our friend contradicts scripture especially when he uses (Philippians 2:6) as passage to try and prove Jesus was a pre-incarnate 2nd person of God and what that passage does for the Trinitarain is blatant polytheism because their view has God equal to God(You cannot be the that God your equal.)
The Oneness view does not view (Philippians 2:6) as pre-incarnational but rather incarnational Jesus thought it not robbery because his humanity had a beginning and was given and made all that he had without limits.(Math 28:18,John 3:34,Acts 2;36,1st.Cor.15:45-46)
The same person writes:
"With that said, why would this notion be a problem for those who hold to the oneness doctrine? The answer is simple; in order for oneness theology to be true, there can never be a time when both the Father and the Son exist simultaneously prior to the incarnation. Oneness adherents can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son of God. If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own, it cannot be said that He and the Father are the same person. This is without question, what the scripture presents. This co-eternal nature of the Son and the Father, leaves the oneness adherent without a scriptural foundation for their doctrine".
"If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own"??? Dear friends this person clearly shouts polytheism at every turn! The above person has neither proved that which he set out to do nor has dis-proven the Oneness doctrine and has in turn proven his doctrine polytheism all in one fell swoop.
No comments:
Post a Comment