It seems the standard tired question trinitarians ask of Oneness: is what about the baptism of Jesus? The Trinitarian will point to the three manifestations present at the baptism as proof positive that there are three persons of God. But is that the actual case and does it prove three persons? I say with a resounding No, it does not.
What is present at Jesus Baptism are: the voice of God from heaven, The spirit manifested as a dove, and Jesus in the water. They were all temporary manifestations at least the voice and the dove as a sign and as proof as to whom Jesus was.
John 1:32-34
32John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33"I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' 34"I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."
We do not have three persons of God being seen in the passage whatsoever as no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere. We have a Voice (Not a person) the same spirit of God manifesting himself as the voice also manifesting himself as a dove (Not a person either) and we have Jesus in the water A person. The question remains then are these manifestation different persons of God? Or are the manifestation of the one God in three different areas or ways that God chose to reveal himself?
If these were three persons of God why is this vague alluding to a voice and a dove the standard number of persons set for God?
Revelation 1:4
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,
Revelation 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Isaiah 11:2
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
The above passage shows perfectly the completeness of God in The Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness of the Godhead bodily in quality. Oneness does not consider the scriptures to teach multiple persons anywhere, nor does it even allude to the false doctrine. The doctrine of the trinity and three persons of God is an oral non- scriptural tradition of men on the very same level as Maryology and Popery and is not sola scriptua.
11 comments:
A few comments:
We do not have three persons of God being seen in the passage whatsoever as no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere. We have a Voice (Not person) the same spirit of God manifesting himself as the voice also manifesting himself as a dove (Not a person either) and we have Jesus in the water A person. The question remains then are these manifestation different persons of God? Or are the manifestation of the one God in three different areas or ways that God chose to reveal himself?
You merely beg the question in the first sentence of this quote. Notwithstanding that, that the Voice and the dove are not 'persons' in the exact same manner as Jesus (God and man united in the hypostatic union) misses that the Voice and the dove are standing-in for persons. This is abundantly clear with the Voice, in that a voice comes from a person, and in this case is the Voice which speaks the Word, whom John has very recently described as being the one who 'was God' and who 'was with God in the beginning.' The dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit who is later described as relationally distinct from the Father and the Son, and it is the paraclete-like nature of his coming (sent from heaven to earth) that is imaged in the descending of the dove. This rather cursory analysis of course does not exhaust the meaning here, but it is simply begging the question to make the assertion you have here.
The question remains then are these manifestation different persons of God? Or are the manifestation of the one God in three different areas or ways that God chose to reveal himself?
That question only remains if the scriptures are needlessly rent from the tradition within which they were written and compiled.
If these were three persons of God why is this vague alluding to a voice and a dove the standard number of persons set for God?
It is only a 'vague' allusion if one does not consider anything else that John wrote concerning the relations between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or the dogmatic tradition within which John's writing arose and were canonized. The 'seven spirits' of God was understood from the beginning of Christian theology as referring to fullness of the gifts and work of the Holy Spirit (in the case of the Isaiah passage) or to seven angels who represent that fullness. There has never been any significant exegetical or doctrinal difficulty on this line since, as both ancient and modern commentators can attest, the number 'seven' is being used for fullness here, and is not intended to create some sort of numerical distinction between the 'spirits' of gifts. The poetic parallelism of Isaiah's passage is hardly ambiguous.
The doctrine of the trinity and three persons of God is an oral non- scriptural tradition of men on the very same level as Maryology and Popery and is not sola scriptua.
While there is an element of oral tradition to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is hardly the case that such is what is most characteristic of it. The pronouncements of numerous councils establish the dogmatic character of the doctrine, and those are written down and transmitted that form, so it is hardly accurate to characterize it as 'oral.'
And if you are going to repudiate a doctrine because of its non-scriptural status, you would be forced to include sola scriptura within rejected doctrines, since it is likewise 'non-scriptural.'
Jason, The voice and the dove are manifestation of the One God and cannot be proven to be more than one person of God by anyone.
You trinitarains have been begging the question all this time with your doctrine of the trinity and three persons of God.. No such doctrine exists in scripture and was the reason for my post in the first place.
Yes I agree there is a hypostatic union but not of God persons. One genuine man and One God make up the incarnation. Malachi 2:10 calls the totality of God the Father and does not focus on a person of God known as the father.
There is no definition in scripture for "person" in the way in which trinitarains force it upon God and the scriptures and demand others use the tradition or they are not Orthadox. I could care less about your un-scriptural litmus test for Orthodoxy.
The Voice and the dove are manifestations like Ballam's donkey that talked. Neither the talking nor the donkey was a person of God but was the power of God manifested through the donkey. The voice and the dove were a sign to John that Jesus would be the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Did you miss that part?
Then you talk about tradition of the scriptures? No writer wrote of a trinity anywhere? That is your doctrine not scriptures!
There is nothing in scripture anywhere about three persons of god if there is you might want to point me to the passage? That is simply your tradition and not God's!
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three persons of God any more than me being a father, son, and husband!
I gave Isa.11:2 where Jesus is prophesied as being give the seven spirits of God. Yes it is the number of completeness! The seven Spirits of God are the Complete power and fullness of God and are not just abut the spirtual gifts.
Jason, The voice and the dove are manifestation of the One God and cannot be proven to be more than one person of God by anyone. You trinitarains have been begging the question all this time with your doctrine of the trinity and three persons of God.. No such doctrine exists in scripture and was the reason for my post in the first place.
In and of itself, probably not. However, this passage does not exist in isolation either from the rest of the scriptures (and more to the point the relations described by John between the Father, Son and Spirit) or the Trinitarian tradition out of which the scriptures as a recognized whole emerged.
And how is it begging the question? While Trinitarianism of course has recourse to the scriptures, historically the scriptures have not been understood as the only 'proof' for the dogmatic understanding of the Trinity.
Yes I agree there is a hypostatic union but not of God persons. One genuine man and One God make up the incarnation. Malachi 2:10 calls the totality of God the Father and does not focus on a person of God known as the father.
Trinitarianism does not assert that the hypostatic union is of 'God persons' but rather the hypostasis of the Son in union with the human substance in Jesus. Additionally, is an rather elementary notion of Trinitarian theology that in each person of the Godhead exists the totality of God, so I fail to see what your point is.
There is no definition in scripture for "person" in the way in which trinitarains force it upon God and the scriptures and demand others use the tradition or they are not Orthadox. I could care less about your un-scriptural litmus test for Orthodoxy.
This is a meaningless argument, since the scriptures are not a dictionary of theological terminology.
The Voice and the dove are manifestations like Ballam's donkey that talked. Neither the talking nor the donkey was a person of God but was the power of God manifested through the donkey. The voice and the dove were a sign to John that Jesus would be the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Did you miss that part?
No, I didn't miss it. However, the voice of Balaam's donkey was also not further explicated in relational reference to the object of its speech as the Voice is in reference to the Son or the dove (Holy Spirit) in reference to the Son. Further, the fact that the voice and dove were a sign to John does not mean that such an understanding is exhaustive of this theophany.
Then you talk about tradition of the scriptures? No writer wrote of a trinity anywhere? That is your doctrine not scriptures!
Plenty of writers have written about the Trinity, some using more precise language and terminology than others. I'm not sure what your argument is, or if there even is one.
There is nothing in scripture anywhere about three persons of god if there is you might want to point me to the passage? That is simply your tradition and not God's!
The baptismal formula is a rather straightforward delineation of the consubstantial dignity of each divine person.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not three persons of God any more than me being a father, son, and husband!
Categorical error. For God, essence is identical with existence. In humans, relational terms like father, son and husband are accidental in nature. In God, however, there are no accidents and thus relations are substantial. As such, God being Father, Son and Holy Spirit is certainly not identical to you being a father, son and husband.
The seven Spirits of God are the Complete power and fullness of God and are not just abut the spirtual gifts.
Nothing I said would preclude such an understanding, and if the seven spirits are the complete power and fullness of God, as you say, then for the Holy Spirit to possess them would entail that the Holy Spirit is fully God, which is what Trinitarianism asserts. As such, I don't really see what you argument along this line is.
Still begging the question! there is nothing in scripture that says there are three persons of God and you cannot prove it from scripture. It is an oral tradition on the same level as Maryology and Popery. If the trinity is correct based on your tradition and dogma interpretation then the Catholic's are correct for the same reason based on their interpretation.
There is no scripture for the son being in the son(Your bad version of the hypostic union)God was manifesting himself in the flesh. Not a third of god again your version whether you like it or not which is the result of your doctrine.
Jesus was a real man not faker where a suit. (God animating a shell pretending to be a man)
There was one genuine man and one genuine God that made Jesus the LORD Jesus Christ.
Meaningless? The scriptures define our beliefs and doctrines?
If so then the Pope is valid doctrine based on flawed interpretation. Mary is the Mother of God based to be worshipped with the saints on flawed interpretation God the son is and the trinity are based on flawed interpretation.
Still begging the question! there is nothing in scripture that says there are three persons of God and you cannot prove it from scripture.
And thus we are brought back to the subject that you consistently refuse to address. I am not laboring under the presumption that the scriptures are the only authoritative source of doctrine, so your argument has no teeth in this respect. The scriptures additionally say nothing about what constitutes its contents nor that it in and if itself is the sole source of doctrine (and in some places actually indicates that believers are to hold to the traditions they have received), so by your own assertion you have defeated your own argument.
That being said, while the scriptures certainly do not make the sorts of dogmatic pronouncements that the later councils do viz-a-viz the Trinity, that does not preclude one from understanding the things the scriptures teach viz-a-viz the relations between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as substantially the same.
It is an oral tradition on the same level as Maryology and Popery. If the trinity is correct based on your tradition and dogma interpretation then the Catholic's are correct for the same reason based on their interpretation.
The Scriptures (e.g., the NT) were also part of 'oral tradition' until they were written down and weren't even officially designated as 'scripture' until the mid 4th century, and these pronouncements were made by Trinitarians (gasp!, authoritatively by both bishops and a pope!). It seems rather odd that you would accept the canon from a group whom you are completely opposed in doctrine.
There is no scripture for the son being in the son(Your bad version of the hypostic union)God was manifesting himself in the flesh. Not a third of god again your version whether you like it or not which is the result of your doctrine.
Trinitarianism does not posit a distinction between the 'Son' and the 'son' except insofar as the person of the Son united in himself the divine and human substances. Thus, Trinitarianism does not speak of the Son being in the son. Nor is the Son understood to be a 'third' of God as if the divine substance could be parceled out, but rather that the Son is the fullness of the Godhead. Simply stating that your strawman is the result is not really an argument. Rather, it seems more like you simply don't understand what you're talking about.
Jesus was a real man not faker where a suit. (God animating a shell pretending to be a man)
There was one genuine man and one genuine God that made Jesus the LORD Jesus Christ.
While I would probably phrase it more precisely, there is nothing about the Trinitarian understanding of the hypostatic union which is in substantial disagreement with this. In fact, the logic of the Trinitarian relations is the foundation of the hypostatic union as correctly understood.
Meaningless? The scriptures define our beliefs and doctrines?
Of course the scriptures define our beliefs and doctrines, but that does not necessarily entail that the scriptures do so in isolation.
If so then the Pope is valid doctrine based on flawed interpretation. Mary is the Mother of God based to be worshipped with the saints on flawed interpretation God the son is and the trinity are based on flawed interpretation.
If you think those who title Mary as Theotokos do so in order to worship her (and the saints by extension) in the same way as they worship God, you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. But given that you make such elementary errors in regards to your opponent's arguments, that probably shouldn't be too surprising.
I am laboring under that assumption because the scriptures say so as to anything that is actually authoritative and I am making fun of your assumption! I am not confirming it! How would you even get that from what I said? it is the sole source of doctrine too!
(2 Tim. 3:16) there is no other foundtion or tradition that can be layed upon the one built already through the twelve Apostles of the Lamb! there are no more 12 Apostles of the lamb to add to tradition or to the word. Popes and tradition afterwards such as trinity are false doctrines and additions of God's word that is closed cannon!
The scripture are very numerous on that fact and your last post is ridiculous and you should not even be taken seriously for saying such nonsense. All scripture is give for doctrine for correction of instruction in righteousness. You are done commenting here with this kind of nonsense! On this subject of scriptural authority you are done! defend your doctrine of the trinity or do not bother posting in my comments.
In him (the son dwells)ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily(Col.2:9) you did not even come near quoting the passage even half correct!
You talk about elementary arguments and do not have the courage to answer your phone when I challenge you! OH BTW I said nothing about "calling Mary the mother of God is the reason for worship" I simply included it as a false doctrine besides Catholic's calling Mary the Mother of God but you have been known to take my words and twist them.
I am laboring under that assumption because the scriptures say so as to anything that is actually authoritative and I am making fun of your assumption! I am not confirming it! How would you even get that from what I said? it is the sole source of doctrine too!
Not confirming what?
(2 Tim. 3:16) there is no other foundtion or tradition that can be layed upon the one built already through the twelve Apostles of the Lamb!
I fail to see how this establishes your argument, since the only way one could determine that the scriptures which came to be authoritatively received as the canon are a part of the content of that tradition and foundation is by accepting the authoritative reception as authentic and accurate, which is obviously not something that the scriptures say. So while you have tried to kick the can down the road a bit, your argument ultimately ends up in the same place where you end up defeating yourself.
Popes and tradition afterwards such as trinity are false doctrines and additions of God's word that is closed cannon!
And yet the only way you could possibly determine this to be the case is by first accepting that these same people had the authority to determine the extent of the canon against which one could adjudicate which doctrines are false and which are true. You are still arguing against yourself.
The scripture are very numerous on that fact and your last post is ridiculous and you should not even be taken seriously for saying such nonsense. All scripture is give for doctrine for correction of instruction in righteousness. You are done commenting here with this kind of nonsense! On this subject of scriptural authority you are done! defend your doctrine of the trinity or do not bother posting in my comments.
Yet the only one you adduced undermines the very argument you are trying to make. No wonder you keep trying to end this particular discussion.
In him (the son dwells)ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily(Col.2:9) you did not even come near quoting the passage even half correct!
'Him' denotes a subject, and since the body is as wrapped up in a personal subject as the person considered abstractly, my paraphrase provides substantially the same meaning.
You talk about elementary arguments and do not have the courage to answer your phone when I challenge you!
Um, ok...
OH BTW I said nothing about "calling Mary the mother of God is the reason for worship"
Well, you did say this: "Mary is the Mother of God based to be worshipped with the saints on flawed interpretation"
Sometimes your syntax is difficult to follow, so I apologize for mistaking your meaning. It seemed that the position of 'based' within your sentence was meant to indicate that worship was the purpose for calling Mary Theotokos.
I simply included it as a false doctrine besides Catholic's calling Mary the Mother of God but you have been known to take my words and twist them.
Where have I twisted your words? BTW, Catholics are hardly alone in calling Mary Theotokos.
A comment full of ignorance Jason Watson! I went ahead posted it so everyone can see your ignorance on scriptural authority.
Do not bother posting again because I am not going to post someones comments who takes the authority of the scriptures as lightly as you do. Do not do it because it will not be posted.
Very brave of people to hide behind a keyboard and answer on my comments but not answer the phone.
God used trinitarains to fulfill his purpose all throughout history however it does not mean you have the truth concerning the Godhead JW. He used many, he used Judas Iscariot, he used the Romans to destroy Jerusalem. He is using trinitarains to fulfill a purpose today but it does not mean you have the truth concerning the Godhead.
JW, that phone number was on your blog; there was nothing indicating it was for some kind clientele.You sure are brave behind your keyboard.. I gave you the answer. Trins are used by sovereign God and have been and will continue to be used by God just like the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in 70A.D. and Judas Iscariot neither of which who either trinitarain or who had truth. Persistence does not mean truth either.
Go to carm on the Oneness forum and debate the Oneness there. I appreciate you commenting but the comments are not a place for debate.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?64-Oneness
Post a Comment