Prototokos and Firstborn.

 Trinitarian's tend to believe" Oneness Pentecostals deny the  teaching that Jesus was creator", simply because we do not believe Jesus was another God person known as "the Son of God" and that Jesus pre-existed his birth and was at creation with God the Father before the earth and man existed. That is simply not the case as far as creation goes, however we do deny the doctrine of the trinity and  that Jesus was a co-creator , but rather his divinity that of God the Father was the creator and that he Jesus was actually born of a virgin like scripture teaches. Here is one of  the passages that has Jesus as creator Colossians 1:16 states, “ all things were made by him".. Here is the entire creation passage in question:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Note the phrase firstborn of every created creature. 

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: "Through "  the preposition, as in the phrase: "Through" Him.

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Jesus is not a man only, he is  also God in flesh, and a genuine man at the same time. 

"By Him" works for me! Jesus the man was given the Spirit of his God and Father, the Only true God, by no measure.(John 3:34) Making him the Only True God the Father in flesh/man/Son. He the man both pre-existed and did not pre-exist. Jesus both died and did not die, as both God and man at the same time. To take creation away from him is measuring, to take away the only true God the Father in flesh is measuring.(John 17;3) Jesus said the only true God is the Father. Jesus was made the Only true God in the incarnation. He Jesus the man had to be made such, because his humanity did not pre-exist.  That is the "through" or "by him" and "for him" inclusion in genesis 1. This is no problem for Oneness Pentecostals.

Jesus was made the Only true God in the incarnation because the man and Son of God was born of his mother and did not pre-exist his birth. Read Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 1:8 is exactly because of the incarnation. Read also Romans 5:14? Adam who was the figure of him (Jesus) that was to come. Even though Adam was made in the perfect man's image, he was not back there, but the man Jesus was included when God said: "Let Us make Man in our Image, after our Likeness." Jesus the man is the image of the Invisible God. Col. 1:15. God is not the image of God. The man Jesus is the Seen of the Not seen God. The Only Image of God in flesh.

The Greek word and "Prototokos the Firstborn of all creation." Trinitarian's will say: in reference to Col. 1:15 and Jesus being "the firstborn" has a greater meaning than it actually has, and some special meaning in reference to their doctrine of the Trinity,  of three person's of God and especially "God the Son."  but prototokos has to do with birth whether spiritual or natural. Note the following passages where prototokos is used: Luke 2:7 , Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 1:6 , Hebrews 11:28 , Hebrews 12:23 , Revelation 1:5 . Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are "the offspring of God", we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. The Only Son Born of a virgin. (Unique) but still a  virgin birth, no other Son can make that claim."Adam was also the Son of God." Luke 3:38. But he was not born of a virgin.  Nor was Adam a created angel. Adam was begotten of the dust of the ground by God himself and breathing life, man became a living soul.Genesis 2:7-9. Jesus was the first thought of God before creation(A thought brought forth birthed) and was the perfect man Adam was figured in.  As Paul said before : Adam was the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:14  In every sense. Adam was the first in creation, but Jesus was the perfect pattern. Note the word figure or  "type" and recall Genesis 1:26? the other meanings for that word: the mark of a stroke or blow; print,a figure formed by a blow or impression;Image, pattern example. Which goes perfectly with what Oneness Pentecostals are saying about creation.

Now recall the many uses for the word "prototokos" It is a great stretch to mean  or to insert into the dogma of the Trinity concerning a pre-existent person of God.  This is not a denial He is Sovereign but it is a denial he is is pre-existent and the word usage is inconsistent to prove  Jesus as a  pre-existent God  person. There is simply no proof of a pre-existent God person in the word itself.
 

Pauline Doctrine of "Faith Alone" Does Not Exist.

 

The following article excerpt comes from  a reformed, that attempts multiple critiques concerning Oneness Pentecostals view of New Testament Soteriology, particularly water baptism in Jesus name being orally invoked over those being baptized. The writer then makes the assertion that Oneness Pentecostals deny salvation is by "faith alone" or  as he calls it: "Sola Fide". I will attempt to say a little about most of every thing he says,  but I am not worried that I don't touch on everything. The Reformed writer says the follwing:

Over and over again, Oneness writers proclaim ‘Acts 2:38 is the gospel,’[39] without tempering such a claim with the balance of the NT. If Oneness Pentecostals tempered their interpretation of Acts 2:38 with the balance of NT teaching on soteriology, their legalistic insistence upon baptism with the oral invocation of Jesus’ name would evaporate. Instead of the sufficiency of Scripture as it relates to soteriology, Oneness Pentecostals affirm the sufficiency and exclusivity of Acts 2:38. The Oneness hermeneutic effectively obliterates the Pauline doctrine of sola fide, and puts Pauline anthropology on its head. How can justification be by faith “without works” (Rom. 4:6) if obedience to Christ’s command of baptism is required? Bernard’s soteriology negates Paul’s claim that “Those in the flesh do not have the ability to please God” (Rom. 8:6). If unbelievers are incapable of pleasing God, then how might they engage in obedience to the command of Christ prior to the regenerative work of the Spirit of God? I will now proceed to work backwards with what the Reformed writer claims, to the beginning of his points, taking each point. 


  Point 1.)
Bernard’s soteriology negates Paul’s claim that “Those in the flesh do not have the ability to please God” (Rom. 8:6). If unbelievers are incapable of pleasing God, then how might they engage in obedience to the command of Christ prior to the regenerative work of the Spirit of God?
1.) My reasons for this writing has nothing to do with the defense of David Bernard. You can take that up with him, but I do not believe any of what you have stated is true of Bernard because of reading many of his works myself that state the opposite. What you mean more than likely,is "all Oneness Pentecostals. "  This is not true. We believe in Justification by faith but we reject your views of it and I will attempt to show what the scriptures say and teach on the subject.

I will let Jesus  himself tell you, since he commissioned the Apostles. John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. God allows everyone to be saved although that had not yet come to the gentiles until Acts 10.

Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear, is that you do not belong to God."John 8:48 later everyone is included and I believe Jesus is setting the order of things. Jesus was saying the Jews did not belong to God for a specific reason and it had nothing to do with the Calvin dogma of inability. The Jews in Jesus time, all they had to do was repent and turn back to God. When they recognized the words Jesus was speaking, but they were blinded in part.
 
 Again Jews only at this point, please keep in mind gentiles were not included yet. This was only to the Jews. Also know that God had to open their (the disciples) Understanding that they might understand the Scriptures in Luke 24:45-53. The power of the Spirit also did not come upon them until Acts chapter 2:4. The preaching of the word of God in conjunction with the Spirit of God together gets the job done. The Letter kills, but the Spirit makes Alive. 2 Cor. 3:6

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is ( Hidden) , it is (Hidden) to those who are perishing. (Lost)
in whom the god of this age has BLINDED THE MINDS of the unbelieving, so as for not to beam forth the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. That can be remedied by the preaching of the gospel.

The following was a promise they had not yet received. the Spirit gave them the power in  Acts 2? Notice they had power to remit sins? This is left out when anyone talks about baptism for the remission of sins. The name Jesus is  what Oneness Pentecostals claim is the reason and power to remit the sins. James 5:14  this is to the already established church body.
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Which takes us right to Luke 24:45-48.

I will now insert the Apostle Paul. 

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.14 How then (A negation of the former Until the following is done) shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?17 So then FAITH  COMETH BY HEARING , and hearing by the WORD OF GOD. (You are not saved apart from hearing the preaching of the word)

Can you imagine God telling us all this and it is not true and we are not even able to believe?  Also make note of the verb "sent" from the phrase "a preacher sent of God."  John 17:18 as you have sent me into the world, or the same exact way you have sent me, even so have I sent these into the world. The Disciples or later Apostles.

1 John 2:2  and he is the propitiation for our sins and NOT OURS ONLY, but the sins of the whole world.
Without interjecting of my beliefs, but quoting the scripture. We see that God has given for us the ability to believe or reject the gospel when we hear the gospel message, the same way the Jews did in Acts 2. The dead are already Lost and do not believe, but Jesus tells us there will come a time and now is that time when they will be able to do just that with in the time frame of his ministry going forward. The claim is not being made that belief in Jesus alone or on Jesus alone as some make claim, is what saves. because the scriptures make the following claim: And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him. Acts 5:32.

 Point 2. writes:"The Oneness hermeneutic effectively obliterates the Pauline doctrine of sola fide, and puts Pauline anthropology on its head. How can justification be by faith “without works” (Rom. 4:6) if obedience to Christ’s command of baptism is required?"  First of all, there is no Pauline doctrine of "Sola Fide." That is a Reformed dogma that does not exist anywhere in scripture. "Without the works of the Law"  The scripture itself destroys the doctrine... "Alone" is inserted anytime they the Reformed see the word "faith." It has been inserted so much, they cannot see anything else.  Obedience to God's word puts Faith in action. it is what we do and have. There is only one passage in all of scripture that talks about "faith alone" and it is not on the side of Reformed dogma.
James 2: 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? faith is imperfect (dead faith or disobedience) without obedience to the word of God.

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only. Paul is talking about obedience to the word of God apart from the works of the Law.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should OBEY it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Note that the "works" Paul is speaking of in Eph. 2:8:9 are the works of the Law. Particular work not obedient faith.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that To WHOM YOU YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of OBEDIENCE unto righteousness? (There is no getting out of this it is about obedience to the word or your flesh)

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Acts 2:38. The Roman church.
Notice what Peter says in  the following passage? 1 Peter 5:12 

12 With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the TRUE GRACE of God. Stand fast in it. 13 She who is in(or the church at) Babylon,(Jerusalem) chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Peter preached Acts 2:38 to be saved. Was it the true grace or not?

I most certainly have not forgotten Romans 6 although I have only posted the last half of the passage as the first half agrees with the Oneness Pentecostal view fully.
Romans 6;1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:(water baptism in Jesus name) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.(Spirit baptism) The One Baptism is a Unity of One water and Spirit baptism. being born of the water and of the Spirit.(John 3:3-8)

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, (Buried with him In  water baptism) we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. <Baptism of the Spirit> Acts 2:38 is the grace given everyone as the promise is unto you and to your Jews  Children ,  and to all that are afar off,even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39

Acts 2:38. "Remission of Sins Comes From Repentance And Not Baptism In Jesus name." Claims a Facebook Debater.

 I have been dealing with a poster on  Facebook debate groups  who makes the following argument: 

 Manuel Culwell "in the Greek there are persons and numbers, and they have to agree in order to build a doctrine, so

Acts 2: 38.

Repent and remission of sins are both the 2nd person and plural in number, but baptized is the 3rd person and singular in number, so we can't build a doctrine on water baptism for the remission of sins, but we can build a doctrine on repent for the remission of sins.

Lk 24: 47.

This is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter.

Repent for the remission of sins, then you can be baptized by the authority of Jesus. (Not in Jesus name).

The poster further writes:"you have to believe erroneous scholars, because you know if the believe Christian scholars, then you will have to admit that you are wrong, (Which you are).

What has the collective noun of people got to do with either Repent remission of sins and baptized?? apart from the fact it's talking about people who need to repent for the remission of sins."

My Comments:
The poster never gives the identity of the scholar he is using, but  that does not deter me, as I have given other scholars who deal with the subject in our discussion. The reason for baptism being in the" third person singular" the collective noun is because it is a group.(According to Gingrich from a PDF on the subject) It still agrees because a group is both plural and singular. The argument actually does not prove what the poster says. But there are many other arguments that can be used to show he is wrong.  John 20:23 for instance: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Men were Not just given the power to remit sins, but through obedience to the word of God in water Baptism in Jesus name Like Acts 2;38 says.  Admittedly Jesus did not give any exhaustive detail in the passage. God alone has power to forgive sins but has given it to us water baptism in Jesus name. The name Jesus is both the power and authority to forgive men of their sins and not the water in baptism. The poster then makes the claim  concerning John 20:23 that the disciples would simply be informing those who repent  that they have had their sins remitted in the act of repentance and if they did not repent, they would not have their sins remitted. This however ignores the fact this was told to the disciples to do. A verb it's what you do. And it was given to them from Jesus to do through baptism in Jesus name being orally invoked over them. Read James 2:7,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45-48.  from the following Greek to English analysis.

David Bernard on Calvinism