I wish that instead of saying things like
“You can’t be a Christian and _____”
my fellow believers would instead say
“_____ doesn’t honor the Lord.”
Because we’re all on a journey, we all have things left to learn, and we all make mistakes every day. That includes believers.
It doesn’t make three Gods. That’s heresy.
There are three aspects of oneness.
Existential oneness is wholeness of being. One as opposed to none.
Individuated oneness distinguishes an individual. One as opposed to another.
Relational oneness is the union of individuals in relationship. One as opposed to unrelated.
God’s oneness includes all three aspects. Existentially he is one God. That’s the undivided divine essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another. That’s the individuated oneness of the three persons. And they rejoice in eternal, loving fellowship. That’s relational oneness.
They are one God in three persons.
For a start, consider John 1:1. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. A doctrine of God that’s faithful to scripture must admit both statements.
“With God” pertains to the distinctness of the persons. “Was God” pertains to their shared divine essence. Both of these are true facts about God, and neither threatens the other. The distinctness of the persons doesn’t lessen the oneness of God, and the shared divine essence doesn’t lessen the distinctness of the persons.
You prove my point. You don’t need a single verse that says x for x to be the teaching of scripture. You’re looking for proof texts. Instead, try looking for context.
Scripture plainly states that God is one. The Father is spoken of as God. The Son is also spoken of as God, as is the Spirit.
One God, three persons.
Bill, you focus on certain details and overlook the rest, such that you miss what’s actually being said. Our goal should be to synthesize all the truth revealed by the whole counsel of scripture.
The divine persons are distinct in their personhood. That’s “the Word was with God.” They are also of one essence: one God. That’s “the Word was God.”
Both are true. Three persons, one God.
So, America had a president called Lincoln. We also have a city called Lincoln. It isn't especially mysterious. The city is named after the person to honor him.
The righteous Branch in Jeremiah 23 is a King called "The LORD Our Righteous Savior".
The righteous Branch is again referenced in Jeremiah 33. His throne is in Jerusalem, so the city is called by his name.
In Revelation 21-22, John sees Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. In it, there is a throne. It is the throne of God and of the Lamb.
"The LORD Our Righteous Savior" Is God, and is the Lamb.
@Its_dum John uses the same masculine form of the pronoun in verse 7 to refer to John the Baptist as “he.” If John had meant “it” in verse 2 he would have used the neuter form rather than the masculine.
@billthetruther There is one God. He is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
One God. Three persons.
The unbegotten Father, the only-begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, who eternally proceeds.
We know it isn’t ludicrous to understand John 8:58 as Jesus taking God’s name for himself because the Jewish leaders he was speaking with attempted to kill him for saying it, and John took care to record that fact in scripture. They perceived it as blasphemy.
@LeeTWimberly "I am" is not a used as a name in John 8:58. A simple substitution of "I am" with YHWH shows how ludicrous your interpretation is. You might as well call the blind beggar YHWH for saying "I am". John 9:9
@billthetruther Your separate comments don’t add up to your summary statement.
You said God did not become man, and you rejected the term “incarnation.”
But the Word was God, and became flesh, and is the one and only Son. That’s all straight from John 1.
@PracticalTheolo I just reread it and I’m comfortable with my summary. You’re welcome to clarify.
When you say the author of Hebrews uses “God” to refer to someone other than Jesus for much of the book, who is that someone?
The Father is eternally unbegotten, and the Son is eternally begotten. The divine persons are distinct: the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. This doesn’t lessen the deity of the Son; it describes it. The formal term for this is eternal generation.
Regarding the subjection of created powers to God, the Son is the mediator between God and man, and is fully God, and fully man. He is the one through whom creatures are subjected to the Father, just as he is the one through whom all things were created. This is a functional subordination of the Son in the context of the economy of redemption.
@billthetruther And the Word was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.
John says that all things were created through the Word, who became flesh and made his dwelling among us. In Colossians Paul says all things were created through the Son.
The Word is the Son.
@billthetruther This is John 1:14:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
When you say “it does not say it is the son at that point” what do you mean?
@PracticalTheolo In your post you observe that in the book of Hebrews “God” is used to refer to both the Father and the Son. Then you offer an absurd and false dichotomy.
The deity of Christ isn’t separate from or in opposition to the deity of the Father. They are of one essence.
Incarnation is a word that describes the becoming that is revealed in the gospel of John. The Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, became flesh and made his dwelling among us. That is the one and only Son: Jesus Christ.
The fact that it takes more than a single verse to convey that truth is utterly irrelevant. Verse and chapter divisions are there for convenience so we can find a certain part of scripture. God’s truth is not limited to one verse snippets.
1 Corinthians 11 outlines a temporal hierarchy. In eternity we will not be male or female.
You seem unwilling to let scripture say what it says. John is telling us why they objected to Jesus’ language. They did not misunderstand his meaning; they misunderstood who he is. You appear to be making the same mistake.
When you question the incarnation, you’re questioning the revealed truth of scripture. John’s prologue is not subtle on this point.
God does not change in his eternal, essential being. But in gracious condescension, he relates to the creation within the context of time, such that he acts and reacts and responds to us. He sees the end from the beginning, but he doesn’t deny us those temporal categories. He uses them to communicate truth to us in a way we can receive.
Otherwise, there could be no prophecy.
John is telling us, as an accurate historian inspired by the Holy Spirit, that the language Jesus used to describe his Sonship made him equal with God, and that this is why the Jewish religious establishment wanted to kill him.
The Father is greater than the Son in the context of his incarnational mission. Christ set aside the prerogatives of deity and made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. He could do so because he was in very nature God.
That’s why the reverence of Isaiah 45:23, owed to God alone, is offered to Christ in Philippians.
He became a man and made his dwelling among us. That’s the wonder of the incarnation. But in the beginning, he was. He is not a creature.
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.