A Biblical treatment of the oneness doctrine.
- Thread starter DeeperStill
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
1
Let me ease my way in here...
If the author of Life did not die as both Fully God and fully man then the atonement was inadequate to stand guard for the divine consistency of God's own Word that death must reign over Man from the beginning. For Man is wholly inadequate for such a task, seeing as sin took root from the beginning. Not even the shell of a perfect man would be enough to break this curse for it still means that only a man died and even if he were perfect, his death would only cover himself.
Although the atonement is made to redeem us,more importantly it is redeeming us from the curse of God's own command which no one but God can satisfy. As God dies for us as the one who gave life, he now stands having satisfied his own demand (death), and offers life anew.
I believe that the author of life died on the cross.
If the author of Life did not die as both Fully God and fully man then the atonement was inadequate to stand guard for the divine consistency of God's own Word that death must reign over Man from the beginning. For Man is wholly inadequate for such a task, seeing as sin took root from the beginning. Not even the shell of a perfect man would be enough to break this curse for it still means that only a man died and even if he were perfect, his death would only cover himself.
Although the atonement is made to redeem us,more importantly it is redeeming us from the curse of God's own command which no one but God can satisfy. As God dies for us as the one who gave life, he now stands having satisfied his own demand (death), and offers life anew.
I believe that the author of life died on the cross.
Because He is God. How can God be in my heart, your heart, in Heaven, and through out all the earth at the same time?
Here is what Jesus said to Nicodemous
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus claims to have came down from Heaven and to be in Heaven at the same time. curious huh?
Here is what Jesus said to Nicodemous
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus claims to have came down from Heaven and to be in Heaven at the same time. curious huh?
D
I know that sounded disrespectful, I am sorry Watchmen I truly do respect you. I just had a rough day today and when I came on this thread it just all came out lol. But no seriously, I am willing to change my beliefs from Trinity to Oneness if it is Biblical I would love to hear what you have to say. I do respect what you say and yeah just go for it. But I will not argue back and forth with you. I am just curious as to what you have to say.
I have posted my biblical reasons for believing Oneness twice already, specifically for you because you asked. We both seem to agree that even though Jesus was fully God, and fully man only His humanity died on the cross. The verse you gave about Jesus sharing the glory of the Father before time was is explain in Philippians 2
Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Seeing as how scripture makes it clear that there is only one God and that is the Father (check out my post for the proofs of oneness in this thread that I posted twice already specifically John 17:1-3 and 1st Corinthians 8:6 For reference to the Father being the only true God). The The form that Jesus was in before the incarnation had to have been God the Father Himself. The distinction between the Son and Father is not that Jesus is a separate person of the Godhead or Trinity, but in the humanity of Christ.
P.S. I will answer anything you want to know, and try to help you understand what I believe and why, but I will not be mocked.
GBU, D_C
Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Seeing as how scripture makes it clear that there is only one God and that is the Father (check out my post for the proofs of oneness in this thread that I posted twice already specifically John 17:1-3 and 1st Corinthians 8:6 For reference to the Father being the only true God). The The form that Jesus was in before the incarnation had to have been God the Father Himself. The distinction between the Son and Father is not that Jesus is a separate person of the Godhead or Trinity, but in the humanity of Christ.
P.S. I will answer anything you want to know, and try to help you understand what I believe and why, but I will not be mocked.
GBU, D_C
This explanation might help you see where I am coming from.
What I believe.....
#1 The Father is God, Jesus is God, The Holy Spirit is God.
#2 However Jesus Christ is also the Father and the Father is the Holy Spirit.
#3 In other words there is one God the Father, who came in a body (the Son) and who is the Eternal Spirit (the Holy Spirit). So we teach that the Father came in the flesh as Jesus, and is a Spirit ''The Holy Spirit''.
#4 So it is similar to the Trinity doctrine in that we have 3 who are one, but Oneness doctrine says that the 3 ''persons'' are not separate, but actually the same 1, who is God.
What I believe.....
#1 The Father is God, Jesus is God, The Holy Spirit is God.
#2 However Jesus Christ is also the Father and the Father is the Holy Spirit.
#3 In other words there is one God the Father, who came in a body (the Son) and who is the Eternal Spirit (the Holy Spirit). So we teach that the Father came in the flesh as Jesus, and is a Spirit ''The Holy Spirit''.
#4 So it is similar to the Trinity doctrine in that we have 3 who are one, but Oneness doctrine says that the 3 ''persons'' are not separate, but actually the same 1, who is God.
And add this to the rest of the scriptures i have already given....
Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Here it says that God the Father/ or the Holy Spirit either one, purchased the Church with His own blood.
Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Here it says that God the Father/ or the Holy Spirit either one, purchased the Church with His own blood.
D
I am surprised you posted this, because I just saw a Oneness vs Trinity debate and this verse was used on BOTH sides.. This is what was said "Christian exegetes down through the centuries have understood the passage to refer to the period prior to the Incarnation when the Son had equality with the Father in heaven itself. But Oneness advocates say this passage refers to the time of Jesus' human ministry."
If in fact this passage refers to the period before the Incarnation of Christ, then it is plain that the Son pre-existed as a Person, was active, and divine, and hence the debate is concluded, for the Trinitarian position is established.
THE VERBS DETERMINE THE TRUTH (verbs underlined)
Have this attitude....Which was also in Christ Jesus, who, althrough He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but empited Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Syntactically, Paul presents two verbal clauses separated by the adversative "but". The actions of "existing" and "consider equality" go together. This is important since "to consider" is the action of a person.
This is very important because to consider because, to consider is the action of a person, to think to ponder to make a decision is an action of a person, plans don't ponder, plans don't think.
The key verb is "emptied". The possession of equality took place BEFORE the emptying. "Taking" the form of a servant describes the means of the "emptying," as does "being made in the likeness of men." Jesus was "made in the likeness of men" at the Incarnation.
Please think about it. HE emptied Himself, this is a voluntary action. This is done by the Son. And How does He empty Himself? By being made in the likeness of men. That is the Incarnation. That has to be the Incarnation, When else did Jesus enter into the Likeness of men? When else does He take the likeness of a bondservant? Therefore what happend before that? Him having equality with the Father. Therefore, this passage teaches the deity of Christ ("form of God"), as wel as the disctinct personhood of the Son prior to the Incarnation. Just as in John 1:1 and 17:5, the text is inarguable: the Son, as the Son, is eternal.
This was a debate I was watching and I took notes on all of this stuff, I think it's important for me to consider everything you say and than compare it to what I have learned already. This is HOW I see this verse.
Okay so please understand I'm not trying to debate, just understand. So I would like to see what you have to say back to this post and if it is inaccurate at all. So please get back to me and I am always curious and interested on what you have to say. GBU Watchmen.
If in fact this passage refers to the period before the Incarnation of Christ, then it is plain that the Son pre-existed as a Person, was active, and divine, and hence the debate is concluded, for the Trinitarian position is established.
THE VERBS DETERMINE THE TRUTH (verbs underlined)
Have this attitude....Which was also in Christ Jesus, who, althrough He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but empited Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Syntactically, Paul presents two verbal clauses separated by the adversative "but". The actions of "existing" and "consider equality" go together. This is important since "to consider" is the action of a person.
This is very important because to consider because, to consider is the action of a person, to think to ponder to make a decision is an action of a person, plans don't ponder, plans don't think.
The key verb is "emptied". The possession of equality took place BEFORE the emptying. "Taking" the form of a servant describes the means of the "emptying," as does "being made in the likeness of men." Jesus was "made in the likeness of men" at the Incarnation.
Please think about it. HE emptied Himself, this is a voluntary action. This is done by the Son. And How does He empty Himself? By being made in the likeness of men. That is the Incarnation. That has to be the Incarnation, When else did Jesus enter into the Likeness of men? When else does He take the likeness of a bondservant? Therefore what happend before that? Him having equality with the Father. Therefore, this passage teaches the deity of Christ ("form of God"), as wel as the disctinct personhood of the Son prior to the Incarnation. Just as in John 1:1 and 17:5, the text is inarguable: the Son, as the Son, is eternal.
This was a debate I was watching and I took notes on all of this stuff, I think it's important for me to consider everything you say and than compare it to what I have learned already. This is HOW I see this verse.
Okay so please understand I'm not trying to debate, just understand. So I would like to see what you have to say back to this post and if it is inaccurate at all. So please get back to me and I am always curious and interested on what you have to say. GBU Watchmen.
I am sure these theologians that said it was prior to the incarnation when the Son was ''equal'' to the Father were trinitarian theologians. However what the verse says is that prior to the incarnation Jesus in the form of God, who is the Father, meaning before incarnation Jesus was in the form of God the Father, yet became the Son at the incarnation.
Where did Jesus ever claim He was God? He claimed to be the Son of God, but never claimed to be God. He did identify Himself with the Father, He did identify Himself as deity by virtue of being the SON of God, He did identify Himself as being WITH the Father since the beginning, He did point to Himself as representing the Father (by virtue of Him being the Son, "like Father, like Son"), but Jesus never claimed to be God the Father.
D
Yes I agree with you there 1Covenant. I believe the Father is eternal and the Son is eternal. As well as the Holy Spirit being eternal. They are all separate distinct Persons, but they are ONE Being.
I'll give you an example of what I mean.
John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.
So that they may be ONE as we are ONE. So that they are in perfect unity/agreement, as we are in perfect unity/agreement.
Does Jesus mean so that they may be ONE as in so they may be one single person? Or does Jesus mean let them be ONE as in ONE being but many members. I say members because I am talking about the Body of Christ, One Body but many members.
Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body......
So if you believe Jesus is ONE with the Father as in ONE person or member. than you are saying that is how the body of Christ is. Because that is what Jesus is comparing. He is saying SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE as we are ONE. Where as you and I are both members of the Body, we are ONE body but not ONE member.
I'll give you an example of what I mean.
John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.
So that they may be ONE as we are ONE. So that they are in perfect unity/agreement, as we are in perfect unity/agreement.
Does Jesus mean so that they may be ONE as in so they may be one single person? Or does Jesus mean let them be ONE as in ONE being but many members. I say members because I am talking about the Body of Christ, One Body but many members.
Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body......
So if you believe Jesus is ONE with the Father as in ONE person or member. than you are saying that is how the body of Christ is. Because that is what Jesus is comparing. He is saying SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE as we are ONE. Where as you and I are both members of the Body, we are ONE body but not ONE member.
Last edited:
- Status