I've been reflecting a lot lately on the Trinity after having been harassed by a Jesus-only believer on a video I posted some time ago which challenged the Oneness doctrine to the core. The Scriptures that contradict the Oneness doctrine are large and ample in existence. I prefer to use just one to silence them. That would be Matt. 3:16-17. They typically insist, "no theologian worth a grain of salt would use that as a proof text of the Trinity!" The problem is that it's not being used as a positive proof of the Trinity but as a negation of Oneness doctrine. Oneness doctrine refuses to see any distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Matt. 3:16-17, the baptism of Jesus, shows quite clearly that there is distinction between the three. The Father speaks to the Son and declares "this is my Son". Oneness doctrine at this point teaches that the distinction is an optical illusion of Satan's meant to lead us into Hell. They accuse Trinitarians of "reading Trinity into Scriptures" but then they'll go into this text and insist that Jesus's "spirit" in Heaven was declaring his "flesh" on Earth his Son. (Naturally, this spirit/flesh distinction in the person of Jesus leads to further complications on the cross as one wonders if they can be saved if just the "flesh" died while a "spirit" part was in Heaven according to their theology.)
So already, they play the little game of accusing others of what they alone are guilty of doing. No one has read into it that Jesus is being declared "Son" by another being in Heaven who is also clearly God. That is exactly what the text says! But to the Oneness believer, they are insistent so much that the Trinity is what is read into Scriptures that they won't even seek to understand what Trinitarians actually believe. It would appear to me that fear tactics are being brought on by their leaders and they are experiencing pressure not to even investigate Trinitarian doctrine but rather take at face value what their leaders say. If Sabellian "exegesis" is acceptable extra-Biblical reading, why is it foul for Trinitarians to appeal to "exegesis" or mere explanations of their doctrine? That is what the Athanasian Creed is. It is not meant to exegete the Scriptures. It is meant to explain a doctrine that has already been exegeted from Scriptures. It is why I tell these anti-Trinitarian Oneness believers to cite the Athanasian Creed before they accuse Trinitarians of "three-God" worship.
"For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God." (Athanasian Creed)
Note that Trinitarians do not need to be told that "God is one". Trinitarians believe that and affirm that in their teachings.
"This is the cause why it says, the Lord our God is one Lord Deuteronomy 6:4, and also proclaims the Only-begotten God by the name of Godhead, without dividing the Unity into a dual signification, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although each is proclaimed by the holy writers as God. The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead. For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects. But since the Divine, single, and unchanging nature, that it may be one, rejects all diversity in essence, it does not admit in its own case the signification of multitude; but as it is called one nature, so it is called in the singular by all its other names, God, Good, Holy, Saviour, Just, Judge, and every other Divine name conceivable: whether one says that the names refer to nature or to operation, we shall not dispute the point." (On Not Three Gods, St. Gregory of Nyssa)
St. John of Damascus affirms the singular nature of God, "God is one and not many is no matter of doubt to those who believe in the Holy Scriptures." (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk1ch5)
"But with those that do not believe in the Holy Scriptures we will reason thus. The Deity is perfect , and without blemish in goodness, and wisdom, and power, without beginning, without end, everlasting, uncircumscribed , and in short, perfect in all things. Should we say, then, that there are many Gods, we must recognise difference among the many. For if there is no difference among them, they are one rather than many. But if there is difference among them, what becomes of the perfectness? For that which comes short of perfection, whether it be in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place, could not be God. But it is this very identity in all respects that shows that the Deity is one and not many. Again, if there are many Gods, how can one maintain that God is uncircumscribed? For where the one would be, the other could not be." (ibid)
But what of the Trinity? St. John of Damascus describes...
"The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father." (ch8)
It's not the Trinitarian doctrine does not teach that God is one, but that the Trinity doctrine understands that God's oneness has been revealed in harmony with a threeness. This, St. John of Damascus summarizes neatly.
"Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son : but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His Romans 8:9, says the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:29 It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit." (ibid)
Trinitarians reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "parts" of God because God is infinite. Infinity cannot be divided into parts. It is impossible to divide infinity. That said, we also read several times that the one God in Scriptures is identified as the Father. This, as St. John of Damascus tells us, is because of the Father's role as the cause. The Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the point from which the divinity flows. So the Father, when mentioned with the Son and the Holy Spirit, is appropriately accepted by Trinitarians as "the only true God", while when the Son is alone, he is appropriately declared God. John 17:1-3 declares the Father the only true God but 1 John 5:20-21 declares the Son the true God, and Acts 5 declares the Holy Spirit as God.
A multitude of times, we see the distinction throughout Scriptures. Hebrews 1:9-12 shows us a conversation between God the Father and God the Son. "Therefore God, thy God has set you a throne above your companions". The resurrected Christ says unto the Church in Philadelphia, "to the one who is victorious, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God" (Rev. 3:12). How can the resurrected Lord claim to even have a God if he is the "only person in the Godhead"? Oneness theology must twist the obvious Scriptures to their destruction. Lamb and Ancient One are seen being worshiped as the Holy Spirit flows from the throne room (Rev. 4-5). St. Paul greets the Corinthians in the tri-fold (2 Cor. 13:14). Jesus instructs the Apostles to baptize in the tri-fold (Matt. 28:19).
The error of Oneness theology rests on two texts that do not add up except in light of Trinitarian doctrine. Isaiah 9:6 which lists a series of names by which Messiah shall be called, one of them being "Everlasting Father". John 14:9-10 in which St. Phillip asks to see the Father and Jesus declares that if St. Phillip has seen him, he has seen the Father. Neither of these prove such and in weight of all the prior evidence must be interpreted in light of the distinction.
The first thing to make mention of in regards to Isaiah 9:6 is that the child will be called by those names. Those are names. Since the Trinity affirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, share the same name, then it makes sense that their name would also be "Jehovah-is-salvation" which is what the name Jesus translates to. But that does not deny the distinction which already exists. The second point to make is that the Father is the Father in relation to the Son. This means that the Son in relation to others may very well be a father, and an Everlasting Father, but not the Father. Thus, the Oneness error hinges on a grievous misunderstanding of the Trinity in order to disprove it. This is called "straw-manning".
I prefer to let St. John Chrysostom give his commentary on John 14:9-10.
"Then to distinguish the Persons He says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father, lest any one should assert that the same is Father, the same Son. For had He been the Father, He would not have said, He that has seen Me has seen Him. Why then did He not reply, you ask things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible? Because Philip had said, it suffices us, as though knowing Christ, He shows that he had not even seen Him. For assuredly he would have known the Father, had he been able to know the Son. Wherefore He says, He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. If any one has seen Me, he shall also behold Him. What He says is of this kind: It is not possible to see either Me or Him. For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus shows him that he had not even seen Himself. And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, he that has known Me, says Christ, has known the Father. Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, he that knows My Essence, knows that of the Father also. And what is this? says some one; for he who is acquainted with creation knows also God. Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answers, He that has seen Me. Now he that has seen the creation, has not also seen the Essence of God. If any one has seen Me, he has seen the Father, He says. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another. Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, Am I so long with you? Have you enjoyed such teaching, have you seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone works, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and have you not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, Have you not known Me?" (Homily 74 on the Gospel of John)
Of course, a Oneness "believer" might say that this is not "Scriptural" since I am providing extra-Biblical commentary at this point. But then again, what is the Oneness believer's reading of Matt. 3:16-17 in such a convoluted way as to insist that Our Lord is a great deceiver come to deliver us but "extra-Biblical commentary"? Accuse others of what you alone are guilty of is the hereticks' doctrine. It is not the doctrine of Christ. It is even more telling when I demand these Oneness believers to "confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that he is risen from the dead" that they seek to warp the statement of faith given by St. Peter and they attempt to qualify it, but they have no regard for the second part. Maybe their savior never rose from the dead? Maybe their savior never died? That's what happens when you accept bad theology. You end up with a savior incapable of saving. I do hope these people come to realize the abuse their leaders are giving them and that they are able to flee this false and wicked doctrine by allowing the Scriptures to speak, rather then reading Sabellianism into every turn of the page.
No comments:
Post a Comment