Why I (No Longer) Affirm The Trinity

INTRODUCTION

Those who know me personally know that I change my mind easily. It seems to me this trait can be both good and bad. I’d like to think it reflects the fact that I am sincerely seeking truth and willing to follow the evidence where it leads. However, with respect to doctrine, I recognize this is a sign of immaturity. According to Paul, the goal of the Christian life is “the unity of the faith”. He envisions the life of believers to be such that they are “growing into maturity”. He says that when the believers are growing they will “no longer be little children, tossed by the waves and blown around by every wind of teaching” (See Ephesians 4:11-16). Clearly, my objective is to no longer be immature and to be established in the truth. Until then, if you consider yourself to be a spiritual person (i.e., “mature Christian”; see 1 Corinthians 14:37), please look on me with love as perhaps a family member would the little boy always getting into trouble as he learns how he is supposed to think and act.

So, what trouble have I gotten myself into lately?

Well, four months ago, I made public a change in my theology, and an attempt at a defense of this change, with my post “Why I Affirm The Trinity”. I’ve since come to rethink both this decision and the reasons for it.

It seems to me that I was extremely hasty. I’ve spent relatively little time seriously studying these issues, as I promised I would in my post “An Introduction To My Study of the Nature of the Godhead”, and have truly not even begun the immense work I’ve set out to do. Perhaps, I should’ve given myself more time to consider. However, I understand that no one truly comes to a study objectively; everyone has presuppositions and biases they bring to their study. So, it is not wrong to have an opinion and to honestly admit it, as I did. But, my transition from my prior thinking into the affirmation of the Trinity was honestly not so much a result of my studies as it was the result of a desire to identify myself with what I was coming to believe was the “better” version of Christianity than that from which I had come. As such, I feel as though I’ve fallen under the condemnation of the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 14:23: “Everything that is not from faith is sin.” In other words, my change was not so much a result of faith (prayerful study in dependence upon God’s Spirit to lead me) as it was a result of my own desire to fit in with the theological circles in which I found myself at the time. This is grave mistake to make on a search for truth as truth.

So, after I felt convicted by God for my rash decision, I began to rethink my supplied reasons for affirming the Trinity and to look at the issue afresh. First, I will supply the reasons that have caused me to withdraw my affirmation of the Trinity and to renew my affirmation of Oneness. Then, I will examine my supplied reasons for affirming the Trinity and attempt to provide a response.

WHAT DO I CURRENTLY BELIEVE & WHY

As you will know if you’ve read my two previous posts, the two conceptions of the Godhead and Jesus’ place in that Godhead with which I am grappling are the trinitarian and the oneness interpretations. It seems to me that these are the only two viable alternatives as they both affirm the deity of Christ. Perhaps I find myself working with a false dilemma and there is another option out there, but I find that hard to believe at present. If you are aware of one, let me know.

At present, I find myself more convinced by the oneness interpretation. This doesn’t mean that I’m unwilling to be convinced otherwise. What I want more than anything is to know, believe, and proclaim truth. So, why am I convinced?

During the month of December and especially the season of Advent, I began to think about the incarnation. You know, this doctrine about “God becoming a man” and Jesus being the “God-man”? I began to think of how differently these two interpretations conceive of the incarnation. The trinitarian interpretation suggests that only one of the three eternally distinct persons within the Godhead became incarnate as a man, Jesus Christ. The Oneness doctrine suggests that the unipersonal God Himself became incarnate as a man, Jesus Christ. Then, I began to reflect on three Scriptures that seem to me to be informative as to how we should conceptualize the incarnation.

The first was 2 Corinthians 5:19. A part of it reads: “…in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself…”(CSB). The context of these words is Paul’s discussion of God’s work of reconciliation of sinful humanity to Himself through Christ. In the old KJV, Paul’s words about God’s activity in the work of reconciliation are even stronger: “…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” Make note of the possible difference in meaning between these two translations. The CSB could be taken to mean that by “in Christ” Paul means “through Christ” or “by Christ”, focusing on God’s use of Christ, and therefore this verse wouldn’t necessarily be a reference to the incarnation, God becoming a man in Christ. I would argue that the context suggests 5:19 to be a definite reference to the incarnation and that the other two verses we will consider solidify this understanding. As to the context, verse 18 says: “…God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Christ…”. Clearly, the Apostle Paul has instrumentality in mind when penning verse 18; he says that it was by (KJV) or through (CSB) Christ that the work of reconciliation was being/is being accomplished. But then, in verse 19, he says: “That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself…”. So, when you take these two verses together, we see that in verse 18, Paul is conceptualizing the work of reconciliation as God using Christ to accomplish His purpose, whereas in verse 19, Paul wants to make that point that God is not detached from Christ somehow, but is actually doing the work Himself in Christ. Therefore, this seems to me to be a clear reference to the incarnation. This interpretation fits well with what we know of the purpose of the incarnation in general. The incarnation is God becoming a man in order to save lost souls. This is what is meant by “reconciliation”.

So, before moving on to the other two verses, let’s summarize so as not to lose the forest through the trees. God is said to have been in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. I take this to be a reference to the incarnation.

Also, take note of the term “God”. It is said here that “God” was in Christ. Trinitarian scholars will typically say that when “God” and “Christ” are juxtaposed, we have there a distinction between “the Father” and “the Son”. Well, I think this is true. But, this truth doesn’t bode well for trinitarianism. If 2 Cor. 5:19 is a reference to the incarnation, then, we have “the Father” incarnating Himself as the man Christ Jesus. One could say that in this case, “God” doesn’t mean “the Father”. Well, what then does it mean, given the context? The only plausible alternative is that it is a reference to the entire being of God, which would encompass all three persons of the Trinity, which, again, doesn’t bode well for trinitarianism, as it would suggest that all three persons of the Trinity were incarnate in Christ. Finally, one could say this “God” refers exclusively to the Son. But, then, we have the Son reconciling the world to Himself and not to the entire Godhead. To summarize my thoughts on this verse: the trinitarian interpretation doesn’t seem to me to fit for the above stated reasons whereas the oneness interpretation fits very well. The oneness interpretation conceives of God as a unipersonal being who incarnated Himself as the man Christ Jesus. In this man, by the incarnation, God was reconciling the world to Himself.

The next two verses are found in Colossians. The first is 1:19, which reads: “…God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (CSB). The second is 2:9, which reads: “For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ”. To my knowledge, all in the debate between trinitarianism and oneness recognize these two verses are related to the incarnation; it seems to me that they clearly speak to the incarnation and our conception of the person of Christ. Notice that v.20 follows up the thought of God being pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him by discussing reconciliation, which really puts the nail in the coffin of any idea that 2 Corinthians 5:19 is not referring to the incarnation. It was by God having all of His fullness dwell in Christ through the incarnation that the work of reconciliation was accomplished.

Check out verse 15 of Colossians 1: “He is the image of the invisible God”. Jesus Christ, because of the incarnation, is the “image of the invisible God”. Trinitarian interpretation tends to think of this as meaning that the Son is the image of the invisible Father. Well, if that is true, then verse 19-20 is telling us that the Father was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son in order to accomplish reconciliation, which is clearly a reference to the incarnation, not to some pre-incarnation relationship between the divine persons. But, this would fly in the face of the trinitarian interpretation of the incarnation as they believe that the Son is the one whose fullness of deity dwells in the man Jesus, not the Father! As an aside, let’s think about how 1:15 could inform our thinking on this manner. How is it that the equally invisible yet distinct person God the Son could be the image of the invisible Father in eternity past prior to the incarnation? That doesn’t work. Given Paul’s reference to the one under consideration as “the image of the invisible God”, we know this is a reference to the result of the incarnation, the man Christ Jesus, the God-man.

So, we come to verse 19 and it tells us that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” Now, if by “God” this means “the Father”, then we have a refutation against Trinitarianism because they conceive of the Son alone being incarnated as the man Christ Jesus, not the Father. However, let’s give the trinitarians what they want. Let’s agree that “God” is a trinity of three persons. Now, this verse tells us that “the trinity” was incarnate in Christ, which is equally anathema to the trinitarian interpretation.

Then, we come to 2:9 which states what was said in 1:19 even stronger: “…the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells in Christ.” Just think about that for a second. The entire fullness of God’s nature! That means that whatever you can conceive of as being an essential part of God’s nature was incarnate in Christ. I submit to you that, if God is essentially a trinity, that is, if the correct interpretation as to the nature of the Godhead is trinitarianism, then the entire trinity was incarnate in Christ. However, the notion that it was only the Son incarnate as Christ is so foundational to trinitarianism, that I do not think it can survive the truth stated by Paul in 1:19 and 2:9.

And trinitarian scholars recognize this. Therefore, they argue that Paul is not trying to communicate that all three persons of the trinity were incarnate in Christ but that Christ was fully God. Well, exactly! This is clearly a verse regarding the incarnation of God as Christ and it tells us that the entire fullness of God’s nature was incarnate in Christ. So, any doctrine which has as one of it’s foundational propositions that only a part of the essential nature of God was incarnate in Christ cannot be in accord with what Paul is trying to communicate. And, the trinitarian interpretation cannot avoid this as they say it was only the Son and not the Father or the Spirit who was incarnate and yet also say that God is essentially three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit).

Now, I’ve heard Dr. James White, a prominent reformed theologian and apologist, who wrote a book entitled, “The Forgotten Trinity”, attempt to avoid the accusation that trinitarianism commits one to a denial of the truth of the fullness of God in Christ communicated by Paul by saying that “each person of the Trinity shares equally the being that is God”. The idea is that “God” is a being comprised of the attributes of deity (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) that is shared fully and equally by three distinct persons. Thus, even if it were only the Son who was incarnate as Christ, the Son would have access to all the essential attributes of deity, and thus, all the essential attributes of deity would be incarnate in Christ. I have a few problems with this. First, it reduces our concept of “God” to an impersonal being, which is clearly not in accord with the OT or NT use of the term “God”, which is always personal (and, I would argue, it is always unipersonal). One cannot, it seems to me, on the basis of the OT and NT usage of the term “God” walk away with any other idea about God than that He is essentially personal. That is “God” is a “he” not merely an “it”. Second, it leads us to the logical conclusion that the three persons themselves are not themselves essential to the being of God which would make one wonder why trinitarians are so insistent that God is essentially three persons. Think about it. The explanation offered is that there is this impersonal being, which is a collection of divine attributes, that the three persons share. So then, the persons themselves are not essential to the being of God but rather share in it. But, trinitarians do want to affirm that God is essentially three persons. Let’s think about what follows from affirming that the three persons are actually essential to the being of God. If each person shares fully the being of God, and the three persons themselves are essential to the being of God, then each of the three persons shares fully in the “person” of the other two persons! If the answer to the accusation that a trinitarian conception of the incarnation limits the fullness of the nature of God that is incarnate in Christ is to say that the Son “shares fully the being of God” in order to preserve the essential tri-personality of the being of God, it seems necessary then to say that, somehow, it was not only the Son that was incarnate, but in some mysterious way, the Father and the Spirit were also incarnate in Christ. Which, of course, is precisely what the trinitarian is trying to avoid saying by the distinction in the first place! Of course, it seems to me, this brings us right back to where we began. All the fullness of God’s nature is in Christ; whatever God is, all of it is incarnated in Christ. If on wishes to insist that God is a trinity, then, I think these verses will require one to believe all three persons where incarnate somehow as Christ. But, as I mentioned before, when Paul wrote “God was in Christ” and “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” and “the entire fullness of God’s nature is dwelling in Him”, the context requires that this be a reference to “the Father”, so I don’t think you can exegetically justify belief that a trinity of three persons was incarnate as Christ from these verses.

Now, there are many issues to flesh out with regard to Christology and how exactly the incarnation is supposed to work on this oneness interpretation of the doctrine of God and the incarnation. I am eager to study them out and learn more. Perhaps, I’ll even come to recognize the truth of the tri-unity of God. However, at present, on the basis of the above considerations, I am more convinced by the oneness interpretation.

To summarize, it seems to me:

  1. There is one, unipersonal God, the Father.
  2. The Father incarnated Himself as a man, Christ Jesus, the Son.
  3. Christ Jesus was fully God and fully human.

 

ANSWERING MY PREVIOUS REASONS FOR AFFIRMING THE TRINITY

There are primarily two Scriptures and two reasons I gave for my prior affirmation of the Trinity. I wrote that John 1:1-3 suggested that prior to the incarnation the Son was a distinct person from the Father and that John 16:13 suggested that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father.

With respect to John 1:1-3, there were two points I raised. First, the personal pronouns in the passage applied to “the Word” suggest that the Word under discussion is a person, not an impersonal thing. Second, the fact that John says “the Word was with God” suggests that the distinct person “the Word” existed as a distinct person with God prior to the incarnation. However, upon examination, I have issues with that interpretation. The primary issue I have is that the trinitarian interpretation requires us to change our definition of “God” midway through the verse. The trinitarian would have us suppose that what John is communicated is something like this: “In the beginning was the Word (a personal entity), the Word was with God [the Father], and the Word was God [the Word was divine].” And, so they say, “See, here we have a personal entity ‘the Word’ that is divine and yet distinct from the Father.” Notice the change in the definition of “God” from clause 2 and clause 3. If we kept the definition consistent, the verse would read like this: “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God [the Father], and the Word was God [the Father].” But, that doesn’t fit with Trinitarian interpretation. What I think is clear from the NT usage of the word “God” and from the immediate context is that John did in fact mean “the Father” by “God” (Read John 1:1-18 where, after the Word has been made flesh in v.14, the distinction is made clear between “Father” and “Son”, v.18.) In conjunction with the considerations I’ve suggested earlier in this post with respect to 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 1:15-19, and Colossians 2:9, I think this interpretation fits well with John 1. The only question is: What do we make of the fact that “the Word” is spoken of as a personal entity (“he” and “him”)? I think my earlier on Colossians 1:15-19 are relevant. Notice that in both John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-19, the context is creation. Creation is accomplished by the person of Jesus Christ. However, in Colossians 1:15-19, Paul is speaking of Christ as the God-man, as the “image of the invisible God”, the one Who is God incarnate in flesh. So, just as Paul can, looking back to the time before the incarnation, speak of this authentic human being as the one who created the universe even though he was “born of a woman, under the law” (Gal. 4:4) because, in truth, prior to the incarnation, He was God Himself Who created the worlds, so too John can, looking forward to the time after the incarnation, speak of the Word as the authentic human being it would become even though, prior to the incarnation, the Word was the plan in the mind of God. But, I don’t want to limit the identity of the Word to merely the “plan or thought in the mind of God” because John doesn’t. However, I want to be consistent with my definitions and say that the Word is God Himself, not a distinct person from God. Of course, God is personal, so, given the Word is God Himself, referring to the Word as “he” and “him” is legitimate. A final note on “the Word was with God”: trinitarian exegetes tend to insist that the Greek work translated “with” requires an interpretation something like, “the Word was face to face with God”, however, the Greek word itself is most often rendered “to” in English, so, this interpretation is hardly required by the word itself, it is only the interpretation trinitarian exegetes would like to suppose given it fits well with the presupposed trinitarian interpretation. I would simply suggest that any interpretation which separates the Word from God such that it is a distinct person from God on the basis of “the Word was with God” hasn’t dealt fully with the follow-up clause “the Word was God”. The Word was actually the God it was with!

With respect to John 16:13, my argument was essentially that the Holy Spirit is here distinguished, by the use of personal pronouns, from the person of the Father. We need to understand that this verse is in the context of Jesus’ long-form teaching to His Apostles immediately prior to His death, burial, and resurrection. This verse comes in the context of Jesus reiterating the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit which He had already mentioned multiple times in this discourse and before (John 14:15-26; John 15:26; John 7:37-39). Before explaining the apparent distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father in John 16:13 from a oneness perspective, I think there are a few things to keep in mind. In John 14, Jesus not only promises that the Father will send another counselor, but claims that when you see Him, you are seeing the Father (John 14:6-9), and informs the Apostles that after He leaves them (through His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension), He would not leave them “as orphans” but would come back to them (John 14:18). Now, a couple points. First, it is noteworthy that Jesus says, “I will not leave you as orphans.” He is saying, “I will not leave you fatherless, I will come to you and be your father.” When considered in light of his comments in John 14:6-9, I don’t see how we can take this to mean anything other than that Jesus is the Father incarnate, as I’ve already argued from other verses of Scripture. Second, it is in the context of promising the coming of the Holy Spirit to believers that Jesus makes this promise to personally come and be a father to the believers. He is saying that, when believers receive the Holy Spirit, they are actually receiving Jesus in their hearts to be their father. On this note, Jesus says in verse 23, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. My father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home in him.” This is just to connect all the dots. When we receive the Holy Spirit, we are receiving none other than the Father and the Son into our hearts! But, from a trinitarian perspective, this is problematic. This suggests that we have three persons indwelling us. They don’t typically want to say that; so they will say that no, it is really on the third person indwelling us, but, somehow, through the mystery of “the interpenetration of the trinity”, all three persons are involved. I would say this is unnecessary philosophical speculation that is being forced onto the text of Scripture not drawn from it. The Scriptures couldn’t be more clear: when we receive the promised Holy Spirit, we receive Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To emphasize the point, Paul identifies the Spirit in our hearts as none other than Christ Himself multiple times (Romans 8:8-9; Colossians 1:27; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, 4:5). The last one is especially significant in my thinking. Paul doesn’t mince words or speculate philosophically or theologically on what he says, he just says it: “The Lord is the Spirit” and “Jesus is Lord”. When I consider all of these things and think of how they could be harmonized, the oneness interpretation of the one, unipersonal, transcendent God who incarnated Himself as the man Jesus Christ and Who now lives in our heart by the Holy Spirit, shines, not the trinitarian interpretation. That all being said, what of the question of the apparent personal distinction in John 16:13? Well, I think Jesus was trying to communicate that when believers received the Spirit it was not some other person than God who would be teaching and instructing the believers on his own authority but it was none other than God Himself indwelling the life of the believer. When considered in the context of the above considerations, I believe this interpretation is plausible.

So it is that, with respect to my previous reasons for affirming the trinity, I find their blow significantly softened and I find my current reasons for affirming oneness far superior in strength.

CONCLUSION

As I’ve said before in this post, my sincere desire is to know, believe, and proclaim the truth. As such, I am more than willing to be lead by the Word of God and the Spirit of God to different conclusions. I think this is the attitude required of a sincere seeker of truth and believer in Christ. Feel free to comment here or communicate with me some other way to explain why you think I am wrong. I’m open to hearing it.

Also, I’d like to suggest a couple of resources for further reading. If you are interested in learning more about my perspective and would like a systematic and scholarly exposition, I would suggest you pick up three books:

  1. The Oneness of God, by David Bernard
  2. I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology, by David Norris
  3. The Oneness View of Jesus Christ, by David Bernard.

4 thoughts on “Why I (No Longer) Affirm The Trinity

  1. Interesting stuff, but ultimately bad theology. A couple observations:

    Being wishy washy/double-minded is specifically mentioned as being a bad attribute. Your position doesn’t come across as genuinely seeking the truth, it comes across as being hasty to make a decision for not good reasons and weak arguments. This entry points out three or four verses that seem to present problems for the trinitarian view, but honestly, this is just an illustration of your misunderstanding the trinitarian view.

    Secondly, you seem to make exegetical pronouncements/decisions without taking the original language into account. In some ways the original language clarifies some of the issues and in some ways it is still difficult to understand. That doesn’t play very well into your position for one reason that I don’t think you’ve taken into account. Your position is actually the simplest explanation. If your explanation is correct, why wasn’t your clear, simple position stated clearly and simply in the text? Sure that may seem flimsy, but it’s an important question that you haven’t even looked at. The original language phrasing is complicated and the translations thereof are complicated as well. If your position is the correct view, why doesn’t the text just say your position?

    Next, you mention John 1, but that’s not even the most obvious indicator that Jesus and God the Father are distinct persons. That passage, in some ways, hangs on “with God.” In reality, it doesn’t, because the Word is clearly personal as is clearly evident in Jn 1:14.

    I think my biggest issue here is that you’ve hung your position on flimsy hooks while seemingly ignoring the dozens of places where Jesus is clearly distinguished from the Father. Yes, He says “I and the Father are one,” but He couldn’t say that if He were identical to the Father. If there is only one person, it should be something like, “I am the Father.” Why distinguish between two people, the Father and Jesus, if they’re the same person? If Jesus is the only person of God, then to whom is Jesus talking in His prayers? If your view is correct Jn 3:17 is nonsensical. How can God send the Son into the world if God (the Father) IS God (the son)? Who is sending the Son into the world? If you view is correct it should say “God came into the world ….” There are numerous other examples. Jn 3:35 the “Father loves the Son and has given the Son all things” (my paraphrase). In your view, who is loving whom? Who is giving all things to whom? Your view seems completely contradictory to this entire chapter! Jn 5:17b (NASB) “… My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” To whom is Jesus referring here? Himself? The Father is clearly distinct from Jesus, and if your view were correct Jesus would have just said, “I was working before and am working now.”

    To whom is Jesus praying when He says, “Our Father Who art in Heaven …”? To whom is Jesus praying when He’s in the Garden of Gethsemane? And on and on. If your view is right then the common atheist quip about Jesus being schizophrenic holds. Jesus talks to Himself and about Himself in the third person because there’s no other persons of the godhead. Your position is not just wrong, it’s confusing and makes Jesus out to be crazy. It makes Christianity look silly.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for interacting with me on this topic, Sam. Before I respond to your comments, I’d like to say that I value your opinion as a fellow believer in Christ and hope that our discussion can be like iron sharpening iron such that we are both drawn nearer to our Lord and His Truth. In responding to you, I’ll quote your comments and offer an answer or defense.

      You said: “Being wishy washy/double-minded is specifically mentioned as being a bad attribute.”

      Response: Yes, I agree with you on this point. As I mentioned in the first section of my post, I recognize that doctrinal instability is a mark of spiritual immaturity and am striving to attain doctrinal stability.

      You said: “Your position doesn’t come across as genuinely seeking the truth, it comes across as being hasty to make a decision for not good reasons and weak arguments.”

      Response: You are welcome to your opinion of my current state of mind, but I can assure you that, at present, my positions are more conjoined with humility and prayer than they have ever been. As far as I can tell, I am sincerely seeking God’s truth and have sincerely come to affirm certain doctrinal positions relevant to the nature of God, the identity of Jesus Christ, and salvation based on reasoning consistent with Scripture. As I also said in my article, I’m open to the leading of God’s Word and Spirit. I believe that leading can happen through interactions just such as this, so I’m not closed to someone such as yourself offering clarity.

      You said: “This entry points out three or four verses that seem to present problems for the trinitarian view, but honestly, this is just an illustration of your misunderstanding the trinitarian view.”

      Response: I’m obviously unable to comprehend this entire subject in one blog post. If you want a more thorough treatment of the subject from scholars who hold to my perspective I would suggest “I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology” by David Norris, “The Oneness of God” by David Bernard, and “The Oneness View of Jesus Christ” by David Bernard. It is possible that I misunderstand the trinitarian perspective although I do not think I do. If you see gaps in my understanding, please point them out.

      You said: “Secondly, you seem to make exegetical pronouncements/decisions without taking the original language into account. In some ways the original language clarifies some of the issues and in some ways it is still difficult to understand. That doesn’t play very well into your position for one reason that I don’t think you’ve taken into account. Your position is actually the simplest explanation. If your explanation is correct, why wasn’t your clear, simple position stated clearly and simply in the text? Sure that may seem flimsy, but it’s an important question that you haven’t even looked at. The original language phrasing is complicated and the translations thereof are complicated as well. If your position is the correct view, why doesn’t the text just say your position?”

      Response: I admit that there is so much with respect to the original languages and church history I do not understand, and I am eager to learn these things. However, I do not think I must remain agnostic on this or other doctrinal issues due to this lack of knowledge. I would argue my current position is based on reasoning consistent with Scripture and others have argued for the same with an understanding of the original languages and church history, so it is not as though my position is simply devoid of a consideration of those issues. If there are any specific points relevant to the original languages you think would be illuminating, feel free to mention them. As to your question of why my position isn’t simply stated, I would argue that my position is clearly stated in the verses I’ve mentioned in this post. I don’t think Paul could have made it any clearer that he believed that the singular God, the Father, was incarnate as the man Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:15-19, 2:9, and 2 Corinthians 5:19. When you compare these verses with Jesus’ words about His relationship with the Father in John 14, for example, this notion becomes even more clear. Jesus said: “When you see me, you have seen the Father.”

      You said: “Next, you mention John 1, but that’s not even the most obvious indicator that Jesus and God the Father are distinct persons. That passage, in some ways, hangs on “with God.” In reality, it doesn’t, because the Word is clearly personal as is clearly evident in Jn 1:14.”

      Response: I don’t necessarily have an issue with a distinction in “person” between Jesus and the Father as long as we recognize that the distinction is due to the incarnation of the Father as a genuine human being and not due to an eternal distinction in persons in the Godhead. I’ve attempted to account for the personal pronouns attached to the Word in John 1:2, which is plausibly speaking of the Word prior to the incarnation, in my post by saying that John could very well have been speaking of the Word as a person in view of the person the Word would become due to the incarnation much like Paul speaks of the man Christ Jesus having been the Creator in Colossians 1 when, clearly, the man didn’t create, but the eternal God Who was incarnate as a man. Also, I’ve pointed out that “the Word” is equated with “God” in John 1:1 so, perhaps, the personal pronouns attached to the Word can be understood in that light.

      The rest of your comments revolve around the distinction between the Father and the Son and the prayers of Jesus. As I said above, I agree that there is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. I extremely tentatively say that I don’t necessarily think it is wrong to distinguish between the “persons” of the Father and the Son while making the qualification that the entire discussion revolving around “personhood” is a conversation removed from the text of Scripture and for which we have no Scriptural precedent. I attribute the distinction to the incarnation. The man Christ Jesus, the Son, as a genuine human being, cannot be precisely equal to God because he is a man, and God is not a man. In this way, the distinction becomes clear. As to his humanity, Jesus is not equal to the Father, but, as to His divinity, He is equal to the Father. Now, with respect to the prayers of Jesus, all that needs to be said, I think, is that Jesus was an authentic human being. As our example, He could pray to God just like we can pray to God. Any further explanation requires a dive into the mystery of the incarnation. I’m unable, at present, to explain further, but I do think this is a sufficient answer to preclude a need for a trinitarian explanation. With regards to the trinitarian explanation, it would have us think that the second person of the Godhead is praying to the first. This would be God praying to God, which, I think, is a contradiction in terms. God does not pray to God. Furthermore, as Jesus is our example, why would our example be one person of the Godhead praying to a distinct person in the Godhead, and only one of the three persons, instead of the entire Godhead? If we can pray to the entire Trinity, then why would Jesus not pray to the entire Trinity? Some theologians actually recognize this and say that Jesus did, in fact, pray to the entire Trinity when He prayed to God, which, on trinitarianism, would leave us with the same problem we oneness believers have, namely, how does the incarnation work such that this person is distinct from yet equal to the God to whom he is praying? I understand that most trinitarian apologists don’t agree that the Son prayed to the entire trinity. I would argue that they should believe that given Jesus’ place as our mediator. However, as I said before, I would argue that it is inconceivable to have a second coequal divine person praying to the first. To me, it seems far more coherent and Scripturally permissible to believe that Jesus was praying to God as a genuine human being.

      May the Lord continue to lead and guide us all on our search for truth.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s