Debate With Unitarian Scholar

I found that my debate with Unitarian scholar Anthony Buzzard is on google!  The debate discussion is “The Bible teaches that Jesus is God”.  I affirmed and Anthony denied.  You will find the debate in its entirety as far as I can tell.  Also there was a lengthy question and answer time with the audience asking the questions and Anthony and I responding.  If you’ve never heard of an Unitarian then you might enjoy the debate.

To Endnote Or Footnote?

I am thinking about submitting a book manuscipt to Herald Press for review for a potential publication.  I am completing the bibliographies chapter by chapter so far and I began thinking about the advantage and disadavatages for endnotes vs. footnotes.  I personally like footnotes better and I’m more likely to read all of them in that format but Herald Press requires endnotes.  So that ends the debate, they have chosen for me.  Also, they don’t like any Greek or Hebrew letters but would rather me transliterate the words.  This is okay but I at least wanted the option of Greek letters if I so find it necessary.  So is this a big deal?  Just wondering what you like better, endnotes or footnotes?

Do You Agree With This?

Every Christian should be able to read and understand the following statement of faith but sadly not every Christian would know if they agree with the following statement.  If you agree with it ………..why do you agree with it?  If there is something wrong with it then what is wrong with the statement?

I believe in one God, eternal and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who is
one in essence, and one in person and who for us became one of us, and yet
remained God.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God who was conceived
by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and descended from David, being
both true God and true man.

Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died for our sins, was buried, and
rose again the third day, who ascended to heaven, from whence He’ll return in
glory to judge the world, raise the dead, and inaugurate a kingdom without
end.

I believe in salvation through Christ alone, by grace through faith, and
evidenced by good works. I believe in repentance from sin, baptism in Jesus’
name, and regeneration of the Spirit. Amen.

HANDS

Our church has been working through Robert Bowman’s  and Ed Komoszewski’s book “Putting Jesus in His Place”.  We have thoroughly enjoyed this book so far.  They use the acronym HANDS as a tool to help you retain the basic defense of Jesus’ deity.  The acronym represents the following;

Honor

Attributes

Names

Deeds

Seat

All of the above is that which Jesus shares with the Father thus proving his absolute deity.  Tomorrow night we begin examining the attributes of God and how they apply to Jesus.  The Bible study will take place each Wednesday at the Blountstown public Library in the back room at 6:30 P.M.  Drive around to the back parking lot and enter in through the side door in the courtyard.

Conversation With A Oneness Pentecostal Pastor

A while back I met a Oneness Pentecostal named Jesus!  Wow!  Thats kinda weird for an English-speaking American.  Any way I’ll post our exchanges below.  He hasn’t responded after my last post but maybe he is looking into what I said and maybe he is thinking about the verses I mentioned and maybe he is considering answering my questions.  Below is the exchange in order:

 

Greetings Jesus,

 

You share the same name as my Great God and Savior!  This is odd to an

English speaking American.  I am sure it is an honor to you though.

 

In my first text message I asked you for your best proof that Jesus is

the Father.  I also asked you to define the term “Trinity”.  You provided

as your best proof the inspired text of the beloved Paul that he penned

to Timothy.  It says,

 

“God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in

glory.” 1 Timothy 3;16

 

This is your best proof?  Where does it say that the “Father” was

manifested in the flesh?  Nevertheless, as a Biblical Trinitarian, I can

say Amen!  The Son of God, Jesus, was manifest in the flesh.  The Son of

God came down from heaven and became a man. Neither the text here and no

where in the Bible, says that the Father became flesh.  To further prove

that it is the Son of God that became flesh consider the following

verses;

 

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: Sacrifice and offering

You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.  In burnt

offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.  Then I said,

‘Behold, I have come- In the volume of the book it is written of Me– To

do Your will, O God.’ “  Hebrews 10;5-7

 

Do you notice that there are two people mentioned here?  Consider the

words ‘He’ and ‘Me and ‘You.  One person says to another, Sacrifice and

offering You did not desire.  Who did not desire sacrifice and offerings?

Who provided a body for whom?  I’ll go ahead and tell you. The one

receiving the body would fulfill God’s will.  Who’s will did Jesus the

Son of God accomplish?  It was the Fathers will.  The Father had no

pleasure in the burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin.  Instead the

Father desired to offer up the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, His

eternal Son would be offered up, see John 3;15,16.  In light of these

verses how can you say that it was the Father that is in view in 1

Timothy 3;16 when here in Hebrews we can see clearly that it was the Son

of God that received a body?

 

You say the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible.  Neither is the word

‘rapture’.  Do you believe in a future rapture?  Also the word Bible is

not in the Bible.  Do you believe the Bible is true even though the word

can’t be found in the Bible?  Finally, Oneness is not found in the Bible

either.  The term ‘Oneness’ describes what you believe, i.e. God is one

person namely the Father. Therefore it is not helpful to dismiss a

teaching that has a nonbiblical word describing a Biblical truth.

Instead one should examine the Trinity teaching and see if it can be

supported by the Holy Scriptures.  That is why I asked you to define the

term ‘Trinity’ so I can know what you think the teaching of the ‘Trinity’

means to you, in your own words.

 

Thank you very much for helping me understand your teaching better!

 

In His Grace,

 

Drew

 

 

 

Let me ask you a Question?, What are you understand when you said Father, and who is the Father for you? The Son Is the Father Isaiah 9:6 For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government wil be on His shoulders. He wil be name Wonderful Counselor, ´MIGHTY GOD´ ETERNAL FATHER´,Prince of peace. Come and see, what Jesus said. John 14:8,9 ¨Lord¨, said Philip, ¨show us the Fhater, and that´s enough for us. Jesus said ti him, Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say,¨Show us the father? Isaiah 43:10You are My witnesses the LORD´s declaration and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may Know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.

Jesus,

It is normal to first answer my questions so we can stay focused on the

topic at hand.  The topic is Hebrews 10;5-7.  Please answer my sincere

questions there before running from that text to another.  At least

consider answering two very important questions.  One, how do you define

the teaching of the Trinity?  Next,who received the body in Hebrews 10?

The Father or the Son?  I will briefly answer your questions but at this

time I don’t want to be distracted from the discussion involving 1

Timothy 3;16 and Hebrew’s 10.

The Father is described by the Bible as the Yahweh and He has an Only

begotten Son named Jesus.  Much more of the Fathers description and

opinion of the Son is contained in Hebrews chapter 1.

As you know the Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language so the

term ‘eternal Father’ or another translation is ‘everlasting Father’

represents a Hebrew phrase that is more accurately translated Father of

Everlasting.  I can document this for you with Highly regarded Hebrew

scholar references if you like. But let me ask you this, is the Divine

Nature (Father)God?  You should say yes.  Then, is the Son of this Divine

Nature God?  Your believe would say no.  The Son refers to the human

nature and is thus, human.  The Divine nature is eternal though, and it

is what constitutes God.  But Isaiah says that the one born referring to

the Son of God, is called the Father of Everlasting.  The Father of

eternity.  This is said of the Son.  Any way more on that later.

Next you claim that Jesus claimed to be His own Father to Phillip.  What

did John 3;16 say?  For God so loved the world that He gave His only

begotten self?  Nope, the only begotten Son.  Again Hebrew helps us to

know that Jesus was the revealer of the Father.  It says,

“God who at various times and various ways spoke in times past to the

fathers by the prophets,has in these last days spoken to us by His

Son,whom He has appointed heir of all things,through whom also He made

the Worlds, who being the brightness of His glory and the express image

of His person…………………Hebrew 1;1-3

The word ‘express’ is the translation for the Greek work Karakter.  The

word means a stamp or impress like a signet ring.  In other words Jesus

is the perfect revealer of the Fathers person.  This I believe is what

Jesus is saying to Phillip because after all this time Jesus has revealed

the character of the Father perfectly.  If you insist that Jesus claimed

to be His own Father Jesus should have said, Phillip I am my own Father!

That is bizarre to say the least.  We also know that scripture indicates

that Jesus left heaven and became a man (see Philippians 2;5-11) and that

He prayed to the Father (see John 17;1-5)  Why pray to the Father if you

are the Father?

Isaiah 43;10 is one of my favorite verses that prove there is only ONE

God.  This belief is also called monotheism.  As a Trinitarian I can say

Amen!  This verse in no way stands in contradiction to my believe that

there is one BEING that is God and that this one BEING exists as

three;co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent persons simultaneously,namely

the Father,the Son, and the Holy Spirit.Again, thank you very much for this good conversation.  Would you please

consider answering my questions as I have done yours.  Afterwards we

could re-visit these points.

Drew

Trinity

I’ve been thinking about the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity today and how a proper understanding of God is so vital to our worship.  It is so amazing as one surveys the New Testament and finds ample Old Testament quotes containing verses that identify Yahweh and then seeing those same verses being applied to Jesus and the Holy Spirit!  One is forced to conclude that Jesus and the Holy Spirit is none other than Yahweh.  Consider the following verses;

And: “You LORD in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.  They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed.  But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”   Hebrews 1;10-12 NKJV

Now if you read Psalm 102;25-27 you will find where this quote came from and if you read the context of this Psalm you will find this attributed to Yahweh.  What is more interesting is the fact that this is spoken by the Father to the Son!  This demonstrates that Jesus is Yahweh.

Another interesting verse in Hebrews is found in chapter 2;7 which says,

“Therefore as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice,…………..

Notice the ‘Holy Spirit’ says?  However if you turn to Psalm 95 where this is quoted from you will find again that Yahweh is the subject of discussion and one can easily conclude that it is Yahweh who said!

One can only conclude that within the text of the Old and New Testaments that there is only ONE God and that this ONE God is tri-personal i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Oneness Pentecostals and Colossians 2;9

In June of 2004 I had the privilege to debate Oneness Pentecostal theologian Robert A. Sabin on the Doctrine of the Trinity.  That Saturday evening was actually two debates.  I presented the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity while Robert opposed.  After a brief intermission, a second debate took place.  This time, Robert presented a positive presentation for the Oneness position while Don Childs (a teaching Elder from Park Church) opposed.  That evening really surprised me when I heard Robert admit publicly that “Jesus did not take divine prerogatives unto himself”  What did Robert mean?  After he continued, I realized that he was saying that Jesus, the son of God, was human and was not God.  In other words, Jesus is God, according to Sabin, but God according to the divine nature.  Confused?  Well, many a Oneness and Trinitarian are left scratching their heads.  I believe a study of Colossians 2;9 can enlighten us as to what Oneness theology is saying.  After the Saturday night discussion, one Oneness Pentecostal commented, “If David Bernard had been here things would have turned out different”.  This comment indicated to me that there was some dissatisfaction in Roberts presentation.  Yet in my opinion, Robert did a splendid job representing accurately the Oneness position.  (DVD’s of this debate are available for free contact me at drewstine@gtcom.net)  In response to this comment, I contacted David Bernard (very nice man) and invited him to debate the subject with us in the same manner as we did with Robert.  He responded with interest but stressed he would like to here from the local UPCI presbyter Daniel Huba.  Many emails between Mr. Huba and myself took place and we actually ended up debating one another via email.  Consequently I learned that you never argue with a potential debate organizer.  After a few heated exchanges Daniel said he was no longer interested in Bernard coming and as a result David and I forfeited our efforts in formulating a debate resolution and format.  Regardless of the failed effort to satisfy the interest of some UPCI persons challenge to have David Bernard come, I remain able to interact with David’s writings, specifically his book ” The Oneness of God”.  As I interact with the Biblical text, I will rely on Bernard’s book to represent the UPCI’s understanding of the person Jesus.

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”  Colossians 2;9,10

What does this text mean to the Oneness Pentecostal?  It is according to which Oneness person you meet!  Many I have talked with use this verse to somehow disprove the doctrine of the Trinity and assert that this verse proves that Jesus is the Father!  Yet in Bernard’s book he mis-represents Trinitarians when he says,

“We understand this to mean that all of God-all His attributes, power, and character-is in Jesus.  Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Word, and so on are all in Jesus.  Some Trinitarians try to counter this interpretation by referring to Ephesians 3;19, which says we as Christians can be filled with all the fullness of God. Therefore, they argue, Colossians 2;9 does not indicate the full deity of Jesus” …………….(The Oneness Of God p.216)

Really!?  Trinitarians deny that this indicates Jesus’ full deity?  That is really bizarre to say.  I for one, an adamant Trinitarian would argue and have argued that this verse teaches, without doubt, Jesus’ deity.  I will also quote at least two leaders in Trinitarian theology and Christ’s absolute deity, to further prove that this is not a Trinitarian position viz. to deny Jesus’ deity.  Interestingly enough it is actually the Oneness position that denies Jesus’ absolute deity and it is the Oneness position that is forced to equivocate that deity.  How can this be true?  Consider the following:

“However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time.  It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ.”……………………………….”the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.” (Oneness Of God p. 98,99)

So what does Bernard mean?  Besides his rejection of the term “God the Son” ( another discussion altogether ) we find out something very interesting concerning Oneness Pentecostals and their Jesus.  Notice why Bernard rejects the term “God the Son”?  It is because, “it equates the Son with deity alone”…….  But isn’t this what Colossians 2;9 is saying?  That Jesus IS Deity?  (we will discuss this point shortly)  The entire dilemma can be better understood when you first understand that for Oneness Pentecostals Jesus is two people and for Trinitarians Jesus is one person.  Robert Sabin can say that Jesus “didn’t take divine prerogatives unto himself” essentially denying that he was God.  But Robert and Bernard alike are referring to the Son of God.  Of course out the other side of their mouth they will say “Jesus is God” but they are referring to the deity IN Jesus, hence, the other person i.e. The Father.  In other words, Jesus is God, according to Oneness Pentecostals, but how is He God is found in the assertion that the deity in him is God, thus denying that the Son is actually God.  In fact Bernard denies the eternality of the Son and His role as Creator which scripture fully states.  (See John 1;1,17;1-5, Hebrews 1;10-12, Colossians 1;16, Hebrews 10; 5-7, Philippians 2;5-11,Isaiah 48;16)  It also may interest the Oneness adherent and Trinitarian alike to understand what Bernard says about the person Jesus the Son.  Consider the following,

“When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship will be submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Father, Creator, and Ruler of all.”………………”We find another indication that the Sonship has an ending.” (Oneness Of God p.106)

You see, the Oneness Jesus, the Son of God, did not exist before Bethlehem, is not Creator, is not God, and will cease to exist!  Is that the impression you get when reading the Bible?  Not at all!!  I can almost hear the Oneness people reject my assertion and conclusion of Bernard’s claims when they scream “Jesus is God!!!!”  But I ask you, ”how is Jesus, the Son, God?”  If you are Oneness you must say he is NOT.  To further prove that this is the Oneness position, consider again Bernard’s words.  He states,

“Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.” (Oneness Of God p.127)

Notice that Bernard correctly represents Oneness theology along with Robert Sabin?  It is the Father that is deity and the Son is Humanity!  This brings us to Colossians 2;9.  Here we find that the supposed trump card of the Oneness camp that is to refute Trinitarian theology.  Instead, we find that this verse in fact refutes the Oneness position altogether.  How?  You might ask.  In two points, one being that the presupposition of the Oneness adherent concerning the word ‘Godhead’.  That presupposition is deity=Father and Son=humanity.  Second, the meaning of the word “Godhead’ only strengthens the Trinitarian position and furthermore proves the absolute deity of Jesus the Son of God.  If you were to scan the context of Colossians you would soon find out that Paul understands a distinction between the persons, Father and Christ Jesus, 

“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (Colossians 1;3) 

and,

“giving thanks to the Father ………..(vs.12)

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. (vs.13)

and to make no mistake about who the fulness dwelled in we find a very interesting verse,

“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” (vs.19)

I ask, “the fulness of what?”  The fulness of the Godhead.  But to my Oneness friends reading this, does this mean; “all of God-His attributes, power, and Character” as Bernard claims?  Does the term Godhead=Father?  If the meaning of Godhead actually means something else, then it stands that the Oneness presupposition falls.  And if Christ Jesus, distinct from the Father, is described as having that which makes God, God, apart from the Father, then the Oneness position falls.  In other words, is Jesus God in and of himself, without any un-biblical qualifiers making him so?  And do Trinitarians reject this text as describing Jesus’ absolute deity as stated by Bernard above?  Listen to one of the leading defenders of Trinitarianism,

“In his letter to the Colossians, Paul wrote, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9).  The word translated “deity” (theotes) means “the nature or state of being God.”  The King James Version translates the word as “God head,” which was accurate in the English of Shakespeare’s day but is somewhat misleading today.  Many people use the term “the Godhead” to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit considered collectively.  The suffix-head in English, however, usually meant status, state, or nature, and in modern English has been largely displaced by -hood (e.g., bachelorhood is the status or state of being a bachelor;women-hood is the status, state or nature of being a woman).  Thus, the equivalent word for “Godhead” today would be Godhood-and this word is about as exact a translation of theotes as one could want.” ( Putting Jesus In His Place The Case For The Deity Of Christ, Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski p.76) 

So, does ‘Godhead’ really mean the state of being God?  Again I will let you hear the words of yet another leading defender of the doctrine of the Trinity,

…….”Because all the “fullness of Deity”dwells in Him.  Each word is full of meaning.  When we read of the “fullness of Deity,” we find here a claim to the deity of Christ that is, in some respects, stronger than if Paul had used the very word “God” of the Lord in this passage.  Why?  Because the word itself is very strong.”…………………………………..”The Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker lexicon renders the word “deity, divinity, used as an abstract noun for theos.  Thayer’s lexicon says, “deity, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col.ii.9.”  Dr. Thayer is here giving us the words of Dr. Grimm.  ( The Forgotten Trinity p. 85, James White)

To summarize, Jesus is Deity.  Specifically, Jesus has the God stuff!  Deity is referring here to ‘that which makes God, God.’  What makes Jesus God?  Jesus’ very nature!  He is the God-man.  One in person, the eternal Son of God.  It is not, as Bernard and Sabin insist, that Jesus is God because the Godhead (Godhead=Father) dwelled in Him.  But that Jesus, is God, having always existed as God, yet distinct in person from the Father and Holy Spirit.  This eternal Son, is the One that died on the Cross!  Not a Son that had a beginning as Bernard and Sabin claim.  It is only in this Jesus that we have remission of sins.  If you are Oneness and disagree, or if I have mis-represented the Oneness position, then please leave a comment.  I would be glad, in a spirit of Christian love, to hear what you have to say in response.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2;23)

Oneness vs. Trinity debate

Problems with my Greek fonts appearing in article, sorry:)  working on repairs now!  Otherwise you may see ????? where the Greek words are supposed to appear.

 

 

 

The Bible and the Early Church Teach the Doctrine of the Trinity

 

Article based on the affirmative speech given by Drew Ayers in a Oneness vs. Trinity debate with Robert Sabin on June 19, 2004

If you examine all the Bible scriptures pertinent to this discussion, what kind of God would it describe? Would it describe a God who exists as the doctrine of the Trinity asserts? Also, if we read the writings produced before the Council of Nicea, that is the writings of Christian leaders shortly after the spread of Christianity, what kind of God would they describe? Would their writings indicate a belief in a God that exists as a Trinity? I will show that the Bible and the Early Church do indeed teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

There may be some objections in your mind even now. You may say, “Well, Brother Drew, the word Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. In fact, I can’t even find it in my Strong’s concordance.” I would like to remind you that “Oneness” is a word that cannot be found in the Bible either. Now, this fact does not dismiss either viewpoint from being valid ones. Both words, “Trinity” and “Oneness”, are non-Biblical words that describe a supposed Biblical truth. Both of these viewpoints cannot be true. So, to determine which view is correct we do not look in the Strong’s concordance and see if the word is in there. No, we must appeal to the Scriptures. I believe that all the Scriptures as we find them in the Old and New Testament are inspired of God. That is, that the Scriptures were God-Breathed: “All Scripture is given of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then we should expect to find this truth plainly taught in the Scriptures. To determine if the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by the early Church, then we should expect to find writings from that era depicting a triune God. Your decision, therefore, must be based on the evidence, not on any preconceptions. We must be honest with ourselves and before God. I encourage you to pay close attention to the evidence that I submit to you, as well as the evidence submitted by Robert Sabin or any other that teaches the Oneness doctrine.

To begin my presentation of this evidence, I would like to define some terms.

1) Monotheism – The belief of “ONE” being that is God. (Monotheism is the foundational truth for the doctrine of the Trinity, contrary to Oneness opinion.)

2) Trinity – “Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (As written by Dr. James White in his book “The Forgotten Trinity”, p. 27)

3) “Being – is what makes something what it is.” (Being = God)

4) “Person – is what makes someone who they are.” (Definitions 3 and 4 are again from Dr. James White, taken from his debate with Robert Sabin)

To simplify, we could say that there is one “what” (in reference to the being that is God) and three “who’s”; the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are the one God. It is important that we understand that there is not one God that is three beings. That would be Tritheism, which Trinitarians are often accused of being. No! God is ONE being. Also, God is not, according to the Bible and Trinitarian theology, one person, but that God exists, having always existed, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, simultaneously. It is important that we avoid category errors, which is most common in these discussions. For instance, Drew Ayers and Robert Sabin are two different persons. We are distinct from one another. We are also human beings. The person Drew Ayers is a human being, but not the same human being as Robert Sabin. Now, the Bible is very plain about Monotheism, the belief in one God. But is God one in Being and one in person or is God described as one in the category of being but NOT in the category of persons? That is where our discussion must center tonight. It is a fatal assumption to say that one being has to mean one in the category of persons as well. Within the one BEING that is GOD there exists three coequal, coeternal persons. Where does the evidence point?

Let’s turn our attention to one Old Testament passage that shows conclusively the plurality of persons. Not the plurality of gods, but the plurality of persons. In Genesis 1:26-27 it is written, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in our image, according to Our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His OWN image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (NKJV) We find in these two Scriptures proof positive for God’s plurality of persons. The Bible, as you may or may not know, was not written in English! The Old Testament was written in Hebrews and later translated into Greek and that Greek version is called the Septuagint. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the common tongue of the day. We have thousands of these primary manuscripts today that validate the accuracy of the Scriptures that we have in English. Nevertheless, in verse 26 we find in the Hebrew language the plural verb “make” as well as plural pronouns “us” and “our”. This fact cannot be overlooked. Now you may have heard from those of the Oneness persuasion say, “This is God talking to angels!” However, this cannot be true because the nouns “image” and “likeness” are singular. We do not possess two images, one being that of God and the other being that of angels. We are created in God’s image only. This is further proved when we notice verse 27 repeats the word “image” (singular). If it meant God’s image and the angel’s image then the word image should be in the plural form. Now, I have not ever read anything by Robert Sabin that says the “us” and “our” are angels, but I would like him to answer me: “To whom was God speaking?” Himself? So, who was with God at the beginning of creation? The Bible tells us in the book of John chapter 1:1-3. It reads, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (NKJV) I do not see how it could be any plainer than that. In the beginning was the WORD, He was in the beginning with God, and nothing was made without Him. Now, you would have to be there to be a part of it. If you are not there then you missed it! We know that this Scripture is speaking of Jesus, for verse 14 reads, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now, that could be none other than Jesus! I would also like you to notice “In the beginning”  . The same construction as in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning.” The Septuagint that I mentioned earlier, that is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, has the same Greek words  . Secondly, I want you to notice the remaining portion of that first statement; “was the Word”. In the beginning was the Word,     . The word , our English “was”, lets us know that in this Scripture the Word has eternally existed. John is not saying that the Word had a point of origination. The next phrase in John 1:1 is, “and the Word was with God”,      . I want you to notice the word , our English “with”. The word eternally existed and was with God. With God in what way? In a relational way! The word  is a preposition, and in this verse can be translated “face to face”. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. The Word had communion with God in a real way. I also would like you to consider the implication of the fact that  is a preposition. Prepositions are used to demonstrate an existing relationship between subjects. Consider this: “People are with Drew at the auditorium.” This is a numerical relationship. “People are with Drew”, and it designates that more than one object simultaneously exists. Finally, I would like you to examine the last portion of this Scripture: “and the Word was God”,     . There has been much debate with Arians, better known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, as to how this should be understood. Jehovah’s Witnesses render this in their faulty New World Translation, “and the word was a god.” A little g! Without going into detail I can only say that this is grammatically impossible in the Greek language. As a Trinitarian, the Deity of Jesus is of utmost importance. However, I do not believe that Jesus (the Word) was the same person “God” as with whom He was with. I believe that the term  in John 1:1b is describing the Father with whom He has eternally existed. Consider 1 John 1:2: “the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was WITH THE FATHER and was manifested to us-…” The same John says that it was the Father with whom Jesus was! In fact, John 1:1c can be translated “and the Word was divine”, thus indicating a distinction from the person God whom He was. These facts cast a devastating blow to Oneness theology for which there is no logical recovery. For if Jesus pre-existed before His birth as a baby in Bethlehem, which is obvious, then this uni-personal concept of God is untenable. It can’t be defended.

Another Scripture that destroys Oneness theology is found in Philippians chapter 2, verses 5-8: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” (NKJV) In the first four verses of this chapter, Paul takes the time to encourage the Philippians to have unity through humility and shows us the greatest act of such in verses 5 through 8. In this section, Paul shows us what Jesus did prior to His incarnation (that is, “coming in the flesh”). We find in verse 6 that Jesus, prior to His coming in the flesh, was in the “form of God”,     . Notice the word  which is a present participle that can be understood as a continuous existence. “Having always existed and continues to exist.” This shows us two things: 1) Jesus preexisted eternally as God. Thoughts or plans cannot consider but a person can and did; and 2) Jesus remained God when humanity was added to His nature. While Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, He “emptied” Himself. Not an emptying of Deity but of self. Kenneth Weust, on page 84 in his “Word Studies in the Greek New Testament”, states, “He made Himself of no reputation.” The word in the Greek means either “to empty” or “make void”. Of what did He empty Himself? What did He make void? He emptied Himself of self, which is the essence of humility. He set self aside when He set His legitimate desires aside. His rightful, natural desire as Deity was to be glorified, to give expression of His glory to the angels. But to go to the cross, He had to set self aside. He emptied Himself of self, He made self void, the very person who had the right to assert self, which is the prerogative of Deity alone. Here is the supreme example of the self-emptied life.” This is what the Jesus of the Scriptures did for you! As God, He took on flesh and yet remained fully God. It was this Divine Jesus that died for you. Not a Jesus that was a mere man, created by the eternal God at Bethlehem. Not a Jesus that happened to have the eternal God living in Him. No, it was the eternal Son of God that came from heaven and was obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. What would it be that a mere man died for us? No, friends, it was God Himself, not someone else! I believe that it is impossible to understand these Scriptures without the belief in the Trinity. Consider 2 Corinthians 8:9: “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that THOUGH HE WAS RICH, yet for your sakes HE BECAME POOR, that you through His poverty might become rich.” (NKJV) I assert to you that this Scripture cannot be understood as well without a Trinitarian understanding of Philippians 2:5-8. When 2 Corinthians 8:9 says “He was rich”, I ask you, my Oneness friends, how and when was He rich? Was He the owner of the First Bank of Galilee? Did He leave His banking business to become a carpenter? When He became poor, was this the result of a bad economy? No, I don’t think so! Jesus emptied Himself of the Heavenly riches when He took on flesh. That is when He, metaphorically speaking, became poor. Now, contrary to the prosperity teachers, Jesus was not rich on this earth, and He did not wear designer clothes! He was our HUMBLE servant unto death.

My final Scripture for your consideration of the preexistence of Jesus is found in Hebrews 10:5-7. It says, “Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: 　“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—　In the volume of the book it is written of Me—　To do Your will, O God.’”(NKJV) We find here two divine persons. One is speaking to another. When? When He came into the  – the world. When HE came into the world HE said! Who is the He? Scripture tells us! Listen to what He said: “Sacrifice and offering YOU did not desire, but a body YOU have prepared for ME.” This could be none other than Jesus! Who is the You? It can be none other than the Father. “To do YOUR will, O God.” Who’s will did Jesus practice? The will of the Father. “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 5:30 NKJV). “In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin YOU had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come” – notice again the “you” and “I”. “In the volume of the book it is written of ME—　To do YOUR will, O God.’” Personal pronouns “I”, “YOU”, and “ME” are used throughout these verses. More than one person is in view! One person is Jesus speaking to the other person, the Father. This conversation took place when? When He (Jesus) was coming into the world. To accept the Oneness view of God, we would have to retranslate the Scriptures to read: “Therefore, when I came into the world I said; sacrifice and offering I did not desire, but a body I have prepared for Myself. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin I had no pleasure. Then I said to Myself, ‘Behold, I have come – in the volume of the book it is written of MYSELF – only to do My own will, O God that I am.” Does this sound correct? It should if you are Oneness. If God is uni-personal, this is what we should expect the Scriptures to portray. This is the problem when we accept an unbiblical view of God. The concept does not do justice to the plain readings of Scripture.

I would now like to turn our attention to the writings of the early church. In the beginning of my presentation, I presented to you Genesis 1:26, “Let US make man in OUR image”. I then suggested to you that this was proof positive for God’s plurality. I would like to now present to you an excerpt from the “Epistle of Barnabas”, chapter 6 verse 12, written between the years 70-100 A.D. “For the Scripture speaks of us when He says to the Son: Let us make man according to our image and likeness; and let them rule over the beasts on the earth and the birds in the air and the fish in the sea. And when the Lord saw our fair creation, He said, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” This is what He said to the Son.” The author of the “Epistle of Barnabas” attributes Genesis 1:26 as God speaking to the Son. Next, I stated that John 1:1 proves that the Word “eternally existed” with the Father. I would now like you to consider the following church fathers:

Tertullian – c. 160-230 – “Tertullian was a Christian writer in Carthage, North Africa. He wrote numerous apologies, works against heretics, and exhortations to other Christians – nearly all of which are in Latin. Around 211, he seems to have left the church to join a Montanist congregation. The transition to “Montanism” occurred a few years after Tertullian’s conversion, about A.D. 202. The act doubtless had its origin in his eccentric disposition and rigorous moral views, which predisposed him to regard that heresy with favor and to dislike the Roman Church … the penitential discipline of the church was administered at Rome with exceeding laxity, and that such indifference was an abomination in the eyes for Tertullian. Assuredly he did not regard Montanist as the paraclete … The assertion that he returned to the Catholic Church before he died is sometimes made but cannot be substantiated, and the continued existence of the sect of Tertullianist would seem to contradict the assumption.” (McClintock and Strong, “Encyclopedia of the Bible”).

Novatian – d. 257 – Roman presbyter and author of several theological works in Latin.

Ireneaus – c.130-200 – Bishop of the church at Lyons ( in modern-day France)

Now that you have been introduced to these early church fathers, let’s see what they had to say:

1) “For so did the Father previously say to the Son: “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” Tertullian (c. 210, w), 3.549

2) “How is it that the Son suffered, yet the Father did not suffer with Him? The Father is separate from the Son, though not separated from Him as God. For example, a river flows from a fountain identical in nature with it, and the river is soiled with mire and mud, the injury that affects the stream does not reach to the fountain. To be sure, it is the water of the fountain that suffers downstream. Nevertheless, since it is not affected at the fountain (but only at the river) the fountain suffers nothing.” Tertullian (c. 213, w), 3.626

Tertullian clearly shows here a distinction between the Father and the Son as separate persons.

3) “He strongly refuted his adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. He said, “If He called them gods, to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world ‘You blaspheme” because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” By these words, He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather, He confirmed the assertion that He was God … Nevertheless, He refuted the charge of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For He wished that He should be thus understood to be God, as the Son of God. He would not wish to be understood to be the Father Himself … He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.” Novatian (c. 235, w), 5.625

Where in the world did Novatian get the idea that Jesus was God but not God the Father? His opinion was a popular opinion during his day. How did he formulate his opinion? From the Bible.

4) “But the Son has been eternally co-existing with the Father. From of old, yes, from the beginning He always reveals the Father.” Ireneaus (c. 180, E), 2.103

5) “For with Him were always present the word and wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying “Let us make man after our image and likeness” … “I have also largely demonstrated that the word, namely the Son, was always with the Father.” Ireneaus (c. 180, E/W), 1.487, 488.

Clearly Ireneaus believed in the pre-existence of the Son before the incarnation.

6) “This heresy *[Monarchianism] supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person, as if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity of substance. Yet, they are of one substance, one condition, and one power – inasmuch as He is one God from whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number without division will be shown.” Tertullian (c. 213, w), 3.598

* Notice “this heresy Monarchianism”. What is it? “Monarchianiam – resolves the mystery of the Trinity by viewing the three persons as different modes of the One God; they are not distinct, individual persons in the sense of orthodoxy.” (“Heresies”, O.J. Brown, pg. 96)

We can conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity was in fact taught and defended by the early Church. It was the doctrine of Oneness that was refuted by many, then and now. I conclude with these questions for all who have read the evidence that I have presented, yet still hold to the Oneness doctrine:

1) Who was God speaking to in Genesis 1: 26 and 27?

2) How do you reconcile your theology to the plain teachings of John 1;1?

3) If Jesus did not exist before Bethlehem according to your theology, how then did Jesus “consider” in Philippians 2 before being found in the likeness of men?

4) When and who was talking to whom in Hebrews 10:5?

5) Why did the early church teach the doctrine of the Trinity?