|
Viewing 1 - 9 out of 12 Blogs.
Page:
1 |
|
Eternal Father, Eternal Son? by
Jason Dulle
One of the ways in which Trinitarians have argued for the existence of a second, eternal person in the Godhead known as "Son" can be illustrated by the following syllogism: P1 God is eternally "Father"
P2 One cannot be a Father without having a Son
_________________________________________
C1 God must have an eternal Son The conclusion of a syllogism is true insofar as the premises of the syllogism are true. If one of the premises are false, however, the conclusion will also be false. I would argue that the conclusion Trinitarians have made concerning the Son is false, because P1 is a false premise, based on bad hermeneutics.1 To argue that God is eternally "Father" reads NT designations for God back into the OT, which is methodologically improper, and theologically disastrous. God is not eternally "Father" anymore than He is eternally "Son." God came to be known as "Father" in the incarnation. This is not to say that God is never called "Father," or likened to a father in the OT, but it is to say that "Father" was never God's name. God's name is clearly "YHWH," to which He is referred over 6800 times. God even declared, "I am YHHW..." (Isaiah 45:18). If God has always been "Father," and that is His name, we should expect Him to be called "Father" all throughout the OT, not "YHWH." God is referred to as, or likened to "Father" about a dozen times in the OT,2 but always in the sense of creator (Deuteronomy 32:6; Malachi 2:10), covenant-maker (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10), or suzerain over the Davidic kings (Psalm 2:7; II Samuel 7:14). "Father" described God's relationship to His creation, Israel, and the Davidic kings, not His relationship to another divine person as in Trinitarian theology, and not His name. It is important to note the fact that in the OT "Father" never describes God's relationship to another divine person. If God's eternal Fatherhood is derived from His relationship to an eternally divine person known as "Son," why is it that we never read of the Son in the OT that the Father is in eternal relationship with? We would expect for the Son that God is Father to, to be spoken of prior to the incarnation (in the OT). Mysteriously we do not find any mention of the Son until after the incarnation when God fathered a human son (in the NT), and thus have no reason to assume that the Son existed prior to the incarnation, nor a basis for assuming that God is eternally "Father." The incarnation, then, may explain why we only find a handful of references in the OT where God is referred to as "Father," but a multitude of references in the NT. See my article entitled "Why be a Trinitarian?" The mere fact that God is occasionally referred to as "Father" in the OT is not enough to conclude the existence of another divine person in the Godhead (Son). For God to be 'eternally Father' to an eternal Son not only requires that God be called "Father" in the OT, but requires that God's fatherhood is spoken of in reference to another divine person. If we do not find God being "Father" in relationship to another divine person who is "Son" (and we do not), then there is no solid reason to conclude that God is eternally Father, or that there is an eternal Son. While the absence of the Son in the OT, and the absence of the Father-Son language in the OT does not disprove Trinitarian dogma, it does throw serious question on it as the best explanation of the data. There is no question that it is possible for an eternal Son to not be mentioned in the OT and yet still truly exist. The possibility of such is not being disputed; what is being disputed is the likelihood of such. The appellations "Father" and "Son" are relational terms with relational significance. Furthermore, such appellations describe a specific kind of relationship: a filial relationship [parent/child]. In the incarnation God became "Father" in a new way unseen in the OT; i.e. in a paternal sense. It begins being used so predominantly in the NT because God actually fathered a human child, and had a relationship with that genuine human being (Son). This is not to say that it is a relationship between Jesus' two natures (Nestorianism), or that it is a relationship between two divine persons (Trinitarianism), but it is to say as a genuine human being with a genuine human consciousness, Jesus, the God-man, had need of communication with God. It would be proper to say, then, that YHWH God became both "Father" and "Son" at the incarnation.3 The way that God became "Father" and became "Son" in the incarnation is not the same type of becoming, however. YHWH became the "Son" in a metaphysical way, but became "Father" only in a relational sense. God became the Son by a metaphysical uniting of human nature to His one person through the miraculous virgin conception. God became something in time that He was not previously in eternity. There was no change in God's essential being (for He remained the same), but there was a change in God's manner of existence. As the church fathers taught, 'He became what He was not while remaining what He was.' Such a teaching stresses God's immutability, and yet acknowledges God's new manner of existence as a genuine human being (in addition to His continued existence beyond the incarnation). God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" did not require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ. So while it could be said that YHWH became "Father" and "Son" simultaneously, this does not imply that the "becoming" was of the same nature.4 The incarnational becoming (John 1:14) is a metaphysical becoming, while God's existence as "Father" is a relational becoming.
Footnotes 1. It could even be argued that P2 is false. While it is true that humans cannot be a father without having a son, it is not necessarily so for God. As will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, on occasion God was known as "Father" in the OT in reference to His relationship to creation, Israel, and the Davidic monarchy. It is apparent that God's designation as "Father" in these relationships is not contingent on a truly filial relationship to Him.
2. Numbers 11:12; II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 29:10; Psalm 68:4-5; 89:24-27; 103:13; Isaiah 9:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; 31:9; Malachi 2:10.
3. It would be improper to say that the Father became the Son, because God's name is "YHWH," not "Father." He only became known as Father after the incarnation (in the NT sense) because of His relationship to Jesus Christ.
4. And neither does it imply that God was never called "Father" before the incarnation. It is only to say that God's fatherhood in the NT is of a different nature than it was in the OT. While God was only called "Father," or likened to a father a handful of times in the OT (being known as "YHWH" instead), He is called "Father" a multitude of times in the NT (and never "YHWH"). We must either conclude that God's name changed between the testaments, or that God came to be known as "Father" in the NT because God fathered a human son.
Yahweh or Jesus: What is God's Name? by
Jason Dulle
In the OT God declared that His name was YHWH (Exodus 6:3; 20:7; see also 3:14). Scholars believe that "YHWH," or "Yahweh" is the third person singular form of the ancient Hebrew verb, "haya," meaning "to be." The basic thrust of this verb describes the state of existence. As the third person form of haya, Yahweh literally means "He is," or "He exists." It is a description of who God is. He is the self-existing one. To understand the import of this we must understand the nature of Hebrew names. Hebrew names are not simply nominal devices used to identify one person from another as they are in the English language; they are actually sentences in themselves. It is similar to how the Indians named their children "rising sun" or "running bear." These were not quite complete sentences, but they were descriptions (partial sentences). God's name, YHWH, is a full sentence. It just so happens to be the shortest sentence in any language--"I am."1 Has YHWH always been God's name? While it is possible, it is unlikely. God existed long before the Hebrew language, so it would seem unlikely that God has always had a Hebrew name. It must be remembered that God did not reveal a name to the Hebrew people that they were unfamiliar with; God revealed Himself to the Hebrew people using existing Hebrew vocabulary (haya) to express to His chosen people who "He is" (the pun is intended). It was a word/sentence they were familiar with because it already existed in their language before God declared it to be His name. I am persuaded that God said His name was YHWH only because He was speaking to Hebrew people. If God would have revealed Himself to English speaking people He would not have said His name was "YHWH," but rather "I am,"2YHWH does not "tag" God for identity purposes (for God does not need a name), but rather describes to us who God is. God was not eternally called "YHWH." He was simply Himself, the self-existing one. because the Hebrew "YHWH" and the English "I am" are the same verb. The difference is not in the meaning, but in the language through which the meaning ("I am") is conveyed. The name I am further persuaded that the name God revealed to the Hebrews was for the sake of revealing something about Himself and His nature to man. He is the "I am," the "existing one." It is for this reason that it is in vain when people make a big ordeal over the manner in which we should pronounce God's name. Some go so far as to say that if you do not pronounce God's name correctly you cannot be saved. While this is not to say that God's name is unimportant, it is to say that His name describes who He is, and discovering who God is takes precedent over the exact pronunciation of the words used to describe Him. When God communicated His name to the Hebrews it was not so they could know what to call Him, or how to pronounce His name properly, but to reveal something about Himself to them. Jesus vs. Yahweh? Many Oneness believers will contend that God's name is not YHWH, but Jesus. While I do not disagree that Jesus is God's name, the problem with such a statement is rooted in the fact that it sets up a false dichotomy between "YHWH" and "Jesus," forcing us to decide between the two. No choice needs to be made because in actuality they are both the same name, but with one of the names being an expanded form of the other, describing what God does. It could be said that God's name is Jesus only because His name is YHWH. While that may sound contradictory at first, let me explain. In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form. While YHWH simply describes who God is, when it is combined with a verb it describes what God does. The name "Jesus" describes the fact that YHWH has become salvation. Who is Christ? He is YHWH, saving His people from their sins. If YHWH is not God's name, then Jesus' name becomes meaningless. To deny that God's name is YHWH is to ultimately deny the name of Jesus.
We should pick up on the fact that God is never referred to as "Yeshua" (Jesus) in the OT. He is always referred to as YHWH. If God's name has always been Jesus (as some claim) it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the NT. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as "Jesus," meaning "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name. The name of Jesus encompasses the fullness of God's revelation of Himself to man--as Savior. The name "Jesus" is so important to us because it is an expanded form of the same divine name revealed in the OT. It is not a different name. It is only greater in that it more fully expresses who God is to us--Savior. Truly God's name is Jesus, because God's name is YHWH. We confess that God's name is YHWH every time we confess Him as Jesus.
The Question of Titles by
Lance Cameron Kidwell
The Question of Titles Often when discussing the differences between Oneness and Trinitarian theologies the primary argument revolves around the relationship between the Son of God and the Father. Trinitarians ask questions such as: Who was manifest in the flesh, the Father or the Son? When the scripture says, "He is BEFORE all things" (Col.1:17) is the scripture speaking of the Father or the Son? Heb.1:10 says, "And, Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands". Is this verse speaking of the Father or the Son? Is "the Son of the Father" in 2 John 3 "God"? Is He the Father? These questions are based on one presupposition: The "Father" and the "Son" are words describing eternal relationships between persons of the Godhead. Arguing from this perspective one falls into the logical trap of: The Son is not the Father.
The Son is God.
The Father is God.
Therefore, the Son and the Father both are God. From there the only explanation historic Christianity has come up with is the Trinity which claims that God exists in three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal and have existed from eternity in relationship with each other. A typical Oneness rebuttal asserts that the Son is the Father, which is believed to be logically necessary if both the Son and Father are God but are not two different persons. This explanation is faulty because it doesn't explain the biblical usage of the terms Father and Son. It is obvious that the scripture meant something by the terms Father and Son. What does it mean then? If the terms are to be held coherent then there must be a distinction between the Father and Son. However, assuming from the outset that the distinction is a distinction of "persons" is a fallacy. The Context of the Terms It must be understood that the terms "Father" and "Son" in contradistinction to one another are first introduced in scripture in the context of the incarnation. Christ is God manifest in the flesh. He is fully God and fully man. He had a human body and a human mind, but the humanity of Christ was God's humanity. God did not merely assume the form of man. He actually became man. He was born of a woman in space and time. Inserting at this point the concept of one person of the Trinity became man is an anachronism in that it argues back from the Greek philosophy of the Church Father's to the scriptures. The scriptures never introduce the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity is read back into scriptures. Therefore, when in scripture Jesus refers to His Father, he is referring to God in his transcendence. When the scriptures speak of the Son, they are referring to God manifest in the flesh. We must believe that the Father refers to the One God of scripture in the same way that the Holy Spirit refers to the Spirit of the One God. Any backward interpretation of these words is to do injustice to the radical monotheism of Scripture and is the result of faulty hermeneutics. How do we answer those questions then? The truth is that the questions are unanswerable because they assume definitions and information that is not scriptural. Because Father and Son are relational terms arising from the incarnation we would not expect to find any passage which says the Father became a man. It is God who became a man. Who created the world the Father or the Son? God created the world. The question might as well be, who created the world the Prince of Peace or the Lamb of God? It is unanswerable because it assumes a difference in persons where the scripture doesn't teach a difference in persons. Imagine your pastor's name is Bob Smith. If I asked you who is taller Pastor Smith or Bob? The question is obviously irrelevant. Pastor Smith is what I would call him in the context of my relationship with him as pastor and Bob is what his wife would call him when they're out shopping. In conclusion, is there a difference between the Father and Son? Yes. Is that distinction one of persons? No. The difference between the Father and Son is that the Father is God in His transcendence and in His relationship with the man Christ Jesus, while the Son is God in his incarnation.
Jesus, the Voice, and the Dove by
Jason Dulle
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17; See also Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, and John 1:32-34). Many have used the above passage as a proof-text for the Trinity. Is this the point of the passage? In order to get a better understanding of the passage, all four gospel accounts need to be consulted and compared/contrasted. All three synoptic gospels agree that the heavens were opened. Matthew, Mark, and John agree that the Spirit of God was seen to descend upon Jesus in the form of a dove. The gospels of Matthew and Mark use "he" to refer to the person who saw the Spirit of God descending in the form of a dove, whereas John uses the personal pronoun "I" in reference to the person who saw this phenomenon. Matthew alone refers to the fact that the Spirit was lighting upon Him, and only John describes the dove as continuing to abide over Jesus as He was being baptized. John is also the only writer who gives the purpose for the appearance of the dove. All three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) speak of the voice from heaven and reiterate what was spoken that day. Understanding the purpose for Jesus' baptism may also be helpful. There appears to be four purposes. In Jesus' own words He said the purpose was "to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus was giving us some sort of an example to follow. Secondly, Jesus' baptism served as an official and public inauguration of His earthly ministry (John 1:26-27, 31). It was at this time that Jesus was revealed to Israel as their Messiah. The third purpose of Jesus' baptism was that it was there where Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Ghost and power for ministry. I believe this to be the most important reason of all. The Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings were always anointed in some way to signify that they were chosen of God (Exodus 28:41; 29:7; I Kings 19:16). The oil with which they were anointed was symbolic of the Holy Ghost. Jesus, then, in like manner was to be anointed by the Holy Ghost since He came to fulfill the roles of prophet, priest, and king (Psalm 45:7-8; Isaiah 61:1). Instead of being anointed with oil that was symbolic of the Holy Ghost, Jesus was anointed by the Spirit of God Himself. The priests in particular were washed with water and anointed for the purpose of consecration to their office (Exodus 29:4, 7). This may have some bearing upon why Jesus was baptized in water. Surely He was not baptized because of sin, because He was sinless. He was baptized as a washing for His ordination as the High Priest for all mankind (See Hebrews 7). This anointing Jesus received does not mean that He became God or the Christ at His baptism. This was merely the point at which God anointed Him for ministry. Jesus had to be anointed for His calling and ministry in the same way we are anointed for ours.1 To demonstrate this, notice that it was not until after this anointing at Christ's baptism that He performed His first miracle (John 2:11; anointed by God in 1:32-33). Why didn't Jesus perform any miracles before this time? Why was it that God did not use Him to preach and heal until after He was over thirty years old (Luke 3:23)? It was because the time for His earthly ministry had not yet come, and therefore God's anointing and power was not with Him to do so. Unless it is the will of God to heal someone, they will not be healed. If He does not heal the sick, raise the dead, give a word of knowledge, a prophetic word, vision, or revelation, none of these things will happen. We canot force God to do anything through us. They can only be done in accordance to divine will. God, for whatever purpose, chose not to do anything substantial (pertaining to ministry) through Jesus until He was over thirty years of age. This does not mean that Jesus was not God before His baptism, but demonstrates that Jesus ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Ghost. It must be remembered that Jesus did not work miracles because He was God, He worked miracles as a man anointed by the Holy Ghost in the same sense as we do. It is not that God could not annoint Him to work miracles before His baptism, but that He chose not to. Jesus, just as we ourselves, could not do anything apart from God's will. Jesus plainly said that He could not do anything by Himself, but He only did that which He saw the Father do (John 5:19-20, 30, 36). This is due to the fact that Jesus operated within the realm of any human being. (See my article on Christology under the heading of "The Ministry of Christ as it Relates to the Kenosis.") In accordance with that thought, note that it was not until after Jesus' baptism that He stood in the synagogue at Nazareth and proclaim the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Himself saying, "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the LORD" (Luke 4:18; anointed by God in 3:21-23). It was not until after Christ's anointing at His baptism that this Scripture was fulfilled. Before He was anointed at His baptism, it was still prophetic in nature, although the One who would fulfill it was alive and well in the world. Finally, the purpose of Jesus' baptism was to reveal the identity of the Messiah to John the Baptist. John's ministry was to prepare the hearts of Israel for the LORD to visit them without consuming them in His wrath for their sins (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1-7; 4:5-6). That is why John came preaching repentance from sin, demanding to see visible evidence stemming from this repentance. He brought the people to understand their moral obligations and the importance of having one's heart right with God (Matthew 3:1-2, 5-12; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3-14). John preached in the wilderness telling the people that although he baptized them with water to repentance, there was One coming after Him who was greater than he, and He would baptize them with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:23, 26, 30-31). John's ministry was to prepare the people for, and point the way toward the Messiah. John, however, did not know who this Messiah was (John 1:30-31). He did not know that His own cousin was God manifest in the flesh, the anointed Messiah for Israel and all the earth (Luke 1:34-41; John 1:30-31). The lack of John's knowledge as to the identity of the Messiah is the purpose for the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Earlier I mentioned that Matthew and Mark use the third person singular pronoun "he" in reference to the individual who saw the Spirit of the Lord descending upon Jesus in a dove-like form, but they never indicate who this "he" was. From the text it would appear that the "he" was Jesus. In the gospel of John, John the Baptist used the first person singular "I," referring to who saw the dove, indicating that it was he who saw the Spirit of the Lord descending and abiding upon Jesus. Apparently John the Baptist was the only one who saw this phenomenon. He explained this is John 1:31-34 when he said: And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. It was "He that sent" John to baptize which gave Him a personal sign wherewith he could identify the Messiah for whom he prepared the way. This sign was that the Spirit of the Lord would descend and abide upon Him. God did not tell John that it would appear in the form of a dove, but that was the way it ended up happening. God had to make His Spirit visible in some way because He is invisible. If He did not appear in some type of visible form John would have had no way of seeing Him descend upon the Messiah. The appearance of the dove was only for John's sake so that He could finally know the identity of the One he had been preparing the way for. Once the Messiah was manifest to Israel, John's ministry was close to completion (John 3:30). In defense that John alone saw the dove, it can be argued that if others would have seen the dove there would have been no reason for John to relate the story to them as he did (John 1:29-36). After John saw the dove, he was able to boldly proclaim of Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God!" (John 1:36) Jesus, the dove, and the voice from heaven do not represent the Trinity as some see this Scripture. The purpose of the dove was that it symbolized the Holy Ghost. It must have been symbolic because the Holy Ghost is not a bird! The appearance of the dove was for John's sake only. The voice is never said to the be the voice of God. It is thought to be the voice of God because of the voice's reference to Jesus as "my beloved Son." Since it is God who is said to be Jesus' Father throughout the New Testament it is concluded that this had to be God speaking here. The Scripture says that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost, thereby making Him Jesus' Father, so why could the voice not have been the Holy Ghost's (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35)? Was the Holy Ghost Jesus' Father, or was it God? Although I believe it was God who spoke, I am making this point to show the foolishness of trying to find all three members of a trinity here. This is a problem one will run into when trying to use this passage to split up the Godhead into members; however, when one understands that God is one, and that the Holy Ghost and Jesus are manifestations of this one God to man, passages like this are easily understood. Just as the form of the dove was for the benefit of John, it seems best to understand the voice from heaven to be for the benefit of the people present at Jesus' baptism. Although this is not said to be the purpose in any of the synoptic gospels which mention the voice, the passages do not rule out this idea. In fact, the writers never gave any reason or purpose for the voice. They simply affirmed the historicity of the event to be factual. I base my hypothesis for the purpose of the voice on John 12:28-30. In this passage there was a voice that came from heaven too. Jesus said that this voice was not for Him to hear, but for the people's sake. (See also Matthew 17:5 for a third occasion upon which there was a voice from heaven. This voice is also explained to be for the benefit of those present). In conclusion, the baptism of Christ does not indicate a plurality in the Godhead. The dove was only a representation of God's Spirit for John to see. When the Holy Ghost descended upon Jesus, John saw a symbol of God's Spirit, not a person of the Godhead. The voice from heaven does not indicate that Jesus was a separate person from God either, but demonstrates the fact that God still existed as the omnipresent Spirit in heaven even after the incarnation. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and as such was willingly limited by the incarnation as it pertains to where His presence could be at any given time. To claim that the voice from heaven, or the appearance of the dove indicate a plurality in the Godhead is not warranted. This passage only demonstrates the omnipresence of God, and the relationship between the Father and the Son as it pertains to the incarnation.
In the Beginning was the Word by
William Arnold III
En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos,
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (John 1:1). This passage is foundational to understanding the relationship between Jesus and God. Before we look at places where we see a distinction made, such as in the Upper Room Discourse (ch. 14 – 17), we must first understand what John is saying here. It is no wonder that John (which makes the most distinction of any New Testament writer) puts this at the outset. He is laying a foundation. John says both that the word was with God and that the word was God. In one and the same breath, the word is distinguished from God and yet immediately identified as being God. How is that possible? I believe that the answer to this is the key to understanding other passages in scripture where a distinction is made. First I would like to point out what John does not say. Notice that John does not say that, "In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father and the Son was also God." Had John been a Trinitarian we would expect him to say something to this effect to be consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. To find a Trinity in his words we are forced to redefine the word "God" in the middle of a verse. John would be saying that the word was with God the Father but that the word was God the Son. But that is not what he said. The same God whom John identifies the word as being with is the one whom he states that the word is (the word was with God and the word was God). Trinitarians claim that the distinction is justified because the second phrase contains the article before God (ton theon) but that the last phrase does not (theos). My first response would be: Why does the presence of the article demand that this is God the Father? Why not God the Holy Spirit? For some reason, when a Trinitarian reads "God" they first assume it is a reference to God the Father unless they have reason to believe otherwise. Somehow the Father is more "God" than the other two persons. Second, I would simply point out that almost every time the phrase "God the Father" or "God our Father" appears in Scripture, the article is lacking. This includes every one of Paul’s benedictions as well as several other verses (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal. 1:1,3; Eph. 1:2; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:11; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1,2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phm. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; 2 John 1:3; Jude 1:1). So there is no justification to claim that the second theos in John 1:1 does not refer to God the Father simply because there is no article. Finally, John was a devout Jew who had no concept of persons in the Godhead. The only God he knew of was God the Father. Therefore, to identify the word as God was to identify him as the Father (See also my article: Colwell's Rule and John 1:1 on this issue). I have also heard it claimed that the Greek word pros (with) means "in a face to face relationship" in this passage. Now pros can mean "in a face to face relationship," but this would only hold true in our passage if it is first demonstrated that the word is another person than theos (God). If, however, the word does not refer to a person in this phrase then it would still mean "with" but not "in a face to face relationship." That it does not refer to a person can be seen in the parallel account by the same author in 1 John. In a very similar statement, John says "What was from the beginning . . . concerning the Word of Life . . . which was with (pros) the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John1:1,2). God’s life was with him, but not "in a face to face relationship" with him. God’s life is not a separate person from himself and neither is his word. I believe that the word of God is simply a reference to the expression of God. In Revelation 19:13 (John writing again), Jesus is called "the Word of God." The book of Hebrews tells us that, "God . . . has spoken to us in his Son" (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus is himself the content of what God has spoken. He is the visible "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3, KJV). "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18, KJV). The word translated "declared" in this last verse is exegeomai, from which we get the word exegete. Jesus has "made known," "explained," "described" or "revealed" God. To use colloquial terminology, he’s the spittin’ image of his daddy. No one can see God, but you can see his glory. Jesus is "the brightness of his glory" (Heb. 1:3). Trinitarians often use analogies to express their concept of God, such as the three points on a triangle, the three states of water or three interconnected circles. Analogies can be helpful, if they accurately express the reality. However, they can be very damaging if they do not. The only analogy that I am going to use is found in Scripture. Jesus is said to be both the root and a branch (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; especially 22:16). This is beyond our comprehension. You cannot diagram it; you can’t explain it, but this is what Scripture says. Scripture does not state that God is three points of a triangle, but it does state that Jesus is both the root and a branch. This we must affirm whether or not we can explain it. And I believe that this will answer the issue of distinction which we see in the Bible. From the viewpoint of Jesus as root, he is God Almighty and can be called such. From the viewpoint of Jesus as a branch, he can legitimately be distinguished from God. He is both the Creator and part of the creation. How this is possible I do not know, but this is what Scripture affirms. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the pronouns which follow are in the masculine. It has been claimed that because of this, the word must be a person. Now when such a claim is made, I must conclude that either the person who said it knows very little about the Greek language or they are not being fully honest with what they are saying. The rules of Greek grammar require that pronouns must agree with the nouns they represent in case, number and gender. Since the word logos (word) is masculine, its pronoun would of necessity be masculine! For example, the word church (ekklesia) is feminine. So the church is called a "she" in the Greek whenever a pronoun is used. No one would claim that this makes the church a person. This can also be seen where John later calls the comforter (parakletos) a "he." Commenting on this, Greek scholar Daniel Wallace makes this observation: The use of ekeinos [he] here is frequently regarded by [Trinitarian] students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. . . . But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, pneuma [spirit] is appositional to a masculine noun. The Gender of ekeinos thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of pneuma. The antecedent of ekeinos, in each case, is parakletos [comforter], not pneuma. . . . Thus, since parakletos is masculine, so is the pronoun. . . . Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which pneuma is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.1 Finally, I would also like to state that this is how we are to understand statements of Christ’s preexistence. In the beginning was the logos (word). Whether we want to say the word of God, the expression of God or the glory of God, this is what existed in eternity past, not an eternal second person in the Godhead. Jesus is the visible representation of the one invisible God. It can be said that he was with God and it can be said that he was God, but this does not make God himself multiple persons for the scriptures emphatically teach that God is one.2
IS Jesus God the Father? by
William Arnold III
Shema Israel YHWH elohanu YHWH echad, "Hear O Israel, Yaweh is our God. Yaweh is one" (Deut. 6:4). There is only one God. This is the emphatic teaching of the Old Testament. The Jews were the people who knew their God if anyone did (John 4:22), and they had no concept of persons within the Godhead. In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe do not allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Could scripture be any plainer than this? In verse 24 he states, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone." If language means anything then "by Myself" and "alone" mean that there was no other person present. If God is not claiming that he is absolutely one here, then what stronger language would one suggest to convey this? Why would God be so emphatic about oneness, if in reality he were three persons? Would not these statements be misleading? In the next chapter he states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, "There is no one besides Me?" Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him. I do not see how it is possible to see a Trinity in these passages.1 Surely the coming of Christ did not in any way compromise this strict Monotheism taught in the Old Testament. There is only one God. That God is our father. If Jesus is that God then Jesus is our father. As to his deity, Jesus Christ is God the Father. Isaiah 9:6 clearly calls him the Father. Some have argued that this should be translated "Father of Eternity," but not one major translation translates it that way (see my article: Should Isaiah 9:6 read "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity?"). However, even if we adopt the translation "Father of Eternity" does that diminish the force? Jesus is called the Father. I Corinthians 8:6 tells us that, "to us there is but one God, the Father." There is no God outside of the Father. So in the sense that Jesus is that God, then Jesus is the Father. Malachi 2:10 asks the question "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" So we all have one Father, and our Father is God. The reason we call God our Father is because he created us. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 tell us that all things were created by Jesus, thereby making him our Father. The Holy Spirit many times is simply referred to as the Spirit of God. Yet Scripture also speaks about us receiving the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Ppn 1:19) or simply identifies him as the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Peter 1:11) and Ephesians 4:4 tells us that there is only one Spirit. This must all refer to the same person, the one true God. As to his deity, Jesus is the Holy Spirit. To recieve Christ is to receive the Spirit. Jesus told the disciples, "Even the Spirit of truth . . . ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:17-18). Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father" (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus' response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for. One reason that Jesus so often spoke of God in the third person is that he did not want to appear unto men as God, but he wanted to appear as a man just like one of us, as we read in Philippians 2:5-8, NIV: 5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7. but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! Jerry Hayes explains it this way: Many times the question is asked, "If Jesus was Father God why did he not just say so?" The answer to this question is so completely summed up in Philippians 2:5-8. He was humble. He did not think it a good thing to flaunt his deity before men. He did not choose to appear better than man, although he was better than all men for he was the creator of all men. He choose, instead, to have all men appear better than himself. When Jesus spoke of the Father it was always in a way that distanced his own identity from that of Father God. This action was in keeping with his character of not appearing as God, although he was. Concerning this very subject Jesus made the following promise: "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall not more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father: (John 16:25). Paul referred to this same event of revelation when he wrote unto Timothy, "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen" (1 Timothy 6:15-16). At the time of this great revelation may we all bow low at his feet and whisper in hushed tones of adoration the confession of Thomas, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"2 But that still leaves the question: Why does the New Testaent make a distinction at times? The answer to this goes back to the dual nature of Jesus. In the capacity of being fully man, He was distinct from God. Not just distinct from the Father but from being God at all. This is why we can see references to the God of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17). This is obviously not the God of God. It is the God of a man. Jesus is called a man over and over (Acts 2:22; 13:38; I Tim 2:5). As a man, there were things He did not know (Mark 13:32), there were things He could not do (Mark 6:5), He could only be in one place at one time (John 16:7), He could be tempted (Heb 4:15), He could thirst (John 19:28), and He could die (John 19:33). So from this point of view He was distinct from God, and could be spoken of that way. But from another point of view He was fully God and could be called such (John 20:28; I Tim 3:16; I John 5:20). When we see a separate reference it is always something like: "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." What you never see is: "God the Father and God the Son." It is always God and man, Spirit and flesh, God the Father and the Son of God. As I Timothy 2:5 puts it, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." In John 10:30 Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." Does that mean that they are one in unity? Well, I ask if that was all he meant then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone him? (v. 31) In fact, Jesus asks them why (v. 32), and they answered him, "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (v. 33). They understood this as claiming to be God, not claiming to be in accordance with him. So if "I and the Father are one" means "I am God", then he must be God the Father. Some Trinitarians have tried to draw attention to the neuter gender of the word "one" in this passage (Gk - hen), claiming that this means that they are one in unity. However, this is the same word used in passages such as Eph. 4:4 where it says that there is "one Spirit," and no one would argue that this means only one in unity. (See also my article: Greek and Hebrew Words for "One") In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."3 Either they were mistaken, or they understood the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be Jesus. Surely the apostles didn't disobey their Lord. Yet they routinely baptized only in Jesus' name. I could give many scriptures to show that Jesus is indeed God, but here are a few more that show that he is specifically the Father (who is the only God, Mal 2:10; I Cor 8:6). David Bernard illustrates: 1. Jesus said that He would send the comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the comforter (John 14:26). 2. The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32). 3. Jesus will raise up all believers in the last day (John 6:40), yet God the Father quickens (gives life to) the dead and will raise us up (Romans 4:17; I Corinthians 6:14). 4. Christ is our sanctifier (Ephesians 5:26), yet the Father sanctifies us (Jude 1). We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son.4 Finally, I would like to look at a passage in Revelation 21, which clearly indicates that Jesus is the Father. Starting at verse 5 it reads: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new [we are made new by being in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)]." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true [in Rev. 3:14 and 19:11 Jesus is called "faithful and true"]." 6 Then He said to me, "It is done. [compare to John 19:30, "it is finished"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. [In the very next chapter Jesus says this same thing, 22:13-16] I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost [Jesus gives the water of life, John 4:10-14; Rev. 7:17]. 7 He who overcomes [Jesus spoke these words seven times to each of the seven churches in the beginning of this epistle, 2:7,11,17,26;3:5,12,21] will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" (emphasis added). Everything in this passage points towards Jesus as the speaker, yet at the end of the passage we realize that it is God the Father. As our Lord said elsewhere, "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25). Or as Zechariah the prophet said, "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one" (Zech. 14:9).
WHY DID JESUS PRAY IF HE WAS GOD?
The question has been asked, "If the Lord Jesus Christ was God, why did he pray to the Father?" We teach by the word of God that there is ONE GOD, the creator of the heavens and the earth and all mankind, manifest to mankind as Father (Creator), Son (Saviour), and the Holy Spirit (Indwelling spirit). We believe and teach that there is but ONE GOD with three manifestations. "For there are three that bear record" in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE" (I Jn. 5:7). It does not say that they agree or work as one but that they are ONE. The Name of the ONE TRUE GOD is Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19, Acts 2:3Cool. Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Ghost.
Now in asking the question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father?" the Trinitarians try to prove that there is more than one in the Godhead. In this question they see Jesus, the Son, the second person, praying to the Father, the final person in the Godhead.
Briefly let me bring in at this point the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was the result of the Council of Nicea which was called by Constantine , the first Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. This council was called to settle the question of the Godhead , and the result was the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly the doctrine is: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." "And yet they are not three Gods but one God," but "these three persons, being truly distinct one from another."
Also in this "trinity" of persons the son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal pro- cession from the Father and the Son, yet not withstanding they differ as to origin, the persons are co-eternal and co-equal, all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."
This doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Word of God plainly teaches THREE MANIFESTATIONS OF ONE GOD, not three persons or Gods. Nowhere in the Word of God can you find these words, "Trinity", "three persons", or "Holy Three." These are terms used by men to turn the hearts of men from the truth of God and who He is. Basically the doctrine of the Trinity has not changed since the council of Nicea.
When we say that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD and beside Him there is no other the Trinitarian will ask this question, "Why did Jesus pray to the Father? They often say, "If Jesus is God then He prayed to himself." I will do my best to answer these questions.
First, let me ask the Trinitarian a question. Their doctrine states that the Father and the Son are two persons and that they are separate and distinct one from the other, yet they are coeternal and co-equal. In simple language this means that the Father has no more power than the Son and likewise the Son has no more power than the Father. The Father was not before the Son or the Son was not before the Father. Now the question I will ask is this: "If the Father and Son are co-equal , why did the Son pray to the Father?" You pray to someone because you need help, If the Son is co-equal, with the Father he had no need to pray to Him for help because he has just as much power and might. Please think, Mr. Trinitarian, before you ask such a question.
It is accepted everywhere that Jesus is the Son (Matt. 1:23-25). But let us prove that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son. "For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6) Some say we are foolish to call Jesus both Father and Son, but this scripture calls him Father and Son in the same verse. A child would be born, a son given, but he would be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. Jesus declared that He and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30). He does not say they work as one or agree as one, but He plainly states that they ARE one. Philip asked Jesus to show the disciples the Father in John 14:7-10. Jesus told Philip, "Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me, Philip. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then shew us the Father?" Some will say then if Jesus is the Son and also the Father then He prayed to Himself. lt would not be unscriptural to say this. Before you go up in Holy Smoke let us look at the Word of God. There is nothing unscriptural about the statement for in Heb. 6:13 we find "when God made promise to Abraham because He could swear by no greater, He swore by himself?" Did not God swear by himself? In Eph. 5:25-27 we read where Jesus presents the church to himself.
Let us look at it in its true light. God is a spirit and we know by the word of God that a spirit has not flesh and bone. He created all things. This makes him Father. This same God manifested himself to the world as a Son. "But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal: 4:4) The Son was made. "Wherefore when He cometh unto the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body has thou prepared me." God would come to redeem fallen man so He prepared a body in the virgin Mary and got into that body and came to us to be our Saviour. This manifestation of God in mankind was called the Son. Not another, but God himself manifested in flesh. (Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:22,23). This son was Emmanuel. "God with us." This was the child to be born and the Son to be given, yet He was the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6). The Son was the mystery of Godliness being revealed to mankind; God manifested in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). This was God becoming flesh and dwelling among us (John l:l,14).
He prayed because as Son he took on himself the form of man and in taking on the form of man he took on himself a human nature (not a fallen nature!) Please read Phil. 2:5-8. In taking on this nature he could hunger, thirst, become tired, could cry, and could even die. But one of the principle characteristics of the human nature is that it must pray. There is something within all men that cries out for them to pray whether they do or not. So Christ in his humanity prayed unto the eternal Spirit. Now even as God took these human characteristics on himself when He came into this world, even so He laid them aside in His resurrection, and we no longer know Him after the flesh (II Cor. 5:16). Paul said we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. After His resurrection we know him as Thomas found Him, "My Lord, and my God" (Jn. 20:2Cool. We know Him as John saw Him on the isle of Patmos, as the Almighty (Rev. 1:7,Cool. As the first and last (Rev. 1:17,1Cool. If Jesus is the first and last there can't be room for no other. We know Him now as King of Kings and LORD OF LORDS (Rev. 19:16).
JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT
Jo. 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 15:45; Matt. 18:20. Acts 20:28
JESUS IS THE EVERLASTING FATHER
Isa. 63:16; 1 Chron. 29: 10; Isa. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; Deut. 32:6; Jo. 14:8,9;
Rev. 21:7
YOU SHOULD BE BAPTISED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
Matt. 28:19 with Acts 2:38; 8:12; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom. 6:3;
JESUS was called the 'Son of God' or the 'Son of Man' in His Humanity, but in His Divinity He is the Everlasting FATHER, the Holy Spirit / Holy Ghost. He therefore spoke of and prayed to His Father, because He became as man, by accepting a human form (1 Tim. 3:16). This does not annul the fact that He is the Almighty! As Human Being, in the flesh, Messiah could say that His Eternal Omnipresent Spirit (the 'Father') was 'greater than Him'. Jesus showed us how to worship and prayer to the Father ( Himself). Jesus showed us how we could live a sinless life upon earth. Jesus laid down the foundation, being the chief cornerstone of the True Chruch , and we know can live our mortal lives without spot or
wrinkle through the shedding of Jesus' blood for our sins. Thus the Trinity dogma of a 'three Person God' is completely unscriptural. This teaching was formulated during the fourth century after Messiah at the Council of Nicea, 325 C.E., which was specifically convened in order to settle the raging controversy about the Identity of the Messiah. This teaching was unknown to the First Messianic Congregation as brought forth by JESUS CHRIST and His apostles. Similarly, any other teaching insinuating a multilpicity of Beings, or a "compound unity", or any teaching placing the Father ABOVE or making Him more important than JESUS CHRIST, is totally unscriptural. JESUS, Himself confirmed: Jo 8:24 "If you believe not that I AM HE, you will die in your sins." He was referring to the
"Great I AM" of Exod. 3:14 - the Father!
JESUS CHRIST'S body died on the cross, NOT His SPIRIT, His SPIRIT ( Holy Spirit) reentered Him, resurrected Him after three ( 3) days.
There will be ONE Throne of God in Heaven and Jesus Christ will be sitting in that Throne.
Ps. 9:7, Ps. 11:4, Is. 6:1, Is. 66:1, Heb. 4:16, Rev. 20:11, Matt. 5:34, Matt. 19:28, 23:22, 25: 31, Acts 2:30, 7:49, Heb. 1:8, 8:1, 12:2, Rev. 1:4, 3:21, 4:2-6, 4:9-10, 5:1, 5:6-7, 5:11, 5:13, 6: 16, 7:9-11, 7:15, 7: 17, 8:3, 12:5, 16:17, 16:4-5, 20:11, 21:5, 22:1, and 22:3.
No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him....John 1:18
Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, it is the bosom of the Father, because He is the Father. ( Our Father's heart, His love for us all .) And God purchased us ( Church) with His own blood... Acts 20:28.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His... Rom. 8:9.
Jesus is God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
John 1:1-14, 1:29, 1:41, 2:1, 2:19, 3:3, 3:11, 4:8, 4:24, 4:42, 5:18, 5:43, 6:32, 6:51, 8:24, 8: 12, 8:31, 10:11, 10:14, 10:34, 12:23, 13:13, 13:19, 14:5, 14:10-11, 14:6, 14:8, 14:13, 14:14, 14:16, 14:27, 15:1, 15:13, 15:15, 16:33, 18:36, 20:28, 21:16, Zec. 12:10, 1 Tim. 1:17, 2:3, 2:
5, 3:16, 2 Tim. 1:18, 2:7, 3:16, 4:18, 1 John 1:2, 1:5, 1:7, 2:1, 2:22-23, 3:5, 3:7, 4:7, 4:9, 4: 14, 4:15, 5:1, 5:4, 5:7, 5:9, Psalms 2:12, 3:19, 5:2, 10:16, 11:4, 11:7, 19:14, 22:22, 22:28, 23: 1, 24:7, 27:1, 31:14, 34:8, 46:1, 47:7, 52:8-9, 71:7, 74:12, 83:18, 86:10, 90:2, 91:2, 95:6, 99:
5, 99:9, 100:3, 102:25, 110:1, 130:5, 138:2, 145:17, Acts 1:8, 2:36, 2:38, 3:13, 4:12, 5:29, 20: 28, 23:6, Eph. 2:4, 2:14, 3:19, 4:6, 5:9, 5:14, 18:28, Gen. 17:1, Rev. 1:8, 1:9, 1:11, 3:20, 4:8, 4:10, 4:11, 5:12, 6:16, 7:10, 7:14, 11:17, 12:11, 14:1, 15:3, 16:7, 19:7, 19:11, 19:12, 19:15, 20: 11, 21:3, 21:5, 21:9, 21:13, 21:22, 21:23, 21:27, 22:1, 22:5, 22:12, 22:16, 22:20, Rom. 1:25, 5: 1, 6:5, 8:9, 8:29, 8:32, 9:16, 10:12, 12:1, 14:10, 14:11, 15:33, 16:20, 16:27, 1 Cor. 1:9, 2:16, 3:23, 5:7, 8:6, 10:4, 15:15, 15:28, 2 Cor. 12:4, 1 Pet. 1:11, 1:19, 3:15, 4:19, 2 Pet. 1:1, Ph. 1: 21, 2:9, 2:11, 3:3, 3:20, Deut. 4:24, 4:35, 7:9, 32:4, 33:27, Gen. 1:1, 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, 8:10, 9: 6, 12:2, 25:8, 26:24, 27:13, 35:4, 40:26, 40:28, 41:14, 42:5, 45:22, 49:7, 49:26, 53:7, 55:14, 57:15, 66:1, Jer. 7:23, 10:10, 23:6, 31:33, Matt. 1:16, 1:18-23, 3:3, 4:4, 4:7, 4:10, 5:14, 6:6, 6: 9, 6:24, 7:22, 8:27, 9:6, 22:29, 22:32, 23:8, 24:3, 24:42, 26:28, 27:30, 28:20, Luke 1:32, 1:35, 1:42-43, 1:47, 4:12, 4:34, 8:48, 9:1, 11:1, 19:38, 22:20, 23:2, 23:28, 23:43, James 3:11, 1 Thess. 1:10, 5:19, 5:23, 2 Thess. 3:1, 3:3, Heb. 1:5, 4:14, 4:16, 8:6, 9:15, 10:13, 11:10, 12: 24, 1 Sam. 17:46, 1 Kings 18:21, 2 Kings 6:33, Mi. 7:18, Ma. 1:23, Exodus 6:3, 14:13, 15:2, 18:11, 20:7, 33:19, Col. 1:9-10, 1:15-22, 2:2, 3:10, 3:17, 8:6, 2 Cor. 4:4, Mark 1:10, 2:28, 5: 34, 14:61-62, 14:64, 15:26, 16:12, Dan. 4:3, 9:25-26, Gal. 4:4, 5:22, 5:25, Ne. 9:6, Prov. 1:
23, 14:31, 16:4, 22:2, Job 4:17, 8:5, 19:25, 32:8, Num. 6:26, 14:18, Hos. 6:2, Jude 25, Eze. 34:23, Judges 11:36.
God's word says there is only One God !!!
Deut. 6:4, Job 6:10, Ps. 16:10, 71:22. 78:41, 89:18, Ecc. 12:11, Isaiah. 1:4, 1:24, 5:19, 5:24, 10:17, 10:20, 12:6, 17:7, 29:1, 29:23, 30:11, 30:12, 30:15, 30:29, 31:1, 37:23, 40:25, 41:14, 41:16, 41:20, 43:3, 43:14, 45:11, 47:4, 48:17, 49:7, 49:26, 54:5, 55:5, 57:15, 60:9, 60:14, 60: 16, Jer. 50:29, 51:5, Eze. 34:23, 37:24, 39:7, Dan.. 7:13, Ho. 11:9, Hab. 1:12, 3:3, Zec. 14:9, Mal. 2:10, Matt. 12:6, 23:8, 23:9, 23:10, Mark 1:24, 10:18, 12:29, Luke 4:34, 18:9, John 10: 16, 10:30, Acts 2:27, 3:14, 7:52, 13:35, 17:7, 22:14, 5:19, Rom. 3:30, 5:15, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19,
1 Cor. 8:4, 8:6, 12:13, Gal. 3:20, Eph. 2:16, 2:18, 4:4, 4:5, 4:6, 1Tim. 2:5, James 2:19, 4:12, 1 John 2:20, 5:7, 5:8, Rev. 1:13, 4:2.
JESUS is the ONLY Name under Heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved
Acts 4:12
JESUS is the ONLY Saviour Unto Eternal Life:
Hosea 13:4, Isa. 43:3 and 11; 44:6; 45:22; Luke 2:11; Mal. 3:1 etc. etc.
LORD JESUS CHRIST of the New Testament is LORD GOD the FATHER of the Old Testament:
Zech. 12:10; Mal. 3:1; John 1:45 and 5:46; 1 Cor. 10:9; Ps. 78:56 and 35; Hebr. 11:23-26;
etc.
JESUS IS THE ''ETERNAL MOST HIGH " 'God' - There is NO ONE above Him.
Ex. 20:1-3; Jo. 20:27,28; Rev. 1:7,8.17,18 with Zech. 12:10; Isa. 43:10, 11; Isa. 44:6; 1Tim. 1:17 with Jude 24, 25; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 1Cor. 15:47: Isa. 40:3-5; Acts 20:28; Gen. 15:1,2 with John 1:1,14; Isa. 45:22,23 with Rom. 15:9-11; Phil 2:10.
JESUS IS THE RULER OF THE WHOLE LIMITLESS UNIVERSE
Ps. 146:10; Col. 2:9,10; Ezek. 1:26-28 with Rev. 1:12-18; Ps. 66:7; Dan. 2:44; Dan. 7: 13,14,27; Eph. 1:20-23; Rev. 11:15; Philip. 2:10; Col. 1:17; 1Tim. 6:14-16; Deut. 10:17.
JESUS IS THE FUTURE AND ETERNAL RULER OF THE WHOLE EARTH Rulership over all nations will be given unto Him.
Rev. 15:3,4; Rev. 12:5 and 19:15; Rev. 11:15.
JESUS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL
Isa. 37:16; 45:18; Jo. 1:1,3 and 10: Col. 1:14-17: Rev. 1:7,8 with Rev. 4:8-11.
JESUS IS THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND
Matt. 1:21; Isa 43:10,11; 44:24; 47:4; Isa. 40:3-5; Isa. 52:10 with Isa. 53:1-12; Acts 10:43; Isa. 45:22,23 with Philip. 2:10.
JESUS WILL BE THE JUDGE IN THE SOON COMING JUDGMENT OF ALL THE EARTH
Ps. 50:6; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 22:12 with Isa. 40:10; Isa. 33:22.
JESUS IS THE KING OF ALL KINGS WHO ALONE IS IMMORTAL
Zech. 14:9; 1Tim. 6:14-16; Rev. 17:14; 19:16 with Deut. 10:17; Isa. 44:6; Isa. 43:15.
JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT
Jo. 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 15:45; Matt. 18:20. Acts 20:28
JESUS IS THE EVERLASTING FATHER
Isa. 63:16; 1 Chron. 29: 10; Isa. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; Deut. 32:6; Jo. 14:8,9;
Rev. 21:7
JESUS IS THE GREAT "I AM"
Ex. 3:14; Jo. 8:56-59; Jo. 8:24; Deut. 32:39; Jo, 18:5-8.
JESUS IS THE 1St, THE 2nd, THE 3rd . . . AND THE LAST, ALL IN ALL -
EVERYTHING
Isa. 48:12; Isa. 44:6; Rev, 1:17; 2:8; Isa. 41:4. Rev 22 13.
JESUS IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD HIMSELF . . .
JESUS IS THE ONLY NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN FOR OUR SALVATION
Acts 4:12; Isa. 43:6,7; Acts 10:43; Jo. 8:24.
The Pentecostal's Of The Lord Jesus Christ
The basic and fundamental doctrine of The Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
The Bible is the inspired Word Of God. It gives a true history of the creation of the heavens, the earth, and of mankind. It contains the correct prophecy of the ages to come regarding the heavens and the earth, and the destiny of man. Furthermore, there is no salvation outside of that which is contained within its pages.
There is only ONE GOD: the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and of all mankind. This One God, the I AM, is manifested (revealed) to mankind as FATHER (Creator), SON (Savior)(1 Jn.5:20), and HOLY GHOST (indwelling Spirit) (Rom. 8:11). God is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Eternal One, the Creator of all things, and of all men. Thus making Him their Father (through creation) (Malachi 2:10). The LORD is the FIRST and the LAST, and beside Him there is no God (Isa. 44:6).
There was no GOD FORMED before him, neither shall there be after Him (Isa. 43:10). Jesus is the SON of God according to the flesh (Rom. l:3). Jesus is the very God Himself according to the Spirit (Matt. 1:18-23). Jesus is the Christ (Matt. 16:16). Jesus is the Creator of all things (Col. 1:16, 17; Jn.1:10; Isa.40:28). Jesus is God with us (Matt. 1:23). Jesus is God made flesh (John 1:1-14). Jesus is God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). Jesus is He which was, which is, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY (Rev. 1:8; Isa. 9:6). To this, Jesus Himself testified when He said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:7-11).
Since it took shedding of blood for the remission (forgiveness) of the sins of the world (Heb. 9:22), God as the Father, being a Spirit, had no blood to shed; so He prepared a body of flesh and blood (Heb. 10:5), that He might fulfill the prophecy of Isa.43:11, "Beside ME there is no SAVIOUR". Thus, when Jesus was born into the world, he was Jehovah our Saviour (that is the meaning of the name Jesus), the one God of the universe, the Lord God Almighty, born as a man. This caused the angels to sing, "For there is born this day in the city of David, a SAVIOUR, which is CHRIST THE LORD" (Luke 2:11).
The Holy Ghost is not the third person in the Godhead! The Holy Ghost is the Spirit, Jesus Christ coming to dwell in the hearts and lives of those who receive him. That is why, when speaking of the Spirit, Jesus said "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you" (John 14:16-26; Rom 8:9; 2 Cor.13:5). So, THERE ARE NOT THREE PERSONS IN GOD, but three manifestations of the ONE GOD. God is the Saviour, and his saving name is now revealed to men as JESUS. Therefore JESUS is the name of God. SALVATION consists of deliverance from sin through the blood of Christ. This is accomplished by REPENTANCE from sin, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission (forgiveness) of sins, and receiving the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, and the continuance of a godly life (Acts 2:26-41).
Page:
1 |
|
|
