Some Anti-Oneness Incongruities

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be the Bible’s explicit usage of “God the Father” and its complete exclusion of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  If God was intent on teaching the first person of the Trinity with the phrase “God the Father” in scripture, then why was He not so explicit so as to elucidate the same for God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

Searching these phrases in the concordance, you will find many references to “God the Father”, but you will not find God the Son and God the Holy Spirit at all.  In fact, it is the assumption of God the Son why the doctrine of the Trinity actually takes glory from their one person of God and gives it to another in Philippians 2; when God the Father gets glory by rebound from what the supposed ‘God the Son’ did. 

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2   KJV

Why isn’t the confession of every tongue also confessing Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?  Is there some kind of concern with Divine competition, regarding which of the persons of God should be given more attention as the object of worship? Did the Jews think that Jesus was seeking to make Himself God or does the scripture teach that Jesus was perceived as asserting Himself to be equal with God?

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5   KJV

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Philippians 2   KJV

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, our English language is to comprehend the meaning of the word equal means: Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.  One that is equal to another.  To be equal to another, especially in value.  The Greek, iasov also conveys the same meaning to the above text as the English word “equal”; another of the same quantity, measure or value.  So how are we to understand that Jesus is not another God, if Philippians 2 is teaching His equality is another Divinity; other than God the Father?  The Trinitarian concept only leads me to polytheism if I am to understand a God who is equal with God.  Thus the Trinitarian necessity to outline God; by subdividing Him into persons.   

This was the error in the eyes of the Jews, not that they thought Jesus presented Himself as the God of Israel, but that He was perceived by them to be asserting Himself as another god.  Otherwise; Jesus would have blessed them in the same way He did Peter; 'for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto them, but His Father which is in heaven must have shown them' that He was the expression of the Trinity.  Just one small problem.  The scripture does not make the Trinitarian distinction by saying that one person of God was equal with another person of God, but that the man Christ Jesus did not consider equality with God something to grasp.  He was in both the form of God and the form of a man, and the form of a slave He assumed would naturally not seek His own will.   

Brumback assumes the Divine distinctions of God the Father and God the Son when he interprets Jesus' equality with God, because he is looking at the text with his predetermined doctrine in mind.  Brumback makes this distinction under his comments The Son Conscious of His Equality With the Father.:

The Son knew that He was equal with God, because he was in the form of God.  Hence, it is obvious that “the form of God” was restricted to God, and was the very basis for the Son’s estimation of His equality with the Father. God in Three Persons page 135 by Carl Brumback

Again, this is where Christians and even the Jews part paths with Trinitarians, because of the meanings of the words that God Himself employs in the Bible must be understood strictly according to their actual meaning.  Changing the meaning of the words “equal with God” to not mean another having the same quantity, measure or value as God, but rather to mean another entity inside the Divine identity; violates the scriptures by the demonstration of veering from the clear meaning of the words God has employed. 

It is interesting to note that even Brumback earlier confesses that the words “equal with” demands at least two be recognized, but conveniently leaves out the word “God” in his consideration and introduces the word “person” in his comments instead.

…”equal with” would not apply to the Father and the Son if they were absolutely one; the phrase demands at least two persons or things.  God in Three Persons page 134 by: Carl Brumback

Hummmm….that wouldn’t have anything to do with a predetermined doctrine at all…would it.

Another incongruity would be…

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be in Brumback’s representation of Jesus’ equality with God and his lack of understanding that Christ’s humanity should be included in His honor, even as the Father is honored.

Yadon asks:  “Does it not greatly exalt the Lord Jesus in your estimation, to look upon Him as the first and greatest of God’s creatures, and as the one only infinite God in all His fullness. …?”  In the light of the Scriptures, I must shout a thunderous NO! Jesus Himself said, “All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.”  By these words, He did not say that we should honor the Son as a created being, for such heresy dishonors both the Son and the Father.  Neither did He intend that we should honor the Son as the Father, for the Son is not the Father.  What Jesus did say was that we should honor the Son as the equal of the Father. God in Three Persons page 136 by: Carl Brumback

Once again the experience of confusion when trying to reconcile Divine persons, Brumback misses what the scriptures mean regarding honoring the Son, which should encompass His humanity.  Regardless of their attempts to redefine His personhood, they have to acknowledge His created role in our atonement; encompassed His full humanity.  That Jesus was a human person is the crux of how Christ’s humanity is compromised by the Trinitarian doctrine; because of it’s insistence on Him being a “Godman”; as opposed to what the scripture teaches; God in Christ.   

What does Brumback think Jesus was telling the Jews regarding the honor the Son should receive from men, even as they honor the Father?  What is the context talking about that Brumback is so sure of his conclusion; that the Son should be honored as an individual Divine Person?  Is the term "equality" in the context telling him that Jesus spoke of equal esteem for individual persons of God?  Or is it possible that He was revealing to them that His honor should no way be considered apart from His created humanity?

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.  19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.  20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.  21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.  22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:  23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.  24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.  25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.  26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;  27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. John 5   KJV

“Because He is the Son of man”.  Clearly this scripture is teaching that the Son of man is due the same honor as the Father because of the Father's bestowed life and authority to execute judgment on Jesus.  I have to say that with the same intensity that Brumback thunders his objection here, I was amazed at what he must think we do when we partake in our Lord’s Supper?

I think Brumback would have done good to have gotten some textual criticism regarding these kinds of comments in his book, because this text is plain that Jesus is teaching his detractors His humanity was essential to the honor He should receive, which greatly honors the Father; contrary to what Brumback believes. 

Just a side note... Brumback's comment; "What Jesus did say was that we should honor the Son as the equal of the Father" is not true at all.  The truth of the matter is, that the word "dishonor" means: To bring shame or disgrace upon.  If honoring Christ's humanity in our regard of honor for the Father is shameful, I would beware of Christ's warning regarding those who are ashamed of the Son of man (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26).

Another incongruity would be…

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be, where did Jesus ever even claim to be equal with the God?  Philippians 2:6 actually says that Jesus did not consider equality with God something to grasped.  It seems there is the same mistaken assumption carried over from the Jews that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was supposed to be rightly assumed that He was making Himself equal with God. 

This is the claim that W. J. Lenski, a Trinitarian biblical commentator makes regarding what Jesus said.

So little did the Jews misunderstand Jesus in regard to his claim to be equal with God (v. 18), that here in the clause, “even as they honor the Father,” he asserts that equality in the clearest possible manner.  Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel page 387 by: W.J. Lenski

But is that true?  Did Jesus Himself claim to be equal with God?  No.  It was the Jewish misunderstanding that concluded that Jesus was making Himself equal with God, not what Jesus claimed.  Even this Trinitarian commentator recognizes that the Jews were misunderstanding Jesus. 

The fact is, the scriptures do not actually teach that the man Jesus is equal with God.  The morphe of God that Jesus was in (Phil. 2:6)was the outward appearance of God, the express image of His being (Heb.1:3).  To say that His humanity was Divinty, would be the Trinitarian error of compromising His humanity. 

Another incongruity would be…

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be the continuing plea to ignorance which Brumback aims at Oneness believers for our understanding scripture and yet ignorance is the very license he pleas with which he justifies the incomprehensibility of the doctrine he tries to portray as understandable from scripture.

It will be impossible, of course, to do more than to sketch the significance of the mediatorial role of the Son, showing its consistency with the doctrine of the Trinity.  Here, again, finite man must plead only a fragmentary perception and understanding.  Some might attempt to hide their ignorance under a semblance of knowledge, but it is foolish to act as if we know all, when it is obvious that we know only in part. God in Three Persons page 137 by: Carl Brumback

All too quickly the focus has to be shifted to accusations of bias when there is no real answer to the dilemma this doctrine obviously and overwhelmingly manifests. 

Other than the Trinitarian assumption, where does the scripture teach that God accepted a lesser than God state for any length of time?  Did Martin Luther find the church justified in it’s error regarding salvation by works; just because the ministers of the church of Christ had done exactly that for hundreds of years? 

Ironically; the doctrine of the Trinity finds it’s validity in the same manner as a self-fulfilled prophecy.  In the beginning, the false definition of God’s Word was asserted, by evoking a higher understanding which makes the original false conception perpetuate a reign of error; because those in power cite misunderstandings as proof that the doctrine was right from the very beginning. 

A doctrine declared by those in power as truth when it is actually false may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill a faith in the original false concepts. 

Case in point, the humiliation that Philippians 2 states Jesus participated in; was clearly outlined as a human humiliation.  This is sufficiently demonstrated by the words He submitted to the death of His human body.  It is the doctrine of pre-incarnation that necessitates that the self humiliation taught of Christ in this text was a Divine abasement.  Yet the common sense God has given us balks at this logic and the error results in Trinitarians accusing others of being doctrinally biased; but they are the ones who have failed to acknowledge the teaching that the man Christ Jesus abased His human nature and conformed through obedience in a human way.  The context mentions no Divine submission. 

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2   KJV

The 2nd person of the Trinity could not possibly humble Himself to experience mere human death.  He is supposed to be eternal.  Only the supposition of a Divine person in Christ could possibly make this error.   

Another incongruity would be…

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be the often lack of overall perspective Brumback seems to be arguing against Oneness faith with; which reminds me of trying to drive a car without a rearview mirror.  The Word of God comes at a teaching from many different angles and having the full perspective is imperative.  Making arguments that fail to recognize all the implications of one’s assertions proves fatal to the Trinitarian doctrine. 

In trying to refute Oneness, again Brumback eludes the actual biblical teaching...

II.  THE MEDIATORIAL SON IS SUBJECT TO THE FATHER A.   The Father Is Greater Than the Son.  Jesus Christ could unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative the questions: “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?” – “Art thou greater than our father Abraham?”  (John 4:12; 8:53).  He could not say, however, that He was greater than His own Father.  Instead, He declared, “my Father is greater than I” (14:28).  Paul also writes: “The head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3).  Scriptures like these, interpreted without regard to the mediatorial role of the Son, reaffirmed the Arian position that a subordinate Son must be a created Son. God in Three Persons pages 137-138 by Carl Brumback

Looking in my rearview mirror, I see that Brumback fails to come to terms with God the Son’s inability to reconcile His equality with God the Father; by His basic admission that He is less than any of the other persons of God. 

The saying, you can’t have your cake and eat it too is very apropos regarding the Trinitarian’s efforts to try and dismiss my faith with explanations that their 3 persons are equal; yet unequal.  Who can buy their explanation that a 3rd of God could make Himself less than He is for a temporary period of time?

Efforts to make the Son’s subjection human is unthinkable; because to do so would make their efforts Arian to consider His subordination as just His humanity.  Yet that is exactly what Brumback veers toward, but hopefully his efforts to backpeddle is just enough grammatically; to think he has somehow redeemed his assertion of divine equality.

III.  THE MEDIATORIAL SON IS SUBJECT YET EQUAL A.   The Son’s Divine Substance Remains Unchanged.  It would be an utter contradiction to state that the subjection of the Son to the Father is based on exactly the same thing in which the Son is equal to the Father, viz., His divine substance.  His mediatorial service implies no change in His essential and eternal nature.  In that respect, there could be no subjection, not even the appearance of subordination.  As the divine, uncreated Son, He is the equal of God the Father; and that is an eternal fact which it would be impossible for Him to change---for any cause.  His co-equality with the Father is independent of His mediatorial office, and prior to it, and shall, therefore, continue when its function shall cease. God in Three Persons pages 138-139 by Carl Brumback

Yet Jesus tells us that the Father is greater than He.  What must Brumback be thinking to try and convince anyone that the Son’s omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence could be held in abeyance; effectually ever making God the Father greater than God the Son?

The true explanation lies in the fact that the mediatorial son---before His earthly life, during it, and after it---was subject to the Father.  The mediatorial office includes the incarnate life of the Son, in which the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence were held in abeyance (Mark 13:21; John 4:3; II Corinthians 13:4), and in which the Son was less than even Himself. God in Three Persons page 138 by: Carl Brumback

 
What can Jesus say ?  It seems that; before, during and after His earthly life; He just wasn’t Himself.

Obviously, Jesus was telling us something very significant about His human nature.

Another incongruity would be…

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be…I’m just still flabbergasted about the last one. 

Again…

The true explanation lies in the fact that the mediatorial son---before His earthly life, during it, and after it---was subject to the Father.  The mediatorial office includes the incarnate life of the Son, in which the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence were held in abeyance (Mark 13:32; John 4:3; II Corinthians 13:4), and in which the Son was less than even Himself. God in Three Persons page 138 by: Carl Brumback

The supporting scripture Brumback offers for this theory in Mark is the one regarding only the Father knowing the hour, but the reference in John must be missing a number or something; because it is just a reference to Jesus leaving one city to go to another.  The 3rd reference is similar to that of Philippians 2 regarding Christ’s weak human nature.

For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God.  For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. II Corinthians 13:4   KJV

Using this text as proof that the 2nd person of God was crucified through weakness in His innate Divine nature; is unjustifiable.  I can hardly believe my ears; much less the Trinity; because this scripture perfectly illustrates the elaborate theatrical revue of a teaching that “before His earthly life” God could set aside His Divine nature; by it’s proof that Christ’s weakness was His human nature.

The doctrine of eternal generation was deemed necessary because of the doctrine of the pre-incarnate Christ; which in turn was necessary because of the doctrine of the Trinity.  These kinds of flies in the ointment perfectly demonstrate why adding to God's Word naturally results in the further necessity to continue adding to God’s Word. 

Since the pre-incarnate doctrine makes the Son less than Himself eternally, then I naturally want to find Trinitarian teaching regarding when was the Son ever Himself???  This is why I think this circular reasoning, which supports a premise with another premise; is evident to some Trinitarians and why Walter Martin rejects eternal generation.

The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament. The term "Son" itself is a functional term, as is the term "Father" and has no meaning apart from time. . . . Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical "eternal Sonship" or "eternal generation" theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology. Finally; there cannot be any such thing as eternal Sonship . . . . the word "Son" definitely suggests inferiority. The Kingdom of the Cults pages 117-118 by: Walter Martin

Since most Trinitarians think that Jesus was never Himself; neither before, during or after His human life; what is their scriptural plumb line of what we should understand would be Jesus being Himself and when would that be?
 
Another incongruity would be…

[candy]

Helen, I am really enjoying these little treatises.  I must say, that last one blew my mind.

in which the Son was less than even Himself.

He was "less than even himself"?   What is that?   

Absolutely amazing.  Unbelievable.  Overwhelming.

And just adding a little tiny comment...if the Son was never quite himself before, during and after his incarnation, what the heck are we followers to aim for in our imitation of him?  Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus?!?  They make him seem as confused as all of us at our worst.

[Helen]

True Candy and I think II Corinthians 13:4 perfectly shows that the weakness through which Christ was crucified was the fact that He could be crucified; because the same verse likens our weakness to also be in Him and we know this experientially when we are crucified with Christ. 

Glad you are reading along. 

4For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. II Corinthians 13   KJV

[Helen]

Another incongruity would be the Trinitarian argument against Oneness regarding Christ being sent by the Father and whether the 1st person of God ordered the 2nd person of God to go or not.

Since Christ had no say in His birth, naturally there is no question that the Father sending His Son makes the Father superior to Christ.  Again, we have neither scripture nor point of human reference of someone being self conscious before their human existence.  However, Trinitarians come from the predetermined doctrine that puts the Son eternally before His human birth, equal with the Father and therefore cooperating with the Father's mission.

Arians imply that the very fact that the Son was “sent” into the world is an evidence of an inferior nature.  What they fail to perceive is that the Son was not compelled by a higher Being, He was not ordered here, but came as a volunteer (we esteem volunteers as the highest of heros).  It was a free and unconstrained submission of love which brought the Son to earth – the essence of the filial spirit which actuated Christ, not only at His Incarnation, but at Creation, and during His intercession now. God in Three Persons page 139 by: Carl Brumback

It’s interesting that no one would think that someone who has not been born yet would ever be compelled to come here.  More importantly, Brumback says here that Jesus was not “ordered”, nor was he compelled by a higher being.  However, on the previous page; Brumback veers from his philosophy, by having a hard time trying to illustrate what he means without contradicting himself.

The commanding officer of a navel vessel, sailing under sealed orders, is deliberately ignorant of their contents until the hour arrives in which he deems best to break the seal.  So Christ voluntarily placed a limitation on the total knowledge available to Him during His earthly life. God in Three Persons page 138 footnote # 1 by: Carl Brumback

I’ve never been in the military, but I’m pretty sure I understand that no one sails without orders at all.  Every Commanding Officer of any navel vessel is under orders to sail where they are sailing.  Additionally, those orders to sail; had to have come from their Commanding Officer as well.  Any argument regarding additional orders would be beside the point.

Again, Brumback’s illustration would make Jesus a liar to say He doesn’t know something the Father knows; when the omniscient 2nd person of God is portrayed as previously knowing why He was sent; but made Himself unable to remember it temporarily.

Brumback also gives a few examples from scripture where he thinks his hypothesis is supported.

The fact that one is “sent” by another on a mission does not automatically signify the inferiority of the one sent.  Was Saul greater than the illustrious David (I Samuel 18:5)?

5And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants. I Samuel 18   KJV

At this point in scripture, it is true that Samuel had already anointed David to be king instead of Saul; but naturally David would still submit to Saul as ordered since the scripture also shows that David still considered Saul to be his king (I Samuel 18:18).

18And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? I Samuel 18   KJV

Brumback also offers...

Were Barnabas and Paul, or Silas and Paul, inferior to their brethren who sent them forth (Acts 13:3; 17:10)?

Who actually sent Barnabas and Paul forth to minister?

4So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. Acts 13   KJV

Were Silas and Paul sent forth by the brethren of Thessalonica to minister; or were they sent away under cover of night because of the uproar in the city they had caused?

8And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. 9And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. 10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. Acts 17   KJV

The scripture is pretty clear that it was not those who Paul, Barnabas and Silas ministered to that sent them out to minister.  They were sent by the Holy Spirit.  Brumback states his purpose in using these examples was to demonstrate their voluntary participation in the will of God, but he offers them in the context of his argument that one can be sent without being inferior to the one who sent them.  However, his examples demonstrate that they were sent by one in authority over them.   

Another incongruity would be…