The bulk of this post maybe all will be coming from http://christiandefense.org/one_JesusFather.htm#ISA9 which this information is also in his book, I thought His work is well worth repeating.
1 Is Jesus The father?
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the Government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Because of the phrase “Eternal Father” Oneness advocates see this
passage as teaching that Jesus is the Father. However, there are several
flaws in interpreting Jesus here as the Father of the New Testament
revelation.
1.
Oneness teachers
commit
the fallacy of equivocation by
asserting that the term “father” has only one meaning. As discussed
above, the term “father”
(bf)
[āb]) has various meanings in the Old Testament—depending
on the context. When the term “father” was applied to God (only
eight times in the OT), it was at times to denote His parental character
to His children, namely—Israel (e.g., Isa. 63:16). Primarily
though, the clear usage of “father” was to denote God as Creator. In
point of fact, the term “father” was not a standard recurring title of
God in the Old Testament.
2.
The word translated “name” (shēm)
as in “His name will be called” (qārā) denoted here, not a formal title, but rather
the essence or essential characteristics of who someone is.8
This was clearly the Semitic concept of
[ab]. Hence, as to the essence and character of the
Messiah, He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, and Prince of Peace.
3.
Along with the meaning of “Creator,” the term “father”
correspondingly carried the idea of “possessor of,” “founder of,”
as with His creation. For example, 2 Samuel 23:31 speaks of Abialbon,
which name means “father (or possessor) of strength” (i.e., “strong
one”). In Exodus 6:24, we read of a man named “Abiasaph,”
whose name means, “father of gathering,” that is, he who gathers.
Thus, the Messiah is āb of eternity. Richards further
explains:
The
key word for “father” in the Bible is āb. It occurs
1,191 times in Hebrew and 9 times in Aramaic form. It is a complex word.
Although it usually indicates a literal father or grandfather, it may also
be used as a title of respect for a governor or prophet or priest. . . . Āb
is also used to indicate the founder of a guild. Thus Ge 4:21 identifies
Jubal as “father of all who play the harp and flute”, i.e., he was the
first musician. . . . It is probable that the title “Everlasting
Father” ascribe to Messiah by Isaiah (Isa 9:6) is better understood as
“father of eternity,” i.e., founder of the ages.9
4.
Syntactically, the Hebrew term “father” precedes the word translated
“eternal” (lit. “father eternal”), indicating the eternal nature
of the Messiah. This thought is well revealed in the Aramaic Targums:10
For
us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . and his name will be called
the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, existing forever [or “He
who lives forever”]. The Messiah in whose days peace shall
increase upon us (Targum Jonathan; emphasis added).
Moreover,
throughout church history there has never
been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, or Christian writer that has
interpreted Isaiah 9:6 as Oneness teachers do. Christian apologist E.
Calvin Beisner responds to the Oneness exegesis of the passage:
"I
am a father, but I am not my father. Oneness must prove Jesus is called
specifically the Father of the Son of God (i.e., his own Father). Isaiah
9:6 only calls Him “father of eternity.’"11
Carelessly,
Oneness believers stand alone on their interpretation of Isaiah 9:6John
5:43
“I have come in My Father’s name, and you did not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.”
In Oneness theology, the name of the unipersonal
deity is “Jesus.” So, Oneness teachers tell us when Jesus here claims
that He comes “in His Father’s name,” He is actually declaring that
the name of the Father (and the Son) is “Jesus.” To make sense
of the passage, that is, to make it teach Modalism, Bernard has this to
say:
The
Bible plainly states that there is one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians
4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father (Isaiah 9:6;
John 10:30). . . . It is important to note that the name of the Father is
Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43,
Jesus said, “I am [sic] come in my Father’s name.” In other
words, the Son inherited His Father’s name. . . . He fulfilled the Old
Testament prophecy that stated the Messiah would declare the name of the
LORD (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:12). In what name did the Son come? What name
did He obtain from His Father by inherence? What name did the Son
manifest? The answer is apparent. The only name He used was the name of
Jesus, His Father’s name.12
As
seen in other places, context is no friend of Oneness theology. At the
outset, when the entire chapter is plainly read one cannot escape the
clear distinctions between the Father and the Son. For example, notice in
John 5:30-32 the straightforwardness in which the Son differentiates
Himself from the Father:
“I
can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent
Me. If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is
another [allos estin] who testifies of Me, and I know that the
testimony which He gives about Me is true” (emphasis added).
“There
is another,” Jesus said, not one, but ANOTHER (allos).13
Do Oneness advocates really think that Jesus’ audience would have
understood Jesus as saying, “Oh yes, there is “another” witness
however what I really mean is the “other” witness that I keep talking
about, well, that is really Me—as the Father.” In candidness,
to completely abandon the plain reading, “There is another witness,”
and trade it for Modalism, is beyond a simple read-out interpretation, it
is completely eisegetical, reading into the text a meaning that is
external to the passage itself. Furthermore, there is even a larger strike
against the Oneness rendering of the passage. We touched on it above. It
is concerning the term “name” again. Simply,
the term onoma (“name”) is found no less than one hundred and
fifty-six times in the New Testament.
Note
that
the
normal first century application of the term “name” predominantly
was used to signify “authority” or “on behalf of.” This New
Testament meaning extends back to such Old Testament passages as the David
and Goliath narrative:
You
come to me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name
of the LORD [Yahweh] of host, the God of the armies of Israel, whom
you have taunted (1 Sam. 17:45; emphasis added).
David had
informed the Philistines that he came in the “name” of the Lord, that
is, by the authority of the Lord. Hence, Oneness dogma: Jesus is the name
of the Father, does not follow, for just as David was not claiming to
be the Lord himself, only coming in the authority of the Lord,
so also Jesus was not claiming to be the Father, only coming in His
authority. We can see this meaning even in modern parlance, as in the
phrase, “Stop in the name of (or authority) of the law!” In the same
way, then, Jesus here (John 5:43) comes in the authority or in
behalf of the Father.Philippians
2:10-11: “At the name of Jesus”
Philippians
2:6-11 is a beautiful high Christological hymn known as the Carmen
Christi (Hymn to Christ). This
hymn is discussed in greater detail here. However, what is
relevant to our discussion of the Oneness claim is the phrase “at the
name of Jesus” in verse 10. It is used by Oneness adherents to assert
that the name of the unipersonal deity is “Jesus” (cf. Bernard, The
Oneness of God, 223).
Simple The name that Jesus possess Is Yahweh
John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show is the Father’?
This
passage is routinely quoted by the Oneness people, usually in the same
breath with John 10:30—as though they were part of the same verse.
Removing this verse from the immediate context, Oneness teachers manage to
squeeze-out a modalistic understanding. To start with, as in John 10:30,
Jesus never said in this passage (or anywhere else in the NT) that
He Himself was the Father, only that “He who has seen Me has seen the
Father.” More
than that, there are four exegetical features, which provide a lucid
refutation to the Oneness handling of the passage.
1. Context: In
verse 6 Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
comes to the Father but through Me.” In verse 7, He then explains to the
disciples that by knowing Him they “know” and “have seen” the
Father (note the parallel: “know,” “seen”). Still not
understanding, Philip said to Jesus, “show us the Father” (v. 8).
Jesus then reiterated (as a corrective) that by seeing Him they can see,
that is, “know” or recognize the invisible Father (v. 9). The context
is apparent: by knowing and seeing
Jesus (as the only way to the
Father), they could really see (i.e.,
know/recognize) the invisible and incapable
of being seen Father (cf. 1
Tim. 6:16). For Jesus makes Him known, that is, He explains Him (cf. John
1:18).25
As
God, the Son in His preexistence was always (hos ōn,
lit. “who being”) the prefect and “exact representation” (charaktēr)
of the very Person (hupostaseōs) of Him
(autou;
hence, “of Him” not “as
Him”; Heb. 1:3). Therefore, when they saw Jesus, they “saw” (viz. as
the only way to
and in exact representation) the invisible unseen Father. Further, in
verse 10, Jesus clearly differentiated Himself from the Father by
declaring, “The words I say are
not My own. Rather it is the Father living in Me (emphasis added).”
2. The Father is spirit: When Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” the only thing His disciples literally saw was Jesus’ physical body. Both Oneness believers and Trinitarians agree to that the Father is invisible and does not have a physical body. Hence, Jesus could not have meant that by seeing Him they were literally seeing the Father.
3. First and third person personal pronouns: Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:
“I
will ask the Father, and He will give you another
[allon; see n. 13 below]
Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see
14:7, 10, 26; emphasis added).
4. Different
prepositions:
Throughout
John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from
His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different
prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”26
and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to
[pros] the Father but through [dia] Me” (John
14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to
[pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul,
too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the
Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency
of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of
the Spirit:
For
through Him [di’ autou; the Son] we both have our access in
[en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera]
(Eph. 2:18).
Only by circumventing these points can Modalism be
established from John 14:9. Tragically, we see the external influence of
both tradition and the authority of the Oneness church on its adherents,
robbing passages like John 14:9 of their true contextual meaning.
Colossians
2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
What
I find is that most Oneness believers, including UPCI leaders and
teachers, are not biblically coherent to the fact that the very foundation
of the doctrine of the Trinity is unequivocal, unmodified monotheism: one
true God. However, as mentioned, Oneness teachers presuppose that
monotheism equals one divine Person. As shown, however, monotheism is the
belief in one Being and does not necessitate unitarianism.
Scripture
reveals that God is an indivisible unquantifiable spirit, which cannot be
separated into thirds. Thus, because God is an omnipresent Being, He
exists everywhere: “But who is able to build a house for Him, for the
heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain Him? . . .”
(2 Chron. 2:6; cf. 6:18; Jer. 23:23-24; Heb. 4:13). Therefore, in
Colossians 2:9 we would expect that “all
the fullness of Deity” dwells in Christ, as it also dwells in the
Father and the Holy Spirit—God cannot be divided into parts.
We
should consider additionally that the book of Colossians was written as a
pointed refutation against the dualistic ideology (i.e., spirit vs.
matter) of Gnosticism.27
The Gnostics repudiated such an idea that the supreme God (who is pure
spirit) would ever dwell in evil “matter” (e.g., Jesus’ physical
body). For that reason, Paul firmly presented his argument by saying in
essence: Jesus created all things, in fact, all the fullness (plērōma)28
of the supreme God (theotētos)29
presently, continuously and permanently dwells (katoikei)30
in His human flesh (sōmatikōs).”31
Thus,
Paul’s sole intention and purpose in his letter to the Colossians was to
refute Gnostic speculations by asserting that (a) Jesus Christ (the Son;
cf. 1:14-15) was absolutely God in flesh (theotētos sōmatikōs;
cf. 2:9) and (b) man could be fully reconciled in His
[the Son’s] “fleshly body [sōmati
tēs sarkos] through [His physical]
death [dia tou thanatou]” (1:22; again emphasizing His real flesh).
Therefore,
against the Gnostics, Paul specifically emphasized that in the
Person of Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of God in human flesh. Paul
was not teaching here that Jesus was the Father, which would have been
completely out-of-flow with his anti-Gnostic polemic (and his entire
theology). Nor was Paul providing an expressive dissertation on the
doctrine of the Trinity, this was not his aim. Paul’s main purpose was
to present Jesus Christ as the God-man,
Creator of all things, whose physical
death provides redemption. The Jesus that Paul preached sliced directly
through the Gnostic system. So, all the fullness of God dwells in the Son,
for He is fully God, but this “fullness” does not only
dwell in the Son (cf. John 1:1c).32 The Being of God is indivisibly and inseparably one. Therefore,
any of the three distinct Persons can say subjectively and objectively
that they, as fully God, possess ALL the
fullness of God.
By
way of review, the issue of the Gnostic controversy did not surround the
Father, but rather it centered on the idea that the Son was fully God in
human flesh. Accordingly, Paul specifically emphasized that in the Person
of the Son, Jesus the Christ, “all the fullness of Deity” dwells
permanently and continuously in human flesh.
Grace
to you and peace from God our Father, and [kai] the Lord
Jesus Christ.
The specific
benchmark of the Pauline corpus was his salutations. He included them
faithfully in the opening of every one of his letters. He worshipped God
the Father and Jesus Christ from (apo)33
whom grace and peace flowed. As we have already seen, Paul comprehended
the terms theos (“God”)
and kurios (“Lord”)
as equal designations of deity. Furthermore, a plain reading of the
salutations, without a prior theological bias, clearly distinguishes God
the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless,
Oneness teachers force Modalism into the salutations by asserting that the
logical conjunction kai should be translated, not as a simple connective
“and,” but as the ascensive
“even.” Furthermore, the salutations, they conclude, are not teaching
a distinction of Persons; on the contrary, they are teaching that Jesus
is the Father. For example, as Oneness teachers surmise, a more
correct rendering of Galatians 1:3 would be as follows: “Grace be to you
and peace from God the Father, even from our Lord Jesus Christ.”
To support this Oneness grammatical assumption, Bernard attempts to
explain Greek grammar to unlearned Oneness devotees in his most recognized
book:
A
study of Greek is very interesting in connection with theses greeting
passages. The word translated ‘and” is the from the Greek word kai.
It can be translated as “and” or as “even” (in the sense of
“that is” or “which is the same as”). For example, the KJV
translates kai as “and” in
II Corinthians 1:2 but as “even” in verse 3 [Bernard then proceeds to
give a few more examples]. . . . So the greetings could read just as
easily “from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .”34
Someone once
said ‘a little Greek is dangerous thing,’ Bernard shows this maxim to
be true. Fundamentally, however, there are two fatal flaws to the kai
equals “even” argument as applied to the Pauline salutations:
grammatically and theologically.
Grammatically:
The Oneness grammatical assumption
is that kai should be translated as “even” in
all of the salutations of Paul. However, assertions are nothing more
than assertions; they do not prove anything. What Bernard and other
modalists do not exegetically consider is that the predominate usage of
the logical conjunction kai in the New Testament is the connective
“and”—not the ascensive
(“even”).35
Unquestionably,
then, the burden of proof falls headlong on the one who would assert that kai
should be translated as “even” (viz. being the ascensive conj. as in
Eph. 5:3: “even [kai] be named among you . . .”;
emphasis added). Oneness teachers, though, offer no grammatical or
contextual justification to support their view—they merely assert it to
be true. Specifically, unless the
context deems otherwise, in light of the plain normal predominate New
Testament usage, the logical conjunction kai should be translated
as the simple connective “and,” not the ascensive “even.”
Furthermore, according to Greek grammar
(e.g., Granville Sharp’s rule #5),36
when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause that are connected by kai
and the first noun lacks the article (ho [“the”]),
each noun must denote a distinct person.37
This is seen in ALL of the Pauline salutations.38
In fact, in
the salutations of ten of his letters, all the personal nouns lack
the article, clearly distinguishing the Father and Jesus Christ (see also
2 John 3). Observing the specific grammatical features that distinguish
the Father from the Son in the salutations, Murray Harris notes:
The
formula
qeoV
kai kurioV
in reference to one person is not found in the NT or LXX and is rare
elsewhere . . . whenever
qeoV and
kurioV
Ihsouj cristoV are conjoined or occur in close proximity (viz.,
within the same sentence), two person are always being referred to (31
instances).39
In spite of that,
Oneness teachers must force their pre-decided theology into the
salutations to avoid the obvious: Jesus and His Father are two distinct
Persons.
Theologically:
Due to their a priori unitarian assumption, Oneness
teachers force the most unnatural rendering into the text. On the
contrary, Christians do not have to read into passages to support
the doctrine Trinity. The end result of the Oneness hermeneutic is the
wholesale abandonment of the clear reading of the text. The natural
reading is jettisoned, and the most unnatural reading is forced.
Otherwise, the passages, as they read, yield unmistakably the truth that
Jesus and the Father are two distinct Persons.
In
conclusion, the unipersonal deity of Modalism is nonexistent in the
salutations. Scripture presents, unambiguously, the Father and the Son as
two distinct, self-aware Persons. Paul’s audience to which he was
writing would have never understood the salutations as teaching that Jesus
was both the Father and the Son. The normal bare reading of the entire
Pauline corpus clearly denotes a tri-personal God:
He
[God the Father] saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in
righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured
out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6;
emphasis added; cf. also Rom. 14:17-18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess.
1:3-5).
Is Jesus The Holy Spirit?
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirt and truth."
Bernard explains to Oneness readers that the spirt in this passage is a reference to the Holy Spirt. To assert that (a) God is a Spirt ( john 4:24), (b) there is only one Spirt of God ( cor. 2:11; eph 4:4), and (c) the "Holy Spirt" is another term for the one God is a fallacy of equivocation it confuses the term Pneuma ("spirt") as having only one meaning. The grammar of John 4:24 is, however, unequivocal.
John 4:24a reads: Pneuma ho theos (literal. "Spirit the God"). oneness teachers are in error to equate Pneuma in this verse with the Holy Spirt.
Grammatically the word Pneuma is not definite (i.e., "the Spirit"). Nor, is Pneuma indefinite (i.e., "a spirt," i.e., one of many) as the KJV mistranslate. Rather Pneuma is qualitative. Specifically, the word pneuma is an anarthrous predicate nominative. Hence, the predicate Pneuma tells us something about the subject, theos ("God")- as to God's quality of nature or essence. Hence, God is spirit, not "flesh and bones" ( luke 24:39). For that reason, most modern translations do not capitalize "spirit" staying faithful to the qualitative tag of pneuma. Hence, we havea similar example found in John 1:14. I say similar because here in John 4:24 the verb is implied whereas in John 1:14 the verb is actually stated: ho logos sarx egeneto ( " the Word became flesh"; cf. chap 2, n 41).
The Word did not become the flesh (definite) or a flesh (indefinite), but rather He became flesh. He partoke qualitatively of human nature. Therefore, in spite of the modalistic confidence, Jesus taught in john 4:24 that the Father, as to His quality, or essence was spirit- not the definite Holy Spirit. How on earth would the women at the well make the same conclusion based on what Christ said that oneness adherents wish us to assume?
Romans 8:9-11
Is Jesus The Holy Spirit?
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirt and truth."
Bernard explains to Oneness readers that the spirt in this passage is a reference to the Holy Spirt. To assert that (a) God is a Spirt ( john 4:24), (b) there is only one Spirt of God ( cor. 2:11; eph 4:4), and (c) the "Holy Spirt" is another term for the one God is a fallacy of equivocation it confuses the term Pneuma ("spirt") as having only one meaning. The grammar of John 4:24 is, however, unequivocal.
John 4:24a reads: Pneuma ho theos (literal. "Spirit the God"). oneness teachers are in error to equate Pneuma in this verse with the Holy Spirt.
Grammatically the word Pneuma is not definite (i.e., "the Spirit"). Nor, is Pneuma indefinite (i.e., "a spirt," i.e., one of many) as the KJV mistranslate. Rather Pneuma is qualitative. Specifically, the word pneuma is an anarthrous predicate nominative. Hence, the predicate Pneuma tells us something about the subject, theos ("God")- as to God's quality of nature or essence. Hence, God is spirit, not "flesh and bones" ( luke 24:39). For that reason, most modern translations do not capitalize "spirit" staying faithful to the qualitative tag of pneuma. Hence, we havea similar example found in John 1:14. I say similar because here in John 4:24 the verb is implied whereas in John 1:14 the verb is actually stated: ho logos sarx egeneto ( " the Word became flesh"; cf. chap 2, n 41).
The Word did not become the flesh (definite) or a flesh (indefinite), but rather He became flesh. He partoke qualitatively of human nature. Therefore, in spite of the modalistic confidence, Jesus taught in john 4:24 that the Father, as to His quality, or essence was spirit- not the definite Holy Spirit. How on earth would the women at the well make the same conclusion based on what Christ said that oneness adherents wish us to assume?
Romans 8:9-11
Romans 8:9-11
King James Version (KJV)
9 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.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
To show that Jesus is the Holy Spirt, Oneness teachers point to the reptition of the term spirit. We read in these verses of the pneuma theou ("Spirit of God"; v.9), pneuma Christou (" Spirit of Christ"; v.9) pneuma ("Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead; v. 11), and autou pneumatos ( "His Spirit who "dwells in you"; v. 11).
First, please notice that the test nowhere states that Jesus is the holy Spirit; this really goes without saying. Second, verse 3 has already clearly differentiated the Father and the Son:
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (emphasis added).
Note that Paul does use the term pneuma interchangeably , but that does not mean that his intention was to teach modalism. Bernard and other Oneness commentators, again, ignore the grammar and syntax of the passage. Also note that Christou ("Christ") that is, the pneuma Christou (" Spirit of Christ"; v.9) is in the genitive case, hence semantically a genitive of source or origin. That is, the Spirit originating from Christ:
"When the helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me" ( John 15:26; emphasis added; cf. 14:26).
Thus, thus Holy Spirit originated from God the Father and from the Son. The same case (i.e., genitive of source ) is used in 2 cor 3:3, where Christains are said to be epistole Christou (" a letter from Christ"; Christou being the genitive of source; also cf. Rom 9:16; rev 9:11). paul was not teaching that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, but taught that the Holy Spirit flowed or was sent from Jesus. phil 1:19 is another test utilized by oneness advocates, yet here again we see the same grammatical relationship between terms that we have just outlined:
for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirt of Jesus Christ[ tou pneumatos iesou Christou; i.e., the Spirit originating from Jesus]... (emphasis added).
A useful way of illustrating this is the Phrase "Son of David." This appellation , denoting the royal line and kingly office of our Savior, was obviously not meant to communicate that Jesus was Himself David. The phrase in addition to being a kingly title, communicates the relationship that Jesus has with David that is, he is the royal descendant from David, and the rightful Messianic heir to the Davidic throne. In the same way, then, when we read of the "Spirit of Christ" this does not mean that Christ is The Holy Spirit, only that the Spirit proceeds or originates from Him. Recognized New testament scholar and Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson's sees the "Spirit of Christ" and the "Spirt of God" as the same Spirit- The Holy Spirit from both God and Christ:
Not in the flesh (ouk en sarki). Not sold under sin (7:14 any more. But in the spirit (alla en pneumati). probably, " in the Holy Spirit." It is not Pantheism or buddhism that Paul here teaches, but the mystical union of the believer with Christ in the Holy Spirit. If so be that (eiper). " if as the fact" (cf. [Gal] 3:30). The Spirit of Christ ( pneuma Christou). The same as " the Spirit of God" just before. See also phil 1:19 1 peter 1:11. incidental argument for the Deity of Christ and probably the meaning of 2 cor 3:18 " the Spirit of the Lord." condition of first class, assumed as true.
Hence, in Scripture we find that at different times " the Spirit of Christ ( as with the Spirit of God) seem to overlap or even become completely interchangeable , as in romans 8:9-11, where ' the Spirit of God.' 'the Spirit of Christ' and ' Christ in you' all refer to the same reality." And that reality is that the Holy Spirit bears a relationship to both the Father and Christ, and yet is distinct from both of them as a divine person
Allowing, then, the context to define the framework in which pneuma is to be understood, we see that romans 8:9 along with romans 8:3 actually teaches the very opposite of the Oneness position: the Spirit is intimately connected to the Father and the Son, so that He is identified as belonging to both.Yet, the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Therefore, to suggest that the Father sent Himself is not only to misread the passage, but actually remove oneself from the plain reading of the text.
same attributes argument
It is of zero value when the modalist use the same attribute argument to prove modalism. Oneness teachers reason that because Scripture teachers that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are said to have accomplished or complete the same things ( e.g., creation, resurrection of Jesus,salvation, dwelling with the believer, empowering the church, etc.), Jesus must be the Holy Spirit. This is, of course, to be expected. For if one assumed that God is unipersonal . then any attribute that is shared must be due to unipersonalism , negating, so it is assumed, any real distinction . It is not unusual, then, to see this same of errant argument used in their effort to further identify Jesus as the Father.
For example, Oneness teachers will note the biblical passages where Jesus is said to make intercession for His people (cf. Heb4:15;7:25);since the Spirit is also said to make intercession for the people of God (cf. rom 8:26, then this must mean that Jesus and the Spirit are the same person. Likewise, in matthew 28:20, Jesus exhorts his followers that he will abide with them forever, but in john 14:26, the same is true for the Holy Spirit.More examples could be cited, but I believe he point has been made; if Jesus ) or the Father) and the Holy Spirit share the same attributes, they must be the same person.
However, does such reasoning have any merit,though? Specifically, since Jesus and the Spirit do in fact share similar attributes, does it necessarily follow that they are the same Person?That the three Persons indivisibly and inseparably share the nature of the one Being, what is said of one Person can be said of all, which is completely congruent with the Trinity. Hence, as God, we would certainly expect to see any one of the three Persons as accomplishing many of the same things.Thus, one or all of the three persons can be called "alpha and Omega," "Yahweh" or the"one true God." Again, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity asserts One God- not one person or three separate Gods- but three distinct Persons or selves.Moreover,Nowhere in scripture are the works of God limited to only the Father, or only the Son, or only the Holy Spirit.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
To show that Jesus is the Holy Spirt, Oneness teachers point to the reptition of the term spirit. We read in these verses of the pneuma theou ("Spirit of God"; v.9), pneuma Christou (" Spirit of Christ"; v.9) pneuma ("Spirit of Him who raised Christ from the dead; v. 11), and autou pneumatos ( "His Spirit who "dwells in you"; v. 11).
First, please notice that the test nowhere states that Jesus is the holy Spirit; this really goes without saying. Second, verse 3 has already clearly differentiated the Father and the Son:
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (emphasis added).
Note that Paul does use the term pneuma interchangeably , but that does not mean that his intention was to teach modalism. Bernard and other Oneness commentators, again, ignore the grammar and syntax of the passage. Also note that Christou ("Christ") that is, the pneuma Christou (" Spirit of Christ"; v.9) is in the genitive case, hence semantically a genitive of source or origin. That is, the Spirit originating from Christ:
"When the helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me" ( John 15:26; emphasis added; cf. 14:26).
Thus, thus Holy Spirit originated from God the Father and from the Son. The same case (i.e., genitive of source ) is used in 2 cor 3:3, where Christains are said to be epistole Christou (" a letter from Christ"; Christou being the genitive of source; also cf. Rom 9:16; rev 9:11). paul was not teaching that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, but taught that the Holy Spirit flowed or was sent from Jesus. phil 1:19 is another test utilized by oneness advocates, yet here again we see the same grammatical relationship between terms that we have just outlined:
for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirt of Jesus Christ[ tou pneumatos iesou Christou; i.e., the Spirit originating from Jesus]... (emphasis added).
A useful way of illustrating this is the Phrase "Son of David." This appellation , denoting the royal line and kingly office of our Savior, was obviously not meant to communicate that Jesus was Himself David. The phrase in addition to being a kingly title, communicates the relationship that Jesus has with David that is, he is the royal descendant from David, and the rightful Messianic heir to the Davidic throne. In the same way, then, when we read of the "Spirit of Christ" this does not mean that Christ is The Holy Spirit, only that the Spirit proceeds or originates from Him. Recognized New testament scholar and Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson's sees the "Spirit of Christ" and the "Spirt of God" as the same Spirit- The Holy Spirit from both God and Christ:
Not in the flesh (ouk en sarki). Not sold under sin (7:14 any more. But in the spirit (alla en pneumati). probably, " in the Holy Spirit." It is not Pantheism or buddhism that Paul here teaches, but the mystical union of the believer with Christ in the Holy Spirit. If so be that (eiper). " if as the fact" (cf. [Gal] 3:30). The Spirit of Christ ( pneuma Christou). The same as " the Spirit of God" just before. See also phil 1:19 1 peter 1:11. incidental argument for the Deity of Christ and probably the meaning of 2 cor 3:18 " the Spirit of the Lord." condition of first class, assumed as true.
Hence, in Scripture we find that at different times " the Spirit of Christ ( as with the Spirit of God) seem to overlap or even become completely interchangeable , as in romans 8:9-11, where ' the Spirit of God.' 'the Spirit of Christ' and ' Christ in you' all refer to the same reality." And that reality is that the Holy Spirit bears a relationship to both the Father and Christ, and yet is distinct from both of them as a divine person
Allowing, then, the context to define the framework in which pneuma is to be understood, we see that romans 8:9 along with romans 8:3 actually teaches the very opposite of the Oneness position: the Spirit is intimately connected to the Father and the Son, so that He is identified as belonging to both.Yet, the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Therefore, to suggest that the Father sent Himself is not only to misread the passage, but actually remove oneself from the plain reading of the text.
2 Corinthians 3:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
" The Lord is the Spirit," therefore, as Oneness teachers assert, Jesus, who is Lord, is the Holy Spirit. However, to work in modalism in this text ignores that the passage does not say that Jesus is the Holy Spirit only that " the Lord is the Spirit." The context of verses 1-18 simply Paul contrasting the old testament Law, which "kills" and "fades away" (vv.7,11) with the New testament Spirit of grace, which "gives life" and will "last." Thus, the Lord, Christ Jesus is the Spirit that gives life. Paul previously said in reference to Christ: "The last adam became a life-giving spirit" 91 cor 15:45). The ministry of the Spirit of grace is Christ (v.8). Jesus is that Spirit, but not the Holy Spirit:
2 cor should not be taken as evidence for the identity of Jesus and the Spirit... The first occurrence of "Lord" in that passage refers to the wording of Exodus 34:34 ( 2 cor. 3:1-6), meaning that when those in this age" turn to the Lord ( i.e., God) " as moses did at Sinai, a veil of spiritual blindness is lifted from their eyes; only now "Lord" signifies " the Spirit" who is the key to knowledge of God. This is Paul's interpretation of the OT passage's meaning, which he applies to his conflict with Jews and Jewish Christians. The next verse must be understood in this context; it is the work of " the Lord who is the Spirit" to transform believers into the image of Christ, the last Adam, the pattern of a new humanity ( 2 cor 3:18).
Oneness teachers beg the Question asserting that pneuma in both eph 4:4 and 2 cor 3:17 is the Holy Spirit. John 4:24; romans *;9-11; 2 cor 3:17 amd phil 1:19 are verses that Oneness teachers mishandle to make Jesus the Holy Spirit. In spite of their sincere effort, these passages just do not teach modlism.
" The Lord is the Spirit," therefore, as Oneness teachers assert, Jesus, who is Lord, is the Holy Spirit. However, to work in modalism in this text ignores that the passage does not say that Jesus is the Holy Spirit only that " the Lord is the Spirit." The context of verses 1-18 simply Paul contrasting the old testament Law, which "kills" and "fades away" (vv.7,11) with the New testament Spirit of grace, which "gives life" and will "last." Thus, the Lord, Christ Jesus is the Spirit that gives life. Paul previously said in reference to Christ: "The last adam became a life-giving spirit" 91 cor 15:45). The ministry of the Spirit of grace is Christ (v.8). Jesus is that Spirit, but not the Holy Spirit:
2 cor should not be taken as evidence for the identity of Jesus and the Spirit... The first occurrence of "Lord" in that passage refers to the wording of Exodus 34:34 ( 2 cor. 3:1-6), meaning that when those in this age" turn to the Lord ( i.e., God) " as moses did at Sinai, a veil of spiritual blindness is lifted from their eyes; only now "Lord" signifies " the Spirit" who is the key to knowledge of God. This is Paul's interpretation of the OT passage's meaning, which he applies to his conflict with Jews and Jewish Christians. The next verse must be understood in this context; it is the work of " the Lord who is the Spirit" to transform believers into the image of Christ, the last Adam, the pattern of a new humanity ( 2 cor 3:18).
Oneness teachers beg the Question asserting that pneuma in both eph 4:4 and 2 cor 3:17 is the Holy Spirit. John 4:24; romans *;9-11; 2 cor 3:17 amd phil 1:19 are verses that Oneness teachers mishandle to make Jesus the Holy Spirit. In spite of their sincere effort, these passages just do not teach modlism.
same attributes argument
It is of zero value when the modalist use the same attribute argument to prove modalism. Oneness teachers reason that because Scripture teachers that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are said to have accomplished or complete the same things ( e.g., creation, resurrection of Jesus,salvation, dwelling with the believer, empowering the church, etc.), Jesus must be the Holy Spirit. This is, of course, to be expected. For if one assumed that God is unipersonal . then any attribute that is shared must be due to unipersonalism , negating, so it is assumed, any real distinction . It is not unusual, then, to see this same of errant argument used in their effort to further identify Jesus as the Father.
For example, Oneness teachers will note the biblical passages where Jesus is said to make intercession for His people (cf. Heb4:15;7:25);since the Spirit is also said to make intercession for the people of God (cf. rom 8:26, then this must mean that Jesus and the Spirit are the same person. Likewise, in matthew 28:20, Jesus exhorts his followers that he will abide with them forever, but in john 14:26, the same is true for the Holy Spirit.More examples could be cited, but I believe he point has been made; if Jesus ) or the Father) and the Holy Spirit share the same attributes, they must be the same person.
However, does such reasoning have any merit,though? Specifically, since Jesus and the Spirit do in fact share similar attributes, does it necessarily follow that they are the same Person?That the three Persons indivisibly and inseparably share the nature of the one Being, what is said of one Person can be said of all, which is completely congruent with the Trinity. Hence, as God, we would certainly expect to see any one of the three Persons as accomplishing many of the same things.Thus, one or all of the three persons can be called "alpha and Omega," "Yahweh" or the"one true God." Again, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity asserts One God- not one person or three separate Gods- but three distinct Persons or selves.Moreover,Nowhere in scripture are the works of God limited to only the Father, or only the Son, or only the Holy Spirit.
