Back in February sometime I posted a challenge on the Facebook page Christian Bible Discussions (O&T) to any Oneness Pentecostal that was interested in debating me on any topic. William Vincent accepted and stated he was interested in debating the topic of the Son of God. He posted his opening, then a few days later I posted mine. I have been waiting on his rebuttal since Feb. 23. We've exchanged emails in which he has stated he has been busy and away from the computer. I have told him that after Sunday the 18th I would shut the debate down. That is what I am doing for I feel no need to keep it open waiting for a rebuttal that will never come.
His opening has been deleted.
What follows here is my opening and affirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________
God has revealed Himself. And he has revealed Himself truthfully. Consequently, how we collate His revelation of Himself must be coherent and faithful to that revelation. And in this area Oneness Pentecostalism is inherently problematic.
If I'm to define a thing then I would want to define that thing in such a way that, using the tools in hand, such a definition would be faithful and consistent with the existence of that which I wish to define.
We find that the table is set, grammatically and logically, so to speak, to enable us to arrive at conclusions that are faithful to the existence of God's revelation of Himself and consistent with how He demonstrated that revelation, most notably in the incarnation.
God's intent is two fold on this matter.
1. His revelation of Himself is truthful to the reality of Himself.
2. He expects our definitions of that revelation to be consistent with that revelation to the extent that they do not evacuate that revelation of meaning.
Oneness Christology does not accomplish the second and therefore cannot allow God to handle the first.
The Incoherence of Oneness Christology
The Pre-Incarnate Christ
John 1:1
There is a concurrent existence of the Logos and Theos within verse 1 that demands the ontological equality of both. However, when Oneness terminology is applied to the Logos, such as thought, idea, or a plan, the Logos is then consequently emptied of meaning and such concurrency is abolished and is not faithful to John 1:1.
Thought, idea, or a plan are products of mind but none ARE mind. If the Logos were defined with such Oneness terminology, the concept in the last phrase of John 1:1 would be inconsistent with the term used. Thought, idea, or a plan, as stated earlier, are not mind but rather a mind thinking. They are contingent on mind, therefore, in John 1:1 such definitions are not concurrent with Theos but rather are a product of the Theos, making the Logos something less than Theos or God. Therefore, Oneness terminology, when applied to the Logos, is inconsistent with the text and thusly incoherent.
The distinct personal existence of the Logos is the only conclusion that is coherent by maintaining the eternality of the Logos and the deity of the Logos.
John 17:5
The concept of the pre-incarnate Christ being defined as a thought, idea or a plan brings up the question: Jesus in this verse is asking the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had when He (Jesus) was a thought, idea or a plan? Such a position is counter intuitive for the question reveals that if Oneness terminology was the applied definition then Jesus would be asking the Father for something they shared when He (Jesus, the person) didn't exist.
A personal existence of a pre-incarnate Christ is the only conclusion that gives Jesus' request to the Father coherence, for only a personal existence could give the "sharing" in John 17:5 any meaning.
Philippians 2:5-7
The pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. The concepts are defined by the word morphe which means the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. If the Oneness interpretation is the correct interpretation then the incarnate Christ holds more meaning (for a person has more worth than a thought, idea or a plan). Yet Paul states that Christ was debasing Himself, willingly, by taking on the morphe of a servant. Oneness Christology does not, nor can it, allow for this debasing...it means nothing. The ambiguous Logos in Oneness Christology, becoming a man, is not a humbling but rather an elevation.
If Trinitarian definitions are applied to these verses then a real debasement of the pre-incarnate Christ is a necessary conclusion, for a real person with volition and cognition humbles Himself BY becoming a man.
The Creator Christ
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17
To will, to act, to do, involves cognition, volition, self-reflection, and intellectual abilities. Actions of complexity are descended from cognition. That is inescapable and more the case from a Christian worldview. From the physical laws that govern our universe to the information within the DNA strand, every atom suggests an intelligent foundation for it's existence and actions. But unfortunately, for the Oneness exegete, thought, idea or plan would fall under the category of "actions of complexity descended from cognition" not the category of creator of all things as in the text of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.
Since personal abilities are necessary for the complexity of creation, the doctrine of the Trinity maintains the integrity of the Christ as creator revelation.
The Incarnate Christ
John 8:58
The person of Jesus Christ claims to be the person in the burning bush. It is the incarnation speaking about His pre-incarnation. We now have come full circle, from the pre-incarnate to the incarnate, by applying the same Oneness terminology to the "I am" in the bush, which is the Logos, with the same troubling conclusions discussed concerning John 1:1. A thought, idea or plan provide us with no definitional means of saying that the Logos is deity even though Moses is not doubting when he takes off his sandals. He knows there's a reality more dynamic than Oneness Christology would infer speaking to him from the blazes. Jesus said it was Himself.
Trinitarian resolutions to Oneness ambiguity
1. John 1:1 Eternality and ontological equality demands a person existence of the Logos. Otherwise the Logos is defined into non-existence.
2. John 17:5 Personal attribution is necessary for both parties (Father and Son) in order to engage in a shared experience.
3. Philippians 2:5-7 Paul speaking about a condition of the mind of Christ, and Christ who "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" are both indications of personal abilities. Trinitarian Christology states the obvious...if He acts like a person (displays personal abilities) then He is a person.
4. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17 Complexity of creation demands a creator with intelligence. Referring to that intelligence as a person, protects the integrity of the creator.
5. John 8:58 Before Abraham, Jesus said, "I am" not "My Father thought I was."
His opening has been deleted.
What follows here is my opening and affirmation.
________________________________________________________________________________
God has revealed Himself. And he has revealed Himself truthfully. Consequently, how we collate His revelation of Himself must be coherent and faithful to that revelation. And in this area Oneness Pentecostalism is inherently problematic.
If I'm to define a thing then I would want to define that thing in such a way that, using the tools in hand, such a definition would be faithful and consistent with the existence of that which I wish to define.
We find that the table is set, grammatically and logically, so to speak, to enable us to arrive at conclusions that are faithful to the existence of God's revelation of Himself and consistent with how He demonstrated that revelation, most notably in the incarnation.
God's intent is two fold on this matter.
1. His revelation of Himself is truthful to the reality of Himself.
2. He expects our definitions of that revelation to be consistent with that revelation to the extent that they do not evacuate that revelation of meaning.
Oneness Christology does not accomplish the second and therefore cannot allow God to handle the first.
The Incoherence of Oneness Christology
The Pre-Incarnate Christ
John 1:1
There is a concurrent existence of the Logos and Theos within verse 1 that demands the ontological equality of both. However, when Oneness terminology is applied to the Logos, such as thought, idea, or a plan, the Logos is then consequently emptied of meaning and such concurrency is abolished and is not faithful to John 1:1.
Thought, idea, or a plan are products of mind but none ARE mind. If the Logos were defined with such Oneness terminology, the concept in the last phrase of John 1:1 would be inconsistent with the term used. Thought, idea, or a plan, as stated earlier, are not mind but rather a mind thinking. They are contingent on mind, therefore, in John 1:1 such definitions are not concurrent with Theos but rather are a product of the Theos, making the Logos something less than Theos or God. Therefore, Oneness terminology, when applied to the Logos, is inconsistent with the text and thusly incoherent.
The distinct personal existence of the Logos is the only conclusion that is coherent by maintaining the eternality of the Logos and the deity of the Logos.
John 17:5
The concept of the pre-incarnate Christ being defined as a thought, idea or a plan brings up the question: Jesus in this verse is asking the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had when He (Jesus) was a thought, idea or a plan? Such a position is counter intuitive for the question reveals that if Oneness terminology was the applied definition then Jesus would be asking the Father for something they shared when He (Jesus, the person) didn't exist.
A personal existence of a pre-incarnate Christ is the only conclusion that gives Jesus' request to the Father coherence, for only a personal existence could give the "sharing" in John 17:5 any meaning.
Philippians 2:5-7
The pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. The concepts are defined by the word morphe which means the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ and the incarnate Christ. If the Oneness interpretation is the correct interpretation then the incarnate Christ holds more meaning (for a person has more worth than a thought, idea or a plan). Yet Paul states that Christ was debasing Himself, willingly, by taking on the morphe of a servant. Oneness Christology does not, nor can it, allow for this debasing...it means nothing. The ambiguous Logos in Oneness Christology, becoming a man, is not a humbling but rather an elevation.
If Trinitarian definitions are applied to these verses then a real debasement of the pre-incarnate Christ is a necessary conclusion, for a real person with volition and cognition humbles Himself BY becoming a man.
The Creator Christ
John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17
To will, to act, to do, involves cognition, volition, self-reflection, and intellectual abilities. Actions of complexity are descended from cognition. That is inescapable and more the case from a Christian worldview. From the physical laws that govern our universe to the information within the DNA strand, every atom suggests an intelligent foundation for it's existence and actions. But unfortunately, for the Oneness exegete, thought, idea or plan would fall under the category of "actions of complexity descended from cognition" not the category of creator of all things as in the text of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, 17.
Since personal abilities are necessary for the complexity of creation, the doctrine of the Trinity maintains the integrity of the Christ as creator revelation.
The Incarnate Christ
John 8:58
The person of Jesus Christ claims to be the person in the burning bush. It is the incarnation speaking about His pre-incarnation. We now have come full circle, from the pre-incarnate to the incarnate, by applying the same Oneness terminology to the "I am" in the bush, which is the Logos, with the same troubling conclusions discussed concerning John 1:1. A thought, idea or plan provide us with no definitional means of saying that the Logos is deity even though Moses is not doubting when he takes off his sandals. He knows there's a reality more dynamic than Oneness Christology would infer speaking to him from the blazes. Jesus said it was Himself.
Trinitarian resolutions to Oneness ambiguity
1. John 1:1 Eternality and ontological equality demands a person existence of the Logos. Otherwise the Logos is defined into non-existence.
2. John 17:5 Personal attribution is necessary for both parties (Father and Son) in order to engage in a shared experience.
3. Philippians 2:5-7 Paul speaking about a condition of the mind of Christ, and Christ who "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" are both indications of personal abilities. Trinitarian Christology states the obvious...if He acts like a person (displays personal abilities) then He is a person.
4. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, 17 Complexity of creation demands a creator with intelligence. Referring to that intelligence as a person, protects the integrity of the creator.
5. John 8:58 Before Abraham, Jesus said, "I am" not "My Father thought I was."
