Some time ago I was having some discussions with a Oneness Pentecostal named James who was active in trying to plan and organize debates. Certainly an area of great interest is debates between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians on the subjects of theology proper and Christology. With that in mind, what I communicated to James was that I didn’t believe debates between Trinitarians and Oneness were really profitable to anyone. That prompted James to send me a link to an article on the blog “Near Emmaus” of Brian LePort titled “Is Trinitarian-Oneness Dialog Profitable?” I copy it in pertinent part below:
Is Trinitarian-Oneness Dialog Profitable?
“The Society of Pentecostal Studies sponsored a Trinitarian-Oneness dialog from 2002-2007. When it was all said and done notable religious historian Daniel Ramirez of the University of Michigan (then of Arizona State University) told me he did not think it was very profitable. He gave his reasons publically in “A Historian’s Response: Final Report of the Trinitarian-Oneness Pentecostal Dialogue,”Pneuma, vol. 30, no. 2 (2008): 245-254. As a former Oneness Pentecostal who came to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodox his arguments were convincing to me. After hearing his thoughts I have rarely engaged Oneness Pentecostals in a conversation about the Trinity because I don’t expect it to go anywhere.”
“It has been my position that if anyone is going to change views from one side to the other it would be like it was for me. It would come through personal study and discussions with respectable people. It is unlikely that a Trinitarian scholar or a Oneness scholar will go into a “discussion” open to being converted by the other. It is a debate at best but hardly a real dialog.”—(Brian LePort)
I didn’t respond to LePort’s blog but I did respond to James. My main reason for believing that “debate” between Trinitarians and Oneness was not profitable was and is because they don’t even understand one another. You can’t debate issues without understanding the issues you are debating. So below is a highly revised version of an older post where I explain that Oneness actually teach two persons when the Father and the Son are in view. What I have tried to focus on and bring out even more in this revised version is that this is an issue of communication and terminology. You can’t communicate if you aren’t understanding one another.
Today’s Oneness Pentecostals Teach Two Persons and Two beings
When I say, “Today’s Oneness teach two persons and two beings” let me be clear
in my meaning. When speaking of the Father and the Son, when they have both in
view, they have two numerically different beings and two numerically different
persons in view. And with regard to
terms such as “person” and “being” I’m applying the same criteria to the
various “Oneness” teachings as are used in Trinitarian theology wherein we say
God is One Being and three Persons. So, why is this important? Well, if Oneness Pentecostals claim that the
Doctrine of the Trinity is heresy because it teaches that God is One in Being
and Three in Person, then one would think they would be concerned when the same
criteria is applied to their teachings only to discover they teach Two Persons
and Two Beings when the Father and Son are in view (at least those Oneness
Pentecostals who claim the Son is the one person of God).
Keep in mind, I’m not saying that Oneness Pentecostals say they
teach “two persons.” They don’t as they
wouldn’t exactly be Oneness if they did.
In fact, if you have many discussions with Oneness Pentecostals you will
soon discover that they can ignore real personal distinctions, even in their
own theology proper and Christology, so long as the word “person” is not used. So, the question is not whether or not
Oneness say “we teach two persons” but rather whether or not the Father and Son
in Oneness Pentecostal teaching creates two numerically distinct, indeed, separate
persons while at the same time denying that it is the case.
A fundamental question that must be answered is whether or not Oneness are
truly modalists, i.e. modalist monarchians. If a claim is to be made that
Oneness Pentecostals teach that the Father and the Son are only one person,
then the claim must be made that they are modalists. I have seen the
discussions among Oneness Pentecostals regarding “sequential modalism” verses
“concurrent modalism.” This issue is irrelevant with regard to the number of
persons posited by modalism as it must always be “one” person in order to meet
the definition of modalism. Allow me to explain:
Modalism is both a theology proper and a Christology. This is why in the
Christological sense it was also referred to as “Patripassian” (i.e. the Father
suffered). So, in true modalism God is one being, one person (unitarian). And while this divine person may interact
with the world of man in different manifestations, there are no personal
distinctions to be made between the manifestations as they cannot “really and
personally” interact with each other.
In spite of this, all the Oneness I have communicated with in the past several
years all teach real personal distinctions between the Father and the Son and real
personal distinctions arise only from a distinction of real persons. Even
Oneness Apologists teach these personal distinctions. Ross Drysdale would
appear to teach that Jesus was a man who was indwelt by God. He states in a
small but popular book he wrote If Ye Knew These Things) the following:
So we can see from this that the Son
"Came into being" hence He cannot, as the Son, be eternal.
Neither could He have existed from all eternity in heaven, for He was a
"male child, born of a woman." And such contradictions do not obtain
in Heaven! The Son of God is a man, howbeit a perfect and sinless man.
If the Son was the Second Divine Person of the Godhead why did he say he could
do "nothing?" The answer is obvious: "Son" does not
refer to a "divine" person, but to a human "person,"
who in his own power can do nothing. Christ
implies however that there is another "self" or "power" in him
when he says, "Can do nothing of himself." Then who or what is
doing these works? The answer we already know is the Father, who is resident in
Him.
The Son, being a man, did not have eternal immortal life dwelling in him
inherently. It is not the property of men to have divine and original
God-life in them.
While these quotes would be great to show that apparently this particular apologist doesn’t believe the Son is God that is not the point. The point here is that to the Trinitarian, Drysdale is teaching two persons, one who is God, one who is man. Indeed, I would lump this in with Unitarian/Socinian or perhaps Dynamic Monarchian type Theologies/Christologies.
Here is Oneness Apologist Steven Ritchie from his booklet, “The Distinction between the Father and the Son”
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEEN THE FATHER AND SON
CHAPTER 3 JESUS IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD
Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) informs us that Jesus as a Son is the Father’s Person “reproduced” as the express image of the Father’s “Person” as a human person. (p.6)
1 Peter 1:20 proves that the Son was “foreknown before the creation of the world.” A foreknown Son could not have always existed before being “foreknown.” Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 proves why the Son of God was called a Son in the first place. He was called a Son because of his virgin conception and birth from the virgin. Therefore the Son became a living Son by being granted life from the Father through his birth.
John 5:26 – “For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” If the words of inspired scripture mean anything, then the Son of God could not have always existed as a Son before being “granted” a “life in himself.” (p.7)
CHAPTER 5 OMNIPRESENCE AND THE INCARNATION
For Hebrews 1:3 proves that Jesus is a reproduced copy of the Father’s substance of Being as a genuine human being. Although the Father’s substance of Being was copied, the Father’s Holy Spirit continued to exist as the unchangeable God who continued to fill heaven and earth.
The newly formed man Christ Jesus was able to be tempted as a fully complete human being just as he could pray as a fully complete human being. Therefore, Jesus could not be God with us as God, but rather, Immanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) as a true man. (p.9)
God was not a man before the incarnation (Numbers 23:19) and He is not literally a man after the incarnation either. For the flesh of Jesus is not literally God; nor is the human spirit of Jesus literally God. For when God became a man, He became something distinct from God, a true man (a son). 1 Tim. 2:5 proves that there is only One true God the Father and one mediator between God and men, “the MAN Christ Jesus.” Thus we have One divine Person (the Father) and one human person (the Son). (p.10)
Ritchie
makes it crystal clear when he states, “Thus we have one divine person (the
Father) and one human person (the Son).
However, it is rare for a Oneness Pentecostal to be forthright. Most Oneness Pentecostals, while
acknowledging that Jesus the Son is a person and a man, and also acknowledging
that the Father is a person and “spirit only,” would adamantly deny this
results in two numerically distinct and separate persons.
David Bernard is decidedly Nestorian in his Christological mechanics (which, I
suppose, is why he defends Nestorius to some extent). However, Nestorian
mechanics also posits two persons internal to Christ, one divine and one human.
The following quotes are from David Bernard’s book, The Oneness of God. (DAVID K. BERNARD has served as the Chairman
of the Board of Directors since inception and also serves as the General
Superintendent of UPCI).
The Prayers of
Christ (ch. 8)
What, then, is the explanation of the
prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to
the eternal Spirit of God…. Through prayer His human nature learned to
submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7-8). This was not a
struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine
wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from
the Spirit of God.
We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself,
for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men… Rather,
we say the human nature of Jesus
prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man. (David
Bernard)
Love Between Persons (Ch. 8)
John 3:35, 5:20, and 15:9 state that
the Father loves the Son, and John 17:24 says the Father loved
Jesus before the foundation of the world. In John 14:31 Jesus expressed love for
the Father. All of these statements do not mean separate persons. (Is it not
strange that these passages omit the Holy Ghost from the love relationship?) What these verses express is the relationship
between the two natures of Christ. The Spirit of Jesus loved the
humanity and vice versa. The Spirit loved the man Jesus as He loves all
humanity and the man Jesus loved God as all men should love God.
Remember, the Son came to the world to show us how much God loves us and also
to be our example. For these two objectives to be achieved, the Father and the Son showed love for
each other. God knew before the world began that He would manifest
Himself as the Son. He loved that plan from the beginning. He loved that future Son just as He loved all of us from the
beginning of time. (David Bernard)
With regard to prayers Bernard actually attributes “personhood” to
“natures.” In other words Bernard is simply using the word “nature” in place of
“person” and pouring the same meaning into it.
You see a nature does not pray or hear prayers, a person does. Prayers
are attributable only to an intelligent, rational, self aware person. He also
says that “as a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the
Spirit of God.” A person submits, and if there is only one person in Christ He
does not need to pray to Himself to submit to anything. But the main point I
want to make is that Bernard attributes the actions of “person” to “nature.” An
intelligent, rational, self aware person composes and offers prayer, not a
nature. The equivocation is obvious, and Trinitarians clearly see Bernard
teaching two persons, one God and one a man (Nestorian style). In fact, this is actually teaching not only
two persons but two beings. One is the
divine person/being (the Father) and the other a human person/being which came
into existence at a point in time and interacts with the Father on a real
personal level. So the human
person/being is created and therefore not God.
With regard to “love,” natures do not love, a person does. Love is
as about as “personal” as you can get. Love is something a person does to
another, this is not what one nature does to another. A “nature” does not love, only a “person”
loves. However, Bernard teaches a
relationship of love between two natures. Again, he has attributed the actions
of a person to nature. So while he does
not say “two persons” he does in fact teach two personal subjects who love each
other. He tries to have real personal
distinctions between two real personal subjects while claiming there isn’t two
persons.
Oneness Apologist Jason Dulle
would agree with me in regard to “natures praying” (the title of each article
is underlined):
Jesus Prayers
If Jesus was not praying because He
truly needed divine assistance, then His prayers were deceptive because He made
them seem like genuine prayers. Jesus was nothing more than a good actor, a
hypocrite. If He faked His prayers for the sake of being an example, then did
He fake His love and compassion toward those who came to Him seeking help for
their souls? Jesus was not deceptive, and neither were His prayers….
To explain the prayers of Jesus as the human nature of Jesus praying to the
divine nature of Jesus poses problems. For one, natures do not pray, people
do. Secondly, the Scripture declares that He prayed to the Father, not
Himself. It would make no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself. Surely if
this was the case, there would have been no need for verbal expressions of
prayer because Jesus could have communicated to the deity within Him in some
transferable, telepathic manner. This is not the view of Scripture. (Dulle)
Love in the Godhead?
Some have tried to explain this exchange of love as Jesus’ human nature loving
Jesus’ divine nature, and vice-versa. Trinitarians have particularly criticized
this explanation, pointing out that it reads something into Jesus’ words that
He did not say, and makes Jesus’ statements meaningless when interpreted
according to the normal use of language. We must agree that Jesus did not
say His divine nature loves His human nature. Also, such an approach
assumes an unbiblical definition of "Son," attributing it strictly to
Jesus’ humanity, to the exclusion of His whole person which includes His deity.
(Dulle)
Avoiding the Achilles Heels…
Furthermore, Jesus said, "…even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love. Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love. (Dulle)
Reifying Natures
“The standard way of [Oneness] explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures. The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y. On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature. What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.” What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.” Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities. On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another. The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.”—Jason Dulle
With that in mind, does Dulle find a way to avoid teaching two
persons or does he simply deny he does so just as the other Oneness teachings
he criticizes? Dulle is also unable to
avoid teaching two persons/two beings.
His Christology also makes these personal distinctions. For example, he readily admits that it would
make “no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself.” He correctly points out that natures
do not pray or love, persons do. Unlike Bernard, Jason has made these
distinctions of persons external to the Son rather than internal to the Son
believing that this somehow avoids a Nestorian Christology. I have referred to
this as both “ultra-Nestorian” and “neo-arian.” Bottom line, distinctions of
persons. I wish to be clear, Jason also does not say “two persons” any more
than any other Oneness apologist including David Bernard who, as I pointed out exchanges
the word “nature” for “person” (and as Dulle just pointed out well) but Dulle
also assigns personal attributes to two numerically distinct personal subjects
(the Father and the Son) who actually exist, one who is not the other, i.e.
they are numerically distinct persons.
This statement of Jason’s sums up personal distinctions: “One cannot keep their own commandments and
abide in their own love.” This is why Jason equivocates when using terms such
as I, me, myself, you, he, we, us, etc. It
is not my intention at this point to give an exhaustive critique of Dulles
theology/Christology. My point is that once again, the Trinitarian recognizes
two persons in what he is teaching, equivocation notwithstanding.
Keep in mind, it is also not my intention to proffer an argument that asserts
such divergent explanations of Oneness prove the neo-Oneness of today wrong (it
would be an illogical argument for one thing) although some of the differing
views are mutually exclusive. I have given these examples of divergent theologies/Christologies
from among Oneness apologists to emphasize my point that none of them teaches
modalism, though Bernard claims modern Oneness are modalists. And when both the
Father and the Son are in view, none of them teach one person though it is an
almost universal claim of Oneness Pentecostals.
In true modalism, just as there is no “person” of the Son to suffer, only the
person of the Father, so with all else (thus the term patripassian). Within the
context of the current examples, in that only a person can pray (not nature)
and love (not nature), then in true modalism there can only be one person who
prays and one who loves, only one person to predicate all personal actions and
experiences of. So the true modalist must explain the prayers of Jesus away in
some fashion that does not teach he was truly praying to another. Years ago a
true modalist I had a discussion with attempted to argue that all of the
prayers of Jesus were only an example. The same can be said of love. There
cannot be a “real personal relationship” of love between the Father and the Son
in modalism as there is only one personal subject. That same modalist I spoke
to years ago attempted to argue that passages regarding love between the Father
and the Son were merely parabolic language. Of course, this is just the
beginning of problems for the true modalist, but I point this out to give you a
point of reference.
This would probably be a good time to offer a definition of “person.” The question has often been asked by Oneness Pentecostals, "What is the definition of person in theology?" Well, that can get pretty technical and unless you live in the land of scholastic philosophy, starting at the technical end might not be real helpful. I always like to try to give non-technical terms that the layperson can understand so I have cherry picked some definitions. Hopefully, these will serve the layperson well in distinguishing the meaning of person from substance/essence/nature. I offer this to provide understanding for what is meant by the term “person.” If the following criteria are present, then the criteria for “a person” is met:
Person
(noun):
The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. Sir W. Hamilton. (Webster?s 1913)
The following is a short excerpt of a much larger scholastic definition of person from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; (excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Person)
And one more short excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia and an article on the communicatio idiomatum, insofar as it defines person for the layperson:
Person: in ordinary language, all the properties of a subject are predicated of its person;
Lastly I would add that only a person experiences subject/object awareness of himself and experiences all other persons/selfs objectively.
That is pretty basic but more helpful than “a person is a who and a nature is a what” and in my opinion very useful. I believe in only being as technical as necessary to explain something. Nothing here is going to conflict with the more technical scholastic definition though. Also, as we move forward I will use the phrase “numerically distinct” with regularity. It would be helpful to point out that if x is numerically identical with y then everything true of x is true of y. In other words, if the Father and the Son are the same person then everything true of the Father is true of the Son, this is an escapable fact.
With this definition in mind, all the Oneness apologists I quoted above have, according to Trinitarian definitions (and the universal definitions of theology in general), taught two persons, one who is the Father and one who is the Son. In fact, not only have each of them taught two persons, but each of them has also taught two separate personal beings. What is the criteria upon which I base this? With the Trinitarian definition/criteria for person in mind let’s take a look.
One personal being is the eternal God who is Father; the other is
a created personal being, the Son. Why
do I say this? Let me explain. In each of these explanations the Father who
is eternal can give love (as the subject) and the Son, who is created, can
receive it (as the object). What is
predicated of the Father is not predicated of the Son and vice versa. This is
called a subject/object distinction meaning simply that the subject of the verb
is not the object of the verb, they are two numerically different things. Each
of the explanations posits a real
personal relationship of love between
two numerically distinct personal subjects.
Likewise the Son can initiate communication (as the subject) and the Father can
be the object of the communication. What
is predicated of the Son is not predicated of the Father and vice versa. Again
we have real communication between two numerically distinct personal subjects,
one person who initiates communication and one person who receives the
communication. All of the Oneness apologists above state the Son was truly
praying to someone other than Himself. Once again, a subject/object distinction
when the Son prays and the distinction
is personal since only a person can formulate prayers and only a person understanding
and receives prayer.
In other words, what is posited of the person of the Father is not
posited of the person of the Son and vice versa. In fact, what is predicated of the Father
cannot be predicated of the Son and vice versa.
So when personal actions are “predicated” of “the person of the Son”
that cannot be predicated of “the person of the Father,” and personal actions
are predicated of “the person of the Father” that cannot be predicated of “the
person of the Son,” you have two different/numerically distinct persons upon
which are predicated mutually exclusive personal acts.
All of the Oneness apologists above assert that there are two numerically
distinct personal subjects (i.e. persons) who interact with each other, one the
eternal Father who is God and the other being the Son who did not come into existence until his conception in the womb of
Mary. Oneness can say what they want
to each other but to Trinitarians it is painfully obvious that all of the above
apologists had one personal subject before the birth of Jesus, and two numerically
distinct personal subjects (who interact with each other on a personal basis)
after the birth of Jesus, the Father and the Son. Further, since the “person”
of the Son had no actual existence before his conception and birth, especially
in relation to the Father, the Son is a personal being which is not
eternal, meaning he is finite and created. And finite created personal beings
are by definition not God. The end result is that all of the explanations the
Oneness apologists above offer of the relationship of the Father and the Son
posit two separate and numerically distinct personal beings, one eternal and
infinite, the other created and finite.
I have actually not offered this for debate but for explanation, or
understanding. All things being equal,
applying the same criteria to words such as “person” and “being” to both
Trinitarian and Oneness explanations, Trinitarians teach One God who is One
in being, three in person. One of those
persons (the Son) was incarnated (having eternally existed before being
conceived in Mary’s womb) and was born as a man without division of His person.
All of the Oneness apologists have in the end taught a unipersonal God who
caused a woman to conceive a human child. This child, this person called Jesus
Christ the Son of God interacted with God the Father on a personal level. When
the Father and Son are in view, there are two numerically distinct persons and
two numerically distinct beings in view, one uncreated, eternal and infinite (the
Father), one created, temporal and finite (the Son).
It is interesting to me that Oneness, in spite of all of the real personal distinctions they make between the Father and Son, indeed, in spite of positing a personal relationship between the Father and the Son, deny they posit two persons by simply equivocating and not using the word “person.” So they have “two natures,” “two different modes of existence,” “two different manifestations” and so on. Origen said:
"Let everyone, then, who cares for truth
not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a
different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning
conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey
the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty..." Origen (c. 225, E), 4.380
Certainly you have to remember Juliet saying to Romeo: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Juliet’s point was that were Romeo’s name not “Montague” he would still be the same person that she loved. And it is true, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet because it would still be a rose. In a nutshell, this is what I’m explaining about the Oneness Pentecostal explanations of the Father and the Son. If a Oneness Pentecostal use words or phrases such as “nature,” “mode of existence,” “manifestation,” and if one can say of these words or phrases the following:
Nature; mode of existence; manifestation:
is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious.
exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes actions.
Then they have merely replaced a different word or phrase for the word “person” as you pour the same meaning into it. I have already pointed out above how all of the Oneness apologists I quoted are merely using a different word or phrase for the word “person” and using it in its place. Additionally, in that one of these “persons” begins to exist this person is a new existence (being) and in that this person begins to exist it must be created. All created things are by definition finite, and finite things by definition are not God. Thus two separate persons and two separate beings.
With regard to the terminology/equivocation issue some have said that it is “unfair” to point this out. Well, there is nothing “unfair” about being factual and certainly nothing unfair about understanding. Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one in being and three in person. Oneness Pentecostals assert that Trinitarian teaching is incorrect and counter that God is one in being and one in person. So when Oneness Pentecostals claim that Trinitarian teaching is wrong they must be using the Trinitarian definitions of “being and person.” Likewise, when Oneness, contrary to Trinitarian teaching, make the claim that God is one in being and one in person they must also be using Trinitarian definitions of “being and person.” And based on these definitions an examination of Oneness teachings demonstrate that Oneness theologies contain two beings and two persons, one God and one man.
The idea of discussion is pointless without understanding (how much more pointless is debate when because of terminology the wrong issues are being debated). Let me be clear, Oneness simply denying that they do not teach two separate beings and two separate persons does not change the fact that they are doing just that according to the same criteria by which Trinitarians say God is one in being and three in person. Keeping in mind that Oneness claim that Trinitarian doctrine is incorrect, how is it they don’t mind teaching that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and two separate persons? But more importantly, much more importantly in fact, since that is what they teach (all things being equal, i.e. criteria for “being” and “person”) why continue to equivocate? Why not have open and honest discussions regarding what you actually believe with understanding? Look above and look at the criteria for a moment instead of the word “person.” At any rate, until the terminology and equivocation issues are addressed, real profitable discussion and debate are pointless, I don’t see how it is even possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment