What Does God Mean When He Says He is One?

[Arial]

It is to the scriptures that declare that God is One those opposed to the Trinity go. They see the doctrine of the Trinity as worshiping three Gods. Because the mind is holding this, there becomes a disconnect in which all the arguments posed against the Trinity are presented from that premise. The ears cannot hear or the mind perceive anything that is said concerning the hypostatic union, no matter how many times it is explained, or how many times the Unitarian is told that it is not three God's. Human reason will not get out of the way and give room for revelation of spiritual things to come in.

When God declared to Israel that He is one God and there is no God besides Him, was He referring to His form of being as not triune as the argument goes?

I say no. If we look at the history and cultural history as well, and to whom God declared this, and when, we see something else at play.

The Hebrews had been in bondage in Egypt for over four hundred years. There was as yet no nation that God had taken into a covenant relationship with Himself. Such a nation had been promised to Abraham's descendants, and even the land mass where it would become a nation. God was about to fulfill that promise. All nations and peoples were pagan and polytheistic. Each had their own gods and a god for everything. They worshiped the creation instead of the Creator. They built idols to these gods from raw materials, and their gods never did anything. They exerted no power, they had mouths but could not speak, legs but could not walk, eyes but could not see, ears, but could not hear. They could not create anything, or change anything. They were the proverbial "dumb as a block of wood."

The Hebrews, after all those centuries, knew nothing else. It was familiar and comfortable. They had not yet heard the creation story and had no active, personal. revelation of God.

When God sent Moses into Egypt to deliver His people with signs and wonders, He was coming against the gods of Egypt, showing them for what they were. Nothing. And showing Himself for who He is. The one and only true and living God, who acts. The sovereign over all that is. The King of the world. The only One who has the power to bless and to judge. In the wilderness He revealed Himself to Israel as provider and protector and guide, and a God of covenant love, and the One who exacts judgment. He showed Himself to be a God who hears and sees and moves and acts. The One and only God. "You will have no other gods, worship no other gods, trust no other gods. I will be your God, and you will be my people."

So to use His declaration that He is one as a reason to not believe that He is also triune in nature and being, misses the point of His revelation of Himself to Israel, and now to us. That He is one, means that He is the only. His triune nature is revealed elsewhere at the proper time, though it cast its shadow even in the OT, and was fully revealed as the NT writers and Jesus Himself, shone the light of revelation on the shadow.

(As most are familiar enough with the Bible on the forum, I have not quoted scriptures. They will be provided if asked for.)

 

[grace2]

Another attempt to maneuver the simple word with so many words.

 

[Binyawmene]

When God declared to Israel that He is one God and there is no God besides Him, was He referring to His form of being as not triune as the argument goes?

The Trinity teaches that God is, was, and always will be one. There is no ontological identical and opposites of himself or some other gods. No equals. No comparisons. No instructors. The God of the Bible is alone and only. He is in a category of himself. There is no other of his kind and class. God is one. He cannot have any known or unknown ontological directional opposites and absences of himself. And there is no others before and after, above and below, backwards and forward, beside and in-between, etc.

To answer your question, I think it's more of a terminology problem and language barrier. The Trinity doctrine makes distinction between "person" and "being." And with its own different definitions. There are three persons in one Being (threeness in oneness). Most anti-trins don't make that distinction and see person/being as interchangeably the same definition. Or the titles "God" and "Father" is used interchangeably. See God, think Father, type of concept. So, basically they are superimposing their definitions into the Trinity doctrine and arriving at a strawman of three gods. You will often hear arguments like, "Which person is speaking?" If the Scriptures doesn't say who, then it's referring to the one Being ("I," "Me," "Myself" etc.)

The thing is, Trinitarians don't isolate the Father as the only sole person of God. When we speak about the persons alone distinctively, that doesn't mean the persons are separated or divided into another god. There is only one undivided and indivisible Divine Nature. Each person of the Trinity is completely and fully God indivisibly. And each person has the whole fullness of God's being in himself when spoken about distinctively. In reference to the Son who is wholly and fully God indivisibly and the Son possesses the whole being of God in himself when spoken about distinctively. So, when we speak about the three persons distinctively, specifically the Son alone, then he is all of God's being.

 

[Arial]

Another attempt to maneuver the simple word with so many words.

Either participate in the discussion of don't post in the thread.

 

[Arial]

To answer your question, I think it's more of a terminology problem and language barrier. The Trinity doctrine makes distinction between "person" and "being." And with its own different definitions. There are three persons in one Being (threeness in oneness). Most anti-trins don't make that distinction and see person/being as interchangeably the same definition. Or the titles "God" and "Father" is used interchangeably. See God, think Father, type of concept. So, basically they are superimposing their definitions into the Trinity doctrine and arriving at a strawman of three gods. You will often hear arguments like, "Which person is speaking?" If the Scriptures doesn't say who, then it's referring to the one Being ("I," "Me," "Myself" etc.)

Exactly. And no matter how many times it is said, the still can't get outside their box. "This is the Father who is God, and Jesus calls Him Father, so Jesus is not God." I understand Father to be the covenant name of God in the new covenant, as Yahweh was the covenant name given to Moses in the old covenant.

Yahweh, often translated I AM that I AM, which is often said to express His eternal self existence (and I have said it myself.) But more accurately, I think is "I will be to you as I was to them." Ex 3:13 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them,'The God of your fathers has sent me to you' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" It embraced the former covenant promises. That covenant was a personal relationship between God and His people Israel, a way to draw near to Him in worship, with His presence being present, but it did not provide eternal life.

The new covenant takes down the curtain that stood before the Holy of Holies keeping out all but the high priest, once a year, to make atonement with the blood of bulls and rams. Compared this:

2 Cor 6:16.18 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them.and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 18. and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

Now, we call Him Father. We are no longer alienated from Him, but reconciled to Him, and made to be family. His children, and brothers and sisters to one another.

 

[Eleanor]

Another attempt to maneuver the simple word with so many words.

Another claim which does not address the argument.

 

[Binyawmene]

Exactly. And no matter how many times it is said, the still can't get outside their box. "This is the Father who is God, and Jesus calls Him Father, so Jesus is not God."

Yes, denial is one out of many tactics of Unitarianism. The concept of Unitarianism teaches that God by essential nature of himself has no distinctions or unitary whole (One God is one-ness). That the One "God" in the strict sense is the "Person" called the Father only. So, only thing a Unitarians are doing is denying that Jesus Christ is God and assuming Unitarianism as being true. That's not an argument from a logical standpoint. It's like, "denying that an orange is juicy" and "assuming a apple instead." That's not an argument against a juicy orange. In the same manner it's not an argument against the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. For instance, of this dialog exchange:

Unitarian: If the Father is "the only true God," then Jesus Christ isn't God.
Trinitarian: John 17:3 in NO WAY states "Jesus is not God". It simply differentiates the Father from the Son.
Unitarian: The Father is "the only true God," Trin.
Trinitarian: And all the Trinitarians said, "Amen!" What's your point?​

The Unitarian is assuming irrational (Unitarianism) bias in the statement and denying that Jesus Christ is God. On the other hand, the Trinitarian see this from a Trinity perspective. Here is the thing, when a Unitarian point out verses about the Father being Lord or being God. They are affirming what we already believe as Trinitarians. The Father is part of the Trinity framework. But its fallacious to assume that "Jesus Christ is not God" based on the Father who is also known as God too. In other words, Unitarians equate "God" with "the Father" as interchangeable, so every time there is mention of "God" in Scripture, they interpret that as referring to "the Father."

Compare the following two assertions:

1) "The Father is the only true God." (Scripture)
2) "Only the Father is the true God." (not Scripture)​

The two statements are almost identical, the only difference between them being the location of the word, "only". In the first statement, it modifies "God" (there is only one God). In the second statement, it modifies "Father" (only the Father is God). They do NOT mean the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination.

I will also add that Unitarians hold to the position of "Man-Only" doctrine and anything about Christ's deity is automatically ruled-out like 1 John 5:20. And the majority of the time they aren't arguing from the Hypostatic Union position. But rather a denial of what the position declares while you are reinforcing the positive claim. Even when Scriptures are presented they either ignore or stand in their denial that "Jesus Christ is not God." Some might provide a misrepresentation for an alternative interpretation and their straw men leading to contradictory notions. Its easier for them to take such position.

Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. However, the common theme is demonstrated by pointing out Bible verses that Jesus Christ has claimed to be "a man." Or pointing out attributes of his "humanity" like being hungry, weeping, and lacking knowledge, etc. Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God." From their mindset its assumed that Jesus Christ being a man negates over him being God. Unfortunately, there would be no argument between both Hypostatic Unionists and Man-Only advocates in that particular regard. Even at the most basic level fundamentally. Since ultimately there would be a passable or just good enough acceptable agreement about Jesus Christ's humanity.

 

[Arial]

Logically, they cannot argue from the Hypostatic Union doctrinal position that "Jesus Christ is Man." Because they would be affirming and adding support to what we already believe about Jesus Christ. However, the common theme is demonstrated by pointing out Bible verses that Jesus Christ has claimed to be "a man." Or pointing out attributes of his "humanity" like being hungry, weeping, and lacking knowledge, etc. Then make bare assertions that he never claims to be "God." From their mindset its assumed that Jesus Christ being a man negates over him being God. Unfortunately, there would be no argument between both Hypostatic Unionists and Man-Only advocates in that particular regard. Even at the most basic level fundamentally. Since ultimately there would be a passable or just good enough acceptable agreement about Jesus Christ's humanity.

That is right. In addition, they misunderstand the term "person" and will continue to misunderstand it even when it is clarified. They have nowhere else to go but to fight with straw men. As @STAND said in another thread, the Trinity says God is three people. To which I replied it never says God is three people.

He thought he had me and said "Oh really?" And quoted a source stating "God is three persons----" So I explained it to him and am waiting, not holding my breath, for the response. But just as they are unable to distinguish between Father and God, with Father being a covenantal name and of who He is to His new covenant people, or that Trinitarians fully believe that Jesus was a man, and was also still God, they cannot stop seeing "persons" as people. It is utterly a man centered religion, with God a sidebar, and one based on the wisdom of the world, and Jesus as God to them a smell of death.

 

[CrowCross]

I've also noticed the Unitarian...more often then not claims to have the real, unmentioned, meaning of a term or word. As in here's what the bible really says. For example in John 1, the Word was God and with God...means something like the Word was just God's "thought"...His will. Then they'll tell you how biblical ignorant you are if you don't agree and insist the Word was the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus. All the while the seem to intentionally forget the following verses tell us the Word became flesh.

One of my favorites is when Jesus is presented as the creator in the bible..then they argue NO, NO, NO God created THROUGH Jesus.
Then it gets kinda strange with the unitarians...they tell you Jesus was created with the conception of Mary. There was no pre-existence of Jesus prior to His incarnation....in which they claim "Jesus didn't incarnate"....all though the bible says Jesus came down from heaven which the unitarians say really means Jesus came down "in a sense"....He didn't really come down from heaven but rather because it was God the Fathers "will, idea, thought" that came down and manifested as Jesus so "in a sense" Jesus came down from heaven but not really.
I didn't notice the bible said "in a sense".....but they will insist it's there.

They seem to take the natural reading of the scriptures and run it through their decoder ring and come up with the real truth, what the bible really says.

It doesn't matter how many verses that show Jesus is God...they know the Father is the ONLY true God. Or so their decoder ring tells them.

 

[Mr GLee]

It is to the scriptures that declare that God is One those opposed to the Trinity go. They see the doctrine of the Trinity as worshiping three Gods. Because the mind is holding this, there becomes a disconnect in which all the arguments posed against the Trinity are presented from that premise. The ears cannot hear or the mind perceive anything that is said concerning the hypostatic union, no matter how many times it is explained, or how many times the Unitarian is told that it is not three God's. Human reason will not get out of the way and give room for revelation of spiritual things to come in.

When God declared to Israel that He is one God and there is no God besides Him, was He referring to His form of being as not triune as the argument goes?

Thanks

I would offer.

One God represented by two kinds of gods (Elohim) . Sons of God redeemed mankind (born again gods) and God the Holy Father the redeemer God (Capitol G. )

Our Father calls us gods or ye of little faith, a portion of His Spirit . . . . our one living God .

John 10:3 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

The first commandment of the ten . Have no gods before our Faithful Creator . . includes one self. Break the first, all others become to no effect.
1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

One Lord of earthly lords. One King of earthy kings .One Father of earthly fathers , one Mother Hen of all earthy mother hens.

Salvation is not of any work of dying mankind. . . rather than a new creation ( not reincarnation .) all things of the new unseen eternal .

I call the King of dynamic duals .Two the one witness that one God has spoke .

Using the the temporal dying seen to represent as a parable the unseen eternal spiritual things, according to the prescription needed to rightly divide the parable ( comparison) ( 2 Corinthian 4:18) valuable study tool.

Romans reveals How and why we should use that powerful revealing tool of our invisible head. .

If we do not use that tool ( 2 Corinthian 4:18) the wrath of God is revealed .

God is not dying mankind. He creates one for the purpose to show his glory to the world. Using man temporal dying to demonstration who he is and what are his unseen powerful spiritual ways .

Roman 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[grace2]

Trinitarians fully believe that Jesus was a man, and was also still God,

Is it so important for you to justify triune god?

It is a personal question for you.

 

[Arial]

Is it so important for you to justify triune god?

It is a personal question for you.

God is triune so therefore, yes, I will always defend that position. Don't confuse that with justifying God, which is how you worded it.

 

[grace2]

God is triune so therefore, yes, I will always defend that position. Don't confuse that with justifying God, which is how you worded it.

Well, good luck with going against Jesus' word.

You need to learn what Jesus teaches instead of your church. in your case, Calvin's teachings.

that's the first step you need to take.

 

[Arial]

Well, good luck with going against Jesus' word.

You need to learn what Jesus teaches instead of your church. in your case, Calvin's teachings.

that's the first step you need to take.

I know what Jesus teaches.My church teaches what Jesus teaches. It has nothing to do with Calvin. He has been dead for centuries. Get over it.

 

[grace2]

I know what Jesus teaches.My church teaches what Jesus teaches.

You know what He teaches but you don't respect them.

that's now so good, sweetie.

 

[Eleanor]

Well, good luck with going against Jesus' word.

You need to learn what Jesus teaches instead of your church. in your case, Calvin's teachings.

that's the first step you need to take.

Speaking of which, Jesus teaches that
to believe in him is to believe in God (Jn 12:44),
to look at him is to look at God (Jn 12:45),
that his disciples should believe in him just as they believe in God (Jn 14:1),
those who know him thereby know the Father (Jn 14:7),
anyone who has seen him has seen the Father (Jn 14:9),
all are to honor the Son just as they honor the Father (Jn 5:23)
all that the Father has is his (Jn 16:15, 17:10),
he is the way, the truth and the life, that no one goes to he Father except through him (Jn 14:6),
he is the shepherd of the sheep, thereby declaring himself be the YHWH Adonai of Eze 34:11-16.
Jesus declares that what God is, he is, thereby making himself equal with God (Jn 5:18b, 10:33).

Jesus likewise said that he
came forth out of God (exelthon, form of erchomai--to proceed, to flow out of, to issue from, as light issues from the sun)--Jn 8:42,
came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27, 17:8),
came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28).
Jesus is saying that he is begotten of (sired by) God (Ac 13:33, Heb 1;5, 5:5, Ps 2:7), making him of the same nature as God; i.e., divine,
just as those begotten of men are likewise of the same nature as men--human.

You need to learn what Jesus teaches.

 

[grace2]

I misspelled "not".

It is supposed to be "not so good" instead of "now".

 

[Arial]

You know what He teaches but you don't respect them.

that's now so good, sweetie.

Jesus said that the way in which we treat others is the way in which we are treating Him. (Matt 25:34-40)

Show people respect instead of accusing them of things you cannot possibly know.

 

[grace2]

Jesus said that the way in which we treat others is the way in which we are treating Him. (Matt 25:34-40)

Show people respect instead of accusing them of things you cannot possibly know.

When the gospel is repeated in so a disrespectful manner, it needs to be addressed, not hide or silence the Truth.

Paul says to expose the evil deeds of darkness.

Judgments ought to be centered on Jesus' standards.

 

[Arial]

When the gospel is repeated in so a disrespectful manner, it needs to be addressed, not hide or silence the Truth.

There is nothing disrespectful to Jesus in the gospel as preached by trinitarians. Their doctrine disagrees with yours, no one knows what you consider the gospel as you do not say, and you do not address truth but merely make accusations against others because they do not agree with you. That is disrespectful to people who belong to Christ.

Paul says to expose the evil deeds of darkness.

Judgments ought to be centered on Jesus' standards.

Why do you invoke Paul when you think he is a heretic and do not even believe Jesus when He says He appoints Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles? Why do you invoke Paul in relation to the gospel when you think the gospel he preached, and that Trinitarians agree with, was a different gospel?

You are not qualified to stand as a judge over anyone, only God is, and you are not judging, your are being judgemental, which is both self righteousness and legalism.