Introduction

To those interested parties, Perry Robinson has been having an exchange with a Oneness Pentacostal (a modern day Modalist) concerning the nature of the belief that exists regarding the deity and personalility of the Divine Persons in Holy Writ.

The debate began when a friend of Perry's directed him to this URL

From such, Perry so responsed, in-which I am honoured to be able to host such another fine exhibit of the defense of the faith against those whom so look to tread upon it.

In the pages that follow Perry will give a detailed and lengthy response to the above cited URL leaving no stone unturned. His responses will be in BOLD whereas his counterpart's will be in italics .

I trust that you will find the following response to the attack levied against the faith not only informative as to the re-creation of what is Trinitarianism by those whom look to attack it, but also eye-opening as to the merits behind the arguements that are used to rebuke such advances put forward by happenstancial quoations of sources which came under review.

Here now is the exchange entitled:

By Perry C. Robinson, B.A.

First I would like to thank the individual for sending me this set of arguments against Trinitarianism. I wish to thank him because it gives me an opportunity to clearly set forth and defend the truth. It also gives me an opportunity to try and help others come to a better understanding of the truth.

In my reply I will be going section by section through the original post so as not to pass over any argument against Trinitarianism that was presented. I will also employ expositions and arguments from Church Fathers, Councils and various Christian thinkers from a number of Christian Traditions or theological viewpoints (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinist, Lutheran, etc.) which I think are helpful in answering various points.

My aim by doing this is to show that the answers to the objections have been around for centuries and in many cases, well over a thousand years. This is to help the reader and my opponent understand that the answers to objections against the orthodox Faith are there, one only needs to look hard enough.

Many people today ask, "If the trinity is not biblical, why don't other people believe like you do?" First, let me say that if it took a great deal of intelligence, no one would be able to understand the Godhead. The Godhead is understood because God chooses to reveal it to those who are willing to reason with the scripture.

I would generally agree that it is necessary for God to disclose Himself to us in order for us to know Him. He does this in two ways. The first way is by creation in general. God has left His mark on nature through its design, preservation and structure. Hence Paul informs us that the power and existence of God is made plain to all. (Romans 1-2) The second way He discloses Himself to us is through special revelation. This came about through His inspiration of the Patriarchs, Moses the Lawgiver, the Prophets and chiefly through the Son. The messages of these men became transcribed on paper or other means and became canonized and known as the Sacred Writings or Scriptures. This is God’s public revelation to humanity.

I would like to point out something here, that the old Elizebethean term "Godhead" simply means deity. So when you say that the Godhead is revealed by God, that statement is rather redundant. God revealed God.

A. We find in Matthew 11:27 (also in Luke 10:22) that no man knoweth the Father and the Son but, " . . . to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." If we are to know who the "Father" is, and who the "Son" is, it will have to be revealed to us.

I always thought that this is what the Scriptures were for? As John says, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:31) The revelation of God is in the Scriptures. This is distinct from the operation of grace that may move someone to faith in Christ though. People believe in Christ because of God’s grace, not through their own unaided effort. People know of Christ in whom they believed because of the Scriptures and the preaching of them by the Church. As Paul says, how will they hear unless a preacher preaches to them, and how will a preacher preach to them unless he is sent? (Rom. 10:14-15)

A. In conjunction with the previous, I think of the words of the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:16 - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." In the which Jesus followed up with something that I think is most beneficial. In verse 17, Jesus said, "Blessed are thou, Simon Barjona, for FLESH AND BLOOD HATH NOT REVEALED IT UNTO THEE . . . "

B. This should teach us that we should not take just a traditional statement of some great theologian of the past. We must pray that God would reveal the real truth unto us all, and this will we find when we "search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (I John 5:39)

While it is true that the identity of Christ came to the Apostles by revelation or self disclosure on God’s part, we must be careful that out of pride or any other motivation that we do not read ourselves in their place. Just because something happened to the Apostles does not mean that it is the norm for all of the Church. For example, the Apostles were directly appointed by Christ to be Apostles. Obviously not all Christians are apostles. While it may be true that not everything some theologian of the past hands on to posterity is true, it would be foolish to reject the wisdom and counsel of others out of hand preferring confidence in our own abilities. As John Henry Newman once quipped, if the Fathers of the Church are not to be trusted because they made mistakes, how much less should we trust ourselves. Scripture itself testifies to these two principles, namely receiving what has been handed down and taking counsel.

Prov. 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Prov. 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Prov. 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

Prov. 20:18 Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.

Prov. 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

----------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1 Cor. 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Gal. 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

As these verses make clear, going by what has been handed down or listening to the counsel of others is not necessarily an evil thing. After all, the Scriptures themselves are products of this process.

It is very important that we understand the God in whom we worship. As a matter of fact, we must believe who God really is, or we will not be saved. In John, 8:24-28, the scripture is very precise in telling us that - "for if ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins." Friend, that is why I have spent many hours preparing this study, because I feel it imperative that the truth should be proclaimed.

At this point, let us consider a few scriptures that are worthy of notation concerning the oneness of God.

1.. Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

2.. James 2:19 - "Thou believedst in one God, thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

3.. Isaiah 43:10 also tells us that before Him were no Gods formed. It also goes on to say "neither shall there be after me".

4.. The Bible always portrays a monotheistic concept of God. As you know, more scriptures could have been compiled, but I feel at this point we need to go no farther. What I do want to point out is, Trinitarians believe in "One God" also. The only difference is their belief in One God is perverted by the paganistic philosophy of Nimrod. So, if you think you will put a Trinitarian on the spot with One God scriptures, chances are you will not. A good name for this is "double talk".

I quite agree that knowing the identity of the true God is imperative to one’s salvation. Your allegations regarding Trinitarianism being a pagan philosophy of Nimrod I obviously do not agree with for a whole host of reasons. First, it is historically false that Trinitarianism was derived from pagan philosophy, either Greek or Persian. Second, "Oneness" or Modalism itself has historically relied on and been derived from pagan Greek philosophy in the form of Stoicism. Third, the overwhelming testimony of Church history shows that Trinitarianism has been the position of the Christian Church. I hope to be able to support these claims and make it obvious that your claims are false. Lastly, I also I think that your "pot shot" regarding double talk is unfounded. I think in general, as I hope to show, that such comments and attitudes on the part of Oneness Pentacostals usually result from gapping ignorance of Trinitarian theology.

The main problem you will find in witnessing to someone who believes the Trinity will be expressing the "Dual-Nature" of Jesus Christ. In passages where you find Jesus referring to the Father, He is referring to his omni-present which was before the world began. When he refers to the "Son of God", He is speaking of the fleshly body that began at Bethlehem. So, when we view Jesus Christ, you can't help but see His divinity showing through His humanity. Let's take a look at some of the passages that reveal to us His dual nature.

The main problem here is your complete ignorance of historic Christian theology. Modalist theology usually constructs Christology as either a Nestorianism or Adoptionism. Usually most Oneness Petacostals (OP’s) are of the Nestorian flavor. This seems to be your overall approach. Nestorianism generally viewed Christ as two personalized natures or rather that Christ was two persons, human and divine linked by an agreement of will. Trinitarians agree that Christ had two natures, but they view Christ as being one person, in which the two natures are united. Hence Christ the person does not "switch" between natures i.e. persons. This error ultimately relates back to the stoic monism that undergirds modalistic thinking to identify the categories of person and nature. Of this I will have more to say latter. Suffice it to say at this point that all of the verses that you adduce for the distinction of natures in Christ have been well known and assented to by Trinitarians. We firmly agree that Christ is both human and divine in quality.

AS MAN AS GOD He had human parents Matt. 1:18, Luke 3:31 He had Divine parents Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:35 He had human characteristics: Luke 2:40, 52, John 4:9, 20:15 He had Divine characteristics Mark 4:35 He was not 50 years old: John 8.57 He was older than Abram: John 8:58 He learned: Hebrews 5:8 He knew all things: John 21:17 He grew weak and weary: John 4:6, II Cor. 13:4 He was the Almighty: Revelation 1:8 He was on the earth: Mark 2:10 He was in Heaven at the same time: John 3:13 He was the Son: Isaiah 9:6 He was the Father: Isaiah 9:6 He was tempted: Hebrews 2:18, 4:15 He forgave sin: Mark 2:5 He prayed: Luke 22:41 He answers prayer: John 14:14 He died: John 19:33 He arose: Matt. 28:6 He slept: Matt. 8:24 He calmed the storm: Matt. 8:26 He wept: John 11:35 He raised the dead: John 11:43-44 He was hungry: Matt. 4:2 He fed 5,000 men: John 6:1-11 He was a servant: Phil. 2:7 He is the King of Kings: Revelation 19:16

Just a minor point and a side note. You have listed that Jesus had divine parents, in the plural tense. I was not aware that the Holy Spirit, as you referenced, was a plurality of persons? ;)

This leads me to the main point in which we will deal quite extensively. Before we will be able to be effective in winning souls, we must know the error in which the majority of the church world stands.

1.. The Definition of the Trintiy "The Godhead is composed of three separate and distinct persons: co-equal, co-existent, and co-eternal. These three persons exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

The definition that you give here is flawed on a number of points. First, God is not "composed" of anything. Since God is by definition a "simple" being, he is not made up of anything whatsoever. This is so because spirit is not extended in space. This is reflected in the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion when it states,

"I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

THERE is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Thomas Aquinas has a more detailed and rich explanation of this point when he writes,

"I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways.

First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His "suppositum"; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.

Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above (2, 3).

Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown above (2, 3), since He is the first efficient cause.

Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole.

Fifthly, because nothing composite can be predicated of any single one of its parts. And this is evident in a whole made up of dissimilar parts; for no part of a man is a man, nor any of the parts of the foot, a foot. But in wholes made up of similar parts, although something which is predicated of the whole may be predicated of a part (as a part of the air is air, and a part of water, water), nevertheless certain things are predicable of the whole which cannot be predicated of any of the parts; for instance, if the whole volume of water is two cubits, no part of it can be two cubits. Thus in every composite there is something which is not it itself. But, even if this could be said of whatever has a form, viz. that it has something which is not it itself, as in a white object there is something which does not belong to the essence of white; nevertheless in the form itself, there is nothing besides itself. And so, since God is absolute form, or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite. Hilary implies this argument, when he says (De Trin. vii): ‘God, Who is strength, is not made up of things that are weak; nor is He Who is light, composed of things that are dim.’" (Summa Theologica, First Pt., Sec. 3) Citation Given

Lastly, Augustine makes the same point with regard to the unity of God when he writes,

"All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity." (ON the Trinity, Bk. 1, Ch. 4)

Hence in the initial definition of the Trinity that you seek to give you create a straw man of the Christian position.

This leads me to the second problem in the definition that you proposed.

You stated that Trinitarians hold to the idea that God is three separate persons. This is patently false. First, it is false historically and secondly it is false theologically and conceptually.

In none of the classic statements of Trinitarian theology such as the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds has it been asserted that God is three separate persons. Second, it is conceptually false for such a view would negate what Trinitarians believe regarding the unity of substance or nature between the three persons. This is why the Nicene Creed explicitly employs the term homoousious or " of one substance" when speaking of the Father and the Son. Hence to even propose that Trinitarians believe that the three persons are separate is to put upon us a position that we do not hold and thereby create a strawman. This is why Trinitarianism appears to be polytheism to OP’s, because they employ a individuating human conception of personality which requires a separation of substance for each person. This reveals a latent assumption of identifying nature with person. But this preconceived notion of personality as requiring a separation of substance is something that Trinitarians have always rejected since they are not polytheists. OP’s simply cannot understand the Trinitarian differentiation made along the lines of the category of personality that does not require a differentiation with respect to nature or essence. Once such a preconceived notion is rejected, the faulty definition and all ensuing objections fall lifeless to the ground.

2.. Let's examine the doctrinal statement of the Godhead as stated in "We Believe ---" booklet of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Article 2: We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and these three persons are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience.

One wonders why you selected Dallas Theological Seminary’s doctrinal statement since it is hardly known as being representative for all of Christianity. Please note that in their definition they did not say that the three persons of the Trinity were separate.

In the following pages, you will find 52 reasons why I cannot believe the Trinity doctrine. You, as a reader may not believe in the previous statements, but if you have been baptized in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, you are automatically identified with the doctrine of the Trinity.

1.. In General (Nowhere in the Bible does it mention triune or three persons)

1.. The word "Trinity" is not a Biblical term. It is not in the Bible.

2.. The terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are never mentioned in the Bible. The term "The Son of God" is mentioned, but not "God the Son".

On this first point I have chosen for your refutation a nice treatment by the 17th century Calvinist Scholastic theologian Francis Turretin.

"The question is not whether it is lawful to introduce into the church rashly and unnecessarily foreign and new words unauthorized by the Scriptures. All agree on this point, lest occasion of calumny be given to the adversaries, the seeds of dissension be sown in the church and the suspicion of new words-applicable to which are the various dicta of the fathers which command the avoidance of the newness of words and freedom of expressions. But the question is whether it is lawful (under the exigency of some weighty reason) to enunciate inwritten (engrapha) doctrines by unwritten (agraphois) words for the plainer explication of the truth and the more complete refutation of errors.

The question is not whether the word of man is to be preferred to God’s word, but whether it can be admitted for the elucidation of the latter in which the adversaries are accustomed to seek for hiding places. Indeed the question is whether we are bound to stick so tenaciously to the words of Scripture that in the explication of doctrines no others but them can be devised and used. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.

The reasons are drawn: (1) from their utility which is manifold, whether for the richer explication of that mystery or for the stronger refutation of the heresies opposed to it; (2) from necessity, because unless it were lawful to use words not to be found exactly (autolexei) in Scripture, we could not interpret it and apply it to the uses both theoretical and practical. Thus it would be useless for instruction and correction, for the conviction and reproof of heretics because there never was anyone who did not attempt to confirm his errors by the Scriptures and did not think that they had some support in them. Hence whatever was sanctioned by the words of Scripture alone could be received by them and their error be all the while retained. Thus Sabellius did not deny that they were three-the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-because Scripture says this; but he made one person of those three, calling them by various names by reason of diverse operation. Arius did not deny that Christ was God, but he understood him to be a factitious and dependent God. Socinus confesses Christ to be the Son of God, but with respect to office and power, and not with respect to nature. He does not deny that he redeemed us by his blood, but improperly and metaphorically, not truly and meritoriously. So invariably heretics are accustomed to laud the Scriptures ‘speaking the same things, but thinking differently’ as Ireneaus says in ‘Preface’ Against Heresies 1. Therefore it was a matter of Christian prudence to employ such words as would more clearly confirm the orthodox faith and so bind heretical perverseness as to allow no chance of escape anymore by an ambiguous and deceitful equivocation. (3) From parity, because in other articles, ecclesiastical terms are fitly employed (as ‘original sin’ and ‘sacrament’). Why then can they not be lawfully used in this mystery?

This was the mind of the ancients in using these words. Athanasius says ‘ It is always the custom of ecclesiastical discipline, if at any time new heretical doctrines arise, against the insolent changes of questions, to change the terminology, the things remaining immutably’ Against the Arians. Gregory Nazianzus says ‘We must not contend spitefully about terms as long as the syllables lead to the same opinion’ Oratio 39 ‘We confess that these terms were produced by the necessity of speaking, since there would be need of a copious disputation against the snares and errors of heretics.’ Augustine The Trinity 7.4 And Augustine again: ‘Against the impiety of the Arian heretics they introduced the new name homoousious, but did not signify a new thing by that name.’ Tractate 97 On the Gospel of St. John Hence Thomas Aquinas says, ‘The necessity of disputing with heretics compelled them to invent new terms expressing the ancient faith.’ (Summa Theologica, I, Q. 29, Art. 3)

‘The form of sound words’ spoken of by Paul (hypotyposis hygiainonton logon, 2 Tim. 1:13) is not an extern form of locution, so bound down to the words of Scripture that it would be unlawful to use even a syllable or word not found in Scripture. Otherwise sermons and comments on Scripture would be all wrong. Rather it denotes that method of teaching which does not depart from the intention of Scripture and the analogy of faith, and which rejoices not in the swelling arrogance of empty eloquence, but in the religious simplicity of true wisdom.

It is one thing to speak of the mode of enunciating things; another to speak of things themselves. When Paul forbids to teach otherwise (heterodidaskalein, 1 Tim. 6:3) he refers to the things themselves-that no one should teach other (hetera) things (i.e. doctrines alien from the truth and simplicity of the gospel). But he does not speak of the mode of delivering, as if he thought it unlawful to use other words besides those inwritten (engraphois). For God did not give the church the gift of prophecy in vain; for its purpose is the interpretation of Scripture which would evidently have been useless if it were wrong to the express in other words the things delivered in Scripture.

A new newness of words only differs from that which (with the words) introduces a newness of things. The one is useful and necessary for the elucidation of truth and the confutation of error; but the other is deceitful and deadly; smuggling in foreign doctrines under new and foreign words. Paul condemns the latter not the former when he orders us to avoid ‘profane and vain babblines’ (tas bebelous kainophonias, 1 Tim. 6:20) Hence Augustine says, "The apostle does not say the newness of words must be avoided, but [he adds] profane; for there are doctrines of religion agreeing with the newness of words…the things themselves called by new names were before their names’ (Tractate 97, On the Gospel of John).

It is one thing under the penalty of anathema to obtrude words upon the church for her reception, but another to obtrude the things signified by the words. The latter can be rightly done, but not the former.Not to be in Scripture expressly and according to the letter (kata to gramma) differs from not being there equivalently and as to the thing signified (kata to pragma). The words ‘Trinity,’ ‘consubstantiality’ (homoousiou), ‘inhabitation’ (perichoreseos), ‘person’ are not in Scripture in the former manner, but in the latter.

Those words ought to be avoided which afford matter for strife per se in the church, but not those which only accidentally do so on account of pertinacity of heretics (who attack the words in order to get rid of the things signified by them).

The foundations of faith differ from its defenses; the former are built upon scripture alone and are derived from it; the latter are drawn even from beyond Scripture to ward off the attacks of besiegers. The latter kind are various words devised by theologians to guard against the fraud and unscruplousness (panourgian) of heretics.

Concerning God, we must not speak except with God (i.e. nothing must be asserted except what he himself has asserted in his word as to the things themselves, but not therefore as to the words.) Otherwise we could not speak of them in any other tongue other than the Hebrew language (in which God spoke). (Fancies Turretin, Instituties of Ecclenctic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 257-260)

Lastly I would like to make a few points of my own in response to your general claims. The words "Oneness", "Oneness Pentacostal", "Jesus Only", "Modalism", etc are not in the Bible either. Your argument, even if it were true, would prove too much. It would prove that A) you were being hypocritical in accusing Trinitarians of using terms not explicitly found in Scripture when you yourself employ such terms and B) it would mean that your own position was false because it employed non-scriptural terms.

3.. Because the Trinitarian concept is not scripturally nor logically true, it's leaders claim the Trinity to be a mystery, and can not be understood by our finite minds. The Bible has just the opposite to say about this principle. Scripture says that there is no excuse for not understanding the Godhead. Romans 1:20

Trinitarian theologians do not call the Trinity a mystery because it is not scriptural or logically true. Rather they call it a mystery for three simple reasons. First, because they think that it is revealed to us from God. Second, that it had to be revealed to us from God for we could never know what God was like unless God revealed Himself to us. Third, Trinitarian theologians call the Trinity a mystery because God Himself is a mystery. God Himself is inexhaustible to the human mind. This is true by virtue of God being infinite. God is not fully comprehensible by man. This is disclosed to us by Scripture itself.

Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Lastly, Romans 1:20 is not speaking of understanding God, but of rather knowing that the one true God exists with respect to the Gentiles.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 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: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom. 1:18-25)

The point is simply that the gentiles were without excuse for not knowing the one true God because God’s power and existence are made plain by the things that God has made. If everything about God were disclosed for us in natural revelation, we would have no need of special revelation. Hence you simply misunderstand the text by paying attention to the word "Godhead" while ignoring the greater context of the passage.

1.. Concepts of God 1.. The doctrine of the Trinity states the belief in One God which is three persons. The Bible tells us in John 4:24 that God is a (singular) spirit.

Trinitarians simply agree that God is ONE Spirit. We have never denied such a fact, but rather affirmed it again and again. We express this by saying that God is one being and the kind of being God is, is spirit. Your confusion arises because you seem to think that Trinitarians are tri-theists, that we believe in three gods, which we do not.

2.. According to Webster's Comprehensive Encyclopedic Dictionary, the only "person" in the Godhead is Jesus. "person - an individual human being; a man, woman, or child; bodily form, human frame, with its characteristic appearance a human being indefinitely; one; a man."

First, Webster’s dictionary is hardly an adequate source for understanding how precise theological terms are used. First, Wesbter’s dictionary has a history of bias against Christianity since Webster himself was a Christian Scientist and follower of Mary Baker Eddy. Secondly, terms such as "person" are derived from Greek usage, not from English since English wasn’t even in existence as a language when the terms were being employed. So, one should check a reference work that is sufficient to deal with the etymology of the words in question in the specific field in question, namely theology. Thirdly, your definition would not be adequate to apply to human beings, for human beings can exist apart from their bodies. Your definition only covers humans as they exist in their embodied form and not after death. Fourthly, your definition is not sufficient to cover other beings that are persons but that have no body whatsoever. Angels for example have no physical body whatsoever and yet they are persons. The same could be said for demons. These beings are spirits and yet are sentient or self-aware, have a will, make choices, think, etc. Fifthly, the Greek word for person employed has been "hypostasis." This word is found in Biblical usage in Hebrews 1:3 which reads "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (KJV) The word in ancient usage could be used to denote nature or person. This is why there is a difference between the NIV and KJV in translation at this point. Either translation supports a Trinitarian understanding, because it is true in both cases that Jesus is the express image of the Father’s Person and the express image of the Father’s nature. But suffice it to say that the word person can be legitimately used to speak of God. A person is any object (physical or spiritual) that is sentient. And finally, even Oneness apologists such as Robert Sabin on their web page state that God is a "person." For example he states the following, "Hebrews 1:3 tells us Jesus Christ is the express image [NIV states "exact representation] of his [God's] person. God is a person, an individual, an identity, a unique being." Citation given

3.. I Timothy 1:17.

Since there is no argument given after this verse I am not exactly sure what you think it is supposed to prove against the Trinitarian position. I am assuming that you think that since it denotes properties of God (invisibility, etc) that these are incompatible with the definition of person that you gave above. I agree, they are incompatible with the definition of the word person that you gave above, but as I showed your definition is wrong or in any case is not the definition employed by Trinitarians. At the very least you have created a strawman argument.

4.. Colossians 1:15 tells us that God is invisible. How can a person be invisible?

Simple. When Jesus recites the commandment to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, are three out of the four visible? When was the last time you saw a mind or your own soul? The soul or spirit is not generally perceptible. Secondly, when you meet someone, you never see their person, you see their body and their bodily behavior and you infer from that behavior that they are a person. But you never see their soul or person. The same could be said for Angels or when a person dies, you don’t see their soul leaving their body. All the microscopes in the world will not allow you to see such a thing, because it is not quantifiable in the first place.

5.. In order for the Trinitarians to believe I John 5:7, it would be imperative that the word "persons" be implied, or else they would have to say this scripture is not in the original manuscripts. The real truth is: God is father in creation, son in redemption, and Holy Ghost in regeneration.

First, 1 Jn. 5:7 does not explicitly mention the Son, but the Word or Logos. So there is an inference there on your part since you infer that it is speaking of the Son. Hence you imply a meaning as well. It is true that Trinitarians think that the concept behind those three terms (Father, Word, Spirit) is that of hypostasis or person, but that is only because of what we believe has been revealed about them in other Scriptures as well. Second, what you need to show is that such an inference is unjustified rather than it is being made at all. The real truth is that all three Persons of God participate in perfect love in all three acts of salvation history, creation, redemption and glorification.

1.. Separate and Distinct 1.. Jeremiah 23:24 gives us the principle that God is omnipresent. How could something omnipresent be a person? A person has limitations.

It is true that a human person has special limitations are regards to his body. It is also true that a human person’s soul has some form of limitation, though not spacial. For example, if you were to loose your arm in an accident, you would not loose part of your soul, would you? Obviously not, since your soul is not located or extended in space. The problem here though is that you limit the definition of person to human agents, which as I have shown above is flawed. Hence, omnipresence is perfectly compatible with the idea that God is personal, namely that He is self aware or sentient and intelligent. If you would like to argue that God is not self-aware and intelligent, then that is another matter entirely.

2.. Also in I Kings 8:27, the principle of God's omnipresence is stated. How could something omnipresent still be separate and distinct?

Well, as I stated earlier, the three persons of the Trinity are inseperable, though distinct from each other. Secondly, since God is not a spacial being He is not confined, limited, bounded, or circumscribed by spacial limitations by the very fact of Him being a Spirit. The three persons of the Trinity "interpenetrate" each other and are never separated. This is made known in the doctrine of empirichoresis. Turretin and Aquinas have nice explanations of this doctrine that might assist you in properly understanding the true doctrine. Turretin writes,

"But that it was not used without reason to describe the intimate mutual union of the persons can be inferred not obscurely from Scripture itself when ‘the Son is said to be in the Father, and the Father in the Son’ (Jn. 10:38, 14:11) They [the Church Fathers] thought this mystery could not be better expressed than by the phrase enallelon emperichoesin (i.e. mutual intertwining or inexistence and immanence), so as to designate thus that union by which the divine persons embrace each other and permeate (if it is right to say so) each other. So that although always remaining distinct, yet they are never separated from each other, but always coexist; wherever one is, there the other also really is." (Turretin, Institutes of Ecclenctic Theology, Vol. 1, p.257)

And Aquinas writes,

"I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God." It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost." (Summa Theologica, First part, Question 42, Article 5 Citation given

3.. Matthew 3:17 "---in whom---"

Yes, it is quite true that the phrase "in whom" occurs in the text, but you seem to ignore the object of that locative phrase, which is the pleasure of the Father. The Father’s pleasure is in or on the Son. But even if you reject a such a simple exegesis of the passage, Trinitarians do not reject the idea that the three persons of God exist together.

4.. Colossians 1:19 "---in him---"

The same could be said here as well.

5.. Colossians 2:9 "---in him---"

All the fullness of deity dwells in Christ. Trinitarians agree. We understand this to simply mean that Jesus did not have only some of the qualities of deity, but rather that He possessed all of the qualities of deity. Hence Jesus is fully God with respect to quality. The term "Godhead" found in the KJV simply means deity or the qualities thereof.

6.. II Corinthians 5:19 "---God was in Christ---" These verses of scripture all contain the phrases in which location is implied. Each scripture is in the locative case which indicates position and locality, (essentials of New Testament Greek, Page 31). How could God the Father be in God the Son, and yet be separate and distinct?

First, though the tense is locative, it should be remembered that language about God is analogical. God in his being does not literally have eyes, feet, etc. Secondly, I have already explained, first that the Persons of the Trinity are not "separate" but distinct. I have also explained how the three persons interpenetrate each other. The persons are distinguished by specific personal or hypostatic properties. For example, the Father is Unbegotten, the Son is Begotten, the Spirit is Proceeding. These properties are relative to each of the divine persons. This is how they can be distinct and yet have a common nature or being.

7.. John 14:10-11. How can Jesus be in the Father and the Father be in him, and still remain separate and distinct?

This seems to be a problem verse for OP’s. For if the term "the son" refers to the human body of Jesus only, then how can the son be IN the Father? If Jesus is a distinct divine person from the Father, and the entity person is not a physical object I do not see any problem. Perhaps you can draw out exactly where you think the contradiction lies.

8.. The Trinitarian concept connotates either three Gods or three 1/3 Gods to be congruent with their separate and distinct clause. Since they deny both, they claim it to be a mystery.

The Trinitarian concept does not give any such connotation. The problem is that you have misrepresented the Trinitarian view and on top of that put upon it a materialistic concept of God. As if a spirit could be divided or quantified! That is the whole point of Trinitarianism, God is indivisible and yet He is diverse. The one substance or nature cannot be divided and hence Trinitarianism precludes the possibility of three Gods or God being parceled out into three quantities. God’s nature is not divisible. This is why the Athanasian Creed reads in part as follows,

Now the Catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Deity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity."

That there are not three Lords, etc. is true because Lordship and the other properties given above are properties of the one being or nature of which all three persons share or participate in. You have simply not understood classic Trinitarian theology at its most fundamental level.

9.. How can there be three persons in the Godhead, separate and distinct, existing everywhere at the same time? If they all exist everywhere, and they are equal in nature and attributes, how can they remain separate and distinct?

This question is easily addressed by the answer to the question of how one person can be omnipresent. Omnipresence is better understood as God being present at each instance of time/space or rather than each instant of time/space is before God. Omnipresence presents no problem for a non-physical view of personality. Your second question seems to want to ask, how the three persons are distinguished. This I have already addressed above, namely by specific properties of Unbegotten, Begotten and Procession or Ingeneration, Filation and Spiration. These are properties of each of the persons and their interelations with each other.

10.. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). And Ephesians 4:4 tells us that there is one spirit. How can three distinct persons who are all God, keep from being three spirits?

How can God create man from dirt? How can God create the universe in one big bang? Heck if I know. God is a unique being and HOW He can be one Spirit or one Being and yet be three persons I do not have the slightest clue. The question is not so much HOW God can be this way or that way, but rather is such a conception Scriptural, historical and reasonable? You have yet to show that it isn’t any of the three. God is one indivisible Spirit who is three persons. God is unlike any creature or any other being in that other sentient beings are one being and one person. God is simply unique and there is no earthly analogy sufficient to express His uniqueness.

11.. John 14:9 states, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"

This is quite true, because the Son reveals the Father because the Son is the express image of the Father’s person. (Heb. 1:3) Please note that Jesus does not say here that He is the Father. No where does Jesus make such a claim. This verse is perfectly compatible with a Trinitarian understanding of the Incarnation.

12.. John 12:45: "And he that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me".

Ibid.

1.. Co-eternal 1.. The Doctrine of the Trinity declares that the Son of God is an "eternal" second person of the Trinity. If this be true, why did the Son of God have a beginning? (Hebrews 1:5-6, Psalm 2:7)

Neither Hebrews 1 nor Psalm 2 say that the Son had a beginning. You seem to infer this to be the case from the term "begotten." The term can be used to refer to the creation of something, such as a human child or the offspring of an animal. But that is not its only usage in the ancient world nor in the Biblical text, as I shall attempt to show. Verse 5 of Hebrews chapter 1 does not refer to the creation of the Son. The reason for this can be seen in the other places that this phrase is quoted. Acts 13:33 cites the passage as well and applies it to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven.

"But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David."

If you wish to argue that the text cited from Psalm 2 means creation, was Jesus created at his resurrection? Obviously this would be absurd. Hebrews 1:5 does not say when or in what context this verse is applied to Jesus. But Acts 13 does via the apostle Paul gives us a context for the right application of this verse, and it is to Christ’s resurrection and ascension. This exegesis is confirmed by a number of scholarly sources.

"Like several other messianic texts, Psalm 2 originally celebrated the promise to the Davidic line in 2 Samuel 7; the ‘begetting’ referred to the royal coronation-in Jesus’ case, his exaltation (cf. Similarly Acts 13:33)." (Craig S. Keener, Ed., Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, IVP, 1993, p. 652)

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states,

"But Israel had refashioned the idea in the light of its belief in Yaweh. The Egyptians had the mythological idea that Pharaoh was the physical son of the God Amun. The OT idea comes nearer to the Mesopotamian ritual in which the king who has been installed by the gods is a chosen servant. But the sonship of the Israelite king rests neither upon physical begetting nor upon the thought that through the act of enthronement the king somehow physically entered the sphere of the divine…Ps. 2:7 is quoted by Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Significantly the passages in Heb. relate it to Ps. 110 and 2 Sam. 7:14. Jesus Christ is seen as the true Son and God’s King. He has fulfilled what the Israelite kings left unfulfilled. For as the crucified and risen One, he has assumed the office of the Lord’s anointed as the truly anointed One. Strikingly, the NT does not apply Ps 2:7 to the birth narratives of Jesus. Wherever Ps. 2 is quoted in the NT, a physical, sexual begetting is utterly precluded. Acts 13:33 applies the words ‘this day have I begotten thee’ to the resurrection of Jesus." (Colin Brown, Ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol.1, Zondervan Pub. House 1986. Pp. 177-179-See also Vol. 3 p. 1113)

F.F. Bruce in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews writes,

"What did our author understand by the phrase ‘this day’ in this quotation? IN view of the emphasis laid throughout the epistle on the occasion of Christ’s exaltation and enthronement, it is probable that he thought of this occasion as the day when He was vested with His royal dignity as Son of God. It is certainly to this occasion that our author refers the divine acclamation of Christ as high priest in Ps.110:4, and the collocation of that acclamation with the present one in Ch. 5:5f. suggests strongly that both are associated with the same occasion. The eternity of Christ’s divine Sonship is not brought into question by this view; the suggestion rather is that He who was the Son of God from everlasting entered into the full exercise of all the prerogatives implied by His Sonship when, after His suffering had proved the completeness of His obedience, He was raised to the Father’s right hand." (Bruce, F.F., The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICONT, Eerdmans Pub.1988. p.13)

Bruce even cites a Jewish pre-Christian exposition of Psalm to buttress the above interpretation. He cites as follows in footnote 63 of the above referenced work,

"We might also compare the comment on Ps. 2:7 in Midrash Tehillim(so also Midrash Samuel, Ch. 19, with the readings of Yalqut Shim‘oni ii. 620): ‘Rabbi Huna says in the name of Rabbi Acha: The sufferings are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for King Messiah, as it is written, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions…’ And when the hour comes, the Holy one-blessed be He!-says to them, I must create him a new creation, as it is said, ‘This day have I begotten thee.’ [Bruce] The implication here seems to be that Ps. 2:7 refers to the time when Messiah, after suffering and death, is brought back to realm of the living."

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament gives a similar understanding for the usages of begotten in the relevant passages,

"In Connection with the OT and Judaism, one may notice the usage of Ps. 2:7 in the NT with messianic meaning. Thus in Acts 13:33, the accented ‘today’ refers to the immortal life of the resurrection (cf. Heb 1:5;5:5, where the time reference remains open). In luke 1:35, the begetting of the Son of God by the Spirit is, on the basis of this interpretation of Ps 2:7, regarded as the beginning of the new aeon." Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Ed., The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans 1978-80, Vol 1. p. 243)

Hence Hebrews 1:5 and Psalms 3:7 do not show that Jesus was created but rather refer to the bringing forth of the Son in glory and honor after he had accomplished His tasks. Lastly, Hebrews 1:10-12 apply OT scriptures speaking of God directly to the Son.

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (Taken from Ps. 102:26-27)

How could creation be attributed to an act by the Son if the Son did not exist? Secondly, how could the Son be said to be eternal if the Son was a mere idea in the mind of God?

2.. The term "eternally begotten son" is frequently used by Trinitarians. The phrase completely contradicts itself, since "begotten" means to have a beginning of days. Beget - (begotten) "It is used of God making Christ author of the divine nature which He possesses." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 113)

The term begotten, gennaw (gennao in Greek) can be used of physical pro-creation in Scripture, But the term has other uses as well. It can mean to bring forth as it does in Acts 13:33. It can also be used metaphorically as it is employed in Deut. 32:18, Is. 1:2, Ezek 16:20 and 23:37. It can also be used to describe the ascension of the king to the throne as it is used in Ps. 2:7 and 109:3. If the Bible can use the term in more than one way, why are Trinitarians limited to a standard other than the Bible that you set up? Second, when Trinitarians employ the term "eternally begotten" they are using the term begotten in an analogical or metaphorical way. This being obvious, one would not think to understand the usage of the term in that context as meaning literal sexual procreation. To do so is simply not to understand how to employ language.

As to your quotation of Thayer, you would do well to quote accurately, as you have misquoted Thayer. The passage from Thayer that you attempted to cite reads as follows,

"c. after Ps. Ii. 7, it is used of God making Christ his son; a formally to show him to be the Messiah (uion tou qeou) , viz. By the resurrection: Acts xiii. 33. b. To be the author of the divine nature which he possess [ but cf. The Comm. on the pass. That follow]:Heb. 1.5; v. 5." (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p.113)

Hence you omitted pertinent information that would not allow you to interpret the word in the way that you do. Now, I do not know if you did this intentionally or if you merely copied from someone else, but the fact remains, this is dishonest to say the least. Thayer clearly indicates that gennao refers to the action of bringing forth or making known Christ as the Son via the resurrection and not the creation of the Son by the Father.

3.. John 3:16 - "---gave his only begotten son---" (beget - to bring into being). This scripture proves to us that until Bethlehem, there was no Son of God.

As I have shown before, the term beget is not limited to carnal uses. If you wish to argue that it is so, then this verse would be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that God has sexual intercourse to produce Jesus, since that is the literal meaning of the term. On the contrary there are a number of passages that indicate that the Son pre-existed prior to the incarnation. For example,

Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Now, who came out of Bethlehem as you referenced previously? The Son did, and what does Micah say regarding the origin of the Son? That His duration is everlasting. The most explicit New Testament example is in John’s Gospel when he writes,

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Please note, Jesus distinguishes his own person from that of the Father by saying "glorify THOU ME WITH thine OWN SELF…" This makes it obvious that two persons are being referred to here and not one. Notice the distinction made between "me" and "thou". These are terms of persons, not natures, since nature’s don’t talk and are not persons. Secondly, Jesus makes it clear that He had glory with the Father "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS." No clearer statement could be asked for than this from Scripture. It is so obvious and clear that Jesus existed with the Father, shared His glory and all of this prior to the creation of the world.

Lastly, your citation of John 3:16 ignores the very next verse, which reads as follows,

John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

The Father sent the Son into the world. How is it that the Father sent someone INTO the world if that person only existed in the world? The text clearly requires the reader to think that the Son pre-existed and was sent from where the Father is, into the world.

4.. Galatians 4:4 - "---God sent forth his son, made of a woman---" This scripture very plainly tells us that the Son of God was not eternal - He was made of a woman. Trinitarians may say that the "sent forth" in the scripture indicates eternality. If that be true, how about John the Baptist? (John 1:16)

If we were to take this insane reading of Gal. 4.4 we would also be required to think that Jesus was made by Mary under the guidance of the Law since the next phrase of the verse reads, "made under the Law." Another absurd consequence of this reading would be the idea that God made the Holy Spirit, for the exact same verb for "sent forth" appears in reference to the Spirit in Gal. 4:6 when Paul says "…God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." Secondly, the Greek word for "made" is also rendered as "born of" as is made obvious by other translations. For example,

NIV But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

NASB But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

RSV But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law

Thirdly this passage should be compared with Paul’s usage of the same word in Romans 1:3.

"concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,"

Notice that Paul refers to Jesus lineage as according to the flesh. Paul does not here exclude the idea that Jesus, the Son, pre-existed. So too, there is no reason to think that when Paul employs the very same term in Gal. that he means to say that Jesus was created by a woman.

With regards to John the Baptist, the reference in Jn 1:16 reads as follows,

"And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace"

Uhm, where does this speak of John the Baptist being sent forth? Secondly, even if the passage did, it would not make a difference since the usage of a phrase determines it’s meaning. God could speak of sending forth an angel and sending forth a prophet, but obviously he does not do these things in the same way.

5.. John 1:1 - Trinitarians use this "word" as being a person dwelling before Bethlehem. The actual translation literally means - thought, word or concept. So the "person of Jesus" was only a thought until it embodied flesh at Bethlehem. (John 1:14)

Word - LOGOS - "a word not yet in grammatical sense, a word uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of N. T.)

The occurrence of the term Logos or Word in John 1 is hardly reducible to this bare meaning that you give. Jesus is spoken of using many words, such as bread, light, etc. It would be quite foolish for anyone reading the text to view Christ as a mere loaf or mere a flame. Secondly, the term logos has a long and rich usage in both Greek an Hebrew culture. Thirdly, you have misquoted Thayer’s lexicon once again. I will support each of these three contentions beginging with the last.

First the section you cited from Thayer does not even list John 1 as being applicable to the usage in question. Thayer specifically labels the section "As respects SPEECH." This means how the term is used with respect to language. Thayer does list a whole host of examples for the meaning that you cited but they have nothing to do with the meaning of the term as it appears in John 1. I shall list them below,

Hebrews 12:19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

Matthew 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Matthew 8:8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Luke 7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.

Thayer cites a number of other examples. You simply quoted from section I. while ignoring the fact that Thayer does not even address the usage of Logos until section III, which is almost two full pages later! Regarding the use of Logos in John 1, Thayer makes the following comments,

"In several passages in the writings of John of logos denotes the essential Word of God, i.e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conscpiuously from his words and deeds: Jn. i. 1, 14." (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, pp. 381-382)

The term logos in Hebrew and Greek culture had a rich usage. In Greek culture the meaning referred to the principle of order in the cosmos as the Stoic’s philosophers thought. It also referred to the wisdom by which the divine craftsman constructed the world in Plato’s thought. In Hebrew thought the term specifically referred to the personal wisdom of God. This is displayed in a number of Jewish texts.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him" (Prov. 8:22-30)

"Then the Creator of all things game me a commandment, and the one who possessed me assigned a place for my tent. And he said, ‘Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.’ >From eternity, in the beginning, he possessed me and for eternity I shall not cease to exist. In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him and so I was established in Zion. In the beloved city likewise he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my dominion. So I took root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, who is there inheritance." (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-12)

This doesn’t sound like an impersonal "word" to me, nor did it sound that way to the Jews and early Christians. The early Christians used these passages as proof of Jesus’s deity and messiahship. For example, Justin Martyr in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew argues in the following way,

Chapter LXI-Wisdom is Begotten of the Father, as Fire from Fire.

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: `If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.'

Chapter LXII.-The Words "Let Us Make Man" Agree with the Testimony of Proverbs.

"And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out, that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: `Let Us make man after our image and likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth. And God created man: after the image of God did He create him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have power over it.' And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert,-either that God said to Himself, `Let Us make, 'just as we, when about to do something, oftentimes say to ourselves, `Let us make; 'or that God spoke to the elements, to wit, the earth and other similar substances of which we believe man was formed, `Let Us make, '-I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. These are the words: `And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.' In saying, therefore, `as one of us, '[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this: `And it came to pass, when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, and said, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord's host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what commandest Thou Thy servant? And the Lord's Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Joshua, Behold, I give into thine hand Jericho, and its king, [and] its mighty men.' "

1.. Co- Equal 1.. If three persons are equal in the Godhead, how can the Father have the authority to send the Son? (Galatians 4:4) OR-

The equality of the persons refers to them all equally being divine or deity. It does not mean that there is not a differentiation of authority between the three persons. The Father is the source of the other two persons, as the Son and the Spirit have their origin in the Father. The Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox scholar Vladimir Lossky explains this point in detail,

"If personal diversity in God presents itself as a primordial fact, not to be deduced from any other principle or based on any other idea, that does not mean that the essential identity of the Three is ontologically posterior to their hypostastic diversity. Orthodox triadology is no a counter-blast to Filioquism; it does not run to the other extreme. As we have already said, relations of origin signify the personal diversity of the Three, but they indicate no less their essential identity. In that the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from the Father, we venerate three Persons; in that they are one with Him, we confess their consubstantiality. Thus the monarchy of the Father maintains the perfect equalibrium between nature and the persons, without coming down too heavily on either side. There is neither an impersonal substance nor non-consubstantial persons. The one nature and three hypostases are presented simultaneously to our understanding, with neither prior to the other. The origin of the hypostases is not impersonal, since it is referred to the person of the Father; but it is unthinkable apart from their common possession of the same essence, the ‘divinity in division undivided.’ Otherwise we should have Three Divine Individuals, Three Gods bound together by an abstract idea of Godhead. On the other hand, since consubstantiality is the non-hypostatic identity of the Three, in that they have (or rather are) a common essence, the unity of the three hypostases is inconceivable apart from the monarchy of the Father, who is the principle of the common possession of the simple essence, differentiated by relationships.

…The Father is called the cause of the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or even the ‘Godhead-source.’ Sometimes He is designated simply as ‘God’ with the definite article ο θεος or even as autoqeoς. It is worthwhile to recall here what we have said before about the negative apporach characteristic of Orthodox thought-an apporach which radically changes the value of philosophical terms applied to God. Not only theimage of ‘cause,’ but also such terms as ‘production,’ ‘procession,’ and ‘origin’ ought to be seen as inadequate expressions of a reality which is foreign to all becoming, to all process, to all beginning. Just as relations of origin mean something different from relations of opposition, so causality is nothing but a somewhat defective image, which tries to express personal unity which determines the origins of the Son and the Holy Spirit. This unique cause is not prior to its effects, for in the Trinity there is no priority and posteriority. He is not superior to his effects, for the perfect cause cannot produce inferior effects. He is this the cause of their equality with himself. The causality ascribed to the person of the Father, who eternally begets the Son and eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, expresses the same idea as the monarchy of the Father: that the Father is the personal principle of unity of the Three, the source of their common procession of the same content, of the same essence.

The expression ‘Godhead-source’ and ‘source of the Godhead’ do not mean that the divine essence is subject to the person of the Father, but only that the person of the Father is the basis of the common possession of the same essence, because the person of the Father, not being the sole person of he Godhead, is not to be identified with the essence. In a certain sense it can be said the Father is this possession of the divine essence in common with the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that he would not be a divine Person if he were only a monad: he would then be identified with the divine Essence. Here it may be useful to recall that St. Cyril of Alexandria regarded the name ‘Father’ as superior to the name ‘God,’ because the name ‘God’ is given to God in respect to his relations with beings of a different nature.

If the Father is sometimes called simply God-΄ο qeoς or even autoqeoς- nevertheless we cannot find in orthodox writers expressions which treat consubstantiality as participation by the Son and the Holy Spirit in the essence of the Father. Each Person is God by nature, not by participation in the nature of another. The Father is the cause of the other hypostases in that He is not His essence, i.e. in that He does not have His essence for Himself alone. What the image of causality wishees to express is the idea that the Father, being not merely an essence but a person, is by that very fact the cause of the other consubstantial Persons, who have the same essence as He has." (Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985, pp. 80-83)

2.. How could the Father have the authority to send the Holy Ghost? Doesn't the ability to send someone else, lift the sender into a higher category?

Actually scripture says that the Spirit is sent by the Son but proceeds from the Father.

John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me

My question is in your Christology, how could a mere man send God? The Father sending the Spirit only means as Lossky explained above that the Father is the origin of the persons. Secondly, even if it did put the Father into a higher category, it would be a category that was hypostatic, that is related to the properties of His person, not His essence.

3.. How could the "Son of God" pray in the garden to the Father without less deifying himself?

This is a very unclear and oddly phrased objection. What I think you are asking is, how could the Son pray to the Father without denigrating His divinity? This is simple, because the relations between the persons are primarily through love. The humility of love does not negate the honor of being divine, rather it exemplifies it. Secondly, it would be quite proper for the divine person of the Son in his capacity as the Second Adam to pray to the Father and show the homage that is due to God.

4.. If all three in the Godhead are equal in knowledge, how come the Father knows something that the Son doesn't know? (Mark 13:32)

This problem is raised because OP’s simply do not understand the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. The doctrine of the incarnation is that a divine person took upon himself a human body and a human soul. This occurs without a mixture or division between the natures taking place. It also means that the natures are not persons. Specifically there is only ONE person of Christ, namely the Son. Hence the incarnation is the Son becoming flesh. Jesus does not switch back and forth between speaking between this nature and then the other, because this would never explain how the two natures are united and hence how salvation was procured. Nor would it explain what was doing the "switching." On the other hand Jesus, the divine Person can speak through and from the various capacities of each nature, since the properties of each nature are attributed to the one divine person. Hence Christ from the knowledge that was infused to his human soul can make statements. Christ’s human soul being finite can only accommodate so much of the knowledge of the divine person. Hence this is why Christ can be said to know everything with respect to Him being the divine Person, and yet not to know some things with respect to the amount and kind of knowledge that His human soul is capable of bearing. This is why Luke speaks of Christ growing in knowledge. On this point Thomas Aquinas has a nice exposition,

I answer that, As was said above (9, 1), it was fitting that the soul of Christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its powers reduced to act. Now it must be borne in mind that in the human soul, as in every creature, there is a double passive power: one in comparison with a natural agent; the other in comparison with the first agent, which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a natural agent can reduce it, and this is usually called the obediential power of a creature. Now both powers of Christ's soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge. And hence, by it the soul of Christ knew: First, whatever can be known by force of a man's active intellect, e.g. whatever pertains to human sciences; secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made known to man by Divine revelation, whether they belong to the gift of wisdom or the gift of prophecy, or any other gift of the Holy Ghost; since the soul of Christ knew these things more fully and completely than others. Yet He did not know the Essence of God by this knowledge, but by the first alone, of which we spoke above (10). (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 11, Article 1.)

"I answer that, There is a twofold advancement in knowledge: one in essence, inasmuch as the habit of knowledge is increased; the other in effect--e.g. if someone were with one and the same habit of knowledge to prove to someone else some minor truths at first, and afterwards greater and more subtle conclusions. Now in this second way it is plain that Christ advanced in knowledge and grace, even as in age, since as His age increased He wrought greater deeds, and showed greater knowledge and grace.

But as regards the habit of knowledge, it is plain that His habit of infused knowledge did not increase, since from the beginning He had perfect infused knowledge of all things; and still less could His beatific knowledge increase; while in I, 14, 15, we have already said that His Divine knowledge could not increase. Therefore, if in the soul of Christ there was no habit of acquired knowledge, beyond the habit of infused knowledge, as appears to some [Blessed Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and sometime appeared to me (Sent. iii, D, xiv), no knowledge in Christ increased in essence, but merely by experience, i.e. by comparing the infused intelligible species with phantasms. And in this way they maintain that Christ's knowledge grew in experience, e.g. by comparing the infused intelligible species with what He received through the senses for the first time. But because it seems unfitting that any natural intelligible action should be wanting to Christ, and because to extract intelligible species from phantasms is a natural action of man's active intellect, it seems becoming to place even this action in Christ. And it follows from this that in the soul of Christ there was a habit of knowledge which could increase by this abstraction of species; inasmuch as the active intellect, after abstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms, could abstract others, and others again.

Reply to Objection 1. Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ's soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power, which could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. that He increased in "knowledge and age" together." (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 12, Article 2)

"On the contrary, Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But Christ came to take away our ignorance; for "He came to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk. 1:79). Therefore there was no ignorance in Christ.

I answer that, As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ, so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain from what has been said above (7, 9; 9). Now as the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ excluded the "fomes" of sin, so the fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, which is opposed to knowledge. Hence, even as the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, neither was there ignorance in Him.

Reply to Objection 1. The nature assumed by Christ may be viewed in two ways. First, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it "ignorant and enslaved"; hence he adds: "For man's nature is a slave of Him" (i.e. God) "Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future things." Secondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from its union with the Divine hypostasis, from which it has the fulness of knowledge and grace, according to John 1:14: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"; and in this way the human nature in Christ was not affected with ignorance." (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 15, Article 3)

5.. If all power was given to Jesus (Son) in Matthew 28:18, then this means the other two were left powerless.

If divine power is a property of the one essence and the one essence cannot be divided and all three persons possess the one essence, then it follows that what one of the Persons possesses, all the persons possess. Secondly, the power that was given to Christ was given to Him by virtue of his Messianic office in triumph over death, not by virtue of his deity, by which He already possessed all power.

6.. Revelation 1:8 - Jesus again stated he was the "Almighty" Of course, this again left the other two with no power.

No, because omnipotence as stated before is a property of the one essence or divine being, which the three Persons are. Since God is indivisible, and omnipotence is a property of deity, and all three persons are the deity, then what one of them possesses by virtue of being deity, they all possess. Hence Christ being Almighty does not take away from the Father or the Spirit being Almighty, andn yet there are not three Almighties, but one.

7.. If all three in the Godhead are equal, then why did Jesus say "my Father is greater than I"? (John 14:28)

The equality referred to once again is an equality of essence, not an equality of hypostatic relation. The Father is unbeggotten, and the Son is begotten. These are properties of the persons specifically and not of the nature of which they each possess. Hence the Father as the source of the other divine persons is greater than the Son and the Spirit. But notice Jesus does not say that the Father is "better than I," for that would imply a difference of quality of nature. My employer can be in a greater position than me, but that does not make him something qualitatively different or better than me as relates to possessing a human nature. Hence this verse in no way negates the belief in the Trinity. The problem with the Oneness position at this point is to explain who the "I" is speaking? is the "I" speaking the Father or a human person? If the former, then this verse makes no sense. If the latter, then is Jesus two persons?

8.. Romans 5:10 - This scripture tells us that the Son of God died. If indeed the second person in the Godhead died, then he CANNOT be equal in power, nor can he be eternal.

This objection presupposes a non-Christian view of death. The objection assumes that death means annihilation of the subject under consideration. Humans die, but that does not mean that they are annihilated. The human soul survives death. Now, the divine person Jesus has a human soul and a divine nature that is impervious to death. Hence Jesus can still be a divine person and survive death. What Trinitarians mean when we say that God died is that the second Person of the Trinity, the divine Person experienced the sufferings of death on our behalf. If the OP’s wishes to argue that God cannot experience human death on our behalf, then they are left with asserting that only a man died for the salvation of the world. How is the death of one mere mortal man sufficient to atone for the offenses of all of humanity? In denying that the Son is God and that God experienced death on our behalf the OP destroys the atonement and hence makes salvation impossible.

34. John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This verse hardly counts against the Trinitarian understanding since the Trinitarian understanding is that the divine Persons do nothing without the others. Hence all three persons act together in creation, salvation and glorification. Secondly, the Trinitarian view argues that the Father is the source of the other two hypostases or persons. This does not negate the fact that the other two persons exist or that the Son is indeed deity. What is interesting here is that you have ignored v. 18 and v. 23.

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

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

In the case of v. 18 how does the OP explain how the Son, a mere man in their view, is equal with the Father? In the case of v. 23 how does the OP explain the equality of honor given to the Father and the Son if the Father is deity and the Son is a mere human being in whom the Father indwells? If the Father is honored by worship, does this mean that a mere man is honored with worship as well? How is this not idolatry? These verses only make sense if the Son is equal in deity with the Father and is a distinct person.

9.. John 5:30 I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Again this hardly counts against the Trinitarian viewpoint since the Son has his hypostatic source or origin in the Father. No where does this verse deny that the Son is the same deity as the Father. Rather it affirms the unity of essence between the Father and the Son. What is a difficulty here for the OP is how to explain how a mere man, the Son, passess a judgement which only God can give?

1.. Contradictions 1.. Who was Jesus' father? Matthew 1:18 tells us that the Holy Ghost was His father, yet in John 1:14 we find that the "Father" was the father of Jesus.

I will quote here from Turretin’s treatment and then from Aquinas on the matter.

"And hence we can readily answer the question asked here by Socinians-Can the Holy Spirit be rightly called the father of Christ since he is said to have been conceived from him? For since the title of father requires generation from the substance of the generator(and the generation of a nature similar to its own) and neither occurs here, it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ. Besides, Christ is called ‘without father’ (apator, Heb 7:3) in respect of his humanity; and God is called Father-his Father alone and that peculiarly (Jn. 1:18; 5:17). A father does not proceed from, nor is he sent and given by the son, as the spirit is said to proceed from, to be sent and given by Christ. Now it is one thing to form by his own power something from matter assumed from some other source; another to generate from his own substance. The Holy Spirit did the former, but not the latter (which belongs to a father).

With no better success do the Socinians maintain (in order to destroy the divinity of Christ) that he is only called the Son of God on account of his extraordinary conception by the Holy Spirit. (1) As has been proved, he was the Son of God already before his conception by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:1, 2, Ps. 2:7, Prov. 8:24) and on account of this very thing the believers of the Old Testament were actually sons and heirs. (2) He is called the Son of God according to the divine nature, opposed to the human (Rom. 1:3, 4, 9:5, 1 Pet. 3:8). (3) As he is called the Son of man because he is begotten from man of the race of Adam, so he ought to be called the Son of God, not because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in respect of his humanity, but because he was begotten of God in respect of his divinity. Otherwise the perpetual and immediate antithesis which occurs between the two names could not stand.

Nor can this be evinced from Luke 1:35, ‘The Holy Ghost shall com upon thee’ dio kai ‘therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ The particles dio and kai are not marks of a consequent, as if he is the Son of God because he is begotten of the Holy Ghost. For before he was conceived, he is said to have already been and subsisted (Jn. 1:2; Phil 2:6). Rather they are marks of a consequence, in respect of manifestation because of his eternal filiation was declared a posteriori. Here pertain the followsing arguments: (1) it is not said ‘he will be’ (estai), but ‘he shall be called’ (klethesetai)(i.e., manifested and acknowledged to be the only begotten Son of God[Jn. 1:18], as in John 1:14 "We beheld his glory, as of the only begotten’). (2) It is not expressed in the masculine gender (ho gennomenos) but in the neuter (to gennomenon) to indicate not that the man who shall be born shall be called ‘the Soon of God,’ but thus separately shall something essential in Christ be called (namely, his divine nature or person). This is well denoted by the neuter gender as a subsistence (hyphistamenon).

If believers are called Sons of God on account of the grace of regeneration, it does not follow that Christ was distinguished by the name on account of his miraculous conception. There is one reason for believers who analogically (only on account of a participation of moral virtues) are said to be born of God; another for the only begotten Son of God, who was begotten of his essence and is said to be equal to him in all things.

Moreover that operation of the Holy Spirit on the virgin is expressed by two words in Scripture-epeleusin and episkiasin. ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee’ (epeleusetai epi se, kai dynamis hypistou episkiasei soi, Lk. 1:35), by which that wonderful and most powerful efficacy, working the mystery, is designated. By epeleusin is denoted the presence of the Holy Spirit and his action in general; not the common and ordinary exerted in the conception of all (Job 10:8; Ps. 139:15), but the extraordinary and heavenly (as the Spirit of the Lord is said to come to the help of those who are appointed to a great and extraordinary work [Jdg. 14:6]; and the Spirit came upon the apostles when he was sent from heaven in the form of tongues of fire to sanctify and prepare them for the work of the gospel [Acts 1:8]). By episkiasin is peculiarly meant the mode of that operation, which was: (1) most powerful for protection and defense (that the blessed virgin might not be consumed by the divine majesty); (2) most efficacious for fecundation that she might conceive in her womb without any help from man (as a bird is said to cover, cherish and set upon her eggs that by her heat the young may be hatched-in allusion to the creation, in which the Spirit is said to have brooded over the waters, Gen 1:2; thus this fetus(it may be said) will spring from that virtue from which the world took its beginning; (3) secret and incomprehensible, which can neither be tracked by the reason, nor expressed in words. To this there is a reference in the shadow of the cloud upon the tabernacle (Ex 40:34,35) and in the cherubim covering the ark (2 Ch. 5:8). Thus God wished to bring over a shadow,, the mark of a secret and incomprehensible energy (energeias), that we might not too curiously pry into the mode of this mystery. So the angel aptly responds to the blessed virgin, who looked upon the matter as impossible because she had not known a man. This should not seem wonderful to her, since it was not to be by human aid, but by the power of God (to whom nothing is impossible) and in a manner wholly strange (which it was becoming in her to admire, not search into).

Now there were here two principal operations of the Holy Spirit: (1) the preparation of the material; (2) the formation of the body of Christ from the material prepared. First, he should by a suitable sanctification prepare the material separated from the substance of the virgin, not only by clothing it with that power and elevating it to that activity which would suffice for generation (without the semen of a man), but also by purging it from all taint of sin that it might be without guile (akakos) and pure (amiatos) and thus Christ might be born without sin." (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Ecclenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 341-342)

And Aquinas, "On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "Christ was born of the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son."

I answer that, The words "fatherhood," "motherhood," and "sonship," result from generation; yet not from any generation, but from that of living things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it, except, perhaps, metaphorically; we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect. Nevertheless, the word "son" is not applied to everything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated into likeness of the generator. Wherefore, as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxix), we do not say that a hair which is generated in a man is his son; nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed; for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man born like the seed, but like the man who begot him. And if the likeness be perfect, the sonship is perfect, whether in God or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to God, both as regards his being created to God's image and as regards His being created unto the likeness of grace. Therefore in both ways man can be called His son, both because he is created to His image and because he is likened to Him by grace. Now, it must be observed that what is said in its perfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect sense: thus, because Socrates is said to be naturally a man, in the proper sense of "man," never is he called man in the sense in which the portrait of a man is called a man, although, perhaps, he may resemble another man. Now, Christ is the Son of God in the perfect sense of sonship. Wherefore, although in His human nature He was created and justified, He ought not to be called the Son of God, either in respect of His being created or of His being justified, but only in respect of His eternal generation, by reason of which He is the Son of the Father alone. Therefore nowise should Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor even of the whole Trinity.

Reply to Objection 1. Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied the matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this reason He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto likeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost.

Reply to Objection 2. Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called sons of God in respect of imperfect sonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows from the whole Trinity.

2.. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Acts 2:32 - The Father

John 2:19 - Jesus himself

Romans 8:11 - The Spirit (or the Holy Ghost)

The Father raised Jesus from the Dead. The Son raised himself from the dead. The Holy Spirit raised the Son from the dead. All three persons of the Trinity worked in the resurrection of Christ. The problem for the OP position is how a mere man, the Son, could raise himself from the dead?

3.. Isaiah 7:14 - Immanuel (or God ) with us, yet this scripture is prophesied of Jesus (Son).

Immanuel does not mean "the Father with us" but only "God with us." Hence since the Son is God, the prophecy is true. But there is a problem here for the OP position. If the messiah is the Son, and the Son is only a man, how can the messiah be said to be God with us, if the Father indwells the Son, a mere man in a way no different than he indwells us?

4.. The promised Messiah (the Son) was called "the everlasting Father"

I think you are referring to Is. 9:6. Actually this phrase refers to the origin of eternity. Hence Christ is the Father of eternity, the origin or source of eternity. Or the phrase can be translated in the following way as it was by a number of early Christians, "Father of the age to come." The problem for OP"s here is to explain how the Son, a mere man could be called everlasting?

5.. Whose blood was shed for the church? Matthew 26:28 tells us it was the blood of Jesus

Acts 20:28 tells us the church was purchased with His blood

Hebrews 9:14 tells us how that was done, since no spirit has blood.

Obviously since only God the Son was incarnate, it would have to be his blood. None of the verses you listed seem to count against that fact. What I am wondering is, how does the OP explain the fact that it is the blood of God that was shed on our behalf? I thought it was your position that God could not experience death? If it was not the blood of God that was shed but the blood of a mere man how do you explain how the blood of a mere man could atone for the sins of the whole world? Something else of curiosity is your ignoring of Hebrews 9:16 which states, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Who was it that made the covenant and died?

6.. Who created the world? In Isaiah 44:24 the Bible tells us that God the Father did. (I suppose God represents the Father in this passage, it does in most other passages to the Trinitarians)

John 1:10 tells us that Jesus created the world.

Jn. 1:3 says that the Word created the world. How can a mere plan or idea create the world? Secondly, since Jesus is deity, it is true that he created the world. Since all three persons are God it follows that all three persons created the world.

7.. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". (John 14:7-9)

Yes Jesus does say that but he never says "I am the Father." Jesus goes on to say in that passage that the Father is in him and He is IN the Father. If the Son is speaking there and the Son is a mere man and not God, how can a mere man be IN God in the same way that God is in a mere man? Hippolytus refutes this in the second century when he writes,

"And if, again, they choose to allege the fact that Philip inquired about the Father, saying, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," to whom the Lord made answer in these terms: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? " and if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage, as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word. For though Christ had spoken of Himself, and showed Himself among all as the Son, they had not yet recognised Him to be such, neither had they been able to apprehend or contemplate His real power. And Philip, not having been able to receive this, as far as it was possible to see it, requested to behold the Father. To whom then the Lord said, "Philip, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." By which He means, If thou hast seen me, thou mayest know the Father through me. For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who "has been set forth was sent from the Father and goeth to the Father." (Against the Heresy of Noetus, Sec. 7)

8.. John 10:30 states - "I and my Father are one."

The Church Father of the second century Hippolytus argues against the false interpretation of this passage. I will include his comments below.

"If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power" (Against the Heresy of Noetus, Sec. 7)

The verb tense is plural which denotes more than one person. Hence the text is actually a proof against the Oneness position.

G. Other reasons ---

9.. Why did Jesus say in St. John 7:39 that the Holy Ghost was not yet (given is implied for translation purposes), if the Holy Ghost is eternal? This proves that the Holy Ghost has a beginning, which was on the day of Pentecost.

If you mean to argue that the Holy Spirit did not exist until Pentacost I am wondering why in objection 35 you argue that the Holy Spirit was the Father, because Jesus was conceived by His power? How can the Holy Spirit not exist until Pentacost and yet exist at the conception of Jesus? This makes no sense whatsoever. Secondly, the term "given" is implied because the Greek text gives that meaning. No language perfectly translates into another language, let alone Koine Greek into 20th century English. The term is implied for a reason. I suggest you consult a critical text or a critical commentary on the New Testament to examine the Greek syntax at that point Thirdly the Spirit is mentioned numerous times in the OT and specifically at creation in Genesis when the Spirit of the Lord moved over the face of the waters. Hence the Holy Spirit being God has no beginning and no end.

10.. In Biblical passages, Trinitarians differ in ideas as to who "God" refers to. In some passages (at their discretion), they say "God" refers to the Father. In other passages, they say "God" refers to the total Godhead. As you see, their definition varies. So you can plainly see a great deal of inconsistencies.

Saying that Trinitarians view different persons present or manifested at different times in salvation history does not mean that they are inconsistent by doing so. What you need to show is that Trinitarians can give no argument or reason for thinking that it is the pre-incarnate Son in one text and the Father or the Spirit I another text. This you have plainly not done. OP’s though arbitrarily argue that in this spot Jesus is speaking as the Father and in this spot He is speaking as a mere man, i.e. the Son without ever giving a criteria for how they know it is one or the other. Secondly, OP’s never stop to think about WHO Jesus is, is Jesus the person of the Father or is Jesus the person of the Son? This is something they can never explain because they incorrectly ascribed personhood to natures. WHAT a thing is, is not the same as WHO a thing is. This simple distinction they fail to make and hence make Christ into two persons, human and divine. Hence their heresy of Modalism leads them into the further heresy of Nestorianism. But somehow I don’t think that this fact will bother them much.

11.. How can you believe something that you can not understand because of it's inconsistencies? Since God is a reasonable God (full of reasoning), why would He have man to trust in something unreasonable? (Isaiah 1:18)

Funny, that is my question to you. As I have shown above Trinitarianism is quite logical and reasonable and Modalism is quite irrational. Why do you believe in something that is irrational? If you reply that you thin that the Scriptures teach it, why think that your judgement of what the Scriptures mean is correct? Is it not more likely that the entire Church would be right and you would be in error? Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, not that they wouldn’t prevail against some individuals. Why then trust your own judgement above that of the Church? And if you appeal to the internal subjective experience of what you think is the Spirit moving you, many heretics claim that it is the Spirit moving them to believe whatever heresy they promote or aiding them to "properly" understand the Scripture. How is one to know which claim to subjective direction by the Spirit is true? Hence it seems that the Oneness position is quite irrational.

12.. Who really died for sins? John 3:16 - The Son of God

I John 3:16 - God the Father

1 John 3:16 does not say that the Father died for our sins. Some translations say that it was God who laid down His life for us, and some specifically refer to Jesus Christ. Either translation is acceptable since Trinitarians believe that Jesus is deity. Hence this verse is no argument against the doctrine of the Trinity. But if you think that 1st John does say that the Father died on our behalf, what happens to your previous objection that argued that God could not die? Either the Father is not God or then your objection against Trinitarianism is false. Take your pick. In either case, one of your objections is proven false. The two objections are mutually exclusive. Hence you cannot logically hold to both.

13.. The Bible states that God is love. If we indeed see the "Father" sending the Son to do the dirty work, this isn't a Godly love, but it shows a perverted type of love!!!

I would think that any self respecting and God fearing Christian would never describe the work of saving souls as "dirty work." God is certainly Love and this is perfectly born out to be true in the fact that the Father gave His only begotten Son to die and that the Son loves the Father such that He would lay down His life and suffer torment and physical death on our behalf. Secondly, how can the Oneness conception of God be compatible with the concept that God is Love since love requires more than one object, namely one who is doing the loving and one who is loved? Before creation in the Oneness view God was alone, completely alone, so how could he be eternal love? Furthermore, the Oneness position would then seem to require the unBiblical view that creation is eternal in order for God to be love. On top of this is the fact that if God is completely unified then creation becomes impossible for the following reasons. Creation along with any other act of predication requires multiple objections since the logical act of predication, of denoting or ascribing values or relations between objects presupposes the existence of multiple objects. Hence the Oneness view of God would negate the existence of logic and would make logic temporal and conventional. But if logic is conventional, then so is truth and if truth is conventional, then the truth of the Bible is relative and conventional. Hence the Oneness view of God negates the possibility of truthful revelation from God. Furthermore it negates the possibility of God creating since an act of speaking something into existence requires predication and predication requires differentiation. But if God is completely unified, then differentiation is impossible and hence creation is impossible as well. Hence the Oneness view of God is necessarily false since the Biblical view of creation and God as Love are necessarily true.

14.. In John 8:24, 26 - Jesus declared emphatically that he was the Father.

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him."

This is John 8:24-26, and nowhere does it say what you claim it says. Where does Jesus say the words "I am the Father?" No where does Jesus ever make such a statement. Furthermore, Trinitarians do not deny that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, but rather affirm it. What you fail to understand is that Trinitarian belief is not incompatible with the concept of one deity. We believe that there is only one true deity and that withIN the being or essence of the ONE deity there are three persons. Hence Jesus is the I AM, the Father is the I AM and the Spirit is the I AM and yet not three I AM’s, but one, for that is a property of the one deity of which they all share. Secondly what is problematic for the Oneness position in this passage is the fact that it is the SON speaking. If the Son is a mere man, how can a mere man claim to be the Father? Secondly, if they wish to argue that it is the Father speaking through the Son how is the last verse explain when the person speaking refers to "he that sent me?" This requires that the Person speaking is the Son and not the Father for the Father was never sent. Hence this passage is rather a proof against the OP position.

15.. St. John 5:30 - Jesus said, "I, of mine own self, do nothing"; which again shows he is not co-equal.

I have explained this at length previously but in short the Father alone is autoqeoς. That is, the Father alone is deity of Himself. The hypostases or the other divine Persons have their source eternally in the Father. This is not to say that the other divine Persons are not deity. Rather it is to say that there are properties of a personal nature that each of the divine Persons possess and by which they are distinguished. Hence this verse is again, not a proof against Trinitarianism but an affirmation of it. On a Oneness perspective this would be obvious since you believe that Jesus the Son was a mere man. Why would a mere man need to state such an obvious thing as without God he can do nothing? The verse only takes on theological significance when viewed in a Trinitarian way.

16.. Who lives inside of us? Ephesians 4:6 - God the Father

Colossians 1:27 - Christ in you, the hope of glory

John 14:17 - the Comforter

Acts 2:4 - All filled with the Holy Ghost

Romans 8:9 - Spirit of God

All three divine Persons indwell the believer since the three Persons cannot be separated but only distinguished. The problem for the Oneness position at this point is explaining how the Son, a mere man can indwell believers’ bodies? If the term "the Son" only refers to the human body of the Father, how can Christ the Son be said to indwell other physical bodies of believers? This makes absolutely no sense. Hence these passages only make sense on a Trinitarian paradigm.

17.. Isaiah 40:3 - Prophesy John 1:23, Matthew 3:3, Luke 4:6 - fulfillment of prophesy.

Since Trinitarians believe that the Son is a divine Person, that is deity or God, these passages are fulfilled in His incarnation. Hence these passages are in no way proofs against Trinitarianism.

1.. There are more that could be covered, but for the sake of time I will state no more. In looking at the previous reasons, you will find enough evidence to disprove the error of Trinitarianism, and answer all their objections as well. I hope that many of you will "buy the truth and sell it not".

In conclusion I have not found any evidence against Trinitarianism. I have found sloppy exegesis and sloppy thinking. I have found scholastic dishonesty and misquotation of sources. I have found misrepresentations and strawmen. But all of this is typical of people who have not bothered to actually study from representative sources what the opposition actually holds to and puts forth. Only those who have a simple or uniformed grasp of the Biblically revealed truth of the Trinity would be deceived by such sloppy arguments, if arguments they can be called. I would greatly encourage you or the person that wrote this to actually study some serious works on Trinitarianism and incarnational theology. I have included a bibliography for your benefit. I hope that you will take the time to read through my response thoughtfully since I took the time and trouble of reading through yours and answering everything you proposed in detail. In closing I find two simple verse that emphatically disprove the heresy of Oneness or Modalism. I have listed them below with an argument.

John 17:3 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

First in the case of John 17:5, this shows that the Son pre-existed with the Father prior to His incarnation and even prior to the creation of the world. It also shows that the Son shared the Father’s glory and even postulates that the Son if glorified by the Father. This is reflected in Hebrews 1:8ff where the Father calls the Son "God." Thirdly this passage shows that the person of the Son is distinct with that of the Father and hence the Father is not the same person as the Son. The OP cannot object that this is the mere humanity of Jesus speaking for two simple reasons. "Humanity" as a nature does not "speak" or do anything. Persons who possess natures speak, think, etc. Second, if the OP wishes to argue that it is the humanity of Jesus speaking here then he or she must hold to the idea that the humanity of Jesus existed prior to the virgin birth since the passage explicitly says "presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." These simple facts make the OP position impossible.

John 14 clearly puts forth the two persons of the Father and the Son by using the plural tense. Notice Jesus says, "WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him." Either Jesus did not know basic grammar and the difference between a singular and plural tense or this verse is a clear proof against the OP position. Jesus uses the plural tenses which denote more than ONE person. This is sufficient in and of itself to refute and make utterly insane the OP position. Again, if the OP wishes to argue that this is the humanity of Jesus speaking two simple objections decisively refute such a notion. First, "natures" do not speak, they are not persons. Hence to ascribe such properties as thinking, feeling, speaking to a nature is to commit a simple category fallacy. Second, if this is the humanity of Jesus speaking then how is the OP going to explain how and when the humanity of Jesus is going to make its abode within the believer? Lastly, the OP may wish to argue that Paul uses plural tenses of himself in such texts as 1 Cor 2:7 and 1 Cor 2:13 and obviously Paul was not more than one person. But this clearly misses the context of Paul’s comments since he is referring to the Apostles as issuing commands and directives to the Churches. Hence Paul is not using plural tenses in describing himself.

These two arguments are decisive against the OP’s Modalist position. In short the Modalist position simply denies that the Son, Jesus, is God. They affirm like most other cults that the Son is a mere man in whom the Father indwelt. The overall problem with such a view I that the Oneness view denies the possibility of revelation. Since we only know what God acts like, the way He manifests himself to us in his modes of operations or manifestations, God is never really known. And what does this turn out to be but nothing other than the Gnostic deity that is ultimately unknowable.

I pray that the True and Triune God would grant you repentance and grace to see Him as He is.

Recommended Reading

Peter Toon, Our Triune God

C. Fitzsimmons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy

Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ

Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

Vladimir Lossky, The Image and Likeness of God

Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology

I pray that the True and Triune God would grant you repentance and grace to see Him as He is.

Recommended Reading

Peter Toon, Our Triune God

C. Fitzsimmons Allison, The Cruelty of Heresy

Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ

Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

Vladimir Lossky, The Image and Likeness of God

Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology