Use of Logic To Show Oneness’ God Errors

 Answering Oneness Pentecostals: Is Jesus The Son and The Father?

David Bernard set forth the following propositions to which summarizes Jesus’ Only, theology on the relationship between the Father and the Son. He writes:

David K. Bernard

1. Jesus said that He would send the comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the comforter (John 14:26).

2. The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).

3. Jesus will raise up all believers in the last day (John 6:40), yet God the Father quickens (gives life to) the dead and will raise us up (Romans 4:17; I Corinthians 6:14).

4. Christ is our sanctifier (Ephesians 5:26), yet the Father sanctifies us (Jude 1).

We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son(David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983), 69.)

Error in Bernard’s propositions:

Does the argument stand? Is Jesus, the Father and the Son?

  1. Only F does p,
  2. S does p,
  3. Therefore S is F

Bernard’s argument is a valid form of a deductive argument, but sadly not a sound one.

Quick Explanation of Types of Arguments: Deductive and Inductive.

Pluto

A deductive argument is an argument in which the arguer claims that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true.(Conclusion follows necessarily from the premises)

An inductive argument is an argument in which the arguer claims that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true.(Conclusion follows probably from the premises)

We talk about soundness of deductive argument when it is valid and it has true premises and true conclusion.

In inductive, we talk about cogent, when the argument is strong and has true premises and true conclusion.

Examples of Valid but Unsound Arguments:

FTF TTF FFT
1. All Dogs can fly 1. Atoms are invisible by naked eyes. 1. All Dogs can fly
2. Pluto is a dog 2. A bridge is made of atoms 2. Donald Duck is a dog
3. Therefore Pluto can fly 3. Therefore the bridge is invisible by naked eyes. 3. Therefore Donald Duck can fly.

FTF is a valid deductive argument, but unsound because of falsehood of the major premise and conclusion, TTF  has all true premises but false conclusion, FFT has all false premises but true conclusion.  For the soundness of a deductive argument, all premises and conclusion need to true(TTT).

NB: the soundness of an argument is not sufficient for making an argument a good one. A sound argument needs the premises not only be true but also more plausible than their negations in light of the evidence.

Back To Oneness Pentecostals Logic:

Is Jesus’ Flesh The Son and his Spirit the Father?

Oneness apologists argued that Jesus is the Son(in flesh) and the Father(in spirit). This what David Bernard’s conclusion claims: “We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son”

Donald duck

In the lights of Christ Jesus own cry in Luke 23;46, echoing Psalm 31:5, it is false saying Jesus’ spirit is that Father.

Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.(Luke 23:46 ESV)

In Bernard’s reasoning, Jesus would be saying something like this, ” My Spirit, in your hands I commit my spirit” which is absurd.(cf:Jn 19:30 Jn 11:33 Matt 27:50, Mk 2:8, Jn 13:21 also see Stephen doing the same in Acts 7:59)

Another Route: Is the Son the Father then?

  1. Only The Father can do x.
  2. The Son does x.
  3. Therefore the Son is the Father.

One could start with questioning the truthfulness of proposition 3. Is it true, that the Son is the Father?

According to John 14-16 and Matthew 10 and 25  among other places in the Bible, one can show that, it is not the case that the Son is the Father.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.(Matthew 25:31-34 ESV)

The Son in his glory still has a Father to whom those who are in the Son, blessed by the Son’s Father can inherit the kingdom prepared for them.(cf Matt 26:29)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever(Jn 14:15-16 ESV)

The Son is not the Father, because the Son ask the Father to send another (“allos” a Greek word for other of the same kind.cf Matthew 27:61, Mary Magdalene and other Mary), helper, Holy Spirit who is of the same kind as the Son, meaning same nature.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.(Jn 14:23-24 ESV)

Saint Matthew and the Angel by Guido Reni

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.(Jn 15:1-2)

The Son is the vine, and the Father is the vinedresser, and If we are in the vine, as branches, the Father will dress us 🙂

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.(Jn 15:10)

If we keep the Son commandments, we will remain in his love as the Son have kept his Father’s commandments and remain in the Father’s love.

The connection between The Followers to the Son, and the Son to the Father show that the Son is not the Father.

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.(Jn 16:7)

The Son send the Holy Spirit, the some way He was sent by His Father, the same way He send his Disciples. This shows that the Son is Not the Father.

So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 10:32–33)

In Heaven, if the follower did acknowledge the Son before men, the Son will acknowledge them before his Father. This show that in Heaven, the Son is the Son and the Father is the Father.

St. John the Evangelist, by Guido Reni (c. 1575-1642)

So whats wrong with Oneness Pentecostals Argument?

It is wrong because the evidences show that The Father is the Father and the Son is the Son, and Jesus’ Spirit is not the Father.

The argument become truer to the Bible if formulated in this form:

  1. Only God can do x
  2. The Father does x
  3. The Son  does x
  4. Therefore, the Father and the Son is God

This is the Truth of Hebrew 1, were the Father calls his Son, O God(.v8) and Himself, as the Son’s God(.v9)

This is the truth of the unity of three persons in One and Only God, the truths that led to the formulation of the doctrine of Trinity.

Note: There are truth propositions about the Son and the Father in the Bible that can’t interchanged. Example The Son sits at the right hand of His Father, never is the Father said to sit on the right hand of the Son. The Father sends the Son, never does the Son sends the Father.

Thus, Oneness apostolic reasoning does not hold together, Jesus is only The Son and not the Father.

NB: I did not attend to counter arguments, because I would love Oneness Apostolic members to bring them forward in the comments area, so we could discuss them in a dialogue form.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Use of Logic To Show Oneness’ God Errors

  1. I read most of the post; when I reaached the part about having a sound argument while starting from a false premise, I couldn’t help but wonder why we don’t consider a statement taken from scripture as a possibly (probably, in some cases) false premise…héhé, not arguing, just making a statement, it all comes down to whether what is said in the Bible is true or not and that’s been (is being) debated interminably…

    It’s also interesting that, even with the accuracy of the Bible assumed, we have so many theologies…makes me wonder whether the book’s not so confusing that practically ANY conclusion can be drawn…of course, the “concluders” may be motivated by other things than a thirst for truth, which I’m sure is very often the case (as it probably was for at least some of those who wrote the book up in the first place)…

  2. This post brings up a broader question I’ve been thinking about the past few weeks. Many apologist arguments on various subjects (Jesus’ divinity, transubstantiation, eschatology, etc.) have “Jesus said X” as a premise. My question is this: Why does anyone think they know what Jesus said?

    – What percentage of Jesus’ words is it reasonable to estimate were actually written down at the time he said them? I don’t think we can safely assume 100%. I would guess it’s pretty close to zero, but I have nothing to support that position. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it’s 50/50.

    – So if half of Jesus’ words were not written down at the time they were spoken, they were recorded some time later. How likely is it that they were remembered and recorded accurately? Feel free to listen to any great speech from history you haven’t already memorized, write it down word for word immediately afterward, then check what you wrote. For part 2 of that experiment, instead of transcribing the speech immediately after listening to it, wait whatever time period you think elapsed between Jesus speaking and his words being written down.

    – If half of Jesus’ words were written down at the time they were spoken, how confident can we be that they were recorded accurately by the listener? (Listen to a speech and write it down word for word as you’re listening to it. For a more realistic challenge, imagine using items available in the first century to transcribe the spoken word in real time.)

    How confident can we be that the original written copies of the Gospels accurately reflected what those eyewitness scribes (if there were any) recorded at the time? Isn’t the general consensus that the stories of the Gospels were maintained orally for some length of time before they became written documents?

    I’m not saying the general idea of what Jesus said can’t possibly be known. I’m saying that given the likelihood that most of his words were not recorded at the time they were spoken, and they were not recorded verbatim, how likely is it they were accurately recorded? Now toss in a few translations from one language to another, and it seems like any argument that has “Jesus said X” as a major premise is on some shaky ground.

    • There is a discipline in academia just dealing with your concern Brap:

      Form criticism is an analysis the Bible to discover earlier oral traditions upon which they it is based.
      Tradition criticism is an analysis of the Bible, concentrating on how religious traditions have grown and changed over the time span during which the text was written.

      Higher criticism is “the study of the sources and literary methods employed by the biblical authors.”(Mather & Nichols,1993)

      Lower criticism is “the discipline and study of the actual wording” of the Bible; a quest for textual purity and understanding.

      Your so right in saying we should not play we an assumption of 100 percent, as the wording of Jesus, and one reason I can think of is that, the authors also did their own Hermeneutics as the try to explain and sometimes apply Jesus’ teaching in a given group to which the account was written to. Example: if you read the parables of Jesus in Luke and Matthew, you can see that they are the same but not exactly to the same group.

      I do not think there is any of the words of Jesus which was written just after he had spoken them, but one can argue that what was said was written by people who must be the eye witnesses or the followers of the eye witnesses: John, Mark, Luke + Acts and Matthew are the only books that record an amazing detail that the new research of 2003 brought to light in comparing with the other, Mary, Judas, Philip, Thomas and on in the naming of people, cities, weather, geography, tradition. I have posted a one hour lecture worth watching on this topic.

      One need to understand first the tradition and the ways of that time to be able to answer how good or bad could they record spoken words. Most people fell into projection our modern culture to the ancient Jews.

      Check out the books of the critics both secular, and Christians, you will get so much out of it.
      I will recommend John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman on the secular side and N. T. Wrights and Craig Evans from Christians side.

Comments are closed.