Against Oneness Pentecostalism: an Exegetical-theological Critique Uploaded by Michael Burgos
I linked to an article entitled A Wait at 3 Passages Oneness Pentecostals Use to DemonstrateJesus is the Father in the "Worldwide Godhead Symposium" contend grouping. Clayton Killion, a Oneness Pentecostal, took the time to respond at his Lectionary blog. While I appreciate his willingness to write a cordial response, his effort divulges meaning logical, exegetical, and theological problems.
The purpose of my article was, as the championship states, to address the principal texts Oneness Pentecostals appeal to in gild to justify their merits that Jesus is the Father in human being mankind. While other aspects of Oneness theology and Christology depend on other texts (I address dozens in my book, Against Oneness Pentecostalism: An Exegetical-Theological Critique, 2nd Edition), these three texts are the main passages marshaled specifically to prove Jesus is the Begetter. Not recognizing this, Killion began his commodity with a mischaracterization: "Co-ordinate to Burgos, nosotros Oneness Pentecostals entreatment to only a scattering of texts—no more than than six—in club to build our Christology." This argument is a straw-human being as I clearly do not believe (nor have I e'er written or said) that Oneness Pentecostals build their entire Christology on a handful of texts. Rather, my contention in the article was that the three texts in question are those predominantly utilized in gild to demonstrate that Jesus is the Father. Killion went on to write,
Anyone who has read David Bernard, Nathaniel Wilson, David Norris, Daniel Segraves, Jerry Lynn Hayes, or Jason Weatherly tin can attest to this fact. I find Burgos' above statement astounding—given that he has written multiple books in response to our doctrine, engaging all of the aforementioned authors.
The only matter astounding here is the mischaracterization he put forth from the start. Moreover, unless Killion believes that the statement "Jesus is the Father" is a comprehensive summary of Oneness Christology en toto, in that location is absolutely no basis for his mischaracterization of my article.
Killion wrote, "Every Biblical passage that you lot take studied with respect to trinitarianism, we have studied vis-à-vis Oneness dogma. We build our teaching on the whole of scripture—just as y'all claim to practise." Really? Exactly where is the Oneness Pentecostal systematic theology? Yous can find a systematics text that reflects what I believe in virtually every Christian bookstore. Precisely where is this comprehensive Oneness Pentecostal theology found? Even those Oneness works which attempt to accost more than the doctrine of God don't even come close to attempting a systematic treatment of biblical doctrine. I affirm the reason why at that place is no Oneness systematics text, is considering Oneness Pentecostalism is incapable of theological consistency as it is congenital upon the misguided use of prooftexts.i
Killion and then addressed what he characterized as my "exegesis of Isaiah ix:6." This is disruptive since I didn't provide an exegesis of this text in the relevant article. Rather, I appealed to pp. 98-101 in my volume which does provide an exegesis. What I did provide was a few sentences which explicate why I don't believe the phrase "begetter of eternity" to mean that Jesus is God the Father. If Killion does desire to interact with my exegesis, it has been in impress for three years. He responded to my summary by asserting that I have adopted the "EXACTLY [ sic ] the same logic that Jehovah'south Witnesses use in order to testify Jesus is not God at all." Substantially, Killion has argued that in the same way that the Watchtower explains away Immanuel on sematic grounds, I besides have explained away the phrase "father of eternity." He ended, "If Jesus' name Abiad /"Everlasting Father" does not literally mean he is the Father, then Jesus' proper name Immanuel/"God with us" does not literally mean that he was God." This statement, however, divulges a logical fallacy that is at the root of Killion'south quant claim. Start, the merits that I am engaging in the aforementioned hermeneutic as a suborndinationist cult is mildly amusing and totally unfounded. 2 His statement erroneously presupposes the univocality of the words "God" and "father." Second, it is a bald assumption to suppose that "father of eternity" necessarily identifies Jesus as God the Father. Without any justification or rationale whatever, Killion equates the phrase "father of eternity" with God the Father. Third, I do believe with abject consistency that both "male parent of eternity" and "Immanuel" are titles of deity. However, my contention is that within the context of a title, the "father of…" structure is a Semitic linguistic convention that is designed to characterize a subject area and not identify a subject. Thus, to phone call the Son of God "father of eternity" is to aspect eternality to him, and non to characterize him as God the Male parent.
Killion went on to write,
Your ain logic defeats you, sir. Simply like the Jehovah'due south Witnesses, y'all are using the names of mere humans (Abigail, Abijam, Elihu) to exegete a prophetic statement near the incarnate God! If you are logically consistent, yous must conclude non just that Jesus is not God the Begetter, but also that Jesus is not God at all!
The irony here is thick. Get-go, the prophet says that these titles ("Wonderful Counselor," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," "Prince of Peace") are characterizations of his proper noun, and non his proper name specifically. Isaiah wrote, "And his name shall exist called…" and therefore these titles are designed to be a commentary on the Messiah's name. Second, information technology is special pleading to divorce "begetter of eternity" from the many other "father of..." constructions in the OT. Third, recognizing the manner in which the Tanakh utilizes language in order to sympathize the Bible in a consistent manner is a standard means of exegesis. I understand "Mighty God" to refer to the Messiah'southward absolute deity considering of the way that term and its derivatives are used elsewhere in Scripture.3 To practise and so is standard exegetical practice. Killion, information technology appears, either doesn't understand that or must use false outrage as a stand-in for an statement. Fourth, my statement is that "begetter of eternity" is a title for deity, namely, the divine attribute of eternality. Hence, Killion's argument at this point is absurd.
Killion wrote,
I don't know why it is so heinous to say that the divinity of Jesus is God the Father. If Jesus is God, he must exist the Father. John 17:1-3 tells us that the "Father" is "the merely true God;" 1 Corinthians eight:6 says that "in that location is but 1 God, the Father;" Malachi 2:10 says that the "one God who created us" is the "ane Father." Fifty-fifty the Nicene Creed says that the divinity of the Son is "of one substance with the Father," and forbids united states of america from saying that his divinity is "of some other ousia or hypostasis" from the Male parent. If Jesus is God, his divinity must be the Father; conversely, if his divine nature is annihilation other than the Male parent, he is not completely God.
The above comments divulge a considerable lack of clarity regarding historic Christianity and biblical exegesis. Trinitarians have never rejected the notion that the Begetter and Son share the same deity (i.east., consubstantiality). For instance, the Nicene Creed eloquently states, the Son is "God of God, Low-cal of Light, true God of true God." Then too, I have addressed the texts Killion mentions in my books (esp. 1st Cor. 8:six), and therefore I won't bother to rehash that hither. Suffice it to write, Killion assumes unitarian monotheism from the outset when he wrote "If Jesus is God, his divinity must be the Male parent." At issue between Oneness adherents and Christians is the question of unitarianism, and therefore it is ultimately unhelpful and unproductive to merely reaffirm a unitarian presupposition and wonder why the historic Christian faith comprehensively rejects it.
Killion wrote,
Lastly with respect to this poesy, Burgos claims that Oneness Pentecostals deny the eternal existence of the Son. This is an oversimplification of our doctrine, and not quite correct. Oneness Pentecostals teach that the 18-carat homo being Jesus Christ was literally begotten past the virgin Mary (Galatians 4:4, Luke ane:35, John 1:one-14); prior to his nascence by Mary, this genuine human being did not exist. Only like Burgos, we believe that the incarnation literally took place in history; unless he is suggesting that the man flesh of Jesus preexisted his birth, and that his human body was in sky prior to being begotten past Mary.
That Oneness adherents deny the eternality of the Son of God is non an "oversimplification," but an obvious and fundamental aspect of Oneness Christology. If one believes that "Jesus is the i Father incarnate,"4 and if ane believes the Son of God began to exist at Bethlehem, then clearly the Son of God, on that view, didn't have an actual personal preexistence. Surely Killion knows there are numerous quotes bachelor from the same authors which all unambiguously state that the Son began to exist at Bethlehem. Killion and other Oneness adherents believe that the Son of God is the incarnation of a unitarian God and subsequent to that incarnation, the human beingness of that unitarian God prayed to, obeyed, honored, and worshiped his transcendent cocky. The Son, on that view, began to exist, and co-ordinate to some Oneness adherents, will eventually cease to exist.v Does Killion disagree with Bernard, when he claims that "The Son of God is not a distinct person in the Godhead but the concrete expression of the one God"?six If the Son is merely the physical expression of a unitarian God, then he certainly did not have eternality of preexistence. Instead, the best Oneness Pentecostals can affirm is that the Son had an idealized existence and that the deity that dwelt in him had an bodily preexistence.
In response to my comments regarding John xiv in the aforementioned article, Killion claims that I haven't taken the fourth dimension to learn what Oneness Pentecostals teach. My library and bibliographies tell some other story. Rather Killion, in attempting to utilize a personal distinction between the Begetter and Son that is predicated upon the incarnation, has given abroad the farm. The problems with this view are so extensive, a volume could be produced on that subject solitary. For instance, if the relationship between the Begetter and Son is 1 that is predicated upon the difference betwixt God and his incarnate self as Killion has claimed, so the relational dynamic between the Father and Son is rooted in the ontological superiority of the Begetter and the inferiority of the Son. However, because we are told, "the head of every man is Christ, the caput of a married woman is her hubby, and the head of Christ is God,"vii Killion'due south theology would, therefore, demand the ontological superiority of husbands and the inferiority of wives. Much more could be said (and has been written) almost turning the personal stardom betwixt the Father and Son into a convention of the incarnation. All the same, I won't bother to echo the other theological and exegetical issues with this viewpoint here.
In decision, I like Clayton Killion. I'm sure we'd agree on much if we sat downwardly over a turmeric latte.
1 See my evaluation of the history and origin of Oneness Pentecostalism in Apocryphal Religion: A Biblical Assay of Cults, Sects, & Faux Religious Movements (Torrington: Church Militant Pub., 2019), 73-91.
2 I accept responded to the claims of subordinationists in 2 texts: Michael R. Burgos ed., Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology (Torrington: Church Militant Pub., 2018) and Counterfeit Religion: A Biblical Analysis of Cults, Sects, and False Religious Movements (Torrington: Church Militant Pub., 2019).
3e.1000., Isa. 10:21.
4D. K. Bernard, Pentecostal Theology Volume ane: The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame Press, 2007), Kindle, loc. 1170.
5Bernard wrote, "When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship volition be submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to His original role as Begetter, Creator, and Ruler of all." ibid., loc. 975.
6ibid., loc. 894.
7one Cor. 11:3.
Source: http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2019/11/jesus-is-not-father-redux-response-to.html
0 Response to "Against Oneness Pentecostalism: an Exegetical-theological Critique Uploaded by Michael Burgos"
Postar um comentário