The problem with that analogy is that those roles are defined in terms of what a man is to other people, not to himself. That is completely unlike the respective Persons of the Godhead. The Father is a father, and the Son is a son, and the Spirit proceeds, all in internal relationship to each other. They would be the Persons they are even if the world had never been created or any other sentient creature were ever born.
The Oneness analogy fails because the man is not father to his own role as son. Yet that is exactly what the Oneness believe about the Godhead, which helps to explain why Oneness arguments are convincing only to
The analogy also ignores what Jesus Himself says. For example, in John 8:18, He tells us, "I am the one who bears witness about Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness about Me."
Jesus is referring to the two-witness rule: "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15). His own testimony of Himself, corroborated by the testimony of the Father, proves His messianic ministry.
No individual man can fulfill this requirement, no matter how many roles he fills, because he is counted as only one witness, not one witness per role. Therefore, the Oneness analogy is false, and their doctrine is refuted.
1 comment:
Post a Comment