Jason Dulle has a very interesting post about the historic creeds of Christendom, from a oneness pentecostal angle. If Oneness Pentecostals would approach it the way Jason has done, I believe that in at least one Creed those who hold to the deity of Christ could start to understand one another, and more than that, find some common ground:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;He descended into hell1.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church2;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.Amen.
1 If this only means Jesus went to the place of the dead, I think it is acceptable. If, however, it means Jesus descended into the place of hell, it is not.
2 As I understand it, this is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather to the universal church. This creed was a response to the Gnostics who taught that salvation was only for a select few. In opposition to this, the creed believes the church is universal (catholic).I think this creed can be affirmed by Oneness Pentecostals without much issue.
While I might would disagree with Jason on his second note – that instead that universal church is rather thought of instead of single congregations (which is highlighted by the phrase ‘communion of saints’), he makes a good case that indeed, those who hold to the deity of Christ – whether Oneness, Economic, or Trinitarian – we can unite around the Apostle’s Creed, which in some form or another, dates from the 2nd century.
One of the things that I have come to learn, is that the Trinity is seen differently by different people – and sometimes, differences revolve around emphasis and terminology. While some Trinitarians emphasize the One God in three, others emphasis the three-ness so much as to have three distinct beings walking around heaven, in communication with one another.
You can read the rest of dissection of the historic creeds:
Historic Creeds: Identifying What’s Chicken and What’s Bones.
September 23rd, 2009 11:40 am
An interesting article, for sure. With the Apostles’ Creed being used historically as a baptismal creed of the Church (i.e., part of the baptismal liturgy), and with baptism being explicitly Trinitarian in form, I think Jason is grasping at the wind and missing a huge historical aspect, i.e. that while the Apostles’ Creed doesn’t explicitly articulate the Trinity, it has without exception so far as I know been interpreted as Trinitarian.
I also find it rather interesting that a Unitarian is trying to make inroads with historic Christian formulations that have also without exception rejected Unitarianism as heresy. You’re right to point out the different emphases within Trinitarian thought…the West has historically emphasized the unity of God while the East has emphasized the threeness of God…but both emphases have always been understood as orthodox, unlike Unitarianism.
Just my two pennies…
T.C.
@st_polycarp
September 23rd, 2009 1:28 pm
PS…For my two cents, there can be no ground here between Oneness and Trinitarians, not here on this Creed! And for Trinitarians there is always the “hypostatic union” – the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ. The doctrine was elaborated by St. Cyril of Alexandria and incorporated in the Definition of Chalcedon. It stated that Jesus Christ was true God and true man, consubsantial with the Father in all things as to his divinity, yet in his humanity consubstantial with us in all things, sin apart. He exists in two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division, the distinction of natures being in no wise abolished by their union, but the peculiarity of each nature being maintained, both concurring in one person (prosopon) and hypostasis.
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 1:48 pm
Joel,
In reality, I see the Tri-theism as a very stale argument. Note really in Christendom, that too many evangelical Christian Churches are so Christological, or Christ centered, that they really don’t have a common worship of the Truine God hardly at all. In words maybe, but not in practise. If any Tri-theism really can be leveled? It might be toward the Orthodox with their position or dominance of the Father in the Godhead. But even here, it does not stick in my view.
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 2:22 pm
Yes, agree with ya TC Judd. Oh for hymns of Watts! He has a great Trinitarian favorite!
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 2:36 pm
Joel,
For you, what we know about “hypostasis” of the Father is disclosed in Jesus Christ, thru the illumination of the Holy Spirit. How can the Spirit of God be not a “person”, both divine & human in attributes. With such HE too is “prosopon”.
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 2:57 pm
Sorry Joel, I mis-placed that last post…
September 24th, 2009 2:05 pm
Yes, but his Bruce Ware response was not under my Bruce Ware comment.
September 24th, 2009 2:14 pm
Sorry, I was the one that got the quotes in misalignment. Again, forget Bruce Ware, he does not effect the scripture reality and argument. And if your not going to seek to look at the texts of St. John 1:1; 1:14; 1:18, and then to chapters 14-16..even 17? Then we are not in any real dialogue or debate.
As to the “hypostatic union”, it comes out of eternity (the mind and will of God) into time and eternity, again! Again, it also touches the reality of the eternal union of the Father and the Son. What in theology we call the eternal generation of the Son. Not to mention again the eternal “procession” (to proceed out of, to lead or pass out of, ‘having regard to the end that is reached.’ Gk.) of the Holy Spirit. Yes, in time the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father but thru the Son. This is the salvific work, again from eternity to time, back to eternity! Thus even for Mary, as Council of Ephesus noted, she is the Mother of God (incarnate). A vessel of grace and election “In Christ”. Not eternal, but certainly part of the eternal plan of God!
Finally, very simply there can be no real and lasting Christology without the Trinity of God! (St. John 1:1; 1:14; 1:18)
Fr. Robert +
2 Cor.13:14
September 24th, 2009 6:08 pm
Jason,
I agree that the nature of a blog is very limited to discuss such profound issues theologically. I made the point that the creed (here) cannot be brought into the ground or agreement with Oneness. Your “oneness” is always going to lead to modalism!
And of course you cannot understand the true unity of the Godhead, it is “three persons in one God.” You are already enstranged from, and certainly against it. We could speak simply from scripture…”Holy, Holy, Holy” (Isa. 6:3 / Rev. 4:8). But this would not be enough to even start on our humble but certain path to the Triune God, not if our presuppostions are againist it. The only real approach to God Triune is with ‘a faith seeking understanding’! As the Anglican prayer and collect says, “in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity; We beseech thee [you]“. Thus really I cannot argue you or anyone into that place of faith and belief. But, it is good to seek good reason and an open mind. Only here, can we begin.
I think I have made good points that you cannot really separate the reality of the Incarnation, in both time and eternity. You certainly cannot negate or neglect the profundity of the mystery of the doctrine of God! But this appears to be what your “Oneness” seeks to do. In the end, this seems closer (oneness) to the Greeks idea of Monad, their philosophy of the ultimate and indivisible unit. Than the Oneness of God in the triunity of God, the Holy Trinity.
Also, you have perhaps not read our Eastern Orthodox Brethren on this (their by the way) history and the great dogmatic work, the Eastern Creeds, that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper – the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with manhood in the incarnation. As you say, without looking at scripture (which you have not done), we really can say not much else?
Fr. R.
September 24th, 2009 7:51 pm
Jason,
Since Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15), HE is always the center of the Godhead! Also since Christ is the one and only Mediator, “between God (and note “men”) not man. (1 Tim. 2:5). He alone brings us to the Father! (St. John 14:6) See also St. Paul, (Eph. 2:18). A wonderful Trinitarian verse!
With simple scripture, we can see that Christ is always the Archetype and pattern / stamp and approach to God the Father. And thus in scripture & theology, Himself the eternal generation of the Father! But always with the Holy Spirit of God. Again, we have Trinitarian life and reality! Very simple, but very profound!
Fr. R.
October 18th, 2009 11:12 pm
[...] the Patristic witness as affirming Justification by Grace through Faith along Lutheran lines. While the question arose whether or not Trinitarians and Oneness Christians can unite around the cre… Joshua Hearne retells the story of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., while another blogger [...]
September 23rd, 2009 12:10 pm
Would it be justified in calling a Oneness believer a Unitarian, a name often associated with a group who disbelieves the deity of Christ?
And I would say more than 2 pennies!
September 23rd, 2009 2:54 pm
T.C. Judd,
Yes, there is no question that the Apostle’s Creed has been used by Trinitarians, and is understood by Trinitarians within a Trinitarian framework. And yet the creed itself is not composed in Trinitarian terminology, nor does it express Trinitarian categories of thought. The terminology is thoroughly Biblical, lacking further theological reflection (possibly because it was so early, and hence prior to the Trinitarian controversies). I am not forced to denounce a creed simply because those who have traditionally used it held to a more refined and developed theology. The words and concepts as presented in the creed itself are fully commensurate with the Bible and an Oneness understanding of God.
In regards to your comment about a Unitarian trying to make inroads with historical Christian formulations that have denounced the Oneness view as heresy, I am not trying to gain acceptance by Trinitarians, or pretend that there aren’t differences among us. Indeed, if you read the blog entry from which Polycarp took this excerpt, I evaluate other historic creeds as well, some of which did not fare as well as this one.
The reason I engaged in this exercise in the first place was simply to show Oneness believers that there is more chicken in the historic creeds than bones–so we shouldn’t castigate all the historic creeds as worthless (which is what we usually do). Of course, Trinitarians could also benefit from the exercise by seeing that there are not as many differences between us and them as they might think (this lesson needs to be learned by Oneness Pentecostals as well). That’s not to say our differences are minor, or mere semantics. They aren’t. But we agree on more than we disagree on, and I think this exercise helps show that.
September 23rd, 2009 12:20 pm
I wasn’t trying to confuse Oneness folks with Unitarian Universalists as a group but was using Unitarian technically–describing Oneness Pentecostals as Unitarian versus orthodox Christian formulations, which are Trinitarian.
I did that deliberately because in many conversations I have with folks, saying Oneness or United Pentecostal doesn’t usually raise any eyebrows as many assume these are just other ‘flavors’ of Pentecostalism, which historically falls within the bounds of orthodoxy. Describing them as Unitarian, which most all realize as heterodox, is nothing more than truth in advertising that prompts most to slow down, ask questions, and not make assumptions.
September 23rd, 2009 12:42 pm
Gotcha!
September 23rd, 2009 1:07 pm
However, the Oneness people that say God the Father is the only eternal “person” in the Godhead, and mix it in and with the Atonement, are in very certain error again. Indeed, the whole backdrop of the Apostles Creed is Trinitarian. “Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord … He…sits (in heaven, still incarnate) on the right hand of God the Father Almighty”. And of couse, “I believe in the Holy Spirit”!
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 1:38 pm
Fr. Robert, what do you make of the different understandings and emphasis on the Trinity by different Trinitarians? Can you become tri-theists if you focus on the three-ness too much?
September 23rd, 2009 2:56 pm
Fr. Robert,
You seem to be implying that Oneness adherents deny the hypostatic union of Christ. If that is what you mean to say, nothing could be further from the truth. We agree that Jesus is one person–the divine–in two natures. In fact, as a Oneness Pentecostal I can agree 100% with Trinitarians on the metaphysics of the incarnate Christ. We need only part froads when it comes to answering the question, Who was incarnate? We would say it was the one person of God, YHWH, whereas Trinitarians would say it was the 2nd of three eternal persons, God the Son.
September 23rd, 2009 1:38 pm
In other words, are some Trinitarians just as wrong as Oneness, in your view?
September 23rd, 2009 2:02 pm
Fr. Robert, I wouldn’t see Tri-Theism as a stale argument, as I believe that some do it as such. (I do not (any longer) believe that the classical understanding of the Trinity is actually tri-theism.)
There is a song that is a show case of modern Trinitiarian thought, in which we have the Father completely different than the Son, completely separate and distinct, so that when you see the Father, you do not see the Son.
September 23rd, 2009 2:18 pm
I think you are both correct in saying that much of Evangelicalism does NOT have truly Triune worship. I hesitate, Joel, to cite a worship song as a true touchstone of “modern Trinitarian thought” at anything other than at the popular level.
It’s necessary that we address pop-theology and the understanding within our congregations and parishes…and that understanding is, sadly, (probably) a far cry from where this discussion started with the creeds. The creeds and historic confessions, I think, are pretty sound with respect to the Trinity. Addressing the unsuitability of much of pop theology (including lyrics) would be a completely different conversation, no?
September 23rd, 2009 2:19 pm
My case in point, that the Trinity of God is really hardly known, understood, or even worshipped in both the biblical, historical, and of course the creedal sense. See what the book the Shack has also done! No, the loss of the doctrine of God today is huge! I am reading Calvin again on the Trinity of God, always a Divine-Human relationship!
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 2:22 pm
“The Shack”…sigh…a great, bad example of Trinitarian pop-theology. (head wagging)
September 23rd, 2009 2:27 pm
Fr. Robert, T.C.,
Indeed, pop-theology is of the worse kind – regardless of your theological position. But, pop-theology is a major factor in contributing to understanding of theology, rather wrongly or rightly. (Wrongly, for sure.) Think of it this way. We are monotheists, no doubt, yet, with the understanding of pop theology in play, it looks like Trinitarians (and who really has the time not to stereotype) are tri-theists – so, what does it do? It makes those who take pop-theology as ‘THE’ology look for something else, and go to the other extreme, and as a side effect, categorize all Trinitarians under the banner of pop-theology.
Let’s start with the Apostle’s Creed, and instruct people against pop-theology to show that Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods, and that those who deny the reality of the Incarnation greatly error, which is the point of the post.
September 23rd, 2009 2:28 pm
I had someone offer me the Shack. Ignored them, hoping they would go away.
Saw the Shack in a bible book store. Demanded it be taken down.
September 23rd, 2009 2:39 pm
Taking pop-theology as ‘the’ proper understanding of any doctrine is probably a bad idea. One of our responsibilities as pastor-teachers in teaching right doctrine is to teach from the creeds/confessions (as you point out, Joel) using tools like sound hymnody (as you say, Fr. Robert) so parishioners can recognize false doctrine and bad theology in their day-to-day interactions. ‘Tis a noble challenge indeed!
September 23rd, 2009 2:55 pm
Yes, if one is going to be really biblical, really seeking to be orthodox, he/she will encounter the wrath of the postmodern, and even postchristian people, even theolog’s here. As you note Joel, many Christian people don’t think incarnationally, and as TC says, people really want pop or easy theology (so-called). Make me feel better in my modern, sinful self. But don’t attack my real “self” of sin, ‘helpless guilt’ (as Forsyth called total depravity of sin).
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 2:44 pm
I agree, T.C., but alas, when you start to question or teach, you find few friends
September 23rd, 2009 2:53 pm
Agreed, brother! Teaching, preaching, and discipling are neither easy nor fallow fields for winning friends. May God continue to strengthen and encourage us as we seek to be faithful in our callings!
September 23rd, 2009 3:07 pm
Indeed, Jason, as when I started studying the creeds, and the history which led up to the Creeds, there is a commonality among Oneness and Trinitarians. Both believe in the deity of Christ – unlike JW’s, and other modern day Arians.
September 23rd, 2009 3:08 pm
Jason, I believe also that Trinitarians, and not Oneness, very the hypostatic union as eternal.
September 23rd, 2009 3:08 pm
Fr. Robert, if you repost it where you want it, I’ll delete the first one.
September 23rd, 2009 3:38 pm
Jason,
But for you, there is no eternality with both the Father, and the Son, (St. John 1:1; 1:14; 1:18 / chap. 17:5, etc.) No lasting union, and no eternal and everlasting Incarnation! And who died on the Cross…just the man Jesus? No, the relationship between the Father and the Son is real, and has the certainty of eternal relations and eternal love! Here too, we have the person of the Holy Spirit, the “bond” or person of that lasting eternal love! (John 15:26 / Eph. 2:18) The eternal “procession” of the Holy Spirit is always from the Father alone, but in time and incarnation also passes thru the Son. Again, we are looking at the great mystery of “love” and redemption! For us, the Trinity of God is always something of a Divine-Human relationship. Holy ground here! (St. John chap’s 14-16 also)
Fr. R.
September 23rd, 2009 6:42 pm
You are exactly right. I have been educated in Oneness and Trinitarian institutions, and I have have done quite a bit of reading of and dialoguing with both sides. I have come to the conclusion that the main issue that the defining distinction between Oneness and Trinitarian theologies regards the number of persons in God. We say there is one, while they say there is three. Beyond that, however, we agree on most things related to the question of God. We both agree that Jesus and the Spirit are fully and eternally God. We both agree that God became incarnate. We both agree that Jesus is one person in two natures. Etc. With the exception of minor points, all of our disagreements go back to the central question of how many persons God is.
September 23rd, 2009 7:04 pm
Fr. R,
Would we say the Father and Son are two distinct, eternal persons? Of course not, for that would strike at the very heart of Oneness theology: the affirmation that God is one in both essence and person. But we believe the Father is eternal, and we believe the deity of the Son is eternal (since the Son is the same divine person as the Father, but in a distinct mode of existence). So it’s not like we are denying the eternality of the Father or the deity of the Son. Of course, we would not say “the Son is eternal” because on Oneness theology, “Son” refers specifically to YHWH’s human mode of existence, and everyone agrees that the incarnation began in time. But this a terminological difference between Oneness and Trinitarians, not a conceptual difference. Both of us agree that Jesus’ deity is eternal, and that His humanity began in time.
As for the union, the hypostatic union has nothing to do with eternity. By all accounts, the hypostatic union is temporal in nature because it began at the incarnation when the divine person brought human nature into union with Himself. What is united is the human nature and divine person.
To be continued…
September 23rd, 2009 7:05 pm
Continued…
And we most definitely affirm an everlasting incarnation. The incarnation is permanent, not temporary.
There is no separate human person in Christ. As Cyril taught, and John of Damascus crystallized, Jesus’ humanity is enhyposatic: it receives its personhood from God. So who died on the cross? God did, insofar as He is man. He was the subject who experienced death via His human nature, in His human body.
You talk about the eternal procession of the Spirit, but this is not Biblical. As the famous Trinitarian theologian, Bruce Ware, writes: “I believe that this biblical way of speaking, as found in John 15:26, refers to the historical sending of the Spirit at Pentecost and does not refer to any supposed ‘eternal processesion’ of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The conceptions of both the ‘eternal begetting of the Son’ and ‘eternal procession of the Spirit’ seem to me highly speculative and not grounded in biblical teaching. Both the Son as only-betotten and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father (and the Son) refer, in my judgment, to the historical realities of the incarnation and Pentecost, respectively.” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, 162).
September 23rd, 2009 8:47 pm
First, lets start with Bruce Ware, he is just one theolog, and appears to do very little in exegeting a verse or verses, in his biblical argument, plus his history of the Church is almost non-existent. Blog space will not permit me to write pages from the Father’s, or the most important creeds of Nicaea to Chalcedon. Again here, I have heard nothing from Mr. Dulle as to my scripture quotes in the first chapter of St. John? Indeed the Johannine gospel is very profound in its scripture statement and logic / reason for the “persons” of the Father and the Son! Not to forget the or “another paracletos” of chapters 14-16. Also, “He will teach you” uses the masculine Greek pronoun “ekeinos” (he), John 14:26.
Also you yourself admit that the “hypostatic union” is not part of an eternal nature, thus simple logic negates the eternality of your incarnation. For the hypostatic union is itself the Incarnation!
Fr. R.
September 24th, 2009 1:12 pm
Fr. Robert,
Yes, Bruce Ware is just one theologian, but he is also a very prominent and respected Trinitarian theologian. The Trinity is his theological specialty. You can’t expect one small quote to contain a thoroughgoing exegesis. He didn’t need to anyway. Just read John 15:26 in its context and it is clear that it is not referring to any eternal proceeding of the Spirit. Have Trinitarians historically used the word “proceeding” in John 15:26 to describe the Spirit’s eternal relationship to the Father and Spirit? Yes, but just because the church has consistently used a Biblical term in an unbiblical way does not mean Ware should be faulted. It’s the historic church that should be faulted for poor exegesis.
Nobody holds to an eternal incarnation. “Eternal” means without beginning or end. That is not true of the incarnation. While there will be no end to the incarnation, we all agree it had a beginning. I think you may be confusing “temporal” with “temporary.” The incarnation is temporal (began in time), but not temporary (it will be so forever).
As for your quotes of John, I have no intention of turning this into a debate on what the Bible actually teaches about God. That’s not the purpose of this post. I cannot refuse, however, to address your argument for the personhood of the Spirit from John 14:26. You seem to think that Oneness Pentecostals have a problem with this. We don’t. We don’t see the Spirit as a force. We understand the Spirit to be a person. The question is not whether the Spirit is a person, or whether He is God (He is). The question is whether the Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and Son. On that point we would disagree. Merely pointing to the fact that the Spirit is distinguished from the Son and Father does nothing in itself to resolve the issue either, because the issue is not whether such distinctions are to be found in Scripture, but the nature of those distinctions (whether they are distinctions of person or mode). That’s where Oneness adherents and Trinitarians disagree.
Note to Polycarp: Fr. Robert’s reply was misplaced, as is my response. Could you move them to their proper place?
September 24th, 2009 1:28 pm
Jason, you might need to refresh the page. What I see is that your comment (Bruce Ware) is right under Fr. Robert’s Bruce Ware
September 24th, 2009 3:03 pm
Jason, where was your comment supposed to be?
September 24th, 2009 5:14 pm
Fr. Robert,
The topic of this post is not Onensss vs. Trinity, but rather the ability of Oneness adherents to subscribe in part or whole to certain historic creeds. I chimed in to clarify what my purpose was for the exercise, not to enter a debate on which model of God is best supported by Scripture. Frankly, debating a topic as immense as Oneness vs. Trinity via the comments section of a blog is nearly impossible. It’s difficult enough to tackle the issue when speaking to someone in person! It takes too much time to do it online, and that’s something I’m in short supply of.
Why forget Ware? And why forget my point that there is no Biblical justification for thinking the Spirit proceeds from the Father from eternity past? Even if I agreed with you that the Spirit is a distinct and eternal person in the Godhead, I would still be the case that the Scripture does not say He proceeds eternally from the Father. The fact of the matter is that Trinitarians, by their own admission, didn’t know how to distinguish the persons, so they settled on Biblical terms to describe how they differ (begotten, proceeding), but ripped them out of their contexts. Theologians like Ware are important because it demonstrates that one can recognize the lack of Biblical support for the way these terms are being used, and yet still believe God is a Trinity.
If your point is simply that the hypostatic union was planned by God from eternity, I agree. But that doesn’t justifying calling the actual union itself “eternal,” and I don’t know any Trinitarians who do so. As for why you think the hypostatic union has anything to do with the supposed eternal relationship between the Father and Son, I don’t know. On Trinitarianism, it has nothing to do with the Father. The hypostatic union speaks of God the Son’s union with human nature. That’s it.
Your last statement makes no sense to me. I don’t see how the reality and permanence of the incarnation has anything to do with the number of persons in God. What would make the incarnation less real and less permanent if Jesus is the uni-personal YHWH incarnate, versus if He is God the Son (2nd of three eternal persons) incarnate?
September 24th, 2009 5:16 pm
Fr. Robert’s response (and my follow-up) should have been under my comment beginning:
“Continued…
And we most definitely affirm an everlasting incarnation. The incarnation is permanent, not temporary.”