What do I believe?  Here is my creed:

I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
creator of heaven and earth,
who is one in essence, and one in person
and who for us became one of us, and yet remained God.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, and descended from David,
being both true God and true man.

Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day,
who ascended to heaven, from whence He’ll return in glory
to judge the world, raise the dead,
and inaugurate a kingdom without end.

I believe in salvation through Christ alone,
by grace through faith, and evidenced by good works.
I believe in repentance from sin,
baptism in Jesus’ name, and regeneration of the spirit.



50 Responses to “Credo”

  1. michaelwbryant Says:



  2. I really love this credo Jason. Excellent.


  3. jasondulle Says:

    Thank you kind sirs! I tried to capture the most important teachings of Christianity, being specific enough in some matters to both clarify truth and exclude certain errors, while being sufficiently vague in other areas so as to not exclude those who might differ from me in some specifics. For example, the statements on eschatology could be affirmed by a pre-tribber or a post-tribber, a pre-miller or an a-miller.



  4. That’s what I noted. Good job. I don’t have a credo at EF but been wanting one. I have written a couple but not good at writing those. You think I could use this one, specifing yourself as the author, and link it back here?


  5. jasondulle Says:

    Sure. I would be honored for you to publish the Dullean Creed on your site. 🙂



  6. Dullean Creed is what it should be titled? Just making sure.


  7. jasondulle Says:

    No, that term was just a joke.



  8. Bill Scott Says:

    Jason, I’ve written to you before and was pleased that you responded in a very thoughtful manner. I’m not sure what you mean by “Oneness” theology. I understand that you don’t believe in the Trinity but in your credo you mentioned that Jesus was God but there’s no mention of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that you believe in a “dual” God but not a Trinitarian God?


  9. jasondulle Says:


    Good questions. As an advocate of Oneness theology, I believe God is uni-personal. The Father and Son are not two divine persons, but the same divine person in two distinct modes of existence. The Father is YHWH’s divine mode of existence, and the Son is YHWH’s human mode of existence (made possible by His assumption of human nature). When God became a man, He did not cease existing and functioning as God. He simply took up another mode of existence, and began to function as man simultaneously to His divine mode of existing/functioning.

    As for the Holy Spirit, Oneness advocates understand that to refer to YHWH’s nature (he is holy, and he is spirit). Scripture speaks of God as Holy Spirit when speaking of God acting within His creation. So the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from the Father, nor even a distinct mode of existence (unlike the Son, whose existence is modally distinct from the Father/Spirit).




  10. Bill Scott Says:

    Thanks for your quick response, Jason, but I have to follow up on your response:

    I can understand what you’re saying about God and the Son being one and I think advocates of the trinity say the same thing. In fact, I don’t see a difference at all when we’re only talking about the Son and the Father. When it comes to the Holy Spirit, I just recently asked my minister something in regards to this. I said, if God is spirit and Jesus is God in the form of man, then what is the purpose of a third part called the Holy Spirit? Why, if two parts of the trinity are spirit, did we need two spirits? Maybe we’re making too much out of all of this. After all, who cares if we call God the father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit a trinity or not, they’re ALL God anyway.

    But I still don’t see a distinction in “oneness” theology saying that God the father and the son are both God and so is, what a trinitarian calls, the Holy Spirit God. How is a trinitarians theology different from yours?

    Thanks again,
    Bill Scott


  11. jasondulle Says:


    No, Trinitarians do not say the same thing. They say the Father and Son are two eternally distinct persons within the one being of God. In contradistinction, Oneness adherents say the Father and Son are two distinct modes of existence of a single divine person.

    Trinitarians don’t simply say that God is spirit, and Jesus is God in human form. They say Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. In other words, of the three eternal persons in God, only the second person (God the Son) became man. The Father and Spirit did not. It’s Oneness theology that says God is a spirit, and Jesus is that God in human form.

    I agree that it doesn’t matter so much what one calls God (although terminology is important) so much as that they have the right concept of God. But that is where Trinitarians and Oneness people differ. Trinitarians think God is three eternal persons in one being/substance, whereas Oneness adherents think God is one person in one being/substance. Trinitarians see an eternal and personal distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit. Oneness adherents, on the other hand, do not. We see a modal distinction between Father and Son brought about by the incarnation, and only a nominal distinction between Father and Spirit. In other words, we understand Father, Son, and Spirit to be different ways Scripture refers to the self-same, single person of God. We see a real distinction between Father and Son, but it is a modal distinction, not a personal distinction. “Father” is YHWH’s divine mode of existence, whereas “Son” is YHWH’s human mode of existence.

    This is a lot to try to explain in a comment, so I’d suggest you read the following on my main site:




  12. wade deforest Says:

    Mr. Dulle,

    I pastor an Assemblies of God church in Fort Worth. I have enjoye reading your articles concerning the Godhead. I have a question for you. I do not ask it for the sake of argument but for your viewpoint from a oneness perspective.

    In Paul’s letters (Cornthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, etc) he greets the church with “grace and peace to you from God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” or “God or Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    If Jesus is God, and I believe that He is, why the reference to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ? This would seem to indicate a distinction.

    Look forward to your response.

    Wade DeForest


  13. wade deforest Says:


    Excuse the typos. I meant to say “God our Father…”




  14. jasondulle Says:


    Thank you for your readership. I’m assuming you are referring to http://www.onenesspentecostal.com, because I don’t address theology proper on this blog much.

    Yes, there is a distinction between Father and Son. There is no question about it. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny a distinction. What we question is the nature of the distinction. Are the distinctions personal or incarnational in nature? In other words, is the Father-Son distinction an eternal distinction between distinct divine persons, or a distinction that begins at and is caused by the incarnation? We think the latter explanation better accounts for the Biblical data. See http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/whytrinitarian.htm for more information on this.

    I actually address your specific question in my article “Christology” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/christology.htm), saying:

    “In the benedictions of Paul’s epistles especially, something is commonly said to the effect of, ‘Grace and peace be unto you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Why this dual usage? Why did the writers of Scripture greet the churches or people they wrote to with peace from God and from Jesus? They seem to be spoken of as separate individuals. It is interesting that we rarely find a mention of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in one verse or passage. It is usually just the Father and Jesus that are spoken of. Why is it that the Holy Spirit is always ‘left out?’ There is a purpose for this type of usage among the New Testament writers. … When God assumed humanity, He acquired a consciousness and identity which He never possessed before the incarnation. He had a human psyche not overwhelmed or consumed by His deity. The exercise of Jesus’ human nature (such as His consciousness, spirit, will, mind, emotions, and flesh) in such a way requires that in the incarnation, Jesus be spoken of as possessing an identity distinct from, but not separate from the Father.”

    And as I wrote in “Jesus’ Prayers: It Doesn’t Take Two Persons to Tango” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayerstango.htm):

    “When God became man He took up a human existence, being conscious of Himself exclusively as man in that mode of existence, all the while continuing to be conscious of Himself as God transcendent to the incarnation in His continued divine mode of existence. … In God’s incarnational condescension He acquired a new way of existing and a new mode of consciousness that was thoroughly human, all the while continuing to exist and be conscious of Himself as He always had prior to His incarnational act. Subsequent to the incarnation, then, God exists in two distinct modes, and is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: as God, as man. In His continued mode of existence transcendent to the incarnation He functions exclusively as God; in His incarnate mode of existence He functions exclusively as man.”

    Or as I wrote in “Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm):

    “Because Oneness believers recognize Jesus’ deity to be that of the Father, it is tempting to conclude that there is no real distinction between Father and Son. Such a conclusion would be inaccurate, however, in light of the hypostatic union. While the deity of the
    Father and the deity of the Son is the self-same person, the Son is distinct from the Father in His mode of existence. ‘Father’ refers to God’s divine mode of existence, whereas ‘Son’ refers to God’s incarnate mode of existence; ‘Father’ refers to God as deity alone, whereas ‘Son’ refers refers to God as deity and humanity united in one theandric existence. The union of the divine and human natures in Christ brought into being a mode of existence distinct from God’s normal and continued manner of existence beyond the incarnation as the transcendent, unlimited Spirit. There is, then, a distinction between who God is, and the manner in which He exists. The distinction is not an eternal distinction within God’s essence, but a temporal distinction beginning at the incarnation because of God’s newly acquired human existence; the distinction is not between Christ’s deity and the deity of the Father (Trinitarianism), or between Jesus’ divine and human natures (Nestorianism), but between God’s divine and human modes of existence.

    “While there is only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this one person has come to exist in two distinct ways simultaneously: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as God beyond the incarnation. Jesus is the same divine person as the Father, but in a new mode of existence and self-revelation (as man). As Father, YHWH experiences His existence in a divine manner; as Son, YHWH experiences His existence in a human manner. While the Son is modally distinct from the Father, He is not personally distinct from the Father. Jesus is God’s personal existence as man, while the Father is that same God’s continued manner of existence beyond the incarnation. After the incarnation, then, we know God in two distinct ways: beyond the incarnation as Father, and in the incarnation as Son.

    “What’s important to grasp is that YHWH’s duality of consciousness/function is not internal to Christ between His two natures, but external to Christ, between YHWH’s two modes of existence. As Father, YHWH is conscious of Himself as God, and functions as God via the attributes of the divine nature. As Son, YHWH is conscious of Himself as man, and functions as man via the attributes of the human nature. So Jesus qua Jesus does not experience both omnipresence and limited presence. As Son, YHWH only experiences limited presence and limited knowledge. And yet that same divine person transcends the incarnation as the unlimited God, and in that mode of existence He continues to experience omnipresence and omniscience.

    “In Christ YHWH became conscious of Himself as man and functioned as man, not merely in His human nature, but through His human mode of existence. He continued to be conscious of Himself as God, and function as God in His cosmic mode of existence transcendent to the incarnation. While personally the same, the Father and Son are existentially, metaphysically, psychologically, volitionally, and functionally distinct.”

    I hope this helps!



  15. Jamie Harrison Says:

    Here is my style of your creed:

    A Charismatic-Pentecostal Articulation of Faith

    I believe in one ever-living, eternal, and uniquely complex God,
    the creator of heaven and earth,
    who is one in essence, and one in person,
    infinite in power, holy in nature, attributes, and purpose;
    possessing absolute, indivisible, and singular deity,
    and who for us became one of us, and yet remained God.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God,
    the essential, supreme, and absolute Theophany of the Almighty;
    who was conceived by the personification of the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, and descended from the line of David,
    being both true God and true man.

    Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day,
    who ascended to Heaven, from whence He will return in glory
    to judge the world, raise the dead,
    and inaugurate a kingdom without end.

    I believe in salvation through Christ alone,
    by grace through faith, and evidenced by good works.
    I believe in repentance from sin,
    baptism in Jesus’ name, and regeneration of the Spirit.



  16. Johannes Says:

    I do not agree with this creed because it contains un-Biblical elements.

    If Jesus was a true human, He was subject to sin. The most important characteristics of humans is that they are:

    1. created from the dust by God (Gen 2:7)
    2. they have spirit, flesh and blood (Ps 139)
    3. they are fallen sinners by nature (Rom 3:13)

    Jesus does not fit this description.

    Jesus was not created, because He was the Creator (Col 1:16). Jesus was not a sinner (Heb 7:26) because He was without sin, and He could not die (Rom 6:23). This leaves the resemblance between humans and Jesus only to point 2: He had Spirit, flesh and blood.

    The Spirit in Jesus was the Father (John 14:10, 2 Cor 5:19), The flesh and blood was the flesh and blood from God (Acts 20:28). His flesh was conceived from the Holy Ghost (Luk 1:35, Matt 1:20), not from human conception (will of the flesh).

    The Bible nowhere states that Jesus was a human being, but that He was in the form of a man (Phil 2:6-7). The form, likeness not the nature. (homoyama means shape, resemblance, not nature or essence)

    The only place in the Bible that equates Jesus with a nature is a heavenly nature.(2 Pe 1:4). The flesh of Jesus can save us because He was not from the dust, but the Lord from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). Adam was from the dust, but Jesus was from heaven (John 8:23).

    God bless,

    Br. Johannes


  17. Greetings! Jason

    I disagree with your belief that regeneration occurs by the holy Ghost which is contrary to holy scripture. Because according to Paul’s epistle to Titus regeneration occurs at water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. And as I often have said I disagree with your belief that God Almighty became a man instead of God creating a man and robing himself with that man or body of flesh and blood to redeem humanity particularly the elect.

    May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Marquest Burton


  18. Naz Says:

    Jason, nice creed. If I could add anything, it would be that “I believe in the love of God”. I know it’s sort of implied in your creed but often as Christians we overlook this and focus more on trying to be doctrinally correct.

    I agree with your statement that Jesus was fully human. To say He wasn’t makes Him unqualified to redeem mankind. In fact, it is absolutely necessary from a theological standpoint that He must be fully human in order to become a substitute for us.

    Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
    Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

    There is no scripture in the bible about God “robing” Himself in flesh. This only sounds good when somebody is preaching about it but it is non-biblical. Figuratively, yes, God did “robe” Himself in flesh. But what that means is that He became flesh and blood – human.

    As always you have nicely explained the distinctions between Father and Son in your responses to these posts. I think it is important that we come to a good understanding of God and how He exists. At the same time, everyone should be aware that this is NOT a salvation issue. Therefore, this should be discussed openly and freely without people getting their “nickers in a twist”. Just enjoy and bless God for all He has done. Amen.



  19. jasondulle Says:


    Appreciate the thoughts. I agree. As for the love of God, I consider that to be more of a theological minutae, and thus not appropriate for a creed (which paints in broader brush strokes). After all, if I add that, why leave out God’s justice, righteousness, holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence?



  20. Johannes Says:

    If Jesus was fully human, how can He be without sin at the same time? Human nature is a sinful nature, and Jesus was without sin (Heb 7:26).

    (Heb 7:26 [NET])
    For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

    Heb 2:16 does not say that Jesus took on human flesh. The KJV translation is flawed here because it adds words that are not in the original text. The modern translation is better:

    (Heb 2:16 [NET])
    For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants.

    (Heb 2:17 [NET])
    Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.

    Jesus Christ had flesh and blood, but as He clearly states, the origin of that flesh is from heaven, and not from the dust (like Adam or Mary or Joseph):

    (John 6:51 [NET])
    I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

    (John 8:23 [NET])
    Jesus replied, “You people are from below; I am from above. You people are from this world; I am not from this world.

    (1Cor 15:49 [NET])
    And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.

    Jesus was a High Priest from the order of Melchidezek, without parents, so not from human descent:

    (Heb 7:3 [NET])
    Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.

    God bless,

    Br. Johannes


  21. Leon "Zulu"Hargreaves Says:

    Dear Mr Dulle
    Thank you for your thought provoking theories on the Godhead.The Trinity dogma has never been seriously challenged for almost 1700 years and though it has never been fully understood by its adherents seems to have stood the test of time.Your creed is unlike any I have seen before and seems to be a rehashing of the ancient theories of Noetus,Epigonus and Praxeas.So-called Modalistic Monarchianism is to be commended for its reaction against the Logos Theology of the Greek Apologists.The monarchian apologists however swung the pendulum too far to the other extreme of explaining away the obvious N.T distinctions of Father,Son and Holy Spirit.Oneness Theology seems to be in the same quandary in modern times,for the distinctions of Father and Son are explained as spirit(Father) and flesh(Son)and worse still as a distinction of the divine nature(Father)and human nature(Son).Is this not the error of Nestorius? Oneness seems to begin with a form of Unitarianism positing one Person in the Godhead,the Father who becomes manifest in the flesh as the Son.Is God the Father mutable according to your theory? Your dual existence doctrine parallels that of Beryllus of Bostra who was said to have been “corrected” by Origen.The Trinity dogma is in itself not satisfactory and suffers the tension of a theory that attempted to bring together two extremes; modalism which makes no personal distinctions and tritheism/Arianism which made too much of the distinctions.Sabellius, who has been grossly misrepresented in church history taught that the One God expressed Himself in Three Personal modes.When you say God is one Person, do you mean one hypostasis?Mr Dulle, I too believe God is one hypostasis on the basis that the term means essence or substance.The terms “ousia” and hypostasis mean practically the same thing.The Trinity posits three hypostases(essence-for that is the original Greek meaning of the word)in one “ousia”(essence).What a mishmash of words used to plaster the cracks of an untenable dogma?Trinitarianism hides its true tritheistic identity behind the facade of monotheism.They would not use the word “prosopon”for person because it was “tainted” by Sabellianism and replaced it with hypostasis which has become the death-knell for the dogma of the Trinity.Modern Oneness theologians have developed their theory in reaction to their Trinitarian opponents using the same words and phrases.God, from all eternity was alone with His Logos which is within Him as reason,logic,internal discourse and deed which became expressed at creation and manifest at incarnation.The WORD is how God utters Himself forth and relates to His creation.God outside of time can never be described as a “person”.The terminology of Father,Son and Holy Spirit arose as God made Himself known to creation.The distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Real and Genuine as well as eternal in the Logos.The Logos is God expressed as Father,Son and Holy Spirit;the ONE GOD.God is one hypostasis(essence) expressed as three prosopa(persons).


  22. Leon Hargreaves Says:

    Oneness Theology is just as untenable as Trinitarianism and Arianism.


  23. Jay Says:


    I was wondering if I can get in contact with you via email.



  24. jasondulle Says:

    Hi Jay,

    Sure. It’s jasondulle@yahoo.com



  25. "B" Says:

    May I post ur Credo on my profile?



  26. Errol Says:


    Question for you. How do you explain Romans 8:26 in light of a Oneness belief? if the Holy Spirit is the Father, why is he praying then?



  27. jasondulle Says:

    I think the more fundamental question is if the Holy Spirit is divine, why would He be praying at all?


  28. Errol Heron Says:

    Good question. But I would still like to hear your theological response to this question. I am a Oneness believer and was asked this question and was not very convincing with my response, so I am forwarding the question to you.


  29. jasondulle Says:


    Sure thing. I was simply trying to make the point that this is a difficult passage for everyone, Oneness adherents and Trinitarians alike. On the face of it, it doesn’t seem to support either theological system since both systems believe the Holy Spirit is God, and God is always the person being prayed to, not the person doing the praying. God has no need of prayer.

    As for my take on the passage, I address it here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/rom826.htm.



  30. richardgobble Says:

    It’s funny what is viewed as a “difficult” passage to some…but might seem not a problem at all to others. I have always taken Romans 8:26 to describe the Holy Spirit within us (i.e. indwelling Spirit) praying “for us” when we know not what we ought to pray.

    I have no biblical support for this, just an impression I got when I read the passage in light of my oneness views.

    I have always viewed the deepest levels of intercessory prayer as a place where I “turn over” my will to the Lord.

    Again, it must be said, this is just a personal view…not something to hang any doctrine on.


  31. Human Ape Says:

    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty, creator of heaven and earth,”

    The whole thing has a lot of problems. For example in your first two lines you say there’s a god fairy without providing any evidence for it. And you invoke this magical creature to explain the development of planets.

    The formation of solar systems is a natural process. Your fairy’s magic wand was not one of the mechanisms of this development.

    The heaven idea is just a fantasy for gullible cowards.

    Then you write about the dead Jeebus as if he were something more than a worthless preacher man.

    Your “rose again the third day” is the most disgusting and most anti-science fantasy ever invented.

    I respectfully suggest you throw the whole thing out, escape from the Dark Ages you’re hiding in, and join the rest of the human race here in the 21st century.


  32. jasondulle Says:

    Can I really take you seriously when you chide me for not providing evidence in a creedal statement? It’s a “creedal” statement. It’s intended to say what I believe, not provide justification for it. I provide plenty of justification for my beliefs in other posts and articles.

    And all of your ad hominems shows that you are not prepared to engage in serious dialogue. Anybody can offer ridicule and engage in name-calling.


  33. richardgobble Says:

    Your work is appreciated Jason. Your articles have been of immeasurable value to me over the years. Thank you.

    As for post #32…well…it is much easier to tear down than to build up.


  34. I tend not to leave a response, but I looked at a lot of remarks here Credo Theo-sophical Ruminations. I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you tend not to mind. Could it be simply me or does it look like some of these responses look like they are left by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting on other places, I would like to follow everything new you have to post. Would you list of all of all your public sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?


  35. Jason Says:

    “to judge the world, raise the dead…”

    I’ve been told by family members that they don’t want me to be cremated,as I once suggested. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized why, lol. They feel if I get cremated, there wouldn’t be any body to be raised when Jesus comes back! I don’t mean to sound mean, but to think that people are going to actually raise from the dead is ludicrous to me, especially since the ones that have been in the grave for hundreds of years are already dust. To believe that one day everyone is going to start rising out of their graves is enough for me to put the Bible in the same category as the other divine stories and mythical fantasies. It is either than believing in zombies, lol, I just can’t do it.


  36. jasondulle Says:


    It is ludicrous if one’s starting presupposition is naturalism. But if theism is true, there is nothing ludicrous about it. After all, if God could create the world out of nothing, and if He could fashion man’s body from dust, then surely it is a cinch for Him to refashion man’s body once again from dust. The real issue, then, is whether theism is true.



  37. Paul Plumb Says:

    Instead of starting with some man made crede, let’s read what the Bible says about the Godhead

    Gen 1:26 Let US make man in our image – this teaches there is more than one in the Godhead

    Matt 3:17 – He didn’t say “this is my beloved SELF. There was a distinct separation or God is just a great ventriloquist

    Matt 20:23 – the Saviour recognizes a distinct separation in recognizing he doesn’t have the authority to give what was asked

    Matt 26:39 – submission of the Son to the Father

    Here is what the scriptures say about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Forget the creeds – they aren’t true.

    Luke 1:32 – Jesus is the SON of the highest.

    Luke 3:22 This is so obvious that there are 3 distinct members of the Godhead – you can see all 3 in this scripture.

    John 5:19 An acknowledgement by the Saviour that He, the Son can do nothing except he is shown what to do by the Father.

    John 10:30 Here He states that He and the Father are one and clarifies in 38 that the Father is in him and He in the Father. In other words they are so alike, they are one in thought, purpose, etc. John 17:21 Jesus prays that we might be one as He and the Father are one. Put those two verses together and think about them

    John 12:28 Clear separation unless you believe in ventriliquism again

    John 14:28 Simple statement the Father is greater than the Son

    John 20:17 Jesus tells her to go to his brothers (how are they his brothers?) and say “I ascend to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God.
    While Jesus is God, yet the Father is his Father and his God, the same as he is for all of us.

    Acts 2:33 – Jesus seen on the right hand of God. Why would that vision be given if it were not true exactly as seen. There is Jesus standing on the right hand of God, the Father.

    1 Cor 8:6 – There is but one God – the Father — and one Lord Jesus Christ
    God, the Father and God, the Son. not some mythical creature dreamt up by the superstitious Doctors of the 4th century who neither knew God or his doctrines

    2 Cor 4:4 I am in the image of my earthly father. If you saw me you would see how close an image I am of my earthly father. This is all this is saying – Christ is the image of God – They look the same but are separate.

    Eph 3:14 Here there are named the Father and our Lord. they are not the same person.

    Col 1:15 Jesus is the image (looks exactly like) the invisible (The Father never showed himself during New Testament times) How is Christ the firstborn? He wasn’t the first born on earth. He was the first born spirit child of our Father. Hebrews states we are the children of God, if children then Heirs, Heirs with Christ. We are less than the dust compared to Him, but we are still Heirs with Christ as his children.

    1 John 5:7 three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost.

    Now if you want to know if this is true – study it out so you understand. For those steeped in man made creeds this may take a while. Then pray sincerely to know if the scriptures above are true and if you pray with real intent to know – you WILL know.


  38. Don Says:

    I just want to make sure that what you are saying is that you reject orthodox Christian teaching on the Trinity. “who is one in essence, and one in person”
    is a denial of the triune God who is “one in essence, and three persons”.


  39. Dobbin Says:

    The standard terminology of creeds that refer to Jesus’ relationship to the Father as being of the same essence always seemed lacking. It wasn’t until i realized part of the hard-edged philosophical realities of the I Am that I was able to wrap my head around the idea of Jesus praying to God and also BEING the same person.
    I’m sort of embarrassed to say this, but the implications of the transporter and replicator technology on Star Trek was instrumental to revealing those realities to me.

    Our I Am is what we want to survive when we avoid death. If some mishap like necessary brain surgery caused me to lose part of my memory or lose a talent or aptitude or even something like my sense of humor; preserving the continued existence of my I Am would likely trump any other consideration.

    Which brings me back to Startrek. Is a person transported any different from a replica with the original disintegrated? If a replicator created several copies of me, it might be useful to help me accomplish certain tasks. When the task is done though, who gets unmade? My wife and friends couldn’t tell the difference but individual survival would matter very much to each identical replicas. Because of this understanding, I would fight going into a transporter as vigorously as I would fight being tossed from an airplane.

    Bottom lines are: Having the same attributes does not necessarily mean that you are talking about the same person. Conversely, having DIFFERENT attributes doesn’t necessarily mean that you are talking about another individual either.

    The omnipotent God had the power to create a body that His I AM could inhabit. In the incarnation, the Father put His I AM into the human body he created within Mary. There was no contradiction with the I AM of Father being on Earth as Jesus while simultaneously being the Father the great I AM. That is because IT WASN’T SIMULTANEOUS!! Or rather simultaneity doesn’t apply when the Father exists outside of time ad created time while the same I Am was within time as Jesus. Jesus was a “chip off the old block” relative to God. Somewhat like the way I invested my life into the existence of my son, Jesus’ subordinate relationship to to Father was a consequence of the greater to lesser/ begetter to begotten nature of the relationship.

    Jesus’ heavenly body existence was also within the created time and space of Heaven, so there is no simultaneity conflict there either. Where I most run afoul of people’s theology is when I state that I believe Jesus existence had a beginning with the start of time in heaven. Whether that was 14Billion years ago, 6000years or eternity past I can’t say I could argue for each.

    This explanation makes sense out of the separate but the same person doctrines that arise from scriptures. The notion of Jesus having a beginning causes problems for those who hold creeds that have words like “Begotten not Made” in them.

    This makes 2/3 if the Trinitarian belief more comprehensible. I don’t have a similar tidy explanation for the Holy Spirit.


  40. Don Says:

    the concept of person-hood has to do with 1st-person intentionality. It is nonsensical for the same person to say, “not my will but thy will be done” and also identify with the “I AM” unless there is some union of Being while also having a distinction of persons.


  41. THE BIBLE TEACHES NOTHING ABOUT THE TRINITY. The Trinity is the interpretive notion of religious, dogmatic men almost 1700 years ago.

    The Original Nicene Creed of 325 C.E.
    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

    By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

    Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

    He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

    From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

    And in the Holy Ghost.
    The revised Creed:
    The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 C.E.)

    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
    Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
    And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
    And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
    And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
    And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
    And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;
    And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
    We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
    We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
    And the Life of the age to come. Amen.


  42. I was always taught that the original Nicene Creed was Trinitarian. Yet as I continued to give myself to assiduous study of church history, I found that the original contents of the 325 Creed are not explicitly Trinitarian. Then I later found that the early Modalists actually signed the Creed.
    Church historian Jaraslov Pelikan wrote that Marcellus of Ancyra and other Modalists signed the Creed in 325. Eustathius of Antioch was one of many Modalist who confronted the Arians and Semi-Arians like Eusebius for teaching against the early Nicene Creed.
    In my recent debate with Steve Morrison in Austen Texas, I was able to show that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ called the “paracletos” who now intercedes for the saints because God also became a man. Ephesians 4:10 and Galatians 4:6 prove that after the incarnation and ascension of Christ, God now exists as the omnipresent Father and as the indwelling Holy Spirit which is Christ who is now making intercession for the saints according to the will of God. For more info go to ApostolicChristianFaith.com


  43. Scalia Says:


    Hello! You write:

    This makes 2/3 if the Trinitarian belief more comprehensible.

    Respectfully, I don’t think the confusion rests in what you think is answerable in Star Trek analogies. The problem with the doctrine of the Trinity is its assertion that there is one God, but there are also three persons who are fully God. Regardless how one twists and turns, there is no way to make that work from a logical standpoint. How can a person genuinely believe in something unintelligible?


  44. Scalia Says:

    @Dr. H. Davis

    Your link does not address the substantive logical conundrums of the Trinity. It is a standard, boilerplate reply to what are basically insignificant questions. The author doesn’t appear to even be aware of the fundamental logical issues with said doctrine.

    If you understand trinitarian doctrine, then by all means explain why you think it can survive logical scrutiny.


  45. Scalia Says:


    You write:

    the concept of person-hood has to do with 1st-person intentionality. It is nonsensical for the same person to say, “not my will but thy will be done” and also identify with the “I AM” unless there is some union of Being while also having a distinction of persons.

    This objection has logical traction if one denies the deity of Jesus. Given the way you’ve worded your post, I assume you subscribe to some version of the Trinity, so my reply will be limited to that. If you in fact deny Christ’s deity, then I’ll need to offer a different kind of reply, so forgive me if I wrongly assume that you hold trinitarian beliefs.

    First, you imply that it is “nonsensical” for Christ to say, “not my will but thy will be done,” if Christ is the Father. Isn’t it equally nonsensical for a fully divine being (God the Son) to have a conflict of will with another divine being (God the Father)? If Jesus is fully God and if the Father is fully God, how can there be a conflict of wills? A person acts in accordance with his nature, and the nature of God is infinitely perfect. Hence, by definition, there can be no conflict of wills in God, for an infinitely perfect being will always will what is infinitely perfect.

    Second, if God the Son wills one thing and God the Father wills another, one of the persons will have to yield (as in the instant case). But the conflict itself indicates an imperfection of power. An omnipotent being does not need the cooperation of any other being to realize His will. What if one person does not yield (as indicated by the conflict)? Can the other person prevent said person from acting? God is independent, He therefore does not need anybody’s cooperation to realize His will and cannot be prevented from acting on His will. No truly divine person can obstruct the will of another divine person. You can answer that the yielding is strictly voluntary, but that doesn’t address the underlying issue. A conflict indicates a limitation of one’s scope, else there would be no need to cooperate or to submit. If one needs cooperation, one is dependent. God is not dependent; consequently, at least one of the persons cannot be omnipotent if a conflict exists.

    The only logical alternative is that Christ spoke as a man, not as God. In standard trinitarian theology, God the Son did not cease being God while incarnate. He continued to function as God while simultaneously functioning as the messiah. That means, of course, that Christ’s human will was just as much in conflict with God the Son’s will as with the Father’s (and God the Holy Ghost’s, for that matter). Hence, it was the human will that submitted to the divine will. That is the standard reply whether one is trinitarian or a modalist.

    There are other replies extending from the above, depending on one’s version of the Trinity, but I’ll not offer them unless you affirm otherwise.


  46. Scalia Says:


    I don’t know if you’re getting updates to this thread, and your post is quite old. If you’re still around, you write:

    The terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit arose as God made Himself known to creation.The distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Real and Genuine as well as eternal in the Logos.The Logos is God expressed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the ONE GOD. God is one hypostasis (essence) expressed as three prosopa (persons).

    You say that God is one essence, and you use the pronouns He and Himself in reference to God. Thus, God is rational being (the indefinite article ‘a’ being intentionally left off). You also say elsewhere in your post that the Logos is within God (“Him”) “as reason, logic, internal discourse and deed which became expressed at creation and manifest at incarnation.” Since our reason, logic, etc. are not distinct (or separate) personal identities, I infer that you agree that the Logos is also not a distinct personal identity.

    You then say that God is one essence expressed as three persons. Please define person in the context of your post.

    Thanks, in advance.


  47. Scalia Says:

    @Paul Plumb

    1) Gen. 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

    Mat. 19:4 – “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,”

    Is. 44:24 – “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

    There are many verses in the Bible like these. God is a He not a they. God created the earth by Himself, not with anybody else. The Jews, who are better experts at their native tongue than trinitarians, view vs. 26 as either a majestic plural or an address to angels. Though the angels did not actively create, they participated in worship as God created the earth (Job 38:4-7).

    2) The Son is the human creation of God. God did not lose His transcendence while incarnate. Ventriloquism has nothing to do with it. God’s essence in Christ is the same essence in heaven (Jn. 3:13).

    3) If Jesus didn’t have the authority, then He isn’t God. If, as you later insist, He is a member of the Godhead, then he most definitely has the authority as the Almighty to decree anything in accordance with His nature. The fact that He declaims authority demonstrates He is speaking as a man, not as God. Even trinitarians acknowledge that very obvious point.

    4) Again, if the Son “submits” to the Father, it can only mean that the Son is subordinate and not co-equal with the Father. God doesn’t submit to anybody. His essence is infinitely perfect. Consequently, submission must occur as a man. Even trinitarians acknowledge that God the Son could not vacate heaven while incarnate, that He existed as God and as man simultaneously. If “God the Son” is a reality, then the humanity of Christ was just as subject to His divinity as it was to the Father’s.

    5) The Son was made of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and made under the law. Since God created a male human body, He must by definition be called the Son.

    6) John 1:33 – “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”

    God produced a dove as a special sign to John the Baptist that Jesus is the messiah. The Holy Ghost is not a bird.

    7) If the Son can do nothing but what is shown by the Father, then the Son cannot be a member of the Godhead. God doesn’t need instructions from anybody.

    8) In John 10:30 Jesus plainly identified Himself as the Father. Trinitarians either use textual sleight-of-hand with the Greek or go outside the immediate context to sustain their doctrine, but the Jews clearly understood what He was saying:

    John 10:33 – “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

    Of course the Father (the eternal Spirit) was in the Son (the fleshly manifestation of God). God is invisible (Col. 1:15). Christ is the image of God in that His body is God’s human tabernacle, and we behold God’s glory in Christ’s face (2 Cor. 4:6).

    9) And as already shown from John 3:13, Jesus was in heaven while on earth. Do you really believe Jesus is God?

    10) If the Father is greater than God the Son, then the Son cannot be a co-equal member of the Godhead. If that’s what you believe, then most trinitarians would reject your beliefs as heretical. The “greater” distinction is between God and man, not God and God.

    11) If the Father is Christ’s God as God is our God, then Christ is as subordinate to God as we are, else you’re equivocating. Your explanation attempts have one’s cake and eat it simultaneously. For the analogy to hold, you have to restrict Christ’s statement to His role as a subordinate man, not to His position as God.

    12) The “right hand” refers to God’s power (see Ex. 15). This is shown repeatedly in the Old Testament. God is invisible, and we have already seen that Jesus is the visible expression of the invisible God. Hence, when the Scriptures refer to Jesus at God’s right hand, it is saying that He is the visible expression of God’s power and glory. You cannot get to the physical right hand of God for God is not confined to spatial coordinates.

    13) Yes, there is one God, the Father. The one God of the Bible is the Father (Mal. 2:10). Although you try to inject your words into the text, it doesn’t say that. If there is one God, you cannot acknowledge anybody else. The “one Lord, Jesus Christ,” refers to the mediatorial role of Christ as our redeemer (1 Ti. 2:5). As redeemer, he mediates between God and man (Gal. 3:20), but even there He performs both roles simultaneously. Since He is God and man, he mediates man to Himself.

    14) The image of God has been addressed.

    15) You don’t bow to Jesus?

    16) 1 Jn. 5:7 – Why did you leave out the last clause of that verse? “These three ARE ONE.” Notice the difference between verse 7 and verse 8. In verse 8, you have three separate things: Spirit, water and blood, yet they AGREE in one. They, together, relate to the witness in earth, but the heavenly witness isn’t a unity of agreement — these three ARE ONE.

    I sincerely hope you will rethink your conclusions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s