a oneness denial of the trinity refuted

In this article i want to examine a heretical position by a oneness believer called called king James video man called, "the eternal son of God hoax" to see if his arguments hold any validity or if they are full of hot air.

Notice his opening statement:

 "if i can show that the eternal son ship or that his always been a son from eternity ... if i can show you that it is wrong i would have effective dismantled the doctrine of the trinity .. even the Trinitarians tell you without the eternal son ship the doctrine can not stand".. 

Such a statement as this needs to be successfully demonstrated, and not just assumed from selectivity 
now allow us to deal with the first example given :Luke 1 35

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

if notice this scripture it gives us the reason why he is called the "SON OF GOD" when we see the term "therefore" it denote a reason .. and it is because of the power of the most high over shadowing, secondly the term shall point to a future event .. he will be the son of .... not that he has always been 

It is vital for us to make a really valid interjection; this passage does not negate the truth of Jesus divine existence as the "son of God." All it shows is the humanity of the son came into existence at a certain point through the divine work in Mary. There really is no point in trying to argument a position based on a passage that teaches one aspect of the union in Christ .. his humanity.
What I will state is this the future tense are meaningless in the sense that they only one thing God the son entered into flesh.  

Now allow us to move to the next scripture : Hebrews 1 :5

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?

Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? now this is the Father speaking of a future relationship because of "will" and "shall" how can this be when trinitarians say there was a relationship between the father and son in eternity from billions and billions of years ago, secondly there is no reason for him to say i will be and he shall be if they already were 

It is interesting how the oneness miss a vital clue; that being the writer had mentioned the son a few verses earlier we should consider this too 

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

The son is said have same exact nature and glory as the father .. and in fact is also said to be distinct from the father, and yet is God to .. and is upon his work as the redeeming Savior that the father "vindicated" .. declared him to be his son 

it is likewise important in our study to consult the old testament passages which are being quoted, 

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;  today I have begotten you.--- psalms 2 :7 

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,--- 2 sam. 7 :14

These scripture are vital in your understand as they refer too our lord in the long rune, but in the immediate sense the second one at least is about Solomon .. the first one refers to a king who reigns over his kingdom .. and eternal one.

Similar to Daniel 7 :13 -14 which is about the same eternal truth, that eternal son will rule as a king, the only future tense that is being spoken of is the future ruler as Psalms 2 makes clear

now we can consider the surrounding context ... Hebrews 1 :8-12

  

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,like a robe you will roll them up like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

clearly such states as the above only make sense when one allows for a consistent understanding, the oneness of this man would deny the son existed as an eternal person, but clearly God is not indicating this through his apostle, but is in fact indicating the son is also the Creator with him, and is eternal in nature, clearly these passage were speaking of the one true God Yahweh in the original context, and here the writer under the inspiration of holy spirit is telling us that they apply to the son in his pre-existence, when he was known as the Word, the Son and the Angel. 

next we move onto the 3rd scripture mentioned : Romans 1 3-4

concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh  and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,   this tell us a future description of the "son of God" because of him being born and resurrected from the dead .. if he was already the son of God it would be meaningless

It is vital to allow the context to speak and not interject a personal theory as this man is doing in this instance .. his interpretation is meaningless, i agree but that does not mean that the passage is meaningless when read in light of all Paul states, but let concentrate on this passage

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh  and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

<sup>This passage is a addition to the teach of Christ two nature, 1 human and one divine (hypostatus union) but upon the verse in question 
what does the term declared mean in its original context, and how does that help understand what Paul is saying the word is horizo .. which means to appointed , declared , determined, fixes, predetermined 
so we must not read a point in time when he became, but that he has always been the son ...but in his resurrection he was VINDICATED ... to be declared as the unique son

So what Paul may be indicating is that all the claims Jesus made about his person, all the miracles he performed were signs of and admissions of his divine nature .. and this was the way the resurrection "declared" him to be the son, by exhonorating and vindicating him of all the blaspheme charges laid at him
Think of of john 5 :17 -18 with the extended dialogue ... just one example that could be in view .. that the resurrection declare to be the truth "vindicated"
and this could be seen in relation to 1 timothy 3 :16 which states,</sup> 

   ^{He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.}

  
^{The term vindicated is used here in relation to the work of the spirit, they are two different Greek words which seems to be used as synonymous point of view.  Jesus through the resurrection was made just in accord to his work and his claim about whom he was .. so the necessary conclusion is that roman 1 doesn't make this mans point valid}

This first attempt at disproving the trinity via the eternal son ship of Christ, this gentleman has not sufficiently proven that the doctrines he detests are false, he can not do this by quoting a few select passages and interjecting his own understanding upon them and forcing that contradict the bibles clear testimony to the trinity and the eternal son ship of the son

In his second installment to this series titled, "who came down to die for our sins".. his main argument is the following:

1 john 4 :2-3 / 2 john 1:7/ 1 john 4 :15

we ask .. "who is that the scriptures say came in the flesh, who are we to say, believe and confess that came from heaven 

notice it does not say anything about "a son of God" come down from heaven and become flesh .. all it said was that we must "confess Jesus Christ" came in the flesh 

and that teaches against the trinity, the eternal son ship of Christ as it clearly only speaks of one person 

^{The argument presented is based on a false understanding of the passages  that are utilised against the trinity and the eternal son ship of Christ ... before dealing with any scripture and making an argument based on them .. we first need to understand the original premise of the argument being present by the writer}

^{in this case it is the apostle John, the apostle of our lord Jesus Christ .. and like Paul in Colossians,  this was primarily addressing the Gnostic belief}

^{Which teaches the following : a dualistic view of things .. that which is physical / materialist in nature is evil to its essence .. this includes all life on earth. that which non physical / spiritual in nature is pure and good .. which would include God and angels} 

^{hence the incarnation would involve a contamination in there view ... which would be that for God to become a man he would in essence either lose his pure essence and became a an evil being, or just become complete mixed up}

^{with this basic understanding we must allow all 1 john to speak and not just cite a few select verses and interject a false satanic belief upon the scriptures}

^{let us briefly consider a few passages from this beautiful detailed letter} 

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—  the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—  that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

  

^{here John is giving us a similar statement to john 1 but with a few addition point that is more direct to john 1:14, that the word became flesh ... we note that here john reverses the understanding rather than starting with his identity as God .. since the objector would not see a problem with this}

^{But takes the great God via his true being .. and applies it to his Lord Jesus ... note the distinct set out twice, "the eternal life was with the father and was made manifest to them,"  the "was with" is the Greek  term en pros .. which indicate an eternal bond,  relationship , face to face.}  
The next interesting point is in these words 
"fellowship with the father and with his son" this gives us two thing to think about .. the fellow ship is with ... meta .. an active on going fellowship with 2 persons .... we get this from the and with .. it make a distinction of eternal persons

^{But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.  And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.}

^{the above passage is often utilized as evidence for the true atonement and with good reasons for such a argument being necessary, but here the atonement is not in question what is in focus is the statement "if we sin we have an advocate with the father"} 

^{it is here that one can gain an additional evidence for our position for the trinity, and eternal person hood and son ship of the the LORD} 

^{the English word was in this verse ... is from the Greek term pros .. which is the term in the last passage with indicates a distinction of persons since it show a eternal relationship}        

^{The one passage that is cited which is important to understand is 1 john 4 :2-3, so we will take some time to discuss this in context}

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

here john is not dealing with orthodox belief in regards to the son ship of Christ, or the trinity in fact, the main issue is the Gnostic belief that man is evil .. therefore if God wanted to became one, he could not for that would mean God would be evil like us ... surely john as an true disciple of Christ would have believe that he was the eternal son of God as Jesus taught to this effect else where and john recorded it ...
john 10 for example ...in this chapter Jesus discuss his eternal bond with the father in saving his sheep .. but the most amazing point comes in verses 32-36 where he affirms his own son ship in form of telling people they are false gods (judges) 

In the next installment to this teaching the man speaks to the "begotten son of God" which he states the following : speaking on the creeds of the trinity

i believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God .. begotten in eternity of his father before the world  this creed is obvious that Jesus Christ was begotten of the father before the world began.. so right away we see this ..  the churches are teaching  that Jesus was eternally begotten .. mean he was born in eternity past the ac creed adds "he that is saved must think that this of the trinity is very important to this  

if i show that the eternal son ship is wrong then the whole doctrine of the trinity starts to crumble

While it is essential to have creeds as to give us a sure lay out of the biblical beliefs on Gods being and the persons who are that one being, it is also vital to understand words have meaning in their original contexts, the term begotten in the context of the creeds is refer not to "that Jesus was eternally begotten .. mean he was born in eternity past" ... to think that the term begotten in this sense refers to the eternal operations of the son in the Godhead

such that the one who originates from Gods side from eternity

the next thing we need to establish is this ... the term "only begotten" (k j v)  and one and only, unique one (modern translations) these are the translations of the Greek term "mono-genes" ... for us to understand the importance this term .. we need to allow it to explain its significance to us .. "mono" ... translates as one, only and "genes" translates as origin, kind, or unique

a more important understanding would be "the unique son whose originates from God" but a more comfortable way would be the only unique 

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on the earth as well...And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: ‘There was a time when He did not exist’ and ‘before He was begotten, He did not exist;’ and ‘He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,’ alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change - such persons the Catholic and apostolic church condemns.”

Here is the first creed statement... talking of each person the Father, Son and The Holy Spirit as being distinct persons who are that one divine spirit being called God, and each of these persons assigns different eternal functions but note there 2 times the term "begotten is seen .. in the first it is referring to the eternal operation of the eternal persons of the one being, the second is the time when the second person becomes flesh.
The importance of this is that it is built upon a strong foundation that being the testimony of scriptures
Note, the next creed

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. [Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons still they] have one divinity, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. [Each, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is uncreated, has immensity, is eternal, is omnipotent, is God, is Lord, yet there is] but one eternal being...one uncreated being...one being that has immensity...one omnipotent being...one God...one Lord...The Father is not made by anyone, nor created by anyone, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made nor created, but He is generated by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is, then, one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits

Here we have  a more fuller discussion on the issues at hand and is summed upon with the terms ... The Father: the fountainhead; The Son: eternally generated by the Father. And lastly, the Holy Spirit:  proceeds from both the persons of the Father and Son. 

Which is biblically seen in many place in the gospels; such as in the apostle john giving on Jesus in chapters 1, 5, 6 and the holy spirit in the 14, 15, 16

Note the claim "he that is saved must think that this of the trinity is very important to this,"  there is nothing in relation to this in either creed.

The new testament citations given  are of john 1:14 and john 3 : 16 to which we respond in the following fashion 

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.   For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

^{Here is the k j v rendering of the Greek words .. the term begotten is not found in the Greek words .. as it is mono genes, not genato, below we have the e s v rendering of the Greek with a more applicable understanding,}

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.  

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

^{The section in question is "only son" which is translated from the Greek term "mono genes hious" which means one of a kind, one of the same kind, the unique son. The Greek would be mono genes hious .. which only son is a very acceptable rendering of it .. however in king James at that point in the 17th century begotten was an acceptable render, but it is not the true definition of the Greek}  

^{And today with the advance wealth of manuscripts and more thorough understanding of the Greek we have come to a point where we can have certainty of what john said, in fact even more so than the k j v translators did and they would welcome this.}  

<sup>Therefore, the mans task has not been achieved in the slightest manner as he has made a translation is standard, and has then fallen for such deception 

In the next instalment of this mans teaching we get the following teaching on psalms 2 :7 and the idea of the doctrine the sons etenality being false</sup>

^{psalms 2:7} 
this prophecy was of Jesus being begotten on a "certian day" and thats my point
what dat was he begottan on, the day of his birth in bethelhem, here in psalms 2 :7 it's prophecying his physical birth .. the day the father is going to beget the son
and he uses the phrase "beget"
so right away we see an eternal begotten son has no meaning .. he was begotten on a certain day ot in eternity past but a certain day in time, on earth, in bethelhem
paul makes the same point in hebrews 1:5 , you see there is nthing in this scripture about being eternally created in eternity past   

   

This response has revealed several misrepresentations on behalf of this KJV onlyist and oneness believer which need to be addressed, first of all, as i had mentioned this man is mixing terms .. begotten here is not the term found in the John passages .. the usual term in Greek is "genato"  but the term being applied to Jesus in john 1 and 3 is mono genes which as i have shown is more understood as an expression of someone uniqueness, and not the fact they were begotten as were given birth too, secondly the term begotten in general use is not being used in scriptures as all .. begotten in terms of Jesus refers to a relation in the godhead as in .. 1 person being the father, and other the son
it would be akin to a dissension of priority, third, a small point to make but the book of Hebrews does not have a known authorship on it, there is no mention of Paul in it as his other letters contain .. this is not meant to be showing an error on his part just an observation


now let us deal with psalms 2 :7 in context, a huge problem for the KJV Onlyites allow us to consider the context :

I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

He said to me, “You are my son: today I have become your father.

Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,

 the ends of the earth your possession

 You will break them with a rod of iron you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

Therefore, you kings, be wise  be warned, you rulers of the earth

  Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.

Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction,

for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

^{Again we are witnessing a oneness preacher/ KJVonlyist who is not able to exegete a passage in its context to reveal what is being addressed, there is no connection to Jesus birth in the passage, in fact there is one theme HIS SECOND COMING} 

^{and the authority in which the father has given to the son in judgement this psalm is closely linked to another old testament citation on this subject}

^{notice the words of the section from Daniel 7}

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

<sup>Based on the similar tones of the 2 passages . we can only conclude that they are depicting the same event .. the second coming and final judgement so the term beget in this psalm has not got any connection to his birth as a human, but his eternal reign ... the father begets on him the authority and reign as the final judge 

Conclusion</sup>

based on the above refutation of 4/6 videos of this series by king James video man I have sufficiently established the fact that he can not offer a single scripture to support his thesis "the eternal son of God hoax" ... all the scriptures he refers to do not refute the belief in Jesus eternal nature and hence do not refute the trinity in the slightest manner
based on several factors we have established that the position this gentleman hold too the belief that the one God equals 1 person ideal is totally unfounded in the scriptures, in fact, he can not give a presentation of his side without refuting himself in the process
so the concluding point is that he is a false Christian through and through .. his position is not biblical and is a heretical notion and it should be forsaken