Fullers’ Soap

Let’s end this series with a few verses from the book of John.

The fortunate advantage of the deity of Christ proponents is the book of John. It is the book in the NT with the most textual witnesses, and the oldest manuscripts we have come from John’s gospel (truly). It’s, as if, John had an agenda to present the deity of Christ to the readers. And boy did he ever! It is rumored in church history that actually it is a reaction to believers who started to question the deity of Christ.

John1:1-2 (this verse is enough).In the beginning, was the Word. The Word was existing during the beginning. The Word was with The God (I’m leaving the “the” in for my Jehovah’s Witnesses friends).In other words, the word was with the God. They were with each other. And get this… The Word was God). Both were and are God. God is God and the Word is God. Two beings, and were with each other in the beginning. All things through Him (The Word that was God) came into being or existed (John1:3). This passage comments on what the Word is (essentially) and what He did at that time, and it concluded that the Word, in the beginning, was God, and this God (the Word) created everything. But hold up, here’s the trick… to be consistent, just because you’re called God that doesn’t mean you’re God by nature, I mean even idols are called God. What’s the anchor text for Christ’s nature? Verse 3. I mean unless you know any other idols and false gods that created everything?

John 5:18. Note that Christ is implying that He is the Son of God. Two things are happening here. Please focus, for our controversy with our oneness brethren is here. After hearing this, the Jewish leaders seek to kill Christ because He said that God was His own Father and making Himself equal to God. (1) Merely claiming to be the Son of God is claiming equality with God. Meaning throughout the Gospels where Christ is claiming to be the Son of God, those references are clear references to His equality to the Father. (2) Unlike a lot of today’s oneness proponents, the Jewish leaders knew and recognized that the Father and Son were equal. Hence they sought to kill Him more. Christ declared himself the Son of God meaning He is equal with His Father. The Jews knew that such a claim was a divine claim.

John8:58. Jesus said, “I am!”. Surely, this is a divine claim?! I mean note how he even said it.” Before Abraham was, I am!” The Jewish leaders could have dismissed him as deluded. He is obviously not older than Abraham! But they sought to stone him and not mock him? They would never seek to stone him unless they felt they had a righteous reason. Delusion vs Blasphemy? For which would the Jewish leaders stone Christ? To us, it’s clearly the latter, and this makes it clear that the “I AM” is a divine claim.

These three verses cover various aspects of Jesus’s claim. The first claim is that Christ is the creator. The second claim is that Christ is equal to the Father. The third claim is that He is the I Am. These three verses pretty much cover the whole of Christ’s divine claim. If we correctly exegeted these texts, why would one consider Jesus less divine than the Father? Don’t confuse authority with nature. Nature is what you are and authority is what you have. You can’t say that because it seems that the Father has more authority than Jesus that He is good and Jesus isn’t. The argumentation there would be faulty.

There are many verses to establish Christ’s deity. We’re purposefully holding them back to show that a correct reading of even these simple verses can clinch the doctrine

Before we present our arguments on Christ. We need to give you a pair of ontology glasses to watch the argumentation carefully. Generally, we take words for granted and at face value. Which we need to resolve in order for you to interpretation errors that have given us our current theological woes in this doctrine.

 Christ is a Son. He is the offspring of Someone. Christ has a Parent. The Bible is saying this, and it is true. This is the same word used for biological sons and/or adopted sons. Surely no one understands this parent son relationship as normal man to man or God to man relationship, even if human terms are used? We repeat. We repeat, you are what you are by nature, even if words ‘seem’ to suggest the opposite. One might argue from Colossians 1:14 that Christ is the firstborn of all creation. If that is the case, we must also remember that a few verses (verse 18) later he is the firstborn among the dead. Firstborn in this context seems to communicate pre-eminence and not the first born, because Christ is not the first resurrection in scripture. If He is not the first resurrection, he is not the firstborn from the dead, at least in the literal sense. If the words are truly connotative in verse 18, how textual evidence do would one have to make verse 14 denotative and not connotative as verse 18? Fairness begs us to believe that Paul meant pre-eminence and not time of existence.

Also, Christ is the only begotten. The lexical meaning to beget is very human. I mean no one would suggest that the Father begot Christ in that fashion. Meaning the reader understands that ontology doesn’t allow one to read the words exactly or denotatively. For if literally, then Christ (in his deity) is born like we are. Then God is a father like your dad is… biologically!

Some might even say… No Chumses. We don’t believe that the Father literally fathered Christ but there is a sense that Christ has been “brought forth” (Prov 8:24). My answer to this is that the word “chug” doesn’t help this position at all. Bringing forth has the connotation of travailing .i.e. labour. So literally the Father must have a womb to deliver/bring forth Christ? Of course not. They understand that this is an absurd reading of scripture and their understanding of ontology balances their interpretation of the term brought forth. However, they don’t do this fairly. They ontologically know that the Father hasn’t literally brought forth Christ in labour pains. But they still suggest that Christ is brought forth from nonexistence to existence. They have a spiritual brought forth and a half spiritual birth of Christ (kinda inconsistent).

We have presented the biases as we see them. We request that you all review them as well. For almost two thousand years, we have been arguing over essentially the arguments covered here. We thought it wise to dispel the biases before our positive presentation of the deity of Christ. Now that your spectacles have been delivered, carefully watch our argumentation in the next article.

The Father enjoys the bulk of the clear revelation of the Scriptures. As such the Father’s deity is never really questioned. I suppose this is a good thing. As far as our sin-touched eyes can see, such lack of investigation into the Father’s deity, though respectable, does have a disadvantage. It gives us a limping understanding of the divine nature in general. This is one of the drivers in the compounded misunderstandings related to this doctrine. When we get the Father’s deity right, we are on track to understanding the Godhead.

We had already spoken about the Father being Spirit in the previous article. He is Spirit. He is a Spirit being. Though words fail us to understand God, this is probably the closest we can come to an understanding of what the Father’s essence is. He is a divine Spirit being. Although there is a plurality of Spirit beings in scripture, the Father is ontologically higher than created spirit beings, because He is not created. He is an uncreated animate Spirit being. He is also a being that is believed to have a form. Whenever the Father is described, He is described as a being, in visions (Rev 4, Dan 7) of the prophetic books.

We then traditionally switch off here. But let’s surge forward in our study. Rev 4 describes the Father as one who looks like a jasper and sardines stones. Aside from the text obviously not affirming the full jasper and sardius substance of the Father by using the word “like”, we also know that the Father isn’t of jasper or sardius in reality. If it, so, then God’s essence would be that of a created precious stone. It would mean that these stones are a piece of God. It would mean that He is a little different from the idols who also are of precious stones and materials. It would also make Paul’s words in Acts 17 not true. It would mean that we can think of God as like unto gold, silver, and stone. So He can’t be. But the Scriptures say he is. There’s no contradiction here if you have been following the articles closely. Father is described as precious stones, but ontologically He isn’t. Interesting ne??

Also, notice that the Father is described as inanimate objects. No one would ever conclude that the Father is inanimate though (remember what we said in the two previous articles). The bible also says God is a strong tower. Also a shelter. Bless your soul, He is also a Rock. God isn’t all of these things in substance or essence, but the inanimate descriptions can be seen as a description of God’s acts towards us. Or else beloved, God is not a rock or jasper or even a tower.

This is where the ontological understanding of the nature of God, is so consistent and potent. The ontological argument leans on what something is in reality and not really what something is said to be. Why? We understand the differences in language and therefore thought patterns, also the use of common speech and figures, could pose a real challenge in taking words as they read in a text. It is easier to misunderstand what is said about God than to misunderstand God’s essence and nature. Because God is what He is and not necessarily what He says He is for the words He chose could just be Him describing Himself with things we know and are created. God’s essence doesn’t change, but the way God is described usually changes. .

When one knows this, one has a consistent and coherent understanding of the godhead across the board. Understanding whether a being is divine ontologically is the most full-proof way of accurately understanding the godhead. Now that it is clear that the godhead proof of the Father is not different from that of the Holy Spirit, we see harmony. All we’re left with now is Christ! The next article will deal with the deity of Christ.

The previous article sets up the understanding that spirits are conscious intangible beings. We have seen what the people alive at the time of Jesus understood spirits or ghosts to be. We didn’t give what we believed the word spirit/ghost means from the lexicon on some random verse. We let the text finger the nature of a spirit or ghost. We threw the gauntlet at your feet, asking the question, if the thesis about spirits in the previous article is true, why must the Holy Spirit be understood any differently? Why are other spirits considered animate beings given force-like qualities, and only the Holy Spirit is an inanimate being given the qualities of a being? It breaks the tenor of the scriptures portrayal of what a spirit is.

To close off the essence of our argumentation on spirits, it would be incomplete, to not consider some of the words, Christ described the Father with.  He said of the Father, that God is Spirit. Yes, God is Spirit (Joh 4). The same word pneuma is used. Like every other spirit (excluding the Holy Spirit), no one ever argues that the Father isn’t an animate being. Why is the Holy Spirit the only spirit being questioned? Ontological issues.

When we use the word “being”, subconsciously, since we only experientially know of human beings, we unconsciously ascribed human being qualities and limitations to other classes of beings. Remember the first article. Human beings are not “spirits” (pneuma). Therefore when you’re thinking about beings in a nonhuman sense, you must also relinquish human qualities in your reasoning (unless they are shared qualities). So that whenever you approach seemingly contradictory verses, your reasoning will follow a trail of thought that will not confer our limitations as humans to other intelligent classes of being. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. He must be treated as such. Therefore whenever we consider his person-hood, in our conceptions He must not have the same limitations that humans have. If that is the case, it could be conceivable that it can act as force, and retain its individual existence and personality. Just like other spirits. Such reasoning would be progress in dealing with this topic thoroughly.

Now that we have exposed the biases on both sides, come back to the traditional ‘pro-divinity of the Holy Spirit’ verses. The name of the three entities to be baptized with (Matt 28). The Holy Spirit is there, separate from the Father. How can the Spirit be mentioned separate from the Father and yet still be The Father? How can He have His own name and yet be an extension of The Father’s self? Only animate spirits have names. Only animate pneumas have names in Scripture, no other pneumas have such.

“Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas”. The Holy Spirit uses personal pronouns to refer to Himself (Acts 13:). Within the pages of scripture, which wind, fire or force, has ever spoken let alone referred to itself? The verse suggests to us that the same Spirit even has a will. An inanimate thing that speaks, and has a will? This inconceivable within the pages of our bibles. Animate or Inanimate? You decide.

How about an anti-deity of the Spirit of God verses? Someone once presented that Christ breathing out the Holy Spirit (Joh 20) is surely a refutation of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Along with all the other verses (Gen 1:2, Acts 11:15, Rev 4:5, etc.) that don’t seem to give the Spirit clear animate qualities throughout scripture. Our response is captured in the previous article. A spirit is a being that can have force-like qualities, because according to the nature of spirits, a being can have force-like qualities and yet be fully a being. In other words, we at Fuller’s Soap, accept all the verses that seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a force, because it fits the ontology of spirit beings that we have established in previous articles. Force-like qualities does NOT mean that the Spirit is not being, but rather strengthens the claims of the Spirit because all other spirit beings have force-like qualities.This is a consolidation of our views of the Holy Spirit doctrine. Keep your eyes open for future articles, you will note that Fuller’s Soap, will consistently use the same exegetical principles for future Godhead articles, and will maintain harmony within the articles. That is consistency. If you disagree with the thesis, supply an antithesis that is consistent.

Many people believe that the deity of the Holy Spirit is the biggest sticking point to the Godhead debate. Not Historically. The deity of Christ is the oldest point of contention in the Godhead debate. So one can imagine how excited we are in publishing an article on ‘The deity of Christ’ (so excited!). However, not to subtract from the Holy Spirit controversy, many people are unsettled or not sure of the deity of the Holy Spirit. Here’s the weird thing, mostly, it’s not that they don’t believe that the Spirit doesn’t have some form of divine essence, but that the question is, ‘does the Spirit exist as an entity in and of Himself (yes Himself, we at Fuller’s Soap don’t claim to be neutral about this). People tend to believe is that the Holy Spirit is an ‘extension’ of God. The argument is that the Holy Spirit is like God in action, not as the Jehovah’s Witness would class it as a force or power, but also not entirely unlike it, if you get what I mean.

We at Fuller’s Soap are happy to engage people on points of doctrine. As such, here are our thoughts on ‘the deity of the Holy Spirit.’

Ruach and Pneuma are the words translated Spirit in the OT and NT respectively. The Septuagint (Greek OT), suggests that more than 70 Jewish Linguists (almost 3 centuries before Christ) saw an inter-translatability between the words, we shall also use them in that fashion from henceforth. These words mean “current of air”, “vital principle” and “a simple essence” (without matter). The lexicon, to be fair, don’t seem to give us a “clear being understanding” of pneuma. And at this point, at face value, you think, the Spirit is definitely not an individual being, because this is what these words mean lexically. But wait! Take a step back. Think of what the author has just done. The author has merely showed you what the word means lexically and not really how it was used in the biblical narrative. It’s like Oxford dictionaries giving you suggestions of what a word could possibly mean at that time, but Oxford doesn’t tell you categorically what the author of a document intended the word to mean in that particular document. We need to see these words in action, to understand them in the ears of the bible hearers. And praise God, we have the perfect source. The Gospels! The Gospels are an excellent source because they are an account of history. It doesn’t get clearer than actually seeing what they saw, when the word “Pneuma” was used.

We are in first-century Judah, there’s almost an explosion of evil spirits and devilish activities. Let’s consider the evil spirits. Evil/Unclean spirits! (Those with foresight already know it’s over. Shhh don’t spoil it for the other kids). Yes, evil spirits. The word spirit in “evil spirits” is pneuma. These spirits are entities. These spirits can call other spirits (they communicate). These spirits can cause discomfort and illness on humans (Mar 1:23). These spirits are wicked (Mark 3:11). In other words, they have a personality and character (Mar 5:9). These spirits can obey (Mar 1:27). These spirits can perceive and speak (Mar 3:11). These spirits can move around (Matt 12:45).

These are irrefutable historical events. We have a history of individual spirits doing things that Animate Individuals do, alone or even as a team. This is what people in Asia Minor considered evil spirits. It’s not evil “winds/current of air, essence, the seat of emotions, etc.” but evil spirits that are individuals. Don’t get us wrong also. There are many times when Pneuma refers to the seat of emotions or current of air (Mat 5:3; Matt 26:41 & John 3:8). But let it be conceivable that a Spirit is also an animate individual. An independent entity with a personality, character, and perception that can move independently and can acknowledge and worship.

You’re probably thinking, “Okay, I never thought of that. But it’s still not enough proof.” We would say, alright, but you must concede that we have established a valid antithesis to the oneness reading of pneuma (spirit). Now it cannot only be read for inanimate entities, but animate as well (happy days!).

The rabbit hole is deeper. You recall when Christ was walking on water, right? What did the Apostles hysterically shout out when they saw Him? “It is a Spirit”(Matt 14:26). They saw something on the water. It had some kind of form. They saw a being or individual on the water coming towards them. How can this be clearer? Spirits are considered beings in Scripture. However, we have anticipated that one might say, “No ways Chumses, y’all are stretching the text. They couldn’t have thought they saw a form of a being, especially in a storm”. We are graceful enough, to leave this a maybe but remember this possible rebuttal, the Scriptures will affirm our stance. For now, we maintain that they saw a form walking towards them. They didn’t see a current of wind or see someone’s seat of emotions (mercy!) They saw something or someone moving on the water.

Here’s the clincher. A very interesting occurrence of Pneuma. Remember, when Christ resurrected and met with His disciples? What happened? “They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” (Luk 24:37). They think that Christ is a Spirit. This time, there’s no wind, storm or whatever. They can clearly see Christ’s form, and being. They heard him speak. Yet they still thought He was a Spirit (Pneuma).

Therefore they could conceive of a Spirit that was essentially a fully-fledged being. However, Christ perfects our views on what a spirit is. He says, “Handle me”. “For a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as yet see me have” (Luk 24:39). A Spirit is an individual entity that is a being, with marked features, yet is not tangible. The Scriptures have spoken. You’re probably thinking now, but you guys haven’t traversed mount impassable yet! There are still verses that speak of the Holy Spirit as wind and fire and so forth. How can the spirit be considered a being if his usually described as force-like (wind, fire, breath, etc.)? We answer the description of the Holy Spirit as a force or power that doesn’t prove He is not a being or entity. It’s an unbiblical separation. When Christ says handle me, He is saying that Spirits are intangible and immaterial. They are not bound by space and matter like us. It is a human construction applied to the Holy Spirit that makes one believe that the Holy Spirit is described as force or power undoes his case as a Being (that’s why we laboured ontology in the first two articles).

Now let’s read more passages to strengthen this. Hebrews 1 tells us that the angels are called ‘ministering spirits’ (are you noticing a trend?). Same word Pneuma is used. The angels are Pneuma, just like the other spirits referred to. The angels are able to strengthen (Luke 22:43). The angels minister (Matt 4:11). The angels praise (Luke 1:14). The angels speak (Luk 1:10). The angels war (Rev 12:7). These spirits are also animate, individual beings with personalities. Notice if you read Hebrew 1:7, these ministering spirits (Heb 1:14) are described as pneuma (which most modern Greek scholars translate as ‘wind’) and a flame of fire. These ministering spirits are given forcelike or powerlike qualities (wind and fire) and yet we still believe them to be animate individual beings. The Holy Spirit also is given forcelike or powerlike qualities, why must these qualities rob the Spirit of individual being status? There is no rational reason for believing that all these other spirits are individual beings and yet maintain that they Holy Spirit isn’t. The simple words, “handle me”, prove to us that Spirits are intangible beings (essentially at least). Therefore, they are not bound by our physical restrictions.

Everything God created has nature/essence. Your nature determines who you are. In the previous article, we introduced this concept from the Creation account (Gen 1). We seek to build on this concept in this article.

Now think with me, this applies to all that exists (not only created beings but God also), and therefore God having a divine existence has an essence that is not like that of created things.  Created things with normal existence, also don’t have a unique existence like God. This is the grand gulf between God and every other created thing. The nature of God. Godness. Godhood or as the KJV renders it, Godhead (Acts 17; Rom 1; Col 2:9). So the real question that we should be asking when dealing with the oneness and/or the proposed plurality of God, is with the question, is the nature or essence of the Father possessed by others?

That is the real question here. If we can produce a being or beings with divine nature, who are not the Father, then the question is largely settled. For if one is divine in substance or essence, that one can be called God in verity. Does the Father have an essence that no-one else has? Does the Father have Godness, Godhood, and Godhead alone, or does He share it with any other(s)? That is the question at the heart of the oneness vs pluralness debate. I mean, the issue really lives or dies here. When it is answered, the reader will see that the plurality proponents have not superficially adopted a pluralness of God but rather honestly, have taken to heart the tenor of the Scriptures.

Now, I’ve listened to many Oneness proponents. The arguments seem to center on two pillars, the ‘revealed hierarchy’ (God is above all, including Christ) and the fact that only the Father is referred to as “God.” The former will be dealt with in a future article and the latter is our point of concentration. Because the Father is referred to as “God” or “true God” or “one/only God”, therefore He alone is God and there is no other. This seemed watertight to me half a decade ago, but I continued to study this, then it hit me. Wait a minute. “I say unto thee, ye are gods (John 10:34).” Human beings in these passages are referred to as gods (Elohim in Hebrew and the plurality of Theos in greek), then Herod (Acts 12:21) is said to have a “voice of a god (theos).” Then the eye-opener for me was Stephen’s sermon (Acts 7:43), where he refers to the God of the apostate Jews, “your god Remphan (theos).” It was clear, that just because the word “God” was used toward something or someone, that doesn’t always mean the one referred to as god, is really god or divine. Then what is the kingmaker of Godhood? What makes one God? We don’t need to guess… Paul (Gal 4:8) clinches this one for us, “when we didn’t know God, we served God’s who are not God by nature.” Uses the word ‘phusis’ (nature), which appeals to creation and essence. This is a clear citation that the ontology of God argument is not some 2019 reconstruction of the Scriptures, by two guys at Fuller’s soap, to answer the proliferation of Oneness proponents (because it isn’t) but rather an apostolic truth. In scripture, there are “Gods by nature” and “Gods that aren’t gods by nature” (John 10:33 as well). Therefore being called God is not enough. You need to be God by nature. So again I repeat, if we can produce any other Being, Personality or Entity, with God/Divine nature, then that/those Being(s), Personality(ities) or Entity(ies) would be God(s) by nature. For one with human nature is human and one with God nature is God.

I hope this article has left you with a lot to ponder upon.