ok thanks for that..i got it and very very thanful
Stephen, I appreciate your passion for the divine mystery and your desire to reconcile deep truths with heartfelt logic—but respectfully, the framework you’ve built stretches far beyond the bounds of biblical revelation.
The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t the product of speculation or symbolic storytelling—it’s the result of Scripture testifying, again and again, to one God revealed eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not “Gods,” plural. Not divine ranks or spiritual genders. Not a heavenly “family” of preexistent personal beings. But one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons, each fully divine, each distinct in personhood, yet undivided in essence (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16–17; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
The Holy Spirit is not a “missing Mother” in some cosmic triadic family. He is the Spirit of truth, of holiness, of God Himself—sent by the Father in the name of the Son (John 14:26). Scripture never hints at the Holy Spirit as a female deity or co-equal “Mother figure,” nor does it suggest that the Godhead is a parental trio. That idea may carry emotional resonance for some, but it has zero foundation in the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles, or the teachings of Christ.
As for Romans 11:36, the text is clear and closed:
“For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
Of Him (the Father),
Through Him (the Son),
To Him (God the Spirit bringing all to completion)—one God in eternal unity, not three divine roles trying to find each other in heaven’s group chat.
So let’s keep honoring the mystery of God as He revealed Himself—not through mystical logic loops or reconstructed family trees, but through the inspired Word:
One God. Three persons. No confusion. No contradiction. No compromise.
1 Like
Peace to all,
Thanks SincereSeeker, and what I am to believe is the Holy Spirit is a person in being.
And there are three persons in One God in being, Correct.
Not a heavenly “family” of preexistent personal beings. But one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons, each fully divine, each distinct in personhood, yet undivided in essence, The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit in One God in being, right?
I think I got it
One God in the persons of Father The Son and The Holy Spirit person.
Peace always,
Stephen
Yes, Stephen—you’ve summed it up accurately:
One God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not three gods. Not one person wearing three masks. But one divine Being, eternally existing as three distinct persons, each fully and truly God, united in essence, power, and will.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Father.
Yet all three are the one, true God (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1; Acts 5:3–4).
It’s not about a “family” of gods or mystical categories—it’s about the triune nature of the one, living God as revealed in Scripture. That’s the faith once delivered to the saints. You’re tracking well. Keep digging into the Word—it will never lead you wrong.
Peace in Christ,
Sincere Seeker
1 Like
my friend, i made a reply to this after 3 days of studying but the website cannot cope my reply because it crashed as its a 9 page in depth reply on oneness vs Trinity which i made after 3 days of studying, wait for my reply, my brother, i will send it in july..
Peace to all,
To me, the soul is created from the corrrupt spirit for the soul to manifest from the spirit power in One Body for the failed flesh through both natures spirit and life to become incorruption from the Holy Spirit through the souls of all mankind for the immortal flesh in One Body becoming again One Family of God in being.
Preserving the Unity of Soul.
from, Fellowship of Metaphysical Christians
“There is no power in mortal consciousness to lift itself out of ignorance and sin, so just the mere matter of repeated births has not taken the race forward. It is the descent of the Spirit from time to time, as the people have been able to receive it, that has made all progress. In the fullness of time, as men’s growth made it possible, new truths have been discerned and new dispensations have come. When the time was ripe, Jesus came and brought the good news of salvation from death. But is words had to work in the race consciousness for two thousand years before anyone was sufficiently awakened and quickened to believe in complete redemption and to strive to lay hold of it. The promise is that the leaven of the Word will finally leaven the whole of the human family, and all will come into the light of life.” Filmore Faith
Peace always,
Stephen
Stephen, peace to you—
But let’s cut through the mystical fog and get back to what’s actually revealed.
You speak of “corrupt spirit” creating the soul and a journey toward “immortal flesh,” but Scripture tells a different story. Man didn’t evolve from a corrupt spirit—he was formed from the dust and received the breath of life from God (Genesis 2:7). The soul doesn’t emerge from failed metaphysical fragments—it is a direct creation of God, made in His image, fallen by sin, and redeemable only by grace (Romans 3:23–24).
You quoted Fillmore—a known metaphysical universalist, not a biblical apostle. But friend, Charles Fillmore can’t save a soul. Jesus Christ can. The gospel isn’t about “leavening the race consciousness” over eons—it’s about repentance and faith in Christ now. “Today is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2), not some slow spiritual evolution.
The Spirit doesn’t just “descend from time to time”—He was poured out at Pentecost and indwells every believer permanently (Acts 2:38–39; Romans 8:9). That’s not a mystical age-long awakening—that’s God with us, God in us, now.
Salvation isn’t metaphysical speculation—it’s crucifixion, resurrection, and repentance. You want a holy family? It starts by being born again (John 3:5), not by merging spirit energies, but by trusting in the blood of Jesus who died once for all.
Truth isn’t “new revelation.” It’s the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). And that’s more than enough.
Standing firm on the Word,
Sincere Seeker
1 Like
Samuel_23
I downloaded your 9-page paper (as you know) and did my best to work through your train of thought. It was very well done. I sincerely appreciate your diligence at detailing these passages of scripture from an academic viewpoint. I must candidly admit that somewhere in the middle of page three my brain started to melt, and I had difficulty staying engaged.
You said:
Also apologies for using greek-hebrew
over english because I cannot replicate the intensity of theology in English, as I can with
greek and Hebrew. So brother, go through each and every point, and try avoid summarizing
the argument, otherwise it becomes very shallow and will lack the depth I have put into it.
No apologies necessary. As kids today say “you do you”. I will remind you that your level of detail does severely limit your audience. I’m not uneducated, although I am no academic, but I had real difficulty clawing my way through your tome. I would, gently and humbly, challenge your inference that English lacks the necessary intensity, and therefore you must resort to Greek and Hebrew to obtain it. From my office chair where I sit, your dependance on Greek and Hebrew does more to obfuscate your message than it does to intensify it (to me anyway). From my understanding and background, English is a far more robust and comprehensive language than either Greek or Hebrew. As it may lack some nuances contained in other languages, it definitely does not lack expression. What it does boast of is a strong familiarity with the audience you are trying to reach. So, in my opinion, where English can adequately express an idea, it is prudent to depend on it without the unnecessary support of other languages.
Remember the work of The Holy Spirit, who intentionally brought understanding and unity by enabling every person to hear the mighty works of God in their native language? :
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs–we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” So, they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” Acts 2:1-13
Your deftness at handling Greek and Hebrew is notable, and impressive. Make sure using it doesn’t cloud your message.
In Jesus
KP
2 Likes
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of the same Being with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was made flesh of the Virgin Mary, became human. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets."
One God, Three Persons. Consubstantial, co-eternal, co-equal; of one Essence. Holy Trinity.
This is the Christian view. And it is non-negotiable.
1 Like
Related thread now live:
“Is Jesus the Comforter in John 14 — Or Is It the Holy Spirit?”
This dives into that question around John 14:16–18 and whether it supports Trinity or Oneness theology.
➜ Is Jesus the Comforter in John 14 — Or Is It the Holy Spirit?
Your response raises several thoughtful points, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond in depth. The discussion over the proper understanding and application of Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal practice found in the book of Acts is not just a debate over semantics, but a theological reflection of how the early Church understood the oneness of God and the authority invested in the name of Jesus.
1. The Claim That Acts Merely Describes, Not Prescribes:
It’s true that Acts records actions, but narrative in Scripture often carries implicit apostolic instruction—especially when the same action is repeated multiple times under apostolic leadership without correction. The fact that Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 all explicitly state that believers were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is not incidental. This is a pattern—a consistent apostolic practice that reflects their understanding of Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19. The New Testament Church, operating under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, interpreted “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” to be fulfilled by invoking the name of Jesus.
While it’s true that the Greek in Acts such as ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι or εἰς τὸ ὄνομα can refer to authority, in Scripture, the name is not just legal authorization—it’s revelatory identification. The name invoked over the believer during baptism represents the name by which sins are remitted (Acts 2:38), the name by which all must be saved (Acts 4:12), and the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:9–11). So, even if the text does not transcribe the exact spoken formula, the emphasis on “the name” being Jesus is too consistent—and too central—to be brushed aside as a narrative footnote. The early Church did not treat it that way, and neither should we.
2. Matthew 28:19 and the Singular “Name”:
Matthew 28:19 uses the singular Greek word ὄνομα (name), not ὀνόματα (names). Jesus does not say to baptize in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—He says to baptize into the name, singular. This grammatically demands a unifying name that encapsulates all three roles mentioned. The apostles, who received this command directly from Jesus and were later filled with the Holy Spirit, did not record any instance where someone was baptized using a verbal formula of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Instead, every baptism in Acts is done in the name of Jesus. Why? Because they understood Jesus to be the revealed name of the Father (John 5:43), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). The singular name is not a list of titles, but a divine identity—Jesus.
3. The Role of the Didache and Early Church Writings:
While the Didache and writers like Tertullian are valuable for historical study, they are not divinely inspired Scripture. The Didache was not authored by the apostles themselves and is dated decades after the apostolic era—around the end of the first century or early second century. Tertullian, writing in the late second to early third century, was already showing signs of influence from emerging Trinitarian thought that was foreign to first-century monotheistic Judaism. The Church Fathers, while respected, are not the foundation of truth; the Word of God is. Apostolic precedent and Scripture must remain our highest authority.
It is important to acknowledge that the baptismal formula evolved in church liturgy over time. The original practice as seen in the book of Acts was baptism in Jesus’ name. Later creedal developments and philosophical debates influenced the doctrinal framework that elevated the “Trinitarian” formula to a sacramental norm. However, historical development should not replace apostolic instruction.
4. Complementary Testimony or Interpretive Division?
You stated that there is no contradiction but complementary testimony: Acts gives us the authority, Matthew gives us the form. That conclusion would be reasonable—if the apostles ever once used the wording of Matthew 28:19 in practice. But they did not. They consistently used the name of Jesus, and they did so with confidence and Holy Ghost power. When Peter declared on Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” he was not innovating—he was interpreting the very words Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19, under the inspiration of the Spirit.
The Acts accounts do not contradict Matthew—they fulfill it. The apostles obeyed Jesus by baptizing in His name, not as a replacement, but as a revelation of who the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost truly are in one manifested name—Jesus. This practice was not an optional alternative; it was the practice of the apostolic Church. To return to Jesus’ own words in John 17:6, He said, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me.” That name is not a mystery of titles—it is the revealed name of redemption, the name that holds all the fullness of the Godhead: the name of Jesus.
The interpretation offered here attempts to compartmentalize divine titles in a way that upholds a distinction between supposed “persons” within a Trinitarian framework, yet this approach fails to account for the overwhelming biblical emphasis on the singularity of God’s identity. The assertion that Isaiah 9:6 merely uses Hebraic titular conventions to describe roles rather than essence overlooks the prophetic weight of the passage. The child born is not just said to possess peace or eternity—He is the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father. These are not functional metaphors but revelatory declarations of divine identity wrapped in humanity. “Father of Eternity” is not a vague honorary title—it is a theologically rich identification pointing to the One who both originates and exists as eternity itself.
The idea that “Jesus” refers only to the incarnate Son as distinct from the Father or Spirit crumbles under the weight of scriptural testimony. Jesus plainly said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), and again, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). Colossians 2:9 doesn’t say part of the Godhead dwells in Him—it says all the fullness. That includes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. To say otherwise is to divide what God has made one.
Furthermore, when Jesus revealed God’s name in John 17:6, He was not referring to a generic title. He had already said in John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name.” The name “Jesus” (Yeshua) means “Yahweh is salvation,” embedding the divine name and mission in one. The apostles understood this clearly, which is why they baptized in Jesus’ name, healed in Jesus’ name, and declared there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). There is no biblical record of anyone being baptized using the phrase “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Instead, every New Testament baptism was in the name of Jesus—not in contradiction to Matthew 28:19, but as its fulfillment.
To say Jesus is merely one person of a triune deity diminishes the full revelation of God manifest in flesh. He is not a piece of a puzzle called “Trinity.” He is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), the fullness of deity in bodily form, the name above every name—not a representative among equals, but the name that embodies the totality of the divine.
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement. While I appreciate the nuance you’ve drawn from the Greek text, I believe the context of Scripture as a whole supports the understanding that Jesus is not merely a representative of the Father, but is in fact the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). When Jesus said, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), He wasn’t simply referring to moral alignment or relational harmony—He was revealing something profoundly ontological: the very essence of the Father was being made manifest through Him. Verse 10 does say the Father dwells in Him, but this is not a statement of distinction between two divine persons; rather, it affirms that the invisible Spirit of God was fully incarnate in the man Christ Jesus.
As for Colossians 2:9, the phrase “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς) does not imply a subset of divinity or that Jesus simply shares divine attributes—it affirms that everything God is, was dwelling in Christ in bodily form. There is no indication in Paul’s writings that this fullness is distributed among three separate persons. Rather, the same Spirit who is called the Father, and who raised Christ from the dead (Romans 8:11), is the Spirit who dwells in us. The plurality in God’s operation (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) does not necessitate a plurality of divine persons. These are roles or manifestations of the One God who has revealed Himself ultimately and supremely in the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:9–11). Thus, the name of Jesus is not just a label for one person among others—it is the singular redemptive name that embodies the fullness of the Godhead.
Your response raises an important passage—Philippians 2:9–11—and I agree it is deeply significant, especially in its connection to Isaiah 45:23. However, I believe the application of Yahweh’s words to Jesus in this passage supports, rather than challenges, my understanding of God. When Isaiah 45:23 says, “unto Me every knee shall bow,” Yahweh is speaking of Himself as the only God and Savior (Isaiah 45:21). That same worship, that same bowing of every knee, is now directed toward Jesus—because Jesus is the visible manifestation of Yahweh in flesh. Philippians 2:9 does say that the name was “given,” but that giving is not about Jesus receiving a name He never had before; rather, it speaks of the exaltation and public recognition of who He truly is after the resurrection. The incarnate life of Jesus culminated in His glorification, whereby God revealed that the man Christ Jesus is, indeed, the Lord of Glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
Colossians 2:9 doesn’t present Jesus as a recipient of a portion of divinity or as a separate person merely housing part of God—it proclaims that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily. This is not about delegation or shared essence among persons, but rather the total embodiment of the one true God in the man Christ Jesus. When Jesus prayed in John 17, He prayed as the man—the Lamb of God—relating to the eternal Spirit from His authentic human nature. As Son, He submits; as God, He reigns. The Spirit sends the Spirit (John 16:7) because God operates through manifestation and mission, not as separate consciousnesses. The Father is not someone else speaking to Jesus, but the Spirit dwelling in Him (John 14:10), fulfilling His redemptive work through flesh.
Jesus is Yahweh in redemptive expression—God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). He bears the only saving name (Acts 4:12), not merely as an honored agent, but as the identity of God revealed to mankind. The name “Jesus” encompasses Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because these are not persons, but roles of one indivisible God working in creation, redemption, and regeneration.
Your concern about conflating roles is understandable, but respectfully, the biblical narrative does not present God as three independent persons coexisting in an eternal triune relationship. Instead, it presents one God who reveals Himself in distinct ways throughout redemptive history. This isn’t a reduction of God’s nature—it’s a faithful response to the scriptural revelation that the fullness of the Godhead is embodied in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). Isaiah 9:6 does not simply use poetic language when it calls the Son “The everlasting Father.” Jesus didn’t say, “He that hath seen Me hath seen someone like the Father.” He said, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
To affirm that the name Jesus reveals the totality of God’s nature is not to deny His manifold works or manifestations. It is to say that the same God who was Father in creation, became the Son in redemption, and now indwells us as the Holy Spirit has chosen to manifest Himself most fully and savingly through the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:9–11). The grammar of Scripture shows distinctions in function and operation, yes—but not a division of divine essence into three eternal persons. That’s a philosophical framework imposed later, not a doctrine revealed in Scripture.
When the apostles baptized in Jesus’ name, cast out devils in Jesus’ name, healed the sick in Jesus’ name, and declared salvation in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12), they weren’t diminishing the Father or the Spirit—they were honoring the only revealed name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Jesus is the name above every name because in Him the one true God has fully revealed Himself. To call on Jesus is to call on the fullness of God—not a part, not a role—but the I AM who was, and is, and is to come.
While I’m more than willing to engage in a meaningful discussion about the triune Godhead, I would strongly caution against using ChatGPT or any AI to represent doctrinal positions in theological debate.
These tools, though useful in some contexts, are prone to error—as your post unfortunately illustrates. More importantly, they can be easily steered to reinforce one’s own view, including modalism or Oneness theology, without genuine engagement with the biblical text.
So out of respect for honest dialogue, I’d appreciate it if you shared your own position in your own words–no AI involved. That way, we can engage directly and clearly, person to person. Fair enough?
Your treatment of Isaiah 9:6, John 10:30, and Colossians 2:9 hinges on a conflation of person and essence—a move that fails both scripturally and historically. That Jesus is “the mighty God” and “everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6 does not imply He is the Father in person, but rather that He shares in the eternal divine identity. Hebrew idiom often applies compound titles reflecting divine attributes without flattening intra-divine relations. Consider that the Targum Jonathan—a Jewish interpretive tradition predating the New Testament—renders Isaiah 9:6 with messianic expectation but without equating the Messiah with YHWH the Father. The term “Father of Eternity” (אֲבִי עַד) is a Hebraism for one who governs or originates eternal realities, not a formula for ontological identity with the person of the Father.
John 10:30, “I and the Father are one (ἕν ἐσμεν),” uses a neuter form (hen), not the masculine (heis), indicating unity of essence, not identity of person. Had Jesus meant He was the Father, the grammar would demand a masculine predicate. Instead, the passage affirms functional unity in divine mission and essence—as seen in John 10:28 where Jesus claims He gives eternal life, and no one can snatch the sheep from His or the Father’s hand. This is shared divine prerogative, not collapsed personal identity.
Colossians 2:9 affirms the deity of Christ unequivocally, but the fullness of the Godhead (πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) does not collapse the Father and the Spirit into the Son. Rather, it shows that the incarnate Christ is not a partial revelation—He is not a demiurge, nor a mere prophet—but fully divine in bodily form. Yet, this verse exists in a context where Paul elsewhere distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g., Colossians 1:2; 3:17). The Greek makes this unmistakable: ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ is never identified as Jesus, but with Jesus as His God (cf. John 20:17; Revelation 3:12). The grammatical structure maintains personal distinction, even while affirming shared divine status.
You cited John 14:9, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Yet in John 14:10, Jesus immediately clarifies: “the Father dwells in Me” (ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων). This is indwelling, not identity. The Son is the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), yet the Father is not the one visible–Jesus is. If Jesus were the Father in person, He would not speak of “another” Comforter being sent (John 14:16), nor pray to the Father in John 17:5 to restore the glory He had with Him before the world existed—a preposition (para soi) that clearly denotes distinction and preexistence.
The name “Jesus” indeed bears divine authority (Philippians 2:9–11), but you must read the entire pericope. Philippians 2:6–7 states that He, “being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be clung to.” There is a voluntary kenosis (self-emptying), which presupposes personal subjecthood apart from “God” (the Father). The giving of the name, then, is not a mere public recognition of latent deity–it is the Father’s exaltation of the Son (v. 9), which again presupposes distinct persons. The worship of Jesus “to the glory of God the Father” (v. 11) affirms relational structure, not ontological collapse.
Acts 4:12 and baptism in Jesus’ name follow the same logic: Jesus is the exclusive mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), the incarnate Logos (John 1:14), and the one who reveals the Father (John 1:18)—but not the Father Himself. The apostolic pattern of baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5) is not a negation of Matthew 28:19, but its liturgical fulfillment. Early Christian sources, including the Didache (c. AD 50–70), confirm that baptism was performed “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—indicating distinct hypostases within the one divine essence.
Your assertion that these are merely “roles” or “manifestations” finds no support in the Greek grammar of the New Testament or the testimony of the earliest post-apostolic Church. Justin Martyr, writing in Dialogue with Trypho (ch. 61), affirms that the Son, distinct from the Father, was the one who appeared to Moses and the prophets, yet without implying two Gods. Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century) speaks of the Logos as “another” within God, proceeding from the Father before creation, yet eternally divine (To Autolycus 2.22). These writers preserve unity of essence without denying personal distinction—a feat the Oneness schema cannot accomplish without grammatical and contextual violence to the text.
In short:
To affirm the Son as God is scriptural.
To affirm the Father as God is scriptural.
To collapse the Father and the Son into a single person is not scriptural.
God is one in essence (οὐσία), but exists eternally in three distinct persons (ὑποστάσεις), as Scripture demonstrates through plain grammatical structures, intra-divine dialogue (e.g., John 17; Luke 3:22), and post-resurrection exaltation language. The name “Jesus” reveals the Son who glorifies the Father (John 17:1), not the entirety of divine personhood.
The attempt to read all of God’s self-revelation through the lens of modalistic monarchianism results in the flattening of Scripture’s personal distinctions, which were universally affirmed by the pre-Nicene Church. Jesus is not the Father; He is the perfect image of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), the eternal Son sent into the world, who prays to, is loved by, and glorifies the Father—not as another name for the same person, but as the eternally begotten Son of the one true God.
10:30-33 “I and the Father are one. . .the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” This is just one of the strong statements of Jesus’ Messiahship and Deity (cf. John 1:1-14; 8:58; 14:8-10, esp. 17:21-26, which also uses the word “one”). The Jews understood completely what He was saying and counted it as blasphemy (cf. John 10:33; 8:59). They were going to stone Him based on Lev. 24:16.
In the early controversy over the person of Christ (i.e., Arius ‒ the first born; Athanasius ‒ fully God) John 10:30 and 14:9 were used often by Athanasius (see The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 444). For the full Deity of Jesus see John 1:1-18.
John 10.
Shalom brother.
J.
I understand your concern and appreciate your desire for sincere, personal engagement. Let me assure you that the conviction I hold about One God is not borrowed from a machine but is rooted in years of personal study, prayer, and the clear testimony of Scripture. When I reference passages like Isaiah 9:6 and Colossians 2:9, I do so not because an AI told me what to believe, but because the Word of God powerfully reveals the singular identity of the Almighty as fully embodied in Jesus Christ.
The prophecy that the child would be called the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father speaks volumes about who He truly is—God manifest in the flesh, not one-third of a divine committee, but the fullness of the Godhead bodily. My position is shaped by the apostolic doctrine, not philosophical theology. So, yes, I’m more than happy to speak plainly and personally: Jesus is not merely the Son; He is also the Father revealed. That’s not modalism—it’s biblical monotheism. And I welcome an honest, Scripture-based conversation any time, person to person.
The response you presented attempts to preserve Trinitarian distinctions by relying on the argument that Isaiah 9:6 merely reflects shared essence, not personal identification. However, the language of the verse resists such separation. Isaiah does not say the child reflects or shares in the Father’s eternal nature—he is called “The Mighty God” and “The Everlasting Father” (Hebrew: Avī-ʿad, literally “Father of eternity”). This is more than poetic attribution; it is prophetic revelation. It’s not a Hebraism designed to suggest delegated authority or representative function—it is a declaration of identity. When scripture calls Him “the Mighty God,” it does not imply a partial or junior divinity; it places the fullness of Deity in Him. Likewise, to call Him “Father of eternity” aligns with the biblical monotheism that refuses to divide God’s essence into separate persons.
The Trinitarian reliance on later rabbinic sources like the Targum Jonathan is telling, but insufficient. While helpful for understanding Jewish expectations, they do not override the plain meaning of inspired scripture. The New Testament writers, particularly in Colossians 2:9, declare that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ—not just attributes or functions. John 10:30 (“I and my Father are one”) is a claim to oneness that prompted the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy for making Himself God—not merely similar to God or representing Him, but being Him. To conflate “essence” with “person” is only problematic if one begins with the presupposition of three coequal persons. But if we allow scripture to define God’s nature on its own terms, we see a singular, indivisible God manifesting Himself fully in the man Christ Jesus. This is not a flattening of intra-divine relations—it is a restoration of biblical monotheism.
You offer an attempt to reinforce a Trinitarian framework by appealing to Greek grammar and selective contextual readings, yet you overlook the cumulative force of Scripture’s consistent revelation of God’s singular identity manifested fully in Jesus Christ. The use of the neuter hen in John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) indeed reflects unity of essence—but that does not exclude identity of person when rightly understood through the lens of divine manifestation rather than personhood. Jesus is not claiming to merely be in cooperation with the Father—He is revealing that the divine essence of the Father is fully present and active in Him. In John 10:38, He declares, “the Father is in me, and I in him,” which transcends mere functional unity and points to an ontological indwelling.
Colossians 2:9 says the fullness (plērōma) of the Godhead (theotēs) dwells in Christ bodily. That fullness does not suggest part of God, or one-third of a Triune being, but the totality of deity—the one true God—manifest in the man Christ Jesus. Paul’s references to “God the Father” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” are not proofs of eternal persons, but acknowledgments of God’s relational self-revelation in redemptive roles. The man Christ had a God, as any true man must, because He prayed, suffered, and obeyed in full human capacity—yet He also claimed divine prerogatives and received worship. Revelation 3:12 and John 20:17 are not theological statements of divided personhood, but scriptural affirmations of Christ’s dual nature—fully man and fully God.
Isaiah 9:6 still stands: the child is called the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father. The Word made flesh (John 1:14) is not a representative of the Father, but the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). To divide the divine identity across distinct persons is to dilute the truth of God’s oneness and rob the incarnation of its deepest glory—that the Father Himself came to us in the Son, reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Your presenting a nuanced Trinitarian interpretation that separates personhood within the Godhead, but the scriptural witness—particularly in prophetic and Christological texts—testifies to a far more unified divine identity. John 14:9–10 does indeed mention the Father indwelling the Son, yet the language used does not imply an ontological separation. Rather, it reveals the mystery of the incarnation: the invisible Spirit manifesting in visible flesh. Jesus says, “The Father dwelleth in me,” not “with me” or “beside me,” emphasizing not distinction in being but the unity of essence—God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t allow for a mere honorary association; it declares that the child is the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father. These titles are not roles played in a divine drama, but revelatory statements of identity.
John 14:16’s reference to “another Comforter” must be read in harmony with John 14:18, where Jesus promises, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the same Jesus returning in Spirit form to dwell within believers (Romans 8:9–11). Similarly, in John 17:5, the phrase “with thee” (παρά σοί) can be understood as Jesus—speaking from His humanity—longing for the glory He shared as the eternal Logos before the world was, not as a separate person, but as God revealed in time.
Philippians 2:6–11 does not demonstrate an ontological hierarchy but reveals the humility of the incarnation. The one who was “in the form of God” did not cling to divine privilege but humbled Himself in obedient flesh. The exaltation in verse 9 is not the promotion of a second divine person, but the glorification of the Son in His resurrected humanity, affirming the eternal truth that “in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Thus, the name Jesus is not merely a bestowed honor—it is the revelation of the one true God who alone is Savior (Isaiah 43:11), dwelling fully in the Son and manifesting Himself to the world.
While early post-apostolic writers like Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch attempted to preserve monotheism while speaking of distinctions within God, their philosophical language often leaned more on Greek metaphysical categories than on the pure biblical revelation. The Scripture does not require speculative terms like “another within God” to explain divine action. Instead, it plainly declares, “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). This is not the manifestation of one “Person” of a triune being but the one true God, the eternal Spirit, revealing Himself bodily in Jesus Christ. Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t describe the Son as merely reflecting or representing the Everlasting Father—it identifies Him as the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God. These are ontological affirmations, not borrowed Hebraic metaphors.
To argue that the Logos is “another within God” contradicts the fundamental biblical assertion that the Word was God (John 1:1), not a separate Person from God. The Logos is God’s own self-expression, not a second divine consciousness. When the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9), it was the invisible Spirit made visible—not a subordinate “Son-person” appearing on the Father’s behalf. Thus, the Oneness understanding does not violate grammar or context—it aligns seamlessly with the biblical narrative of a singular God who manifests Himself fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ.
The statement that identifying the Father and the Son as one person is “not scriptural” assumes a framework foreign to the biblical text. Scripture does not require us to interpret “Father” and “Son” as separate persons within a divided Godhead—it simply reveals God manifesting Himself in different ways. Isaiah 9:6 does not “collapse” the Father and the Son but proclaims the child to be the Everlasting Father. This is not poetic confusion but prophetic clarity. The Son is not a second divine person; He is the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). The Father who is Spirit (John 4:24) took on flesh (John 1:14) and became the Son—not as a second person, but as the incarnate expression of the one true God.
Jesus Himself said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). He did not point to another person but revealed the Father in Himself. This Oneness is not a “collapse” but a divine unveiling. The New Testament never describes three co-equal persons relating in an eternal fellowship. That language arises from post-biblical philosophical development—not from inspired Scripture. Instead, the Bible consistently emphasizes that “God was in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:19), not beside Him. There is one God, and His name is Jesus—the fullness of the Godhead revealed bodily (Colossians 2:9).
The assertion that Oneness theology is equivalent to Modalistic Monarchianism is a common misunderstanding that fails to distinguish between ancient heresy and biblical Oneness truth as understood by modern Apostolic Pentecostals. Modalistic Monarchianism, as condemned in early church debates, held that God revealed Himself in successive modes—first as Father in creation, then as Son in redemption, and later as Spirit in sanctification—suggesting that God ceased being one mode to become another. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostalism affirms that the one true God manifested Himself simultaneously and fully as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, without division of personhood, substance, or being. The Father is the invisible Spirit (John 4:24), the Son is God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and the Holy Ghost is the same Spirit active within and among believers (Romans 8:11). These are not three persons, but three ways God reveals Himself in relationship to His creation and redemptive plan—while always remaining one indivisible God (Deuteronomy 6:4).
When Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), He wasn’t claiming mere moral unity or shared purpose; He was declaring ontological identity. The Jews rightly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God in flesh (John 10:33), not a second divine person beside the Father. Hebrews 1:3 does not teach that Jesus is another divine person who resembles the Father—it says He is the express image (Greek: charaktēr) of the Father’s substance. Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t metaphorically ascribe divine titles—it identifies the child born as the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, showing the indivisible identity of Jesus with the Father in the Godhead.
In short, Oneness theology doesn’t flatten Scripture but harmonizes it, upholding both the humanity of Christ in distinction from His divine nature and the truth that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). He is not a separate person praying to another person but the incarnate man praying from His authentic humanity to the omnipresent Spirit that dwelt within Him (John 14:10). This is not modalism. This is the biblical mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
@The_Omega, it’s pretty clear you’re using AI–I’ve spent enough time studying patterns and phrasing to recognize algorithmic replies. But more importantly, you’re not actually answering the questions I’ve raised.
I think @Fritzpw_Admin should take a look and help bring the discussion back to level ground.
John 1:1 – A Relationship, Not a Manifestation
The phrase καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν (kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon) uses πρός with the accusative to show active, personal relationship—not identity. The Word was with God, which excludes being the same person as the one He was with. Then it adds, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος—literally “and God was the Word.” This construction (the anarthrous Theos placed before the verb) emphasizes the nature of the Word as fully divine, not that the Word was the Father. It affirms that the Word shares the divine nature, not that He is the same person.
Colossians 2:9 – The Fullness of Deity, Not the Collapse of Persons
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς – “in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.” The key word θεότης (theotēs) means the very nature of divinity, not just divine attributes (unlike θειότης in Romans 1:20, which is more abstract). Paul’s point is that Christ is fully divine–not that the Father and Spirit have disappeared into Him. That all divine fullness dwells in Christ is about essence, not collapsing three persons into one human figure.
Isaiah 9:6 – “Everlasting Father” as a Title of the Messiah, Not Identity with YHWH the Father
The phrase אֲבִי עַד (’avi ‘ad) means “father of eternity” or “possessor of eternity.” In Hebrew idiom, “father” can mean originator or source (e.g., Genesis 4:20 – “father of all who dwell in tents”). This title means the Messiah will be the one who eternally shepherds His people. It is not a comment about the Messiah being the same person as the Father. The same passage calls Him “Prince of Peace”–clearly royal and messianic language, not a formula for divine conflation.
John 14:9 – “He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father” – Revelation, Not Personhood
Jesus explains that He reveals the Father so fully that seeing Him is equivalent to seeing the Father’s character, purpose, and will. Yet He immediately distinguishes Himself: “the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (John 14:10), and later says, “I am going to the Father” (John 14:12). The revelation is relational, not ontological collapse. He is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), not the same person who is invisible.
2 Corinthians 5:19 – God Was in Christ, Not God Was Christ
Paul says “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” This construction uses ἐν Χριστῷ (“in Christ”), which is instrumental language, not equivalence. It speaks of divine initiative through Christ. There is no Greek here that says “God was Christ.” Rather, the Father was working through the Son, which matches the pattern throughout Paul’s letters–God sends the Son (Romans 8:3), raises the Son (Romans 10:9), and reconciles through the Son (Colossians 1:20). This is relational movement between divine persons.
1 Timothy 3:16 – Manifestation in Flesh, but Not an Identity Statement
“Great indeed is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh…” The verb ἐφανερώθη is passive—“was manifested.” This divine appearance refers to the Incarnation, not to a claim that the Father became the Son. It affirms that deity appeared in visible form, but this appearance is never said to be the Father Himself. The subject of the following clauses—vindicated in Spirit, seen by angels, taken up in glory—matches the known work of Christ, not of the Father.
John 10:30 – Unity in Purpose and Essence, Not Identity of Persons
“I and the Father are one” uses ἕν (hen), neuter gender, not εἷς (heis), which would indicate masculine singular identity. The neuter shows unity in essence or mission, not personhood. Jesus had just said, “My Father… has given them to Me”—showing two parties involved. Then the Jews accuse Him of making Himself “equal with God,” not claiming to be the Father. If Jesus had meant He was the Father, the dialogue that follows makes no sense (John 10:36–38).
Johann.
You are right to point out the grammar, “this” refers to the entire statement: “It is by grace that you have been saved, through faith”. However, this does, in fact, mean that the faith through which we are saved by grace is God’s gift. God saving us by grace through faith is God’s gift. It is why we can call salvation a gift, and it is why we can call faith a gift. God gifts us faith.
It is all pure gift. We are the passive recipients of God’s gracious work to save us through faith.
John 1:13 – Being born of God is a result of belief, not a prerequisite to it
This is an Ordo Salutis question. I would agree that faith is not “prerequisite” to regeneration. But if by “being born of God is a result of belief” means that our regeneration is a result of God responding to our faith, i.e. I have faith, and then subsequently, God makes me born again. Then I quite disagree. Regeneneration is neither pre-faith nor post-faith; faith and regeneration are intrinsically together as one thing. To have faith is to be born again; to be born again is to have faith. Faith does not precede regeneration; and regeneration does not precede faith. When God makes us new by the Spirit, that means we are a new man, to have faith. One cannot have faith without being born again; and one cannot be born again without faith.
As such we are not made new by the power of our own will and ability, but of God’s grace. And that being made new means that where we did not believe, we now believe. And this by the grace, kindness, and love of God who meets us in Word and Sacrament. Because that is what grace is; God coming down. That’s the Incarnation, that’s the Cross, that’s Baptism, that’s the Lord’s Supper, that’s God’s word: that’s the Gospel. God comes down, we don’t go up.
Nowhere does Scripture teach that spiritual beings (or humans) are ontologically incapable of trusting God. Rather, they refuse to do so. This is why so many calls in Scripture appeal to the will: “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15), “Seek the Lord while He may be found” (Isaiah 55:6), “You refuse to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:40). These are not rhetorical performances—they are genuine invitations requiring human response.
To whom is said “Choose this day whom you will serve”, to whom is said “Seek the the LORD while He may be found”? To Israel, correct? Though you are absolutely correct to say that we refuse to believe, we refuse to obey. And that’s the problem. We are, in our sin, wholly and entirely sinful, at enmity toward God. We do not seek God, we do not love God. We have entered into this world sinful beyond measure, rebellious, born in death and sin and enemies of God. Our total inability to choose God, to love God, to be obedient to God, and turn toward God is because we are, wholly and entirely, sinful. Sinful beyond measure.
This cannot be explained in a purely monergistic framework without undermining the plain narrative Jesus gives.
The seed is sown. Sometimes there is external factors–birds of the air for example. But at no point does the ground itself do something itself–the seed of the word takes root unless plucked by birds, choked out by thistles, or baked in the sun, etc. It is the activity of rejection that results in non-productivity for the seed.
Rejecting the Gospel is very much the work of the fallen and sinful human will. But faith is the work of God.
As we start moving toward quoting the ancient and holy fathers of the Church. What we are soon discovering is that each of us is likely to find fathers and their statements with which we agree, and fathers and statements with which we disagree. I would, for example, argue that the concern of Justin, Origen, and others is firmly within the category of rejecting Pagan fatalism. That is their concern, that is the context. The particular theological issues which Augustine is dealing with has moved away from Paganism, and is now a firmly internal matter of Christian theology, at least in part brought about because of the Pelagian Controversy. As such St. Augustine is defending the faith from heresy; Justin and Origen are rejecting Paganism.
Peace to all,
What is clear Trinitarian Theology?
To me From the Father through the Mother for The Son in One Holy Family of God, becoming again in all, all Gods.
Peace alwats,
Stephen
Brother, your articulation that “faith and regeneration are intrinsically together as one thing” may sound pious, but it lacks exegetical foundation and confuses the biblical sequence revealed in the texts themselves.
You wrote: “Faith does not precede regeneration; and regeneration does not precede faith.” But this is nowhere found in the Scriptures. In fact, 1 John 5:1 speaks directly to the issue:
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.”
The Greek here is explicit: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται.
The participle ὁ πιστεύων is present active—“the one who is believing.” The verb γεγέννηται is perfect passive—“has been born.”
This grammar establishes a prior regeneration in terms of logical order: the one believing is someone who has been born of God. Yet this does not blur the moment these coincide temporally. It means belief is the evidence of the new birth, not its cause. But your formulation suggests simultaneity in a way that removes logical causality entirely. That’s not what John says.
You go on to write: “To have faith is to be born again; to be born again is to have faith.” But if faith is always equal to regeneration, then why does Paul distinguish between the two in Galatians 3:2?
“Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?”
The reception of the Spirit—which, in your framework, is synonymous with regeneration—comes through hearing with faith. Faith is the instrument through which the regenerating Spirit is received. That is Paul’s argument.
Moreover, in Ephesians 1:13 Paul writes:
“In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.”
The order is: hearing → believing → sealing with the Spirit. No one is regenerated prior to hearing or believing in this context.
You also write: “We are not made new by the power of our own will and ability, but of God’s grace.” This is true, but irrelevant to the question of order. Non-Calvinist theology does not argue that human will causes regeneration. It teaches that God enables faith through conviction, drawing, and the Word—see John 12:32; Romans 10:17; and 2 Thessalonians 2:14. The human response of faith is to divine initiative, but it is still faith.
John 1:12–13 does not deny human response either. It says:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born… of God.”
They believed; they received; and they were born. All are held together, but “receiving” and “believing” are not passive states. The text does not say God believed on their behalf, or that they were regenerated in order to believe. Rather, they believed in His name, and were born of God.
To say, “God comes down, we don’t go up,” is true theologically—but irrelevant if it obscures biblical categories. God came down in the Incarnation, but people still had to believe (John 3:16), and those who did not were condemned for unbelief (John 3:18). The gospel calls for response, and response presupposes volition under divine encounter.
You are importing a framework—one that artificially fuses faith and regeneration—onto texts that treat them as related, but distinguishable. The call of the gospel is, “Repent, and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). It is never, “Wait until God regenerates you so that you can believe.”
Faith is the condition for justification (Romans 5:1), the means by which we are saved (Ephesians 2:8), and the prerequisite for receiving the Spirit (Galatians 3:2). These are not separate acts from God’s grace—they are God’s grace received through faith.
Your model, in flattening the order, dissolves accountability, misrepresents the biblical text, and collapses divine initiative into deterministic monism. Scripture speaks of new birth as God’s work and faith as man’s response—but it never merges the two into an indistinguishable event with no order or logic. That is philosophy, not Scripture.
Let us therefore return to the text, and let the apostolic witness shape our doctrine: “These things are written that you might believe… and that by believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)
Believing precedes life. That is the biblical order.
You ask, “To whom is said ‘Choose this day whom you will serve,’ and ‘Seek the LORD while He may be found’?” and you answer correctly that it was said to Israel. But that context does not nullify the imperative. In fact, the very force of these commands is lost if one insists on total inability. Why command people to do what they are utterly incapable of doing?
“Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15) was given to a covenant people standing before YHWH with the option clearly presented. If they were incapable by nature of choosing YHWH, the command is a farce and the judgment upon disobedience unjust.
“Seek the LORD while He may be found” (Isaiah 55:6) is addressed not to the righteous but to the wicked. Verse 7 continues, “Let the wicked forsake his way.” It is a call to the very people your system declares unable to respond. Yet God calls them to act.
You say, “We refuse to believe, we refuse to obey.” That is indeed true of the flesh. But refusal is not inability. Refusal presupposes a will that is capable of response, even if rebellious. The Scripture consistently shows people resisting God—not because they are ontologically incapable—but because they will not humble themselves. Acts 7:51: “You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” Resistance implies capacity.
You claim, “We do not seek God.” Romans 3:11 is typically cited here, yet the context is key. Paul is not giving a metaphysical doctrine of human incapacity, but quoting Psalm 14, a poetic denunciation of those who choose corruption. Psalm 14:2–3 says: “The Lord looks down… to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside…”—but it is a chosen turning, not an inherited neurological defect.
Paul’s aim in Romans 1–3 is to show that all have sinned and are accountable. He never says we lack the ability to repent. In Acts 17:30, Paul says: “God now commands all people everywhere to repent.” If God commands all, then all must be capable of obeying. Otherwise, the universal call is meaningless.
You state, “We have entered this world sinful beyond measure, rebellious, born in death and sin and enemies of God.” That’s a strong assertion, but it needs clarification. Psalm 51:5 does not say we are born guilty, but that David was born into a sinful environment—“in sin my mother conceived me”—not that he was a depraved infant. Ezekiel 18:20 contradicts inherited guilt: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.”
Your phrase “total inability to choose God” is not a biblical one. No prophet, apostle, or Christ Himself ever said that man is ontologically incapable of responding to God’s light. In fact, Jesus repeatedly condemns people not for what they cannot do, but for what they will not do. Matthew 23:37: “You were not willing.” John 5:40: “You are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life.” Willingness is not the same as ability.
If we are incapable of responding, then divine commands to repent, believe, seek, and return are cruel illusions. Yet Scripture says: “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 45:22), and again: “Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful” (Joel 2:13). These are real invitations, not rhetorical taunts.
To conclude, Scripture affirms our sinfulness and rebellion—but never teaches that man has lost all moral capacity to respond to God’s revealed will. Conviction, drawing, calling, and illumination are all divine initiatives. But the human response is not automated, and not preprogrammed. We are not puppets. That is why judgment is just.
Johann.