Episode 38: Only One

Debate topic: “The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father.” Michael Burgos from Grassroots Apologetics affirms that statement, whereas Oneness Pentecostal James Anderson from Evidential Faith rejects it. This episode is part 2 of their debate, including cross-examination and closing statements. Listen to episode 37, “My Father’s Son,” for part 1, including their opening statements and rebuttals.


  • Yellowcard, Only One, from the Ocean Avenue album, 2003

Promoted Resources

2 thoughts on “Episode 38: Only One

  1. Chris asks whether God is eternally love, and then asks who besides himself is the object of his love. I see what you’re saying Chris, but there’s some confusion going on.

    Time is not a being but an aspect of being. It is a relation among beings or within a being. Outer time is a relation among being in motion. If there is no motion whatsoever in any physical being, then there is no passage of time. Inner time is a relation between ideas in finite minds which occur one after the other. If there were no finite or created minds there would be no inner time. There was no time before creation because there was no change.

    The point: God immediately started loving when he created. He never wasn’t loving creation because creation immediately proceeded from God. There was never any time going by when God wasn’t loving creation. There was no passage of time before he created. God is love in one moment, and then is loving in the next moment of creation.

    It makes no sense to ask what God was doing before he created, or who God was loving before he created.

    It seems that God can be dependent on creation because creation is dependent on him. Creation is simply the means God uses to satisfy himself. God is not satisfied without expressing himself in creation, and through creation God continues to satisfy himself. God needs our prayers for example, but our prayers come from him because he created us, and those of us who do pray he created to pray.

    God bless

  2. It was said in this debate that what the Jews thought of the Godhead was irrelevant, but Jesus makes it clear otherwise. What the Jews thought of God was very relevant then. It was the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians who worshiped plural God’s and we know that the Greeks and Romans had great influance in early church views.
    John 4
    21 Jesus saith unto her, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.”
    22 “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
    23 “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
    24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

    I believe the Son is speaking of the humanity of Christ. The Father is the Spirit of God. I’m not aware of a verse where Jesus says that the Son is in Him (but rather that he is the Son), but many which imply the Father is in Him. Also, He told His disciples in John 14:10 “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” If He was the Eternal Son it would seem to me that the Son would have the same power as God the Father, but it appears otherwise. Also in Acts 1:7 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” This seems to imply that the Father knows something that possibly the other parts of the Trinity doesn’t know. This would mean that the Father is all knowing but the Son isn’t.

    As far as the Love of God is concerned, I don’t see how the Trinity would have to exist in order for God to be Love. This is a philosophical statement, and philosophy can take us down many paths. Had the bible used the word loving I would totally see the relevance of that point. If a man were trapped on an island by himself, does that mean he is without love. Just because love is not on display doesn’t mean that love doesn’t exist.

    These are just a few thoughts I had, and I am open to new ideas, but only if they are founded in the Word of God.

    God bless

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *