Oneness Theology

Finally realized that Oneness theology teaches there was no "Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. There is no "Second Person" in the Godhead. There is the Father. Period. And the Spirit in some way, shape or form. If the "Son of God" existed it was in the mind of God.

I used to think that about John 8:58 though I still don't think he is saying "I am God" in that statement. None of the early Church Fathers seems to have thought that; that is a result of our 'scientific' and 'literal' approach to Scripture, specifically the KJV. The early Church Fathers believed it was a claim about pre-existence.

Just putting that out there...

The Nicene Creed

How is it that I am 49 years old and do not know the Nicene Creed? I'm sure I said it as a kid but not since that time. In my search through various faith traditions, from no religion to "eastern" religion to Oneness Pentecostalism to Islam to the non-denominational variety, I am now gravitating toward the "Eastern Orthodox" tradition, at least through books and study of the Word.

Will I make the leap? Hank Hanegraaf's leap really caused me to pause as I would imagine he found the same thing I am discovering. It seems for the studious ones there is a sort of homecoming, a tradition that embraces, not shuns, things of the intellect and, paradoxically, through it opens up a deeper mystery.

So I have found myself immersed in the Nicene Creed, not as rote memorization but as having come in to it as the Fathers must have done back in the day as it evolved from their experience. From the study of the Word and its inherent mystery I have come to discover the Trinity as 'experiential' and from this have come to the Creed from the inside, if you will. 

My studies have opened up to the Trinity, to the Incarnation, to the Nicene Creed and, in reverse, the Scriptures are much more clear, at least through that filter. Sure we can debate the Scriptures and Tradition and I'm sure this will never end. But I've found a relative level of peace in where I stand that has, again, opened up the Mystery.

My struggle has been not merely "finding" what I believe but uncovering it. It has always been there underneath the accretions over the years and it feels like it is finally being brought to light, i.e. to my understanding. I am finally finding a way to give voice to what it is that I believe. And it must be this that Paul talks about:

"For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:16)"

I cannot help but quote the Scriptures. What I am trying to say has already been said. However, it is only because I have come to the point where I have walked into the text. The seed, the Word, has been planted but it is really only over time that those words take root and grow and have a life of their own and our experiences and the reflections from the world around us mirror the reality of what it is the Word expresses.

It is at once ecstatic but also filled with a certain sense of madness, as if it all makes sense all at once yet makes no sense at all. Similar to my experience on Yosemite, this is an awakening, a deepening, an enlarging of my being. It is what all of these readings talk about, the being 'open' to participation in the divine. The Trinity takes us "into" the mystery.

PSA

Just putting some more notes out there as I try to 'congeal' this into something that resembles my understanding.

So the idea of 'penal' substitution is inherent within the Scriptures. However, is the term 'penal' based on our understanding based on our culture, our upbringing, our worldview? Or are we conforming to the idea as laid out in the text?

When I hear the term 'penal' I think 'deserved it'. "Jesus got what we deserve." The problem with this, as I see it anyhow, is that the focus is still us, as if God's sole focus is to get us, to give us what we deserve? I can't shake that and it clouds my idea of how a 'loving' (of course, my understanding of what that means) God could be so, well, vindictive.

I understand that from a law point of view, the punishment would fit the crime of sin = death. But isn't that punishment enough? We sin, we die. What if there is more to this than that? 

Did Jesus come to conquer sin or conquer death? After all, if He defeated death is sin not vanquished? In other words, if He came to conquer the 'sin' problem wouldn't death still be unresolved? He made us 'righteous' with God but then there is still the death thing. Without the resurrection, death still remains an issue.

Where am I going with this? I was talking to someone about this and the response to Jesus sacrifice was this: I deserved it, He took on my punishment and I owe Him my life because of it. While I do not disagree with this necessarily there is something missing. Or maybe it is just that simple and I need to chill.

But it sounds like a mere swap, a straight legal transaction, balancing the equation. And I believe this is the claim often leveled against PSA in its basic, or base, understanding. 

The questions, for me, still remain: paid the price. To whom? Ransom. From what? Bore my infirmities. And did what with them?