JESUS WAS HIS OWN

FATHER!!

By Derrick Gillespie

INTRODUCTION:

The title of this article/manuscript may strike you as absurd, and indeed it would certainly be if

that is what this writer was meant to say (of which I certainly am not for one moment saying).

But this title was chosen to show the absolute absurdity of those who believe that the Godhead of

the Bible (presented biblically as the Father, but with him united with and represented by His

Son and the Holy Spirit) is simply one Godhead Being or one Godhead Person only. It was also

chosen to show that this is also what is being unwittingly taught by those (like binitarians and

semi-Arians/homoeans), despite correctly teaching the Father and Son to be separate beings, yet

rejecting the separate being or personhood of the Holy Spirit (even while declaring the Deity and

personality of God’s Spirit)!! This I will show in this article/manuscript as I set out to prove the

necessity of there being not just two, but indeed a THIRD separate person of the Godhead who is

inseparably united with the Father and Son; WITH ALL THREE UNITED NOT AS ONE

INDIVISIBLE SUBSTANCE, BUT AS THREE SEPARATE DIVINE BEINGS (a doctrine

mistakenly labeled as tri-theism by critics)!! Hence this article will not only seek to refute the

“oneness Pentecostals” in their Unitarian viewpoint, but also orthodox Trinitarians who teach

one tri-personal indivisible Being or ‘divine organism’ of the Godhead, as well as refute

binitarians and semi-Arians who teach only two separate Godhead beings while presenting the

Holy Spirit as simply the Father and Son in actual essence or actual personage, i.e. the Spirit is

simply the ACTUAL personage or being of the two Godhead persons of the Father and Son AT

THE SAME TIME who “extend” themselves to us as their Spirit. For too long too many

Christians have been either afraid, can’t be bothered, or lacked the research material or polemic

and insight to confront fully the issue of who really is the God of the Bible!! In this

article/manuscript the tough questions will be asked, and the seemingly tough questions posed by

some will be addressed without fear or favor. It is my hope that in the end the reader of this

article/manuscript will allow good sense and the truth of the Bible to prevail, even as you search

the Scriptures for yourself to prove who really our God is!!

HOW WOULD JESUS BE HIS OWN FATHER?

Any doctrine which declares Jesus (the Son of God) to be literally God the Father himself, or

even that the Spirit is literally and actually Jesus Himself, or is Jesus’ “extended essence” then

that doctrine is in effect declaring Jesus to be His own Father (since “essence” means what a

person or thing literally is)!! Why? Because it was the Father who begot Jesus through the

agency of the Holy Spirit, and thus for the above described doctrines it would logically mean that

Jesus begot Himself as literally His own Father, or literally by Himself as the Holy Spirit.

‘Oneness Pentecostals’ (sometimes called “Jesus Only” believers) or, more technically,

modalists or ‘Sabellians’, are the most obvious teachers of this absurdity; even though they will

deny it vehemently. However a little application of logical deduction or syllogism will prove this

to be true, no matter how much they try to get away from it, or explain it away. All Oneness

Pentecostals will freely admit that they do believe that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, and

that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Now it is obvious that if Jesus is all three literally then it is

INESCAPABLE that He (as Son) had Himself (as the Father) as is His own Father. And only

dishonestly seeks to deny that this is the natural and obvious conclusion. Oneness Pentecostals

try to avoid this glaring reality by lamely trying to explain that the Eternal spirit Father is not the

human Son, but the spirit Father was “IN” the Son whom He begot as a human Son by way of

the Spirit overshadowing Mary. But this is simply trying to play semantic hopscotch, or trying to

display theological gymnastics. So why do they labor so much to prove Jesus is the “Everlasting

Father” (i.e. God the Father himself) by misapplying Isaiah 9:6? It is obvious they do believe

that the person we know as Jesus (the Son of God) is also the Father of that Son!! The truth of

the matter is that “Jesus” is the name or label for a divine person, and if that person we call Jesus

is (by the “oneness” argumentation) both the spirit Father, the human Son, and He is also the

Father’s Spirit, or all three literally, and as the one God, then it is INESCAPABLE that Jesus is

His own Father, if he is both the Father and the Son as Jehovah God.

One can see then why people justifiably accuse the oneness Pentecostals of making Jesus send

Himself to earth, then pray to Himself (or to His Spirit self within his human self), and later

resurrect Himself to sit at His own right hand. All rather absurd realities if you ask me!!

What is true also is that not only oneness Pentecostals are guilty of this chief absurdity under

consideration (i.e. making Jesus out to be His own Father), but also binitarians (like certain

‘Armstrongites’ or Church of God affiliates who have recently reformed H.W. Armstrong’s

earlier stance on the Holy Spirit), as well as semi-Arians who believe in the Deity of the Spirit,

but in only two Godhead beings (since the Spirit, they argue, is the literally the personal Father

and the personal Son in actual personage at the same time). Thus when the Spirit begot Jesus, if

that Spirit was the literal personhood of Jesus Himself then, tadaa, Jesus was begetting His

human self as His own Spirit Father (since, as so-called ‘binitarian’ Armstrongites argue, the

Spirit is Father and Son in literal personage at the same time). I will show too that if orthodox

Trinitarians insist that the Father, Son, and Spirit are literally the same organism, the one

numeric indivisible substance, or one indivisible Being called God, then they too are guilty of

making this one Being CONTINUOUSLY “beget” a part of “Himself” called Jesus the Son, thus

orthodox Trinitarians too make Jesus His own Father (as the traditional pictures/paintings of the

orthodox Trinity shows three faces of Jesus on the same neck or body).

WHICH DOCTRINE LOGICALLY SOLVES THIS PROBLEM?

This then raises the question? Which doctrine effectively avoids teaching the above described

absurdity? Obviously the one which does not make Jesus either His Father literally, or make

Jesus the Spirit literally, but simply accepts that the Spirit is a third separate person of the

Godhead who REPRESENTS and acts on behalf of both the Father and Son. This therefore

means that the Spirit could have acted on the Father’s behalf to beget Jesus (but with the Father

being naturally accredited the ‘Fatherhood’ of Jesus as the “Head” of divinity, just as the Father,

as the Head of divinity, is accredited the Creatorship of the universe despite it was done on His

behalf by Jesus operating through the power of the Spirit) and thus Jesus is in no way absurdly

seen as begetting Himself as the one Spirit, or sending Himself as the one Spirit to earth, or

sending the Father as the one Spirit to earth (which could never happen). By now you would

realize that it is this belief that this writer subscribes to (as PROUDLY held by Seventh-day

Adventists), despite it is labeled as “UNORTHODOX” Trinitarianism, and even castigated by

the Papacy as tri-theism or polytheism, simply because we believe in the separate personhood of

Father, Son and Spirit as the one Godhead. But I am never the one to welcome being called

“orthodox” by the Papacy or general Christendom, and I am comfortable with the Roman

Catholics labeling us as “heretics” (when ironically they are the ones who are heretics when the

truth of the Bible is seen for what it is). What is clear though is that binitarians cannot effectively

accuse Seventh-day Adventists of being “polytheists” when they themselves CORRECTLY

believe that Father and Son are two separate beings worthy of divine worship equally (see John

5:23), and who are CORRECTLY seen equally as “our God”; but not properly considered as two

“Gods”. Therefore binitarians (like reformed Armstrongites) avoid using this polemic against SD

Adventists and seek to criticize Adventist beliefs about God by using other forms of

argumentation. But I will expose those arguments as lacking foundation (not matter how strong

they may appear) even as I delve further into the issues related to who really our God is.

A WARNING ABOUT ARMSTRONGITE TEACHING ON THE GODHEAD!

But before moving on let me say one important thing about Armstrongites. Of all the Godhead

doctrines in Christianity I do believe theirs is the most eclectic, the most convoluted, and the

most deceptive, since it poses as so many things it really is not, and is actually very subtle in its

errors. For instance, Christians, generally speaking, are either Trinitarians, Binitarians, or

Unitarians (i.e. believing respectively in three, two, or one being (s) as comprising the one

Godhead). Armstrongites however, while declaring themselves to be “Binitarians” (or so-called),

yet they actually believe that the Godhead is presently incomplete (i.e. only “PRESENTLY

consisting of two beings”), and that eventually millions of saved humans will become God

(capitalized) in Paradise, and they will actually become “the Creator”, and “God”, “even as

Jesus, and the Father are God” (as H.W. Armstrong presented the so-called “PLAIN

TRUTH” initially). Thus Armstrongites are none of the above three labels for Godhead

doctrines, but in fact they are “millionarians” as it were (to coin an appropriate phrase, since

there is actually no ‘official’ theological label for this rather strange belief)!! Also, you will

notice the way Armstrongites all over display varying degrees of adherence to the original

Armstrong teaching on the Godhead. For instance, Armstrong initially taught that the Holy Spirit

was just a force use by God, yet today some Armstrongites are reforming this so-called “PLAIN

TRUTH” to declare otherwise (i.e. declaring that the Spirit is not a force, and is not a “third

person” of the Godhead, but that he is the actual person of Jesus Himself, while being the actual

person of the Father Himself at the same time). All of this is now taking place even while some

Armstrongites are now fully declared orthodox Trinitarians (as they have come full circle to

recant the earlier beliefs). Obviously it is a misnomer to be calling oneself an “Armstrongite”

WHILE denying or reforming certain of Armstrong’s own teachings as he declared them to be

the so-called “PLAIN TRUTH”!! Also, you will find certain Armstrongites decrying the creeds

of Trinitarians, and yet they borrow many of the same expressions to refer to the God, or to the

persons of the Godhead whom they declare is ONLY “PRESENTLY” a binity (i.e. AT THE

MOMENT consisting of two Godhead beings). Thus you will hear them regularly accepting

Jesus as being “very God of very God”, as being “co-eternal”, “co-essential”, and “co-equal”

with his Father (all terms borrowed from the Trinitarian creed but tailored to apply to their so-

called Binity). And yet while none of these expressions are in the Bible itself, you will then hear

them turning around to argue that the expression “Trinity” is not in the bible. How laughable!!

The words “co-eternal”, “co-equal”, “co-essential”, “omnipotent”, “omnipresent”, “omniscient”,

etc, are all not there (which they freely use), but the meanings behind the expressions are

certainly there. They will even be heard using the expression “triadic” when referring to God

revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit, but then turn around and deny the very meaning of triadic,

and also deny that this word is a synonym for “a trinity” (despite respected dictionaries declare

the truth to be otherwise). You will often see them using ‘sleight of hand’ tactics in their

polemics (which is often missed by the listener or reader who is not quick to pick up on this very

subtle form of sophistry). For instance, while certain of the ‘new’ Armstrongites deny H.W.

Armstrong’s initial teaching that the Holy Spirit is a force, some will today go even halfway with

the Trinitarian in accepting that the Holy Spirit is God, and is personal (and he couldn’t be a

force or an impersonal entity), but declare him as only “personal” in so far as the Father and Son

are persons whom the Spirit literally is in extension as their personal “essence”. But you will

notice that the ‘new’ Armstrongites never take up the dictionary to define what the “essence” of

a person really is, and what the “extension” of someone would be, and they will never admit that

the Father or Son could not be separate beings (but rather would be more like Siamese twins) if

they are both the one Spirit literally in personage (as they espouse). And they will not admit that

the Father and Son could not send themselves if they literally are the one Spirit whom they both

send as their so-called “essence”. You will notice too that they will declare how very

interchangeable the Spirit of the Father and the Son is, as the “extension of their persons” at the

very same time, and so whatever the Spirit does it is actually the literal person of the Father and

Son doing that equally at the same time. But notice how they quickly stop short of saying that

when the Spirit overshadowed Mary and begot Jesus, then it would also HAVE TO mean that

the person of Jesus (as the Spirit) ALSO begot or fathered that “only begotten Son” on earth.

That is what I call crafty ‘sleight of hand’ in polemics. But this article/manuscript will not

hesitate to call a spade a spade. One’s hermeneutics must be consistent, and if it really is the truth

it should not deceive (whether wittingly or unwittingly).

WHAT OF UNITARIANS?

There are different types of Unitarians, or believers who seek to preserve the oneness of God as

simply one literal Being or one numeric Person only, and this group include Jehovah’s Witnesses

(also called Arians), oneness Pentecostals (also called “Jesus only” believers, sabellians or

modalists), among other groups (with so-called semi-Arians believers forming a large part of the

remaining groups). Jehovah’s Witnesses are the most strident Unitarian group, but are also the

most blatantly erroneous, since they blasphemously make Jesus a creature like ourselves (by

misapplying Rev. 3:14 and Prov. 8:22-31), and they deny the absolute divinity, and truly

“begotten” and natural but eternal Sonship of Jesus in order to preserve the Father as the only

One to be considered as “our God”, even while vehemently denying that John 20:28,29

compared with Heb. 1:2-3,6,8,10, and John 3:16 compared with Prov. 30:4, as well as Is. 9:6

compared with Micah 5:2 (just to quote a few texts) prove their doctrine to be offensively

heretical. But they don’t teach that the Spirit is personal, nor is even the person of the Father and

the Son, but they teach that the Spirit is Jehovah’s impersonal or active force he uses to

accomplish his will. Thus, even while they are clearly in error to hold this view (to be proven

later in this discourse), yet they can’t be accused of teaching Jesus to be His own Father. Thus

we can move on to the oneness Pentecostals; Unitarians who are most brazenly forthright in

teaching that Jesus as the spirit Father begot the human Son also called Jesus. My opening

remarks has already proved that simple deduction would make them guilty of teaching Jesus to

be His own Father. But what of their stubborn refusal to see the Godhead as consisting of more

than one divine person who can each be properly called “God” in and of themselves, and yet be

unitedly comprising the one Godhead? I think it noble of them to want to preserve the oneness of

the Godhead that the Jews are noted for, but the problem is that they seem to think the Jews had

it all right, and in fact fail to see that the Jews stopped accepting further revelations from God to

clarify and expand on the oneness of the Godhead to the point of rejecting His own Son who was

with Him all along speaking s an “us”, as seen in Gen. 1:26,27 or in Gen. 3:22-24 compared with

Prov. 30:4. This is because they, like the Jews, fail to appreciate the legitimate meaning of the

word “one” as also being a composite union (as a married couple or family is) when the

Godhead is considered in FULL revelation.

[THIS THEME IS COMPLETED IN THE BOOK “IDENTIFYING ERRORS ABOUT GOD MABE EASY”. CLICK

HERE FOR A FREE COPY OF THIS CLIMAXING DISCOURSE ON THE ISSUES]