DEBUNKING THE THEOLOGASTER JOE VENTILACION OF INCM ABOUT HIS ERRONEOUS AND FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS ON JOHN 10:30 AGAINST THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
-Humphsky Rey
A certain Theologaster named Joe Ventilacion of Iglesia ni Manalo is arguing desperately and erroneously against the Divinity of Christ as presented in John 10:30.
He argues that when Christ said "I and my Father are one" in John 10:30, He is not referring to oneness in nature with the Father. So he proceeded by presenting his "scholarly" explanation why Christ's words are not enough to prove His Divinity and the aspect of their oneness.
Joe started by presenting his argument on the Greek Neuter Adjective "ἕν" (en) or ONE in John 10:30.
According to him, to really understand the context and meaning of the passage, we must study the function of the said word. Really? Mr Joe Ventilacion? Well let's see.
After showing a table providing the differences of the three Greek words for One, which differs in their Gender(Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) Joe used as reference the commentary of D. A. Carson on John 10:30 in his book, The Pìllar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John on page 394 where it states:
"The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest,Rather, Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do"
Since he cut it, here is the complete statement of Carson:
"Verses 28–29 affirm that both the Father and the Son are engaged in the perfect preservation of Jesus’ sheep. Small wonder, then, that Jesus can say, I and the Father are one. The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest, for then the distinction between Jesus and God already introduced in 1:1b would be obliterated, and John could not refer to Jesus praying to his Father, being commissioned by and obedient to his Father, and so on. Rather, Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do: what Jesus does, the Father does, and vice versa."
It seems that Joe, by citing his chopped statement is clear in concluding that Jesus is merely one with the Father in what they do and are not the same persons.
However, this is still correct, why? Because Jesus and the Father are two different persons of the Trinity. They are distinct from each other but united in substance and nature. Carson is correct in also saying the Jesus and His Father are one in their acts, in everything they do, because He is in compete unity with the Father. This also supports the divinity of Christ for if we are to refer to their actions, Jesus is united or one with the Father in the following:
1. As Creator(Genesis 1:1-3, 26, Malachi 2:10, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:8,10, Colossians 1:15-17)
2. As Savior( Isaiah 4:11, 63:16, 1 Tim. 1:1, 2:3, Matt. 1:21-23, Luke 2:11, John 3:17, Titus 1:4, etc)
3. As Sanctifier(1 Thess 5:23, 1 Cor. 1:30, Hebrews 2:11,10:10) among others.
Mr Ventilacion should know that we do not have any problem regarding the unity of Christ and His Father regarding their work and will.
Now, let us see what other scholars say about the oneness of the Son and the Father.
"The statement in 10:30 that “I and the Father are one” has been an important battleground of theology. The first matter to note is that the word “one” here is neuter (hen) and not masculine (heis), so the text is not arguing for a oneness of personalities or personae (to use the Latin concept) but rather something akin to a oneness of PURPOSE and WILL." (Borchert, G. L. (1996). The New American Commentary: John 1–11 (Vol. 25A, p. 341). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
According to Borchert, it also refers to the PURPOSE and WILL.
Another scholar states that this oneness is not only about will and purpose but also in nature and essence:
"But since we cannot conceive of one Divine property without another, it follows that the "being one" (ἕν ἐσμεν) must denote the essential equality of th3 Son with the Father. Still, there are entirely unprejudiced expositors, such as Lücke and Tholuck, who have thought that our passage cannot relate to equality of essence because of of other passages John employs the expression ἕν ἐσμεν, being one, respecting the relation of the disciples to himself. (Comp. xviii, 11, 21, 22). But in these places we find the significant additions "as also I and my Father are one". This of itself is enough to indicate that here, the sense of the expression cannot be essentially different from that which we attach to it in the verse under consideration, and a closer view of the subject clearly shews that it is not so. For those who would entertain the hypothesis that the ONENESS REFERS ONLY TO UNITY OF WILL, NOT OF NATURE---AN HYPOTHESIS AT ONCE ARIAN, SOCINIAN, AND RATIONALISTIC---should not forget that true unity of will WITHOUT UNITY OF NATURE IS INCONCEIVABLE. Hence, if Christ speaks of unity and will between himself and his people, this can subsist only so far as such unity of will has been rendered possible to them by a previous communication of his nature. The profound idea, that believers are assimilated to tge Lord by the communication of his nature to them(which we found, John vi, in tbe participation of his flesh and blood) here appears to have escaped the aboved-named expositors; but this, being kept in view, it is clear that in the present instance, as in the other, the language cannot but RELATE TO CONSUSTANTIALITY. (Olshausen, Hermann. Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. Trans. Kendrick, A. C. Vol. 2. New York: Sheldon, 1866.)
It is very clear that Christ since He is one in substance(homoousios) and nature with the Father is giving a distinction between HIS RELATIONSHIP with the FATHER and to OTHER PEOPLE. Mr Joe should take note of that. Christ have a unique relationship with the Father as compared to other people. So His oneness with the Father, as the only begotten son also refers to his nature and substance not just will and purpose and action.
Furthermore, Joe insisted that if Christ used the MASCULINE GENDER for ONE in John 10:30 it would mean that He and the Father are ONE PERSON. This is correct though in the TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE, so Joe and the Greek rule of grammatical concord just supported the way we explain the Trinity, having distinct persons but one in essence, substance and nature. This would only be against our view if we are in the side of Modalistic Monarchianism or Oneness Heresy and Patripassianism. I repeat and reiterate, we also believe that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons.
Our friend also used the statement of Scholar Albert Barnes, reiterating the oneness of Jesus and His Father is redeeming and preserving the people in His flock, however we do not have problem with this since it does not deny the fact that Jesus and the Father are united as one in nature as God, caring for the flock is actually a support to the action and office of God, since Jesus like the Father is also a "Father"(not the person but in role) to His children(Isaiah 9:6) and a Shepherd to His flock(John 10:15-16) lime the Father(Psalm 23:1).
Sadly, Joe used again his dirty tactics in using commentaries, because if we continue the commentary of Barnes, we will know that:
"Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:
1. The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence.
2. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy John 10:31, John 10:33, and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, John 10:33.
3. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at John 10:34-37.
4. He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, John 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds."
(Barnes, Albert, Notes on the Bible, John 10:30)
This proves that Christ as we have said earlier is not only united or one with the Father in action and purpose but also in nature and essence, and is also valid when reversed it to the side of Mr Ventilacion saying that it is only for the "preservation of the sheep", because when we say Christ is one with His Father is preserving and caring for the sheep of his flock, this would just support our view, because they are also one in power. Here is what another Scholar say:
"I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him."
(Gill, John, Exposition of the Entire Bible)
In Joe's usage of the neuter gender of the word "ἕν", did he not learned that his own argument crumpled his own stand with the support of scholars explaining it to be referring also to the nature and substance?
Here's what they say:
"John 10:30. Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν ἐσμεν, I and the Father are one) One, not merely in agreement of will, but in unity of power, and so of nature: for omnipotence is an attribute of the nature [of God]; and His discourse is of the unity of the Father and the Son." (Bengel's Gnomen)
"I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one." (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, 1882, General editor: John Perowne)
"One (ἕν)-The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power." (Vincent Marvin, Word Studies in tge New Testament)
Now, Joe proceeded on his argument that John 10:30 is a concluding statement in reference to John 10:27-29, arguing that Christ is referring to his role in unity with the Father in caring for His flock, however we already answered this above.
But one thing I have in mind to ask him, since the INCM insists that Christ and the Father are JUST ONE in PROTECTING and CARING the FLOCK, why then you have the courage to teach that the FLOCK or Church established by Christ was APOSTATIZED? This is surely referring to the first century Church who how could that happen if Christ is already in unity with the Father?
Surely you can answer this since you used, Frank Scott's statement in his book, The Preacher's Homilectic Commentary on the Gospel of John saying that it also refers to the unity of Christ and the Father in taking care of the people.
In his following statements, Ventilacion used the argument that Christ was also using the same words with other people, again this was also answered ahead above when we discussed about how Christ is showing the distinction of His relationship with God and other humans. It is not only in attribute but also in nature, arguing such only proves how INCM's theology is rooted from ARIANISM and the SOCINIANS.
Mr Joe also used rare and erroneous translations to discredit this fact through their different renditions such as the Simple English Bible(SEB), International English Bible(IEB), his favorite, LAMSA Translation, and the CEV or Contemporary English Version, although we know to a fact that the rendition of the verse based on the original Greek Manuscript is correctly followed and presented in the majority of Bibe versions and translations that are considered more accurate.
He again proceeded in saying that Christ and the Father are TWO SEPARATE BEINGS, but this is erroneous, because CHRIST IS ONE BEING WITH THE FATHER (See Nicene Creed). GOD IS ONLY ONE BEING BUT IS EXISTING IN THREE DISTINCT PERSONS.
Merriam Websters in the meaning of BEING:
1. the quality or state of having existence;
2. the qualities that constitute an existent thing: ESSENCE
Another source tells us that it is all about:
1. the nature or essence of a person(Heidegger)
So the FATHER and tbe SON are ONE and the SAME BEING even they are distinct persons. Because GOD IS ONE BEING(nature: Col. 1:19, 2:9).
At last, Manalo's minister argued that Christ cannot also be equal with power to His Father since Christ said in John 14:28 that His Father is greater than Him. However critics of the deity of Christ failed to understand metaphysically that relationship is not always about GREATNESS but also in RELATIONSHIP, and ORDER in the GODHEAD. Christ did not mention that His Father is greater in power, rather, by studying the context, we can see that He is referring to relationship, for He is the SON, and the FATHER is greater in the essence that he is the "FATHER" and also in order, for the Father is the FIRST IN PRINCIPLE in the TRIUNE GODHEAD.
So, in concusion, Mr Joe Ventilacion, a renowned INCM Theologaster failed to destroy the truth of the Divinity of Christ in John 10:30.
May the truth sets him free.