John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” The one true God has revealed Himself as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Oneness Theology is non-Christian

Oneness Christology is a clear and major departure from biblical orthodoxy. Similar to Islam, it teaches a unitarian/unipersonal (i.e., one person) concept of God. Hence, the chief Oneness Christological divergences from that of the biblical teachings are as follows:

  1. Oneness Christology denies the unipersonality and deity of the Son. It teaches that “Jesus” is the name of the unipersonal deity. Accordingly, the “Son” merely represents the human nature of Jesus, while “Father/Holy Spirit” represents the divine nature of Jesus—thus, the Son is not God, only the Father is (cf. Bernard, Oneness of God, 1983: 99, 103, 252). 
  1. Along with the deity, Oneness Christology denies the preexistence and incarnation of the Son, and thus, His role as the Creator (cf. Ibid., 103-4; Magee,Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is The Godhead in Jesus?, 1988: 25). By denying the preexistence of the person of the Son, Oneness doctrine rejects the incarnation of the divine Son holding to the erroneous notion that it was Jesus as the Father, not the Son, who came down and wrapped Himself in flesh, and that “flesh” was called “Son” (cf. Bernard, Oneness of God, 106, 122).

In sharp contrast to Oneness Christology, Scripture presents clearly and definitely that the distinct person of the Son 1) is fully God (cf. Dan. 7:9-14; John 1:18; 5:17-18; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:13, 8, 10; Rev. 1:8, 17), 2) was the Creator of all things (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12), 3) eternally coexisted with and is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit (cf. Gen. 19:24; Dan 7:9-14; Matt. 28:19; John 17:5; 2 Cor. 13:14; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13-14), and 4) became fully man in order “to give His life a ransom for many” (cf. John 1:1, 14; Mark 10:45; Phil. 2:6-11). This is the Jesus Christ of biblical revelation. 

Jesus Christ is the only mediator and intercessor between God the Father and human beings. The Jesus of biblical revelation is the divine Son, the monogenēs theos who always is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), a personal self-aware subject, distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Hence, in biblical opposition to Oneness Christology, Jesus is not the Father, but “the Son of the Father” (2 John 1:3).

Worshiping the unipersonal God of Oneness theology is neither worshiping the true God in spirit nor truth. The Oneness concept of God is fundamentally the same as Islam: a unipersonal deity with no distinction of persons. The true God of biblical revelation is triune—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is and has been the historic biblical position and foundation of the Christian religion.

10 thoughts on “TRINITARIANISM OR ONENESS-UNITARIANISM: It Does Matter

  1. Oneness christology is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I’m not saying that this is what you’re doing, but the Oneness movement should in no way be deemed anti-Christian. We must remain humble in our search for truth.

    • Edward Dalcour says:

      Oneness theology rejects the Trinity, and thus, it rejects eternality and deity of the person of the Son. Oneness doctrine rejects the Son of God of biblical revelation–it’s against (anti), then, Christ, thus, the Christian faith. In John 8:24, the “person” of the Son said: “Unless you believe that I Am [egw eimi, viz. the eternal God] you will perish in your sins.” So, it is Christ Himself (and the entire biblical revelation) that condemns Oneness-unitarianism as non (anti) Christian.

      • Rejecting the traditional understanding of trinitarianism does, in no way, cancel a person’s salvation from God. Oneness theology accepts Jesus as Lord and God. Having a relationship with Him matters more than dogma or religion.

        • Edward Dalcour says:

          You said “Oneness theology accepts Jesus as Lord and God.” So do Mormons. Are they saved too? if not why? You may not understand what Oneness actually believes nor the Trinity. Oneness theology says Jesus is God- but do you know what they mean by that?

          They are unitarian. They see Jesus as a unitarian deity who is God, in the Father mode, and Jesus is only human as the Son mode. Thus, the person of Son is not God in their view. Please refer to what i already pointed out to you. They reject the nature of God as triune- three coeternal coexistent coequal distinct persons. Oneness rejects that the “person” of the Son as God – as both the OT and NT teaches. Again: The Son of God stated: “Unless you believe that I am (viz. eternal God) you will die in your sins” (John 8:24; cf. 8:58).

          Oneness clearly opposes the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God, and rejects the biblical teachings of the nature of God. Your personal views do not erase the words of the Son of God, and the biblical revelation.

      • Robert D. Weeks, author of Jehovah-Jesus, Oneness of God, quotes 1 John 4:9, “‘God sent his only begotten Son into the world.’ This clearly teaches Christ’s pre-existence as the created Son of God; for it would not be correct to say that God SENT him into the world, if he MADE him in the world – he did not SEND Adam into the world.”

        • Edward Dalcour says:

          Robert Weeks is simply Incorrect. He holds to a Oneness view. He argues that Jehovah and Jesus are one – unitarianism; thus rejecting the trinity. Why appeal to unitarian writers (with no real exegesis in his book)- instead of doing meaningful research- reading “recognized” scholarly sources in the area of biblical theology – interacting with the text on the basis of exegesis, not merely positing unitarian pre-sups?

          The sending passages denotes the incarnation. God the Son was “sent” to add a new nature- flesh. John 1:1 God was the Word who was WITH the Father, who is presented as Creator of things (John 1:3: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο). ,

          Esp. Phil. 2:6 – ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων indicates that the Son was always (note the pres. participle, ὑπάρχων) in the nature of God. The verbs in vv. 6-8 denote the Son’s p[preexistence as God in nature. So no where does His “sending” indicate created, not does “sending” of the Holy Spirit denotes that He was created.

          Both the OT and NT show clearly that the person of the person of the Son was truly God creator of all things, who became flesh (Gen. 19:24; Dan. 7:13-14; John 1:1, 18; 5:17-18; esp. 8:24 et al.; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:16-17; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3, 8-12; Rev. 5:13-14; 22:13 et al.

  2. Concerning John 8:24, claiming this is proof that Jesus is God the Son is a stretch. In the Greek, it would be more consistent to interpret Jesus as saying, “Unless you believe I am who I claim to be, you’ll die.” As for the holy Spirit, this is not some “third person” in the Godhead. This is clearly God the Father, who is the Spirit within Christ.

    • Edward Dalcour says:

      A stretch? Not to the Jews in john 8:59.
      It seems you are unaware of the linguistic-semantic, and background, viz., the LXX usage of “unpredicated” egw eimi claimed by YHWH (in Deut. and in Isa.). Nor are you aware that Jesus’ claims to BE the unpredicated egw eimi – along with His other divine affirmations and claims, which were continuous and repeated throughout the OT and NT.
      The Jews wanted to kill Christ for “claiming Himself to be equal with God” (John 5:17:18; 10:30-33 et al.- note the reflexive action)- these claims were not “a stretch” to the unbelievers nor the apostles – they understood clearly what Jesus meant.

  3. Typo edit: That is not totally true. Philippians 2:6 lacks the definite article, which is used always in reference to God. Without the article, theos simply translates to a god, not the God. Secondly, throwing out verses does not prove your point, unless proper exegesis is done. Otherwise, you’re merely proof texting.

    God was in Christ reconciling all people to Himself. The new testament never explicitly says that Christ “the God” is reconciling the world. Throughout the ministry of Jesus, God was in him, especially after the resurrection and before his ascension. That’s why Thomas was able to face Jesus and say “my Lord and my God.” Thomas was worshipping Christ’s divine nature, not his human one.

    Rejecting the traditional understanding of the Trinity does not cancel one’s salvation from God. Jesus preached against dogma and religion. A relationship with him is more important beyond all else, and recognizing him as God in the form of man is a core principle of Christianity. As of now, I’m somewhere in between binitarianism and oneness.

    Unitarianism completely rejects the divinity of Christ. Scripture clearly calls him the only unique son of God. Our God is the deity, and Jesus is His divine and human instrument through which all things were created. I respect your position, but we should respect the convictions of those who are passionate not only about biblical exegesis but also about Christ who saved us.

    • Edward Dalcour says:

      Oh no.
      You simply are not familiar with even the basics of Greek grammar. You have no idea what you are talking about. Before you assert something “grammatically” – Please get yourself a book on basic of Greek – so you will not embarrass yourself.
      The fact is, the anarthrous (without the article) θεός appears about 300 times in the GNT (NA28) – MOST of which are referring to the true God. Further, there are at least ten ways to definitize a noun, the article is only one way.

      If you are going to stay consistent to your misinformed idea about anarthrous nouns, then, according to your “rule” both the accusative Θεοῦ and dative Θεῷ in v. 6 and Θεοῦ in v. 11 must be speaking of a lesser God (a god) and not the true God – because they do not have the article.
      Do you apply your erroneous grammatical “rule” to all of Paul salutations, where θεός lacks the article? Is Paul saying “grace and peace to you from a god” because θεός does not have the article there either? If you are consistent to what you asserted, you would indeed.

      Or do you think that in the prologue of John (1:1-18) –vv. 6, 12, 13, and 18, θεός is a lesser God (a god) and not the true God, because it does not have the article in those passages? Or in Matt. 27:46, did Jesus cry out to “a god,” because the voc. θεός does not have the article?
      Also, unknown to you, in Phil. 3:19 θεός is articular, “The God.” So according to your so-called grammar “rule,” the true God is “ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία (“The God of the belly”).

      Again, the anarthrous θεός appears in the GNT about 300 times, and most are referring to the true God. You must have got all this from a JW, Watchtower website. No standard NT Greek Grammar would agree with you, not one. You are patently incoherent and unread in the area of Greek grammar and basic theology

      No need to respond back- I see clearly the stock of your “knowledge” and the lack thereof.

Join the Discussion!