Tag: modalism

Stated eternal penalties of denying these essential doctrines  

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Deity of Christ. John 8:24: “You will die in your sins.” Since Jesus is a distinct person, any denial of the Trinity would result in the same consequences (1 John 2:22-23).  

The belief that Jesus is the Son of God. John 3:16, 36: “… The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.”

The physical resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:12-17. 17 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.”

The perpetual incarnation. 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7: the one who denies the perpetual incarnation of the Son, is “the deceiver and the antichrist.”  

And a denial of justification through faith alone. Gal. 1:8-9: “Let him be anathema.” A gospel apart from justification through faith alone is “a different gospel”—a gospel without Christ.

 

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission & TRINITARIAN Baptismal Formula

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Matthew 28:17-20

“And when they [“eleven disciples”] saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”

 

 

Affirmation of the Commission

 Previously the gospel proclamation was ethnocentric—to the Jews; whereas this Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is ektocentric (i.e., “beyond” the Jewish people). This direct commission was given to His disciples – to proclaim the gospel to panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”; cf. Rom. 1:8). Paul says in Colossians 1:5-6 5 … you previously heard … the gospel 6 which has come to you, just as in all the world….” (NASB). 

 

The only commandment in verse 19 is “make disciples!” – from the verb mathēteusate, which is an aorist imperative—the strongest way in Greek to issue a command. It stresses urgency.  The verb translated “Go” – is from poreuthentes. The verb is an aorist participle, a non-imperative commandment mood. In this grammatical construction however, the commandment would be: “Go make disciples! of all the nations; Not “as you go,” or “as you are going” – if this were the case, Matthew would have used a present participle, not an aorist participle.

In every case in Matthew, when the aorist participle (mostly involving poreuthentes, “Go”) is followed by an aorist imperative, the participle takes the force of a an imperative[1]. For example: Matthew 2:8: “Go search carefully for the child”; 2:13: “Arise take the child”; 9:13: “Go, however, learn; 11:4: “Go tell John”; 17:27: “Go to [the] lake cast a hook.” *The aorist participles are bolded, and the aorist imperative verbs are italicized.    

 

The only commandment in verse 20 is the aorist imperative, idou (“behold”). As a demonstrative particle, it emphasizes what follows: “I am [omnipresent] with you always, to the end of the age.” These words are comforting.  And in verses 19-20, Jesus describes the means of making a disciple by using two participles: “baptizing” and “teaching”—namely, participles of means.

 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

Consider the following points:

I. Eis (εἰς ) “into.” The first century lexical meaning of the preposition eis (“into”) could express a transference of/into ownership. Thus, the believer is baptized into the triune God – signifying that he or she passes, or comes into the possession of ownership of the triune God.

 

II. Syntactical- The reading “into the name of THE Father, AND of THE Son, AND of the Holy Spirit” – denote three distinct persons. According to Greek grammar (viz., Sharp’s rule #6) – when the conjunction kai (“and”) connects singular nouns (not proper names) of the same case and the article (“the”) precedes each noun (viz., “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit”), each personal noun denotes a distinct person. Same construction in, 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al. This construction is also abbreviated as ASKAS (article – substantive – kai -article – substantive).     

 

III. This baptismal formula was used historically to affirm the Trinity. Note these pre-Nicaea (A.D. 325) examples:

Didachē (c. A.D. 50-70; chap. 7:1, 3 – same reading: βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.”.

 Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155; First Apology, 61).

 Tertullian (c. A.D. 213; Against Praxeas, 2, 26): “He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.”  

 Origen (c. A.D. 244; Commentary on Romans, Book 5, 2:11; 8:7).

 Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260-270; A Sectional Confession of Faith, V, XIII).

 Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D. 253): “… Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity” (Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, Letter 73:18).

 

IV. Textual Support. Anti-Trinitarian groups especially Oneness Pentecostals (who believe Jesus is the Father) and other unitarian groups (who like Oneness, believe that God is one person; such as, Muslims, JWs et al.) argue that the trinitarian formula is missing from the earliest Greek NT manuscripts (MSS) of Matthew 28:19. They assert that it was added later by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

In response to this assertion, we have almost 6,000 MSS extant of the Greek NT. The earliest ones (mostly from the 2nd – 5th century) were written on papyrus, while later ones were written on parchment or vellum (i.e., on animal skin).

To date, there are no Greek NT papyrus MS that contain any complete NT book due to many passages missing and/or damaged. The fact that no early papyrus MS contain the ending of Matthew 28 is not a valid reason to reject it. Would any Oneness Pentecostal reject 2 Timothy since that book is NOT contained in any early papyrus MS either?  

 

Additionally, there are no early papyrus MS that contains Acts 2:28 either; the earliest papyrus MS containing it is from the 7th century (P74). The earliest parchment MS copy of Acts 2:38, along with Matthew 28:19, is from the 4th century! (viz., Codex Sinaiticus, c. A.D. 350 and Codex Vaticanus, c. A.D. 325). Even more, every single Greek NT MS that contains Matthew 28:19 contains the Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” reading (also – there are no variant readings of the Trinitarian baptismal formula.

 

Lastly, every early NT version that contains Matthew 28:19, such as the MSS of the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. contains the Matthean Trinitarian reading, not a “in the name of Jesus” rendering.

   

 “Name of Jesus” vs Trinitarian Formula  

 

Oneness advocates insist that the “Apostolic doctrine” of water baptism is in “the name of Jesus” – mainly appealing to Acts 2:38 et al.

 Consider this:

1. In Acts, there are approximately eleven cases or recorded baptisms,- some groups and some individuals.       

Only one case (8:38) identifies the baptizer (Philip the Evangelist). Whereas two cases, the baptizers are implied, but not stated—Paul and/1or Silas in 16:32:33 and Paul in 19:5-6. And only four out of the eleven, even mention a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula – hardly a norm. Although only apostles and appointed church leaders like Philip were most likely the agents of baptism (1 Cor. 1:13-17), Luke makes no emphasis of this.

 

Acts 2:38- Peter commands – no baptizer mentioned 

Acts 8:12-16 – “the Samarians and “Simon” – no baptizer  mentioned.     

Acts 8:36-38 – Eunuch – Philip baptized Him – no formula.

Acts 9:17-19- Saul – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 10:47-48 – Gentiles – no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:13-15 – Lydia and household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 16:27-34 – The Jailor and his household – no formula, no baptizer mentioned (Paul and/or Silas implied, but not stated).

Acts 18:5-8 – Many of the Corinthians – no formula, no baptizer mentioned.

Acts 19:1-5 Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus – no baptizer mentioned (Paul is implied, but not stated).

Acts 22:14-17 – Saul (as Paul recounts) – no formula, nor baptizer mentioned (but, “calling on His name”).

 

2. Thus, no standard formula. Only in four places do we see a so-called “Jesus’ name” formula in Acts. Acts provides no standard formula- note the variations below:

 

Acts 2:38: epi [ἐπὶ] tō onomati Iēsou Christou – (variant: en [εν] – B D5th) 945 1739 1891; Irenaeus’ Lat trans. (4th); Didymus of Alexandria (late 4th). Also, in D E 614 945 1739, Iēsou Christou is expanded to tou Kuriou Iēsou Christou (“the Lord Jesus Christ”).

Acts 8:16; 19:5: eis to onoma tou Kuriou Iēsou, “into/in the name of [the] Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48: en tō onomati Iēsou Christou, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 Three different prepositions (epi, eis, en), and three different variations of the formula. Since Oneness Pentecostals pride themselves on and insist that they alone are practicing the “apostolic doctrine” of baptism (i.e., “In the name of Jesus”; contra Trinitarians), you could ask; “If there is no standard “Jesus name baptismal formula” in Acts, which one is the ‘apostolic’ formula?”

 

3. “In the name of Jesus”- not an “audible” baptismal formula. There is no clear grammatical evidence the so-called “Jesus’ name” formula was an “audible” formula used in the recorded water baptism accounts in the Acts narrative. Point 2 also shows this by the lack of a standardized formula. Even if it were, it does not prove the Oneness modalistic notion: Jesus is the same person as the Father.

 

4. Baptism = Identification/unification. Consider, these two points: First, the primary lexical sematic (meaning) of the verb baptizō (“to baptize”) carries the denotative meaning of unification or identification (see 1 Cor. 10:2: “they [Israelites] all were baptized into Moses”). Second, although the Jewish semantic of “name” in both the OT and NT (Hebrew, shem, Greek, onoma) – could indicate the name of a person, place, or thing, the principal meaning is authority or power (cf. 1 Sam. 17:45; Acts 4:7).

 

In light of these two important points, water baptism is an identification ceremony publicly signifying one’s unification or identification into that which the recipient is baptized. So, in Matthew 28:19, just like today; Christian water baptism denotes both unification with and passing into (eis) the possession/ ownership of the Triune God. Jesus gave this commission to His disciples.

 

Since the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, the Christian church has been baptizing new believers “Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This TRINITARIAN FORMULA was the hope and future glory imprinted in the minds of the OT believers as well as the NT believers to the present day!

 

Appendix: Typical Oneness assertions

Assertion 1. The text reads “into the Name,” not “names” – as with a trinity of 3 gods. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes that represent the singular Name, ‘Jesus,’ into which the apostles baptized.

Response: If the singularity of a word applied to God proves unipersonality, then, a plurality of a word applied to God proves multi-personality. In both the OT and NT plural words are used to describe God: Plural verbs, plural adjectives, and plural pronouns (viz., first person com. plural pronominal suffixes).

Into the singular “Name” (onoma [ὄνομα] acc. singular), not “names” 

Jewish semantic (OT and NT): Heb. shem, Greek, onoma (“name”) –  frequently denoted authority or power. Acts 4:7: “By what power, or in what name ὀνόματι have you done this?”

LXX of Genesis 11:4: “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name [onoma, Heb., shem] for ourselves….”

1 Samuel 17:45:  “But David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name [LXX, onomati, Heb. shem] of the Lord God….” 

 

Assertion 2. The Trinitarian formula reading in Matthew 28:19 is missing from the earliest Greek NT MSS (papyri); it was added later by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.

Response: True, but no Greek NT papyrus MS contains any complete NT book (passages missing and/or damaged). Would any Oneness advocate reject 2 Timothy because it is not found in any extant Greek NT papyrus MS?  

 

Ironically, no Greek NT papyrus MS contains Acts 2:38 before the seventh century (P74). As seen: Earliest Greek MS of Acts 2:38 (along with Matt. 28:19) is from the fourth century—Codex ℵ (c. 350) and Codex B (Vaticanus, c. 325). *P45 contains only Acts chaps. 4-17.  

 In fact – Every single Greek NT MS where Matthew 28:19 appears, it contains the Trinitarian and not a “Jesus’ name,” reading – No variant of the Triune formulaic reading.   

NT versions. The MSS of Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic, Syriac (Peshitta), including Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 150), Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Gothic et al. that contain Matthew 28:19 contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The early church primarily used the Matthean Trinitarian formula starting with the early first century document, the Didachē.

 

Assertion 3. Eusebius (fourth century). 

Twenty-eight times in ten of his works, Eusebius cites or alludes to Matthew 28:19, partial or paraphrase (viz., “short readings” – only some with “in the name of Jesus”), or the passage in full. Oneness advocates only point to Eusebius’s short readings and argue that he never cites a Trinitarian baptismal formula, rather, he cites “in the name of Jesus” as the baptismal formula.

 

In response: First, Eusebius and many other church Fathers (and NT authors, cf. Phil. 2:10-11 – Isa. 45:23), abbreviate or paraphrase passages. Second, Eusebius does cite the Trinitarian reading five times (four times he includes “baptism”) and one time prior to Nicaea.

 

Eusebius’s usage was not at all constant

He used three basic forms – alluding or citing Mathew 28:19: Note: the phrase “In the name of Jesus” is never mentioned.

 

1. “Go (‘Going,’ ‘Go ye,’ ‘Go forth’) make disciples of all the nations”- six times, five variations – No connection with baptism.

2. “In My, in His Name” – seventeen times, with variations – No connection with baptism.

3. Eusebius cited the Trinitarian formula five times, no variations, all but one are connected with water baptism; and one prior to Nicaea.

 

Theophania (c. A.D. 313-318; Book 4, sec 8).

Letter on the Council of Nicaea to Caesarea (c. 325; sec. 3).

Against Marcellus (c. 335;  twice – Book 1, chap 1). 

Ecclesiastical Theology (c. 335; Book 3, chap 5; but also cites the short reading in chap. 3 – citing Marcellus).

Notes

[1] Syntactically, an “attendant circumstance” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics).

Matthew 28:17-20

 

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“I and the Father are one.”

Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen), lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”).     

Also see our YouTube presentation:  John 10 30: “I and the Father one thing We are” – not one person.

 

Both historically and currently, Christians have pointed to this passage to show that Jesus indeed claimed equality with God the Father. As with Jesus’ other undeniable claims to be truly God (Matt. 12:6; John 5:17-18; 8:58-59 et al; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 22:13; etc.).

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [poieis seauton Theon]” (vv. 31, 33). If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).

John 10:30 also provides a clear refutation to the Oneness view (as discussed below), which erroneously asserts that Jesus is the Father (the same person). Ironically, Oneness advocates actually use John 10:30 as a so-called proof text to try and show God as unipersonal. Although throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]).

Note the following points regarding John 10:30, which clearly refute Oneness theology:     

  • Content. In chap. 10, Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father twelve times (and throughout John’s literature).  
  • The Son’s affirmation of ontological Deity (YHWH, Deut. 32:39) in distinction from the Father. 
  •  Grammar. Two subjects, PN neuter adjective, and plural verb.

 

  1. Not one person within conservative recognized Christian scholarship agrees with a Oneness interpretation. Neither historically nor contemporaneously has any Christian writer interpreted John 10:30 in a modalistic (Oneness) way. Rather, all standard scholarly sources (patristics, commentaries, grammars, lexicons et al), interpret the passage in the plain intended way, within the defining context: The person of the Son claiming co-equality with the distinct person of the Father.
  1. Plain reading. Jesus simply says, “I and the Father ARE one.” Only by pretexting can one read something into this text beyond the simple plain reading. Note also throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons twelve times (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]; also cf. John 1:b, 18; 6:38; 17:5; 1 John 1:1-2; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.                             
  1. Grammar. Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen (lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”). First, Jesus (“I”) and the Father are the two subjects of the sentence (both in the nominative [subject] case). Second, the adjective hen (“one”) is neuter in gender, literally, “one thing.” This contextually indicates that the “one” is in unity of essence, not one in person. If Jesus wanted to identify Himself as the same person as the Father, He certainly could have used the masculine heis to indicate this (e.g., John 12:4; Rom. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:5 et al.). While the subjects of the sentence are Jesus and the Father, the neuter adjective hen (“one thing”) is the predicate nominative of the sentence and it precedes the plural verb esmen (“are”), as discussed below.

Grammatically, a predicate nominative describes or tells us something more about the subject(s). Here, it’s describing the two subjects (Jesus and the Father) as being one in essential or ontological unity (viz., the category to which the subjects belong; cf. Wallace, GGBB, 40). The same neuter adjective is used in John 17:21, where Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples “may be one [hen]” even as Jesus and the Father are one, also signifying unity (not person). However, especially in light of the previous passages, in verse 30, the neuter adjective denotes ontological unity (coequality), which Jesus expressed—hence, “The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” (v. 31).

  1. The plural verb esmen (“are”). Again, in sharp contrast to the false Oneness interpretation (viz., that Jesus is the Father), the Greek contains the plural verb esmen (“I and the Father are one”), and not a singular verb such as eimi (“am”) or estin (“is”) in which case, the passage would read: “I and the Father am/is one.” Robertson (Word Pictures, 5:186) comments on the specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature.”
  1. Jesus’ claim to deity is not merely found in verse 30. But rather, the passages leading up to verse 30 undeniably prove His claim. In verses 27-29, Jesus claims that He is the Shepherd that gives His sheep eternal life and no one can snatch them from His nor His Father’s hand. Note the same words of YHWH in the LXX of Deut. 32:39:
  •  Deut. 32:39 (LXX): “And there is no one who can deliver ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν Μου [ek tōn cheirōn Mou, ‘out of the hands of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:28: “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρός Μου [ek tēs cheiros Mou, ‘out of the hand of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:29: “no one is able to snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Πατρός [ek tēs cheiros tou Patros, ‘out of the hand of the Father’].”

 

The Jews were well acquainted with Deut. 32:39: “And there is no one who can save anyone from My hand” and Psalm 95:7: “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.” The Jews knew that only YHWH could make these claims of having sheep in His hand and giving them eternal life (cf. also Isa. 43:11). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν]” (v. 33).[1]

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).- 

“I and the Father one thing We are are” – not one person.

 NOTES 

[1] As in John 5:18, in John 10:33, the reflexive pronoun seauton (“Yourself – 2nd per. sing.) indicates that the Jews understood that Jesus’ claims in John 10, which culminated in verse 30 (“I and the Father are one”) were made by and for Himself—literal: “You … make Yourself God” (σε … ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν). The reflexive pronoun is used to highlight the participation of the subject in the verbal action (Wallace). The reflexive pronoun is where the subject is also the object of the action in that the action is by or for himself or herself.

John 14:9 and the Oneness Pretext

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

             

“Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’”

 

 

 

Before we look at John 14:9, note the obvious fact: Nowhere in the NT, did Jesus Christ ever state that He was the same person as the Father, nor did anyone in the NT ever call him Father, rather He is “the Son of the Father”– a distinct person (Dan. 7:9-14; Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1b, 18; 5:17-18; 6:38; 10:17, 30; 17:5; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 1:3; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-12; 1 John 1:3; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13 et al.).

The Oneness people routinely quote this passage, usually in the same breath with John 10:30, as though it was part of the passage. Only by removing this passage from the document and immediate context can Oneness advocates posit a modalistic understanding. At the outset, as with John 10:30, Jesus never states in this passage, “I am the Father,” only that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Oneness advocates confuse Jesus’ representation of the Father (John 1:18; 14:6; Heb. 1:3) with their unitarian assumption that that Jesus is the Father.

There are five exegetical features, which provide a cogent refutation to the Oneness handling of this passage.

  1. Context: In verse 6 Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In verse 7, He explains to His disciples that if they “had known” Him they would “have known” the Father also. Jesus then says to His disciples, “From now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Thus, by knowing Him they “have known” and “have seen” the Father (note the parallel: “have known” – “have seen”).

    Still not understanding (i.e., by knowing Jesus they know and see the Father), Philip says to Jesus, “Show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus then reiterates (as a corrective) that by seeing Him they can see, that is, they can “know” or recognize the invisible Father (v. 9). The context is obvious: by knowing and seeing Jesus (as the only way to the Father; cf. v. 6), they could really see (i.e., know/recognize, cf. John 9:39) the invisible Father (cf. John 1:18; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:16). The OT and NT present that the Son is and has been eternally subsisting as the perfect and “exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very nature (hupostaseōs) of Him (autou, “of Him,” not “as Him”; Heb. 1:3).

    Therefore, when they see Jesus, they “see” the only way to, and an exact representation of, the invisible unseen Father, for Jesus makes Him known, He explains or exegetes Him (John 1:18). Thus, “He [Jesus] has made known or brought news of [the invisible God]” (BDAG, 349). One cannot have the Father except through the Son, Jesus Christ: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23; see also John 17:3). Note also that in 14:10, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father when He declares: “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” To repeat, not one time in the NT does Jesus (or any other person) state that He Himself is the Father.

 

  1. The Father is spirit: When Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” the only thing His disciples literally saw was Jesus’ physical body. Both Oneness believers and Trinitarians agree that the Father is invisible and does not have a physical body. Hence, Jesus could not have meant that by “seeing” Him they were literally seeing the Father.

 

  1. First and third person personal pronouns and verb references: Throughout John 14 and 16, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father. He does so by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) and verb references to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) and verb references to refer to His Father.

    Notice John 14:16: “I will ask [kagō erōtēsō, first person] the Father, and He will give [dōsei, third person] you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (also cf. 14:7, 10, 16; etc.). In the same way, Jesus also differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit.

 

  1. Different prepositions: Throughout John chapters 14-16, Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. Beisner[1] points out that the use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them [i.e., the Father and Son]” and clearly denotes essential distinction. Jesus says in John 14:6 and verse 12: “No one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me . . . he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (cf. also John 15:26; 16:28).

    Further, Paul frequently uses different prepositions to differentiate the Father from Jesus. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit: “For through Him [di’ autou, i.e., the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera].” Only by circumventing these significant details can one establish Modalism from John 14:9.

 

  1. The first person plurals in John 14:23: “We will come,” “We will make.” In verse 23 of the same chapter, Jesus declares, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and [lit.] ‘to him We will come’ [pros auton eleusometha] and ‘at home/abode with him, We will make’ [monēn par’ autō poiēsometha].” Against the Oneness notion, Jesus specifically used two first person plural indicative verbs (eleusometha, “We will come” and poiēsometha, “We will make”). Oneness advocates typically cherry-pick passages (esp. with v. 9) and then pretext into them a modalistic unitarian understanding.

 

Conclusion

Again, in the NT, Jesus is identified as the Son, never as the Father; no one ever addressed Him as the Father or the Holy Spirit. Nor did Jesus ever refer to Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. If fact, Jesus primarily referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” (80 times). Son of Man was His most used title of Himself. (cf. Dan. 7:13).

As the context clearly shows, Jesus in John 14:9 Jesus expresses to His disciples that as the only way to (v. 6) and thus, representation of the Father, they could “see,” that is, know the Father. Jesus is presented as God-man, the very image and perfect representation of His Father (cf. John 1:18; Heb. 1:3). In His preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17), He had loving intercourse and glory with the Father (cf. John 1:1; 17:5). The Son is clearly presented as the divine Priest (cf. Heb. 7:1ff.) who revealed His Father to mankind (cf. John 1:18). The Son is the one and only Mediator between the Father and humans (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

The Oneness pretexting of John 14:9 is based on a unipersonal assumption of God, which nullifies Jesus’ own authentication: “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another [allos: other than the one speaking] who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true” (John 5:31-32; cf. 8:17-18).

Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23).

 

Notes 

[1] Calvin Beisner, Jesus Only Churches, 34.     

Modalism and the Book of Mormon (LDS)

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Modalism (Oneness Theology) in the Book of Mormon:

 

As a matter of historical recoded, Leader and Founder, and first so-called Prophet and President of the Mormon Church Joseph Smith could not keep consistent in his theology. For example on the nature of God, he went from ‘one God’ (Book of Mormon [cf. Alma 11:44; 2 Nephi 31:21, Testimony of the (so-called) Three Witnesses, early sections of D&C, Book of Abraham], to Modalism (sections in the Book of Mormon [cf. Mosiah 15:1-5; Ether 3:14; Alma 11:38-39], to flat out polytheism (cf. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347), which the LDS Church embraces today. See Early Teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, which Contradict Present- day LDS Theology

 

Modalism-  https://christiandefense.org/oneness/modalism-and-the-book-of-mormon/

 

In terms of Modalism, Joseph Smith did not understand the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings of Modalism. Modalism (also referred to as Oneness theology) was the second century heresy that asserted that God is unitarian (unipersonal), that is, God existing as one person that reveals himself in different modes, manifestations or dimensions, rejecting the Trinity.

In other words, in Oneness thinking, since God is one, and Jesus is called God, Jesus then is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit—not three persons, rather three manifestations or modes. Oneness doctrine teaches then that the unipersonal God (named Jesus) has two natures, divine being the Father and human being the Son. Thus, in this doctrine, Jesus acts sometimes as the Son (human) and sometimes as the Father (God) and yet other times the Holy Spirit.- –  For more details on Oneness see: Oneness Theology. 

So, what does Modalism have to do with Joseph Smith? Answer: the Book of Mormon teaches both Trinitarian and Modalism. However, I find that the Book of Mormon is more modalistic than Trinitarian, though. First, observe these decidedly modalistic passages in the Book of Mormon.

 

Mosiah 15. The introduction of Mosiah chapter 15 reads: How Christ is both the Father and the Son–He shall make intercession and bear the transgression of his people. . . .” Then, starting at verse 1 through verse 5, note the heighted areas:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [the Father] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God. . . . (Mosiah 15:1-5).

 

That Jesus is the Father, is a teaching that is clearly taught in Smith’s, Book of Mormon

 

Ether 3:14: “Behold, I am the he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am the Father and the Son. . . .”

Alma 11:38-39: “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

Amazingly, a mere five verses later (11:44), we find a contradictive implication of what resembles the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:

but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit , which is one Eternal God. . . .”

 2 Nephi 31:21: “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.”

Further, the “Testimony of the three Witnesses” do not agree with the present-day LDS teaching (three separate Gods). Rather, the converse is stated: “And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (Book of Mormon, Introduction). The nature of God is not the only doctrine that Joseph Smith changed in his lifetime. However, the true God of biblical revelation is the triune God and thus, a denial of the nature of God is a denial of Christ and His gospel (cf. Isa. 43:10; Hosea 6:6; John 8:24, 58; 5:24; 17:3; 1 John 5:20).

T. D. Jakes newly launched Bible school: Jakes Divinity School

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Unfortunately, a vast number of “professing” naïve Christians, that may be seriously seeking a biblical education, will willingly be proselytized to the false doctrines of T. D. Jakes—esp. his distorted Oneness anti-Trinitarian teachings of God, his prosperity nonsense, women pastors, and many more bad doctrines.   

–          

As for all the uninformed and biblically dim who still insist that Jakes is Trinitarian, note the current Faith Statement posted on the school’s website, which defines God as “existing in three manifestations” (same as the Potter’s House), which is patently Oneness-unitarian. See – https://jakesdivinity.org/about-jds/faith-statement/

 

Using “manifestations” to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is neither a biblical nor a historical definition of God (it never has been for the “Christian” church)—words do matter.  “Manifestation” is not a semantic (nor ontological) parallel to “person.” A manifestation is a mere appearance of a thing, and not the thing itself. Manifestation does not have an ontological reference.

 

Again, and as pointed out by many, If Jakes now embraces the basic biblical definition of the Trinity, then, these questions must be answered,

 

1) Why does he still hold to a Oneness description of God (“existing in three manifestations”) found on the faith statement of both his church (Potter’s House) and his new school?   

 

2) Why is Jakes presently (for many years) the Vice Prelate of the decidedly Oneness organization, Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies? 

https://www.highergroundaaa.com/national-officials?fbclid=IwAR2Zktzsp3fsG6HOQSAoC_W76SNTfXEFbBcIVqLs3hdkjS5hgbPJrd10n0Q And, 

 

3) What of all Jakes’ previous affirmations of Oneness doctrine? He has never recanted those.

Such as in an interview with Jakes on the LA radio show, KKLA, Living by the Word, hosted by Jim Coleman (August 23 and 30, 1998). Coleman had asked Jakes “How important it is for Christians to believe in the Trinity.” Jakes responded, “I think it’s very, very significant that we first of all study the Trinity apart from salvation. . . . The term ‘Trinity,’ is not a biblical term, to begin with. . . . When God got ready to make a man that looked like him, he didn’t make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul, and spirit. “We have one God, but he is father in creation, son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.”

 

This last statement is a standard and historical Oneness phrase (found in many Oneness doctrinal statements), “Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration,” which is historically congruent with Sabellius’s (early third cent.) “successive” Modalism.          

 

Or in 2000, Christianity Today also posted a response by T. D. Jakes, in which his statements show clearly that he is indeed, a Modalist.

Regarding the questions of the Trinity, Jakes had stated, “While I mix with Christians from a broad range of theological perspectives, I speak only for my personal faith and convictions. I am not a theologian, and I avoid quoting even theologians who agree with me. To defend my beliefs, I go directly to the Bible. . . . I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions. . . . I do not believe in three Gods” (Feb. 2000; Jakes, “My Views on the Godhead,” Christianity Today, online ed.).

Or, when Jakes expressed his consistent view of God in “Spirit Raiser” (in Time Magazine, Sept 17, 2001). Note his clear Oneness definition: “And God said, ‘Let us. Let us . . . .’  One God, but manifest in three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration.” Again repeating the standard and historical Oneness phrase, “Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration,” which is congruent with Sabellius’s (early third cent.) successive Modalism.          

Since, all evidence (much more than provided here in this terse article) reveals clearly that Jakes holds to and teaches a Oneness doctrine of God, and to date, no evidence exists showing that Jakes unambiguously believes in the Trinity, – unless he,    

 

1) Removes his Oneness description of God contained in both his church’s Belief Statement and school’s Faith Statement,

 2) Openly renounces his numerous and unequivocal Oneness affirmations of God in literature and interviews,

 3) Resigns as Vice Prelate from the Oneness organization, Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, and

 4) Positively affirms a basic biblical definition of the Trinity, we must see Jakes as a consistent heretic embracing Oneness-unitarian theology, which rejects the triune nature of the only true God of biblical revelation—thus denying Christ and His gospel.                

Update: T. D. Jakes Changes his Doctrinal Statement 

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Oneness advocate and popular TV evangelist T. D. Jakes (of the Potter’s House church in Dallas, TX) has changed (reworded) his doctrinal statement regarding God. His old statement read:

THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD. . . . Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority. We believe in the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1).

Here his denial of the biblical definition of the Trinity is crystal clear. Describing God as “THREE DIMENSIONS” and saying God is “Triune in His manifestations” is decidedly Oneness, not Trinitarian. His statement before this one (1998) read in part: “God-There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

But as of recently, he changed it again, going back to the 1998 description: “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” As we can see, the “Belief Statement” on the Potter’s House website: http://thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/) still provides a unitarian and distinctly Oneness concept of God- using the term “manifestations” (thus avoiding the use of “Persons”) to describe God is consistent with Oneness doctrine, not Trinitarianism.

For those who still defend Jakes insisting that he holds to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and not Oneness theology, please refer to the Potter’s House website and read his own Belief Statement. Denying the Trinity denies the biblical revelation of the nature of God. See A Concise Look at Oneness Beliefs.  

 

  

 

Oneness Tract: Trinitarianism or Oneness Unitarianism?: It Does Matter

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Spanish edition Here- 

 

John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (cf. John 4:24). The one true God has revealed Himself as three distinct persons, the Father and the Son, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Unbiblical Teachings of Oneness-Unitarian Theology

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).

2. 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, 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. 1:3, 8, 10; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:8, 22:13), 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 of biblical revelation. Jesus Christ is the only mediator and intercessor between God the Father and human beings. Jesus is the divine Son, the monogenēs theos (“unique God”) who is always in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), a personal self-aware subject, distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. In contrast to Oneness Christology, Jesus is not the Father, but “the Son of the Father” (2 John 1:3; cf. John 17:5ff.; 1 John 1:3).

Worshiping the unipersonal God of Oneness theology is not worshiping the true God in spirit nor truth. The Oneness concept of God is fundamentally the same as Islam and the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses): a unipersonal deity with no distinction of persons. The true God of biblical revelation is triune—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Oneness Theology: Overview

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

See Oneness Tract –
See Isaiah 9:6: Oneness Refuted
See Was the Trinity Conceived in the 4th Century?

 

Oneness Theology (Modalism)[1]

 Oneness churches are characterized by and go by many names such as Jesus Only, Apostolic church, Oneness Pentecostal[2] etc. Today, the largest Oneness denomination is the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). All Oneness advocates reject the Trinity. Rather they believe God is unitarian or unipersonal (one person). The name of the one God is “Jesus,” who is both the Father/Holy Spirit and Son. Oneness advocates claim that Jesus has two natures (or modes, manifestations, roles, etc.), divine as the Father/Holy Spirit and human as the “non-divine,” “non-eternal” Son, whose life started in Bethlehem. In this sense, the “Son” was created in the womb of Mary and is not eternal. In the Oneness doctrinal system then, the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not three persons, but rather the three roles or modes in which Jesus manifested.

Although not all Oneness advocates agree on every point of Christology, all forms are a clear and major departure from biblical orthodoxy. Oneness doctrine rejects the personhood, deity, and incarnation of the Son. Many Oneness denominations also reject that justification is through faith alone, not by works, by teaching that the work of water baptism is necessary for salvation (e.g., UPCI). 

The chief Oneness Christological divergences from that of the biblical teachings are as follows:

 

  • Oneness Christology denies the unipersonality of the Son, Jesus Christ.

 

  • Oneness Christology denies that the person of the “Son” is God. As stated, Oneness theology teaches that Jesus’ divine nature represents the Father and Holy Spirit, but not the Son, that is, the “Son” is not God; the Son is merely the human nature/mode of the unitarian deity, Jesus.[3]

 

  • Oneness Christology denies the preexistence and incarnation of the person of the Son and His role as the agent of creation, hence, the Creator of all things.[4]By denying the preexistence of the person of the Son of God, 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 (while not actually becoming flesh), and that flesh body was called “Son.”[5]

 

  • Oneness Christology claims that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (same person), hence denying the concept of the Trinity[6] Oneness theology is “unitarian” seeing God as a unipersonal deity.  

 

Since Oneness theology maintains that only Jesus as the Father is God (for “Son” only represents the humanity of Jesus), it clearly denies the Trinity and deity and preexistence of the Son. As said, God is defined from a unitarian perspective: Only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature). Clearly, Oneness theology is heterodox embracing a false Jesus, different from the Jesus of biblical revelation: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father” (1 John 2:23). Oneness doctrine indeed denies both the Father and the Son.

 Response: The three weakest points of Oneness theology are as follows:

 1) The places where Jesus interacts with the Father especially where He prays to the Father and where the Father loves Jesus (Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 10:21-22; John 10:17; 17:1ff.).

2) The places in the OT and NT that teach the preexistence of the person of the Son (the angel of the LORD appearances; Gen. 19:24; Isa. 9:6; Dan. 7:9-14; Mal. 5:2 et al.; John 1:1; 3:13; 6:38; 16:28; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:10-12; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 22:13).

This would include the places that present the person of the Son as the Creator of all things (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).

3) The places that present the person of the Son as God, and distinct from God the Father (Mark 14:61-64; John 1:1, 18; 5:17-18; 8:24, 58 et al.; 10:28-30; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Titus 2:13[7]; Heb. 1:6, 8-12; 1 John 5:20; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.). Moreover, in NT, there are numerous passages where all three persons are shown as distinct from each other, either in the same passage or same context (esp. Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 1:21-22). The NT explicitly teaches that Jesus is the “Son” of God, and not once is He called or identified as the “Father”[8] (cf. 2 John 1:3).

Further, consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian, not Oneness—for obvious reasons. The church has branded Oneness theology as heretical since the days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Moreover, when it found its way in the twentieth century, departing from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, it was again rejected by the church.

There are many more biblical objections that could be mentioned. But these do suffice in showing that the Bible affirms that God is triune, and militates against Oneness unitarianism. Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity—it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. To be sure, Modalism embraces another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concerned as to the false beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, as he gives this warning:

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23).

 

By promoting the Son as a temporary mode or a role of the unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem, denies the Son, as well as the Father.

  1. Oneness theology rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, for they are unitarian (i.e., believes that God exists as one person—unipersonal).
  2. Oneness theology rejects the eternality of the person of the Son.
  3. Oneness theology rejects that the Son was the actual Creator.
  4. Oneness theology rejects the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
  5. Oneness theology distorts and thus rejects the biblical concept of the Son being Mediator (Intercessor) between the Father and men (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). For if Jesus is the Father, then, between whom would He Mediate since by definition a mediator/intercessor represents two distinct parties, other than Himself. Biblically, only Jesus, God the Son, can rightfully represent the Father (because He is God a distinct person from the Father), and represent man because He is fully man. Again, in its proper sense, a “mediator” is one who is other than or distinct from the parties, which are being mediated. However, since in Oneness theology Jesus is both Father and Son, Jesus cannot be properly “Mediator” between two parties–God the Father and man.
  6. Many Oneness churches especially the UPCI rejects justification through faith alone by teaching that one must be water baptized (“in the name of Jesus” only) to be saved—with the evidence, as the UPCI teaches, of speaking in other tongues.
  7. Virtually all Oneness churches reject that water baptism should be done in the *triune* formal as instructed by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, rather, as they insist, it should be dome in the name of Jesus only.

 “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

NOTES

[1] Historically, Oneness philosophy first emerged around the early second and early third century being popularized by Noetus of Smyrna and Praxeas (Asia minor). It was also called Modalism since all forms of the Oneness idea saw God has merely appearing in three modes (or roles) as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not in three persons. Subsequently, Sabellianism became a popular brand Modalism. Sabellianism was coined after its chief proponent, Sebelius, the Libyan priest who came to Rome at the beginning of the third century A.D. However, he taught successive Modalism, which saw the modes as successive, that is, “Jesus” (the name of the unipersonal God) first was the Father in creation, then, the Son in redemption, then the Holy Spirit in regeneration. In distinction to simultaneous Modalism, which teaches that all three modes exist at the same time. But the fact is, fundamentally, all forms historically and today are as unitarian (seeing God as one person), as with Islam’s view of Allah and JWs’ view of Jehovah.

[2] Generally, there are two kinds of “Pentecostal” churches – Oneness (such as the UPCI) and Christian Pentecostal, which are Trinitarian (such as the AOG, Foursquare et al.).          

[3] As defined by the UPCI authority and Oneness author, David Bernard in his most recognized book, The Oneness of God (1983), 99, 103, 252.

[4] Cf. ibid., 103-4; Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is The Godhead in Jesus? (1988), 25.

[5] Cf. The Oneness of God, 106, 122.

[6] Cf. The Oneness of God, 57; T. Weisser, Three Persons from the Bible? or Babylon (1983), 2.

[7] Jesus as “the God” is grammatically affirmed at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.  

[8] Oneness advocates typically appeal to John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”). However, as seen above in detail, this passage in its context systematically refutes the Oneness unitarian interpretation and positively affirms the distinction between the Jesus and the Father: “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it back (John 10:17). For more information on John 10:30; 14:9 and other passages used by  Oneness advocates to promote a unitarian Oneness God, see, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism, 4th ed. by Edward L. Dalcour >www.christiandefense.org<             

See Was the Trinity Conceived in the 4th Century?

Are Oneness Believers Christian?

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The fundamental difference between biblical Christianity and Oneness theology is this: the Oneness view of God holds to a unitarian starting point, namely, the assumption that monotheism equals unipersonalism.

First, since Oneness doctrine asserts a unipersonal God without the distinction of three Persons, it sees Jesus then as the mere “name” of the unipersonal deity, who manifested as the modes or roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus denying the unipersonality of Jesus Christ. Second, since it asserts that only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature/mode), the “Son” represents only Jesus’ human nature/mode, thus denying the Son’s deity. Third, since it rejects the idea that the Son is God, Oneness Christology denies (a) the Son’s pre-existence, (b) the Son’s active role as the agent of creation (the Creator), and (c) the Son’s eternal and intimate relationship with the Father. Pertaining to redemption, Oneness doctrine maintains that Jesus as the Father took flesh, hence denying the incarnation of the divine Son.

In contrast, an exegetical analysis of particular biblical passages in both the Old and New Testaments establishes the fundamental data for the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, Scripture reveals in the clearest way that there are three distinct Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—that share the nature of the one God. Thus, the three Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, co-existence, and co-distinct. The full deity, incarnation and pre-existence of the Son, as a distinct Person from the Father, are especially expressed in the Apostle John’s writings.

In the Pauline corpus, the deity, unipersonality and distinction of all three Persons are seen frequently either in the same passage or same context. Both John and Paul present the Son as God and Creator of all things. In the prologue of Hebrews, the author asserts clearly and coherently that the Person of the Son is the eternal Creator; this assertion demolishes the Oneness position, which sees the “Son” representing only the human nature of Jesus whose life started in Bethlehem. This work concludes that the concept of the Trinity is inescapable in the light of biblical exegesis. Oneness theology cannot stand exegetically. It must circumvent and redefine the plain reading of many passages that state or imply, for example, the grammatical and contextual distinctions of the Persons in the Trinity, the pre-existence and deity of the Son, and the deity and unipersonality of the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, contrary to the historical revisionism frequently employed by Oneness authors and teachers, the early church prior to Nicea held to the concept of the Trinity universally rejecting both modalistic and dynamic forms of Monarchianism.   

In light of the theological views of Oneness theology, we must evangelize Oneness believers. We must proclaim to them the truth of the Jesus Christ of biblical revelation. And we must pray for them praying that God saves them and makes them alive to the gospel of the Son, “the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).