As a former Oneness Pentecostal, I still interact with some Oneness ideas and thoughts. Often I come across social media posts that try to prove Oneness or discredit the doctrine of the Trinity. I am always grateful to stumble upon these kinds of arguments because it helps me dig into the text and re-examine everything. As I study the texts and examine these arguments I figured I would go ahead and address what I see as the most common Oneness arguments for the Oneness position and against the Trinity.
Before I get into the particular passages, it’s worth mentioning another common argument. Church History.
Oneness theologians tend to argue that the earliest church was Oneness. The argument is that Greek Philosophy was merged with Judeo-Christian thought. This led men to disregard Scripture and rely on reason and philosophy to understand God.
Look at this quote from a Oneness writer writing on church history,
“In the Church the trend of the majority, after the first two or three centuries, was that of going outside of the Bible for ultimate authority. Church Councils and Popes' decisions were placed above the Bible in importance. Consequently, with the intervention of man, Humanism bullied its way into the Church. Men blindly accepted the dictates of man when they conformed to the decisions of Church Councils.”
— After the Way Called Heresy: A Time of Oneness Believer by Thomas Weisser
These claims are bold, therefore the burden of proof is on the Oneness writers to support these claims. But interestingly enough, as I listen and read I find a double standard in the Oneness argument. Those who claim the Trinity was a later development within the 2nd and 3rd century, usually use this to justify their claims that the original church was Oneness.
Here’s the double standard though, the earliest proponent of Modalism, or ancient Oneness, that we can find was Praxeas of Rome, followed by Noetus of Smyrna. These men were teaching this in the late 2nd-early 3rd century. But isn’t that the same argument they use to deny the Trinity?
Here’s another quote from the book Oneness vs Trinity Debate, by Larry Tate,
“The doctrine of the Trinity is described by its proponents as a “mystery.” Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity is little more than utter confusion. The teachings of the Trinity originated with the Roman Catholic Church via the Nicene Creed which was produced in the fourth century (325 A.D). On the other hand, Oneness theology was taught by the early church until a corrupt and apostate Christendom eventually repressed the teaching and misplaced, or deliberately destroyed the documentation that could have proven that early post-Apostolic fathers taught Oneness theology.”
On one hand they claim they are teaching the original church doctrine on the nature of God, and on the other hand they admit this is unprovable because “Christendom eventually repressed the teaching and misplaced, or deliberately destroyed the documentation that could have proven that the early post-Apostolic fathers taught Oneness theology.”
How is this not leaning into Conspiracy theories at this point? We know we are the original, but we can’t prove it because all the evidence was destroyed. How can this be a real argument? How can this be verified? It has to be accepted as fact by faith.
with that in mind, there are still many passages that are used to argue for the Oneness position. Here are just a few from
1) Colossians 2:9 KJV “For in him dwelleth all of the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
“Jesus is not in the Godhead, the Godhead is in Jesus.”
The argument is that Godhead describes God in totality, Father, Son, and Spirit. Since Father, Son, and Spirit equal the Godhead, and Colossians says that the fullness of the Godhead was in the bodily form, then Jesus is all three in one. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
But is this what this passage teaches?
First, we must be careful when relying solely on the KJV. I know some believe it is the most accurate Bible available, and it isn’t a bad translation by any means, but we must admit that the language of the KJV can be archaic at times and hard to follow. Here in Colossians 2, we can see some archaic language.
Godhead is an archaic way of saying Godhood. The Suffix head has been replaced in modern language with hood, this suffix means “state of being”. We see this suffix in words such as “manhood” and “womanhood”. It is to describe the state of being of whatever it is behind. Manhood means the state of being a man. Likewise, Godhead means the state of being God.
The Greek word used here is “theotes” which is defined as deity or divinity, godhead. This is seen in most modern translations of this passage.
ESV “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,”
NET “For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,”
NASB “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,”
CSB “For the entire fulness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,”
NIV “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,”
Colossians 2:9 is a powerful passage that declares that Jesus was fully God, that He isn’t a part of God or a piece of God, Jesus is God in bodily form. This idea isn’t foreign to Trinitarians, the idea that Jesus is fully God or that all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. This is a core teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. Dividing God up into parts is partialism and that is heresy. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches there is one God in three persons and each person is fully God.
2) John 10:30 KJV “I and my Father are one.”
David K. Bernard in his book, The Oneness of God, page 198, says this, “As God, Jesus is one with the Father in the sense of identity with the Father - in the sense that He is the Father.”
Does John 10:30 teach that Jesus is the Father?
Edward Dalcour, in the book, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, pg, 51 says this about the Oneness view of John 10:30,
“An exegetical analysis of the passage in its grammatical structure actually proves the very converse of the Oneness assertion. First, notice the Greek rendering: ego kai ho pater hen esmen, literally, “I and the Father one we are.” What directly challenges the Oneness assertion is the fact that the verb “are” is the first personal plural from (esmen) of the Greek verb eimi. Hence, Jesus did not say, “I and the Father am [eimi] one,” but rather, “I and the Father are [esmen] one.” The plural verb differentiates Jesus from the Father.”
When we back up to verse 29, we see that Jesus is clearly differentiating himself from the Father, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of my hand.” To read verse 30 as Jesus claiming to be the same person as the Father is to read your own theology back into the text. It is not the plain reading of the passage.
This isn’t a new argument either, people have tried to use this passage to prove a Modalistic view of God going all the way back to the Early Church. Tertullian in Against Praxeas 22 (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.3.628), says,
“My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all.” Adding immediately, “I and my Father are one.” Here then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two beings - “I and my Father,” then that there is a plural predicate, “are,” - inapplicable to one person… They argue that this passage teaches that Jesus unquestionably claims to be his own Father.”
Also Hippolytus in Against Noetus 7 (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol 5:226) responds to the use of John 10:30 by Noetus of Smyrna, the first known Modalist,
“If, again, he [Noetus] alleges His [Christ’s] own word when he said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact, and understand that he did not say, “I and my Father am one, but are one.” For the word “are” is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.”
So what does Jesus mean by “I and my Father are one”? Jesus is stating that He is of the same essence as the Father.
3) John 14:8-9 KJV “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet has thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”
David Bernard in the Oneness of God, page 68, “This statement goes far beyond a relationship of agreement; it can be viewed as nothing less than the claim of Christ to be the Father manifested in the flesh. Like many people today, Philip had not comprehended that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that the only way a person could ever see Him would be through the person of Jesus Christ.”
This quote by Bernard is interesting, on one hand he is correct that the only way anyone was going to see the Father was through the person of Jesus Christ. But on the other hand Bernard asserts that this proves that Jesus is the Father. This goes beyond what the text says for Jesus never says, “I am the Father”, only “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
Consider John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side - he has revealed him.”
Clearly when we take account of the full teaching of the New Testament, John is not teaching that Jesus is literally the Father. Both Oneness and Trinitarians believe that the Father is invisible, the point of the passage is NOT to prove that Jesus is the Father.
John 1:18 says Jesus has revealed the invisible Father, Hebrews 1:3 says “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
Reading John 14 in context should prevent us from coming to the conclusion that Jesus is claiming to be the Father. Verse 10, the verse immediately following, says, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
Keep reading and it gets even more clear, verse 15-16 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper, to be with you forever, Even the Spirit of truth, whose the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.”
4) John 5:43 KJV “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
David Bernard, Oneness of God, page 126, “It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43, Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name.” According to Hebrews 1:4, the Son “by inheritance obtained a more excellent name.” In other words, the Son inherited His Father’s name.”
Again, we see the context of John 5 is ignored, as well as the entire passage in verse 43. Let’s back up a few verses to John 5:30-32 to see the fuller context.
“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true”
Edward Dalcour, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, Pg 51,
“Jesus said, “There is another,” not one, but another (allos). Bauer (2000: 46) defines allos, “other” as “pertinent to that which is other than some other entity, other… distinguished from the subject who is speaking or who is logically understood… “Jesus’ audience would have understood Jesus’ words clearly. To abandon the plain reading, “There is another witness,” and exchange it for a modalistic understanding is patently eisegetical that is, reading into the text a meaning that is foreign or external to the passage itself.”
Even when we look at just verse 43, we see that Jesus is clearly saying something other than what the Oneness position is trying to say. Jesus is saying that he is coming in the name of the Father, in other words, he was coming in the authority of the Father and not on his own authority.
The Greek word onoma that is used for name in this passage is used at least 156 times in the New Testament. The normal first century application of the phrase eis to onoma was predominantly to signify “authority,” “power,” “on behalf of.”
Look at passages such as 1 Samuel 17:45 “ Then David said to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.”
David informed the Philistines that he came in the “name” of the Lord, that is, by the authority/power of the Lord, on His behalf. Just as David was not claiming to be the Lord, so also was Jesus not claiming to be the Father.
Before we move on to the next passage, I want to address the other passage Bernard cites in his quote. Hebrews 1:4.
“Having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”
Bernard makes the claim that the name the Son inherited was the Father’s name, which is Jesus. It is interesting that within the context of Hebrews 1 the name of Jesus is surprisingly absent. You won’t find that name mentioned at all. So what name is the writer of Hebrews talking about?
Hebrews 1:5 “For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have begotten you? Or again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?”
Notice what name is being referenced, it is the name Son. Look at verses 1 and 2, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
To say that the name in question in this chapter is Jesus is to ignore the context. It is not the name Jesus that makes him higher than angels but, rather, the name Son. The whole argument hinges on the word “Son,” no New Testament reader would be mistaken about who this “Son” is.
5) 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believe on in the world, received up into glory.”
David Bernard, The Oneness of God, page 58, “The statement that Jesus is God necessarily implies that God took on human flesh. This is in fact what the Bible says… God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.”
It is important to understand what the Oneness position is saying here because on the surface it doesn’t seem controversial. In the Oneness view “God” in this passage is referring to the Father. As we will see later, a popular proof text is 1 Corinthians 8:6 “But to us there is but one God, the Father,”
So when the text says God was manifest in the flesh, they interpret this to mean, the Father was manifest in the flesh. But is this accurate?
Again, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is only one God. This isn’t an issue, Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God. What this passage is not saying is that the Father was manifest in the flesh, no passage anywhere in Scripture says anything remotely similar to that. Jesus is never referred to as the Father, but he’s always referred to as the Son. To say that the Father was manifest in the flesh would be a foreign reading of this passage and a foreign idea in the minds of the New Testament writers.
6) 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV “But to us there is but one God, the Father,”
David Bernard in his books The Oneness of God and the Oneness View of Jesus Christ, references this passage, but only in part, to prove that only the Father is God. Ironically, this is a favorite passage of the Jehovah's Witness also to prove that Jesus is not God. The above quote from 1 Corinthians is not the verse in full, but this is how Oneness advocates will typically quote this passage.
Here’s the full verse, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
As you can see, the way the passage is quoted by Oneness Pentecostals, is disingenuous at best. The full verse in context says there is one God, the Father, AND one Lord, Jesus Christ. If we are going to say the first part means that only the Father is God, then we have to be consistent and say that since the second part calls Jesus Lord, that only Jesus is Lord. This is obviously not a coherent way of explaining this text.
So what does it mean?
Quoting from Edward Dalcour in A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, page 47,
“In the New Testament, Paul normally refers to the Father as theos and the Son as kurios particularly when the Father and Jesus appear in the same verse or context. In Paul’s mind, in a religious context, both titles theos and kurios were two equal descriptions of deity. This is especially seen when one considers that the very term used to translate the Tetragrammaton (i.e., the Divine Name, Yahweh, “LORD”) in LXX was kurios,”
When we examine the Scriptures we do not find the Oneness view. The issue many Oneness believers face is they do not properly understand what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches. Even some of the theologians who try to combat the Trinity in their writings often misrepresent the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not some pagan concept adopted into the church through Constantine and the Council of Nicea. It is the clear teaching of Scripture, that there is one God, but within the one being of God exists three persons, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
7) John 1:1 KJV “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
David Bernard, The Oneness of God, page 60, “The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather, the Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer - as a play in the mind of a playwright - or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed - as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed as the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fullness of time was come, God put His plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ.”
In the Oneness position, John 1:1 is seen as showing that the Word is nothing more than the plan, or idea that God had for salvation. In other words, before the foundations of the world, God already had a plan in place to save humanity from their sins. This plan was then made flesh.
How accurate is this? Was the logos of John 1 simply a thought, idea, or plan of the Father? No, and I will show that.
Let’s look at John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word.” en archē ēn ho logos, this simply means the Word didn’t originate at a point in time, but rather, in the beginning of time the Word was already existing.
This next sentence is the important one for our discussion, “And the Word was with God. kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon. Why is this important?
Edward Dalcour, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, page 112, “John 1:1b is particularly relevant concerning the Oneness denial of the reincarnate Son: kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon. In spite of the clear differentiation between ho logos and ton theon denoted by the preposition pros (“with”),”
In Church history, John 1:1 has been used to show that the eternal Word was fully God and distant from the Father. Here are a few examples,
Clement of Alexandria (Fragments 3, in Alexander and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 2:574) says,
“The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated. That the Son was always the Word is signified by saying, In the beginning was the Word.”
Hippolytus (Against Noetus 14, Alexander and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:228) also comments on this passage,
“If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two God’s, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), vis., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit.”
John Calvin in his commentary on the Gospel of John says,
“We have already said that the Son of God is thus placed above the world and above all the creatures, and is declared to have existed before all ages. But at the same time this mode of expression attributes to him a distinct personality from the Father; for it would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that The Speech was always with God, if he had not some kind of substance peculiar to himself in God… This passage serves, therefore, to refute the core of Sabellius, for it shows that the Son is distinct from the Father.”
The Greek word translated as “with” is pros. This word is important because it means to highlight the intimate loving fellowship that the Word shared with the Father.
Again, quoting Dalcour, page 114, “The preposition pros has various meanings depending on the context (e.g., to, toward, in the presence of, pertaining to, against, etc.; Greenlee, 1986: 39-40). When applied to persons, however, pros regularly denotes intimate fellowship and always their distinction. Of all the presuppositions that John could have utilized, which can mean “with” (e.g., en, meta, para, sun). He chose pros (lit., “facing”/“toward,” with the accusative, theon as the object of the preposition). Hence, pros with the accusative clearly indicates that the Word was “at, with, in the presence of … God” (Greenlee, 1986: 39). In reference to John 1:1b, pros indicates “by, at, near; pros tina einai: be (in company) with someone” (Bauer, 2000: 875).”
When reading John chapter 1 in context, we can see that nowhere is John insinuating that Jesus is the Father in the flesh. Here are a few examples,
John 1:14 “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
As we can see when examined carefully, the Oneness arguments do not hold up. What are the major issues within the Oneness view? Edward Dalcour explains this well, in A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, page 38,
“Oneness Christology is a clear and major departure from biblical orthodoxy. It removes the personhood and deity from the Son, thus removing the Son from the Trinity. The chief Oneness Christological divergences from the biblical teachings are as follows:
Oneness Christology denies the unipersonality of Jesus Christ.
Oneness Christology denies that the “Son” is God. To recall, Oneness theology teaches that Jesus’ divine nature represents the Father and Holy Spirit, not the Son - I.e., the “Son” is not God, He is merely the human nature of Jesus.”
This last sentence from Dalcour is important. In Oneness theology, the Son is not God. This might not seem apparent at first, and I did not understand this when I was Oneness myself, but it is true. In Oneness theology, only the Father is God. The Son in Oneness theology is merely a man.
Here’s Oneness theologian Steven Gill explaining this in his book The Last Man, page 88,
“If God exists in three co-equal persons, then why is Jesus so often reluctant to take the credit that is rightly due unto him? God the Son, second in the trinity, surely possessed the authority to declare Himself ‘good.” After all, He is God. Yet, Jesus resisted such claims. in fact, this is one of the most human statements ever made by the Messiah that can be found in Scripture. “There is none good but one, that is, God.” Once again, the revelation of the Son of God is made clear. He is a submitted man.”
For a deeper discussion on this topic, see my post, "Is God a Trinity?"
Comments