top of page
Search
Writer's pictureJonah Mcelhaney

Oneness Writers Continue to Misrepresent the Doctrine of the Trinity

As someone who was a Oneness believer for over 15 years, I’ve done my fair share of study on the topic. As a Trinitarian today, I read books from both positions in attempt to stay as sharp as I can on the major issues between the two doctrines.


What is fascinating to me, and somewhat problematic, is that within the Trinitarian books that speak to the Oneness position, there is a fair amount of direct quotes and sources for what the Oneness position believes and teaches. For Oneness books that attempt to deal with the issues of Trinitarianism, that is not often the case.


Oneness writers will often misquote or misrepresent what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Below is a brief excerpt from the book, Just a Man, by Steven Gill.


“If Father and Son language is meant to disclose the co-equal Godhead, then why is it so often used to reveal the manner in which they are not co-equal?


“And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt… He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done… And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.” (Matt. 26:39;42;44)


As a teacher of mine once pointed out, if one god prays to another god, he ‘ungods’ himself. In fact, submission between Jesus Christ and God the Father isn’t an anomaly in the New Testament–it is one of its defining features.”


— The Last Man: Reclaiming Father & Son Language in the Oneness Pentecostal Movement by Steven Gill


As you can see Gill either doesn’t understand what the Doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches, which means he probably shouldn’t be trying to disprove it, or he’s trying to make it as nonsensical as he can to strengthen his own position.


He quotes a teacher of his that said, “If one god prays to another god, he ungods himself.”


This is a ridiculous statement to make for several reasons. First, no Trinitarian believes in more than one God. Second, by trying to emphasize Jesus humanity, Gill goes too far and completely separates his humanity from his deity.


In Christian Theology Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine. These natures are united in what is known as the Hypostatic Union, “Jesus has two complete natures: one fully human and one fully divine. What the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining (mysterious though it be) of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus.” - John Piper


In Gill’s theology, Jesus is the one person of God manifest in the flesh. So as a man, Jesus is praying to God. Here’s the issue, Gill and many Oneness writers try to have their cake and eat it too. For Gill he never explains in his book how Jesus can be the human praying to God while simultaneously being the Father speaking to His Son.


If Jesus is the Father manifest in the flesh, Jesus is either praying to himself, being an example of an obedient human and his prayers are not literal, or within the person of Jesus there are two distinct persons, the person who prays as man, and the God who hears and responds. This makes Jesus two distinct persons within this view.


Another issue with this quote from Gill is his misunderstanding of the incarnation. This is seen in this quote,


“If Father and Son language is meant to disclose the co-equal Godhead, then why is it so often used to reveal the manner in which they are not co-equal?”


This is a common objection in Oneness writing, if Jesus is God the Son, how can he be equal to the Father and submitted to him at the same time?


Philippians 2:5-8 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”


Notice first, it says he existed in the form of God, what does that mean? “The word “form” means “the outward expression of the inward nature.” This means that in eternity past, Jesus Christ was God“


This verse proves that Jesus is not just the human being who was born of a virgin, but he was God from the beginning.


“This phrase in Philippians 2:6—form of God—refers to the deity of Jesus Christ. He is God. Again in verse 6 we see His deity affirmed in the phrase equal with God. He is equal with God because He is God.


The phrase did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, is translated in the NASB, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, In other words as John MacArthur points out,


“Because Jesus already possessed equality with God, the meaning of to be grasped is not taking hold of but of holding on to, or clinging to. He had all the rights and privileges of God, which He could never lose. Yet He refused to selfishly cling to His favored position as the divine Son of God nor view it as a prized possession to be used for Himself.”


Instead of clutching and hanging onto His privileges as God, Jesus Christ was willing to set aside his privileges to come to earth as a man and to die on the cross for our sins and be our Savior.”



In the incarnation, Jesus doesn’t hold on to divine rights and privileges, but instead humbles himself by becoming a man. In his earthly role as Messiah, Jesus willingly submits himself to the Father. This does not make Jesus inferior.


Again, many of the issues Oneness writers see in the doctrine of the Trinity are not issues at all. Instead of responding to the actual teachings of the doctrine of the Trinity, Oneness writers continually build strawman arguments that are easily taken down by them, all the while ignoring the real issues within their own position.


John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”


How does this make sense in Oneness theology? These types of questions are hardly addressed but the most common answers are this is the human nature of Jesus praying to his divine nature.


Heres a quote from David Bernard, the most recognized and respected Oneness theologian.


“In John 17 Jesus Christ prayed to the Father shortly before His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane and subsequent crucifixion. He began His prayer by asking,


“Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee” (John 17:1).


In verse 5 He repeated His request for glorification and specified that He desired the glory that He had with the Father before the creation of the world.


This prayer raises a number of interesting questions. Is Jesus an inferior divinity who needs to receive glory from some other deity? Did Jesus exist as a glorified man before Creation? Are Jesus and the Father two distinct persons?


To understand this passage, we must recognize that Jesus prayed as a man. As we discussed in chapters 7 and 8, the prayers of Christ stem from His humanity, and any time we seek to interpret those prayers we must keep His humanity foremost in our minds.


Trinitarians say that Jesus was speaking as a second divine person here, but if that were so, Jesus would not be coequal with the Father, as they maintain, but inferior. Jesus would be a divine person who was lacking in glory, who needed the Father to give Him glory, and who asked the Father for help.


Jesus would not be omnipotent (all powerful), but lesser in glory and power than the Father. In short, Jesus would not possess some of the essential characteristics of deity. Contrary to the rest of Scripture, He would not truly be God.”


- Oneness View of Jesus Christ, Pg. 111-112.


Again, we see the mischaracterization of the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus clearly prays that the Father would glorify him with the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. How can Jesus only be the human nature of the Father and also have glory with the Father before the world existed? Heres how Bernard answers that.


“God glorified the man Jesus throughout His earthly ministry by investing Him with divine power and working through Him miraculously, but the supreme glorification occurred through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


That was the ultimate plan for which Jesus was born and lived. The eternal glory of God is not, therefore, the subject of discussion in John 17, but the glory the man Jesus Christ received by fulfilling God’s plan for our salvation.”


Oneness View of Jesus Christ, Pg. 113


This again shows the Issue within Oneness theology, Jesus is clearly speaking of a glory that he had with the Father before his incarnation, even before the world existed, yet Bernard insists this glory is not a divine glory, but rather the glory of the human Jesus that he received by fulfilling God’s plan for our salvation.


The Oneness position continually separates the humanity of Jesus from his divinity. Jesus is both God and Man, this is who he is. Plus, Oneness writers never answer this question, if the man Jesus, is God (unipersonal) manifest in the flesh, how and why does he pray to himself or speak to himself from heaven? If he’s both simultaneously?


Again, the answer most often given is Jesus has two natures, and sometimes he operates on his humanity and sometimes in his deity. As a man he prays to God, but as God he can also speak from heaven.


This undermines the relationship between the Father and the Son. If they are just one person what sacrifice was given? Why does Jesus pray? Why does God speak from heaven as if he’s someone other than Christ? Is this all an act?


There’s so much more to discuss on this topic, this doesn’t even scratch the surface. Hopefully the discussions between Oneness theologians and Trinitarians become more fruitful.

67 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Water Baptism

Baptism is something I’ve gone back and forth on for a while now. Initially I was a part of the United Pentecostal Church which taught...

Comments


bottom of page