United Pentecostal Church

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Other Resources

On the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity and Oneness there are several books (many on the doctrine of the Trinity but I’ll mention only a couple) that you can read. Oneness individuals are familiar with David Bernard’s books. Bernard is now the head of the United Pentecostal Church International headquartered in Missouri. I spent a great deal of time reviewing his materials again looking at specific arguments around particular scriptural passages and comparing those interpretations to the Trinitarian perspective. I would encourage those in the UPCI or those still confused to do the same.

For your reference a few of Bernard’s books are as follows:

The Oneness of God (Word Aflame Press, 1986).

Oneness and Trinity: A.D. 100-300: the doctrine of God in ancient Christian writings (Word Aflame Press, 1991).

The Oneness View of Jesus Christ (Word Aflame Press, 1994).

Two books that I would strongly encourage my Oneness friends to consider are written by two men that are on very different ends of the spectrum within Christianity.

Dr. James White is a Reformed Baptist and runs Alpha & Omega Ministries (aomin.org) which is an apologetics organization. White has written a number of books but has also been involved in moderated debates on numerous subjects, including debating on the Oneness/Trinitarian subject. His book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a nice, easy to understand perspective on the doctrine of the Trinity. He looks at a large number of scriptural passages and breaks them down in an easy to understand manner. While there is certainly discussion of original Greek language, the book does not come across as overly technical or so scholarly that it is not intended for the lay person. It is clearly a book designed to provide the lay person with an understanding of and appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity. It provides an explanation of the Trinity in not an overly academic manner but in a manner in which the everyday Christian can read and appreciate. I strongly recommend this book:

The Forgotten Trinity (Bethany House Publishers, 1998).

Gregory A. Boyd describes himself as a former Calvinist – as far as the view of God’s foreknowledge, Boyd is an open theist and holds a number of views that he and White would disagree on quite strongly. Nevertheless, they have both written nice books on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity. What makes Boyd interesting is that as a young person, he was a member of a United Pentecostal Church. He left the UPCI and held to Calvinistic teaching before holding the views that he holds today. Nevertheless, there are not many books written by people of the caliber of someone like a Greg Boyd (whether you agree with his thinking on all doctrinal subjects today or not) – someone who was in and very familiar with the UPCI and its teaching and had since left. He provides what I think is a very fair representation of Oneness teaching and then addresses that teaching in presenting the view of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the appendix, Boyd addresses some other subjects unrelated directly to the doctrine of the Trinity but some teaching of the United Pentecostal Church as it relates to salvation, holiness standards, and the UPCI’s teaching on hair.

Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Baker Books, 1992).

In addition to reading these books, something else to consider would be viewing some of the publicly moderated debates that Dr. White has performed with Oneness Pentecostals. There are certainly a number of debates out there available for viewing. When viewing or listening to debates my only caveat would be that it is important to not be distracted by “show” or the energetic presentation of some that would call themselves Christian apologists but to consider only the substance of the information being presented. Sometimes energetic presentations are simply a nice way to cover up for a lack of substance, a lack of any proper response to challenges and a means for repeating in an excited fashion the same content over and over again. It is also important to know and consider the fact that some debaters may simply be better debaters and better able to convey an argument than others. But in the end, the purpose of the debate is not to win, per se, but to convey the truth of God’s word to those that are listening. To reveal error through the effective presentation of God’s truth.

In 2011, James White debated Oneness apologist Roger Perkins. I don’t recall how I came across the debate but it was here that for the first time I heard two individuals lay out their respective views on the subject of the nature of God. It was hear that the proverbial strings began to be pulled and the Oneness position began to unwind in my mind. There was nothing about Mr. Perkins presentation that was necessarily inadequate so much as there was an inadequacy in scriptural support for the Oneness position. There was a lacking of any adequate response to the issues posed by Dr. White, in particular when he raised the scriptural teaching of the pre-existence of the Son before the incarnation in such a way that scripture does not teach the logos could simply be understood to be a plan in the mind of God.

It was in this debate that I believe I first heard anyone teach in any substantive way on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity. This didn’t necessarily “seal the deal” with me but it began to set me on a course of reading and study as well as a closer examination of the foundations for my prior beliefs and understanding on the nature of God. I would encourage Oneness individuals to view this debate with an open mind and heart:

The Trinity Debate – James White vs Roger Perkins 2011

While most of my references on the Oneness position are tied to David Bernard, to my knowledge Bernard and White have only debated on radio programs – once on the subject of Oneness versus the Trinity and another time on the subject of whether tongues are necessary for salvation. I think both interesting for what they reveal but I do wish that at sometime there had been a full-length publicly moderated debate between Bernard and White on the subject of Oneness and the Trinity. Bernard and White’s radio program debates can be found on YouTube:

Oneness vs. Trinity

Are Tongues Necessary for Salvation?

White did have public debates with Oneness advocates that are available for viewing as well. The first dates back a number of years and was with a gentleman by the name of Robert Sabin. Sabin has been a minister with the UPCI and written on the subject of the Oneness perspective. This debate dates back to 1999 and can be viewed in several parts:

Trinity vs. Oneness Debate Part 1, White vs. Sabin

Trinity vs. Oneness Debate Part 2, White vs. Sabin

Trinity (White) vs. Oneness (Sabin): Lost parts of their debate (cross examination and closing statements)

I would encourage individuals to consider all of these resources and to weigh the biblical evidence. While something may sound foreign and certainly contrary to our traditions our traditions and comfort is not what we should be seeking. A knowledge of God and an acknowledgement of who we are as fallen humanity should certainly create a sense of uncomfortableness as we consider our condition and the holiness of God. Yet in that we know that our uncomfortableness can be resolved when we seek him and find our sufficiency in him. Our traditions should never trump truth and we need to be willing to have our beliefs challenged to determine whether they are merely human traditions or whether they stand fast on the foundation of God’s word.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Some Concluding(?) Thoughts

It seems somewhat appropriate as we approach the Christmas season to attempt to draw these series of posts on Trinitarianism and Oneness to a close as we consider just who it was that was born in Bethlehem. Again, I was someone who had no understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity as a younger person and as a teenager was introduced to the Oneness teaching. Oneness seemed simple and straightforward. Over the course of 25 years in the UPCI I was never exposed to anything other than Oneness proof texts and certainly was never provided a meaningful understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Today, I see Oneness for what it is – a simplistic and surface level understanding that distorts the teaching of scripture.

Within the UPCI, the Oneness doctrine is central to their teaching as it carries through to salvation for they believe that one must be baptized in Jesus’ name to bring about the forgiveness of sins and complete the new birth process. If they believe so strongly in their position that one’s salvation may very well depend upon the Oneness teaching, you would think that their followers would be equipped to go out and proclaim this teaching. To effectively proclaim this teaching (Oneness) you need to know and understand the other (Trinitarian) position so as to properly interact with those who believe differently. Over the course of 25 years in the UPCI, I never once even heard someone attempt to meaningfully contrast and interact with the doctrine of the Trinity versus Oneness teaching. As I have mentioned in the past, in my 25 years I also never once heard anyone teach on the subject of justification by faith and what that meant either.

I believe that one central reason for this is that there are very, very few people within the UPCI who can accurately discuss the doctrine of the Trinity from a biblical perspective and fewer still who would dare to attempt to equip their followers by exposing them to this doctrine.

As I have mentioned several times throughout my posts, one of the central errors of the UPCI is their taking the scriptural teaching that there is one God and presupposing that this means that God is unipersonal. From this presupposition, every time they interact with a scripture that affirms the deity of Christ, they conclude that this means that Jesus is the Father in flesh. While simple in its basic assertion that there is one God and that one God is in Jesus – if we give any serious consideration to a number of passages we find that the Oneness position is a confused and muddled view of the nature of God.

Oneness advocates state that it is all very clear if we simply understand that dual nature of Christ – he is fully man (Son) and he is fully God (Father). When Jesus speaks, Oneness supporters state, we simply need to understand whether he is speaking as a man or whether he is speaking as God. Is he speaking or acting from his humanity or from his divinity? If this is the simple key to understanding the nature of Christ then it must follow that John and Paul, in particular, were themselves very confused as to the nature of Christ. For their statements specifically ascribe to the Son such attributes and actions as eternality, glory and creative power and authority.

I will confess that while I saw clearly that we are saved by grace through faith and the implications of this when considering the gospel according to UPCI, I continued to struggle with the idea of oneness theology. It was something that I felt I understood and something that I was concerned about letting go of because of what that might possibly mean. But as I began to read the perspectives of others and to reread the perspectives of people like David Bernard (now superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International), I began to compare the views and their interpretations on various passages. When you find a string seemingly dangling there in an argument and you give it a little pull and find that the entire argument begins to simply unwind – that may not be a faith upon which to stand.

When I set aside my presupposition that God is simply unipersonal and to read scriptures allowing that God may be tripersonal, it became apparent repeatedly that there are distinctions made between the Father, Son and Spirit and that these are personal distinctions. But it was when I began to see those passages that assert the pre-existence of the Son to the incarnation and to understand the implications of what was being stated that things began to crystalize for me. It wasn’t simply an understanding of those passages but looking to how the UPCI has historically understood those passages and that the UPCI position simply does not work.

John’s gospel is simply so full of teaching asserting the distinctions between the Father, Son and Spirit and the pre-existence of the Son and the deity of the Son. The UPCI loves the gospel of John as well because, again, with every assertion of the deity of Christ they read into each and every passage that John intended to convey that Jesus was the Father in flesh. But this does not stand a simple, logical reading of John 1. It does not stand when reading what is considered the high priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17 or the many other statements of the Son’s heavenly origin and his pre-existence.

While I am not a Greek scholar, I mentioned the Greek when looking at several passages in John’s gospel. The Greek is not necessary to understand the plain teaching of these passages, but it does aid in reinforcing some of the plain teaching and, in particular, by countering the assertions that Oneness advocates make concerning these passages. The Logos of John 1 cannot be understood to simply be the mind, plan or thought of God. The Logos of John 1 is not merely a thought or plan but is personal – he exists, he is in relationship, he has a divine nature, he is a creator, he was made flesh. Oneness advocates must assert the logos is simply a plan or thought because otherwise the rest of the teaching would collapse – it is the string that would unwind their theology. If the logos is a person in the substance of God who is in relationship with the Father, then he pre-exists the incarnation and he was creator.

The Oneness view of the Son as being begotten is also problematic when considering the Greek monogenes. It is helpful to appreciate the Greek when looking at and attempting to understand differences in particular Bible translations. But again, having an understanding of the Greek is not necessary as any student of the scripture, even if dedicated to the KJV, should consider and look to other translations of particular passages, particularly if important in your formulation of your theology. But if you create an environment where you are borderline KJV-only in your view of scripture, then you truly are seeking to protect your traditions over truth.

UPCI Echo-Chamber

The question I would ask is do you genuinely want to seek to know God. If so, you will look to what God has revealed to us about himself in the scripture. You will not allow traditions to trump the teaching of scripture. You should be willing to test your beliefs against those that disagree with you and you should be willing to listen. If you find that the footing upon which you have rested your beliefs in the past is not as securely rooted in scripture as you thought, you should be willing to examine those beliefs more closely against what the whole of scripture teaches. We should always be seeking and willing to bring our hearts and minds in line with the teaching of scripture on all points.

We should not be fearful of teaching that seems to contradict what we have been exposed to in the past. Exposing ourselves to the teaching of those that seem to disagree with us should do several things. First, if our faith is properly rooted in the scriptures we should find greater confidence in God. Second, being exposed to those that hold to a different view may help us better understand our position and the positions of others so that we are in a better spot to interact with those that think differently. Third, we may find that our thinking or teaching on a given subject is not truly consistent with all of what scripture has to teach. We should be extremely careful to not simply reject teaching or scripture that does not comport with our beliefs for it is possible we are rejecting God in favor of our traditions. My comments here should be taken as general statements – obviously there are differences between those areas that are definitional to the Christian faith and those that less definitional. Our view of the nature of God and the Trinity are more definitional while eschatological teaching is less so.

I do believe that there is a strain of anti-intellectualism within the UPCI in that there is no exposure to different beliefs. Not all matters that Christians disagree on are matters of heaven or hell. Not all points of disagreement are matters that we need be dogmatic about but even these non-dogmatic differences are not acknowledged within the UPCI.

In my final days in the UPCI, I heard a pastor simply dismiss offhand the idea of predestination within the plan of God. The idea of election was simply dismissed with a “we don’t believe in that” with no further explanation of what the scripture teaches or the differences in the camps of Calvinism and Arminianism. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, I don’t think a proper explanation of those differences could have been offered. I also heard a lady from church, a licensed minister within the UPCI, teach on ‘God’s unfolding plan’ and essentially advocated for open theism. We can debate open theism but in this situation, I don’t think it was even understood what position was being taken and the implications. Even open theist, Greg Boyd, has stated that there are certain things that God has decreed, such as the fact that Abraham’s seed would be enslaved in Egypt. Yet it was taught by this licensed UPCI minister that even the enslavement of Abraham’s descendants in Egypt was contingent upon their obedience or disobedience to God. Thus, God’s words to Abraham were merely a warning and not something that was a part of God’s decree that would come to pass.

I seem to have digressed.

I believe my point here is that while there are matters upon which Christians can disagree, we should be open to addressing those disagreements to help ensure that our beliefs comport with scripture. There are other matters that are more definitional and this would include the scriptural teaching of the nature of God. Nevertheless, without a willingness to be open to the views of others offering different positions, you will remain in an echo chamber. The only thinking that you will ever be exposed to is that of those who agree with you and what they tell you about other positions. These will be the only voices you hear and if they are not proclaiming properly what is taught in the scripture, it makes it a bit challenging for you to ultimate hear the voice of God leading you to where he wants to take you.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

In addition to the many texts that we have discussed previously, there are other standard texts to which Oneness advocates will appeal in support of their position that God is unipersonal and that the Son merely refers to the humanity of Jesus –he was God the Father manifested in the flesh. I am attempting to touch on a number of those passages here.

Revelation 4:2 – At once I was in the Spirit and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

Here John has a vision in heaven and he sees a throne set up in heaven with one sitting on the throne. David Bernard and other Oneness advocates will look at this passage and then compare the description of the one sitting on the throne with the description of the one given in Revelation 1:12-16. Given the similarity in titles and descriptions given for Jesus in Revelation 1 and the one who sits on the one throne in Revelation 4, according to Bernard, “it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.”[i]

The fact that similarities exists in a vision of one on a throne and a glorified Christ does not a doctrine make. Revelation is full of visions and symbols and of some things that John was unable to record. Clearly there are similarities between the one on the throne and the one said to be a glorified Christ. This certainly supports the Trinitiarian and Oneness claims that Jesus Christ is the Lord God Almighty. Yet as we continue to read the text into chapter 5 we see that in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne was a sealed scroll that no one was worthy to open. “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song….To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Revelation 5:6-91, 13).

According to Oneness advocates, this vision of the one on the throne and the Lamb affirms that the Lamb and God are one and the same person.[ii] Again, the presumption is that God is unipersonal and, therefore, every statement affirming the deity of Christ is a statement, according to Oneness advocates, that God the Father is in Christ. Oneness supporters say the Lamb in these visions would pertain to the Jesus the man the one on the throne would be God the Father or Jesus’s divine nature. Yet how does such an interpretation not fall into the trap that Oneness advocates assert against Trinitarians – that their position stands for more than one God.

There appears to be a clear distinction made between the one who sits on the throne and the Lamb in Revelation 4 and 5. Yet both are in heaven and both are the objects of worship. In the Oneness position, God is one person and he would be the one sitting on the throne and yet the Lamb is also an object of worship. Isn’t this teaching bi-theism or a belief in two gods? How does the Oneness position reconcile this seeming contradiction? They simply assert that the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb are the same. But how are they the same? Bernard states, “The only person who is both God and the Lamb is Jesus Christ.”[iii] (emphasis added).

The fact of the matter is that Revelation continues to emphasize the Trinitarian teaching that recognizes that there is but one God/one divine being shared by three persons or subsistences – Father, Son/Lamb, Spirit. The Father, Son and Spirit are all recognized to be the one God and yet are distinguished from one another time and time again. It is why Jesus and the One sitting on the throne can share in the same divine glorious appearance in one moment and then be distinguished from one another in the next moment. Oneness theology continues to struggle with providing an explanation for these passages that remains both consistent to their position as well as consistent to the overall teaching of scripture as a whole.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 77.

[ii] Id. at 78.

[iii] Id. at 78.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

Colossians 2:9 – For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.

One of the issues that you will frequently encounter with many is they will simply ignore the purpose for which the epistles were written. These are occasional writings – there was some issue, teaching, concern in the church that prompted the Apostle Paul to write to the church and those issues can be identified through a close examination of each epistle. In the letter to the Galatians, for example, it is pretty clear that Paul had great concern for false teachers coming into the church who sought to add to the gospel of faith certain works introducing a legalism that undermined grace.

By ignoring the purposes surrounding which the epistle was written it is easy to then misunderstand the meaning of passages written in the letter. They are taken out of the context in which they are written. To fully appreciate Paul’s purposes in explaining to the Colossians that in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, one need take into consideration the intent behind the letter and what was prompting the letter in the first place.

Colossians was written by Paul to address early Gnosticism that was coming into the church. Without delving too deeply into Gnosticism, it is sufficient to say that the Gnostics held to a strong dualistic theology that viewed that which is spiritual as good and that which is matter as evil. This dualistic view of spirit and matter led to the idea that the God could essentially have nothing to do with matter for to do so would be to lead to this God’s being responsible for evil. Thus, this highest form of God or the Monad who dwells in the Pleroma would have descended through various emanations or Aeons, which are deemed as being lesser gods until you find the demiurge or the lesser God that was responsible for the creation of evil matter. According to the gnostic view, only the demiurge or a lesser god could have been responsible for the creation of matter in light of the evil nature of matter itself. The one true God could not have been responsible for the creation of matter but creation only came about through these lesser manifestations of God. These views historically have been traced through to various Jewish influences that appear to have then infiltrated the Christian church.

One of the early heresies of the church flowed out of Gnosticism and that was Docetism or the belief that Jesus did not have a real physical body – Jesus only seemed to have a physical body but couldn’t have if he was believed to be God. This heresy actually crept into the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) during the 2000’s. More on that in another post.

David Bernard and other Oneness advocates cite to Colossians 2:9 as a go-to proof-text. As they tend to read the KJV, Oneness advocates will frequently refer to the term “godhead” as the KJV states, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The term “godhead” simply refers to the all that makes up the nature and attributes of God. It is an old English variant of the word godhood. We can compare this word to some degree to the word childhood. We would define childhood as the state of being a child and encompassing all that goes into being a child – the nature and attributes of a child. Godhead or godhood, therefore, pertains to the divine nature, the essence or substance of God. Utilizing Trinitarian definitions, we would say that “godhead” refers to the ontological Trinity or the essence or substance of God and not to any individual person in the being of God. It is what makes God God – it is the divine nature.

In looking back at Colossians 2:9, what we find is a clear, unambiguous, and strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. In Christ, bodily, dwelt all the fullness of deity. All that makes God, God was in Christ bodily. Christ was not a lesser god. Christ was not a demiurge. Christ had both a physical body and in that body was veiled the fullness of all that is of God. Again, just as in the confession of Thomas, the passage is not Paul stating that Jesus was the Father but in Christ was the fullness of deity – the fullness of the divine nature. This is not a statement, per se, affirming Oneness theology but is a statement affirming the deity of Christ in the face of heretical teaching that had infiltrated the church in the form of Gnosticism. This passage is a simple statement as to the deity of Christ in face of false teaching that would lead some to believe that Jesus was some demigod or only seemed to come in bodily form but was truly only a spirit.

Consider for a moment the implications of either of these false teachings. To believe that Christ was merely some demigod introduces polytheism and is contrary to the strict monotheism of the Christian faith. But if Christ was not truly come in the flesh, how is it he was tempted in every point as we are and yet without sin, how is it he fulfilled the law, how is it that he made atonement for sins?

This passage does not teach that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person in the being of God. This is Oneness advocates, once again, presupposing the unipersonal nature of God and reading that into the text such that every time there is an affirmative statement concerning the deity of Christ in the text, Oneness advocates read that to mean that Jesus is the Father.

The context of the Colossians makes clear that the purpose of Paul’s writing was to affirm not only the deity of Jesus but his role in creation as well. “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and form him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17). The Oneness explanation of the role of Jesus in creation is that as the Father, he was the creator, and that the Father also created all things with the plan of Jesus the man in mind. Yet here we have Paul speaking of the Son of God as the image of the invisible God and that by him all things were created and that he is before all things and by him all things hold together.

Therefore, we should understand Colossians 2:9 in its proper context and be consistent in our approach to understanding the passage. In addressing the Gnostic ideas coming into the church, Paul strongly affirms both the deity of Jesus Christ as well as the role Jesus Christ played in the creation of all things. He was not only the creator all things but he was before all things and by him all things hold together. In him all the fullness of divine nature dwells – not some portion of God or some lesser god – but all the fullness of the essence of God was in Christ bodily. Nothing more and nothing less. Oneness advocates continue to read into this passage the notion that God is unipersonal, therefore, the Father was in Jesus. Yet, they don’t apply the same consistent reading to the role of Jesus, as distinguished from the Father, in creation.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

John 20:28 – Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

The statement of Thomas to Jesus is clear and unambiguous – he called Jesus his Lord and his God. The response of Jesus is not to correct Thomas in any way but to affirm that the confession of Thomas is a demonstration of his faith.

The fact of the matter is this is a verse that strongly confirms the deity of Christ but nothing concerning him being the same as the Father in terms of identity unless you being with the presupposition that the God is unipersonal and read into the text that Thomas was declaring the Jesus to be the Father. In his book, The Oneness of God, Bernard properly cites to this verse as evidence of Jesus being God but he does not go so far as to state that this is a statement of Jesus being the Father because it is not such a statement. Nevertheless, oneness advocates look to this verse making the assumption that God is unipersonal and read into the text that notion that Jesus was God the Father.

Again, one would need to bring the presupposition that God is unipersonal to the text to interpret the text in isolation from the rest of scripture to understand the passage as a declaration that Jesus is declared to be the Father by Thomas.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed (cont.)

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

John 14:8-10 – Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

The Oneness advocate appeals to these passages regularly to assert their view that Jesus is simply God the Father manifest in the flesh. David Bernard asserts, “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 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.”[i]

The fact of the matter is that Bernard wants us to read these passages as Jesus stating that he is the Father but that is never asserted by Christ. Jesus never states, “I am the Father.” Instead, Jesus states that he abides in the Father and the Father abides in him. Certainly, it is an assertion of his deity but Jesus is not saying that he is the Father. Bernard states, “However, other passages describe the onesness of Jesus with the Father in a way that transcends mere unity of purpose, and in a way that indicates that Jesus is the Father.”[ii] Bernard is probably accurate in that the meaning conveyed by Jesus and the Father abiding in one another “transcends mere unity of purpose” but he errs in stating that Jesus is the Father. As James White states, “the unity that exists between Father and Son is far more than a mere unity of purpose or intention. The Son reveals the Father, or to use the words of John himself, ‘He has explained Him’ (John 1:18).”[iii] To read into this passage that Jesus is stating that he is the Father completely ignores the distinctions made throughout the NT, much less the distinctions made in the very context of the verse, between the Father and the Son as persons.

Later in John 14:20, Jesus states, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” Jesus continues in John 15 to discuss the subject of abiding in Christ in describing himself as the vine and his Father as the vinedresser and that his disciples are the branches. This abiding together of the Father and the Son and us with the Christ is far deeper than a unity of purpose but what it is not is a statement on the part of Jesus that he is the Father. To the contrary, the passage continues to make distinctions between the Father and Son even into chapter 15 where the Father is the vinedresser and the Son the vine. There is a life, love, and fruit bearing that results from the unity that comes from abiding in one another.

Similarly, Oneness advocates cite to John 10:30 to support their argument that the Father and the Son are the same person. Again, Bernard and others run into the same problem. Jesus is not saying that he is the Father but that he and the Father are one. The passage is literally translated as, “I and the Father, we are one.” The verb “are” is plural in the Greek meaning that the plurality of persons – Jesus and the Father – is preserved in the verbal form. Jesus is not claiming to be his own Father but he is again identifying with the Father within the context of the redemption of his people.

Tertullian (certainly not a friend of the modalists of his day) in Against Praxeas (circa A.D. 210) identified the grammatical issue with the plural verb as denoting a plurality of persons being one when he states, “Here, then, they take their stand [the modalists/oneness advocates], too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings – “I and my Father;” then there is a plural predicate, “are,” inapplicable to one person only….”[iv]

If we continue looking at the context, Jesus states, “I give them [my sheep] eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:28-20). They are one in the work of giving eternal life and they are one in the preservation of the sheep. They are one in the redemption of God’s people but this does not translate to Jesus and the Father being the same person, as Oneness advocates assert. Again, Oneness advocates must ignore the context in which the sayings of Jesus are spoken and then read into those passages meanings that are foreign to the text.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 68.

[ii] Id. at 197.

[iii] Dr. James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Bethany House) page 158.

[iv] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 22.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Oneness Proof Texts Addressed

In addition to the many texts that we have discussed previously, there are other standard texts to which Oneness advocates will appeal in support of their position that God is unipersonal and that the Son merely refers to the humanity of Jesus –he was God the Father manifested in the flesh. I will attempt to touch on a number of those passages in the next several posts.

Isaiah 9:6 – For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Malachi 2:10 – Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?

It would seem to make sense to consider the texts of Isaiah and Malachi together as they are often utilized together and to make one assertion – that there is one God who is one Father of us all and that the Son of God is simply the Father in flesh. You will find Isaiah 9:6 is a text that is repeatedly cited by Oneness advocates, which they argue demonstrates that the Son is distinguished from the Father in that the term Son refers to his humanity or flesh but that the Son, as to his divine nature, was God, the Everlasting Father.

David Bernard describes this verse as “one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God….”[i] Well, no one denies the deity of Jesus Christ – the presupposition on the part of Oneness Pentecostals is that God is unipersonal contrary to the scriptural evidence. It is the Oneness position that “the terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of ‘The mighty God’ and ‘The everlasting Father.’”[ii] Bernard notes that Isaiah “calls the Son the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father…so Jesus must be God the Father.”[iii] Oneness advocates also cite this passage to reaffirm that “the Son of God would be begotten….”[iv] “The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father…. It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father…. The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.”[v]

As happens frequently with Oneness Pentecostals, there is an over emphasis placed on particular verses at times (see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38) and a reading into passages, as a result of that over emphasis meaning that is not there (once again, see the OP perspective on Acts 2:38). Bernard and the Oneness advocates see here ironclad proof that the Son is the Everlasting Father –God the Father and the Son are one and the same person. OP’s themselves place great emphasis on the notion of names but here they seem to ignore the typical usage of describing one’s “name being called” as describing the characteristics or qualities of the person and not necessarily being identified as a literal name. OT names were frequently given in describing certain qualities or occasions around the birth of a child. Isaac means “laughter” because Sarah, in having a son in her old age said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.” (Genesis 21:6). Jacob’s name meant or came to mean “supplanter” because of what he did to his brother Esau in assuming his birthright.

Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic text concerning the child that would be born in Bethlehem but when Isaiah states that his “name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” he is not describing literal names of the child but characteristics or qualities of the child. To assert that this passage is teaching that God the Father the divine being is in the Son/flesh of Jesus is to read back into Isaiah an understanding that simply is not there.

To make this assumption, as Oneness advocates do, you must begin with the assumption that every time we see “Father” that it carries only one meaning despite the reality that we need to look to the context in which the terms is used to determine its meaning. The term Father is used infrequently with respect to God in the OT and is not a common name used for God. In some cases it is used as a descriptor to refer to his parental position with respect to his children, Israel. Primarily it is used in reference to God’s role as creator.

It is also interesting to note that with Father is coupled with the term eternal. So here we have the Son being identified with the OT eternal creator of the universe and overseer of Israel. The fact of the matter is, this passage does not provide as much support for the Oneness position as they would assert and, frankly, it doesn’t provide much support for Trinitarian theology as well.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) page 55.

[ii] Id. at 56.

[iii] Id. at 66.

[iv] Id. at 105.

[v] Id. at 126.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – The Prayers of Jesus

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” John 17:1-5

From the Oneness perspective, the prayers of Jesus are simply the humanity of Jesus conversing with the divine – the human Son speaking to his heavenly Father – who also happens to be in him and the same person as him, which is problematic in and of itself. Contrarily, the Trinitarian position sees the prayers of Jesus as genuine communication between the Son and the Father and the prayer of John 17 seems to indicate it as such.

Again, clearly we have distinctions made between the Father and the Son as far as personhood is concerned. But some other points must be made from this passage.

First, scholars will note that the form of the verb “glorify” is in the aorist imperative form which is commonly used in the form of a command, rather than a simple request. Thus, the Son is commanding the Father to glorify the Son in order that the Son might glorify the Father. This would lead us to conclude the Son’s equality with the Father according to their nature. If the Son were merely flesh, this would be problematic – what creature would presume to make commands of their Father. But here the doctrine of the Trinity affirms equality of persons within Trinity – they are equal as to their nature while differing with respect to their function.

Second, How is it the Son (the humanity, according to Oneness theology) able to command his Father to glorify the Son? Hebrews 1:3 states that, “He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God [the Father] and the exact imprint of his [the Father’s] nature, and he [the Son] upholds the universe by the word of his [the Son’s] power.”

We will look at Philippians 2 but for now we can say that the passage in Philippians demonstrates that the Son pre-existed the incarnation and that although he was equal with God did not consider that something to be grasped or retained but emptied himself and humbly took on the form of a servant. The Son laid aside the glory that was his and it was hidden through the incarnation. It was momentarily revealed at the transfiguration but Jesus now commands its full restoration with his fulfilling the work that he was sent to do.

In further explanation as to how the Son can make such a command of the Father is noted in verse 5, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” Jesus requests or commands the Father to restore to him the glory that he had with the Father before the creation of the world. Implicit in this prayer is the fact that the Son existed with the Father prior to creation and that the Son is equal with the Father in that they shared in the glory of God but that through the incarnation (see Philippians 2) that glory was set aside in order for the Son to perform the work that he was called to do but with its completion, the Son seeks a restoration of his glory, the same glory that he had with the Father for all of eternity.

This passage seems to not only contradict the fundamental teaching of Oneness (that there was a time when the Son did not exist) but Bernard’s assertions that there are some Trinitarians who also deny the idea of the eternal Son. This very prayer of Jesus is the Son’s asserting his existence in eternity prior to the creation and his sharing of the Father’s glory.

How do Bernard and the Oneness advocates respond to this statement made by Jesus? There is a simple denial on their part, as there must be, of the idea of an eternal Son that existed prior to the incarnation. In their minds, this all simply existed in the mind of God as a part of his predestined future plan.[i] With respect to John 17:5, Bernard states in a parenthetical that “Jesus spoke as a man in John 17:5, for by definition God does not pray and does not need to pray.”[ii] This is simply a non-response that is in denial of the very words of Jesus asserting his existence prior to creation with the Father.

Bernard also explained that “Jesus spoke of the glory He had as God in the beginning and the glory the Son had in the plan and mind of God. I could not mean that Jesus pre-existed with glory as the Son. Jesus was praying, so He must have been speaking as a man and not as God. We know the humanity did not pre-exist the Incarnation, so Jesus was talking about the glory the Son had in the plan of God from the beginning.”[iii] (emphasis added).

Unfortunately, this contortion of Jesus’ words based on the understanding of prayer and the presuppositions brought to the reading of the text from the Oneness perspective leads to this being the only possible view of what is otherwise a very plain meaning of the text. God cannot pray.[iv] According to Bernard, this is simply the humanity speaking to the Father/divine about the glory that he (the Father) had as the Father in eternity past and the plan that the Father had in mind for the Son from before creation.

Nevertheless, here Bernard contradicts himself in his own reasoning. Is Jesus speaking as a man or as divine when he says “glorify me with the glory that I had with you…”? On the one hand, Bernard asserts that Jesus was speaking “of the glory He had as God in the beginning….” So Jesus is speaking as God. But I thought God cannot pray because he is God. On the other hand, Jesus is speaking of the glory he had as “the plan in the mind of God.” So Jesus was speaking as humanity.

The fact is that Bernard offers no cogent exegesis of the passage where Jesus states, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” There is simply no basis for asserting that the glory the Son had with the Father before the world existed was simply in the mind/thought/foreknowledge of God. His words cannot be clearer – glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Reading this passage in light of John 1 and Philippians 2, it can only be understood that the Son existed in eternity and emptied himself of certain divine prerogatives when taking on flesh – that in the incarnation his glory was shrouded but with the completion of his work, his glory was to be fully restored and visible to all.

What about Prayer between the Father and Son in general?

Bernard’s explanation as to the prayers of Jesus is simply that “the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God. The divine nature did not need help; only the human nature did.”[v] “By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray.”[vi]

First, let us note that Bernard provides no definition for what he means by prayer when he asserts that God cannot pray based on his omnipotence. What is prayer but at its most fundamental essence simply communication between two persons? Ordinarily we speak of man communicating with God in prayer. The scripture provides various forms and types of prayer from intercession to supplication. Why the preclusion of prayer or communication between the Father and the Son because of their divine personhood and omniscience? If the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, the Father and the Son would communicate with each other.

Second, I think we would agree that the Jesus as both fully man and fully God would pray in light of his two natures – fully man and fully divine. In his humanity, Jesus needed to pray and he prayed, not to Himself but to God the Father. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity does not preclude Jesus as the Son of God, a person in the Trinity, praying to God the Father based on their omniscience. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity presents the prayers of Jesus in a much more understanding fashion.

Do Natures Pray and Love?

Bernard would need to explain why, if Jesus is simply the Father in flesh, would there really be any need to pray? Does having a dual nature simply require prayer? If God is one person and that one person of God (God the Father) is in Jesus, who is Jesus praying to? If God is unipersonal, it necessarily follows that Jesus is talking to himself. Jesus’ prayers to the Father would be virtually nothing more than a monologue between Jesus and himself. Why? For the benefit of those that were listening? It necessarily follows that the argument of Oneness is that natures are able to communicate and love because Jesus is essentially one person with two natures. If Jesus was fully the unipersonal God and man, how can it not but follow that Jesus was in love with and communicated with himself – his divine and his human natures. But this is not the case at all. Natures do not communicate. Natures do not love. Persons love and communicate. Thus, Jesus, the Son of God, as a distinct person from the Father communicated with and loved the Father. The Father loved and communicated with the Son. Again, the doctrine of the Trinity simply presents a clearer picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son than does Oneness.

Bernard’s claim that the Son of God praying to God the Father would lead to either subordinationism or Arianism[vii] actually could be turned around on Oneness advocates. It would seem to me that the Oneness position is the one that interprets the nature of God in such a way as to potentially leading to a watered-down version of Arianism where the person of Jesus is merely human.

“If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.”[viii] Because natures do not pray to one another, if Jesus is praying to the Father in his humanity, is there not such an emphasis on the humanity of the Son such that he is a separate person from the Father. Given the unipersonal nature of God the Father in the Oneness view, it would seem to follow that Jesus, as the Son is really more human than divine. This is the path that leads to Arianism – one of the early century heresies that viewed God as unipersonal and Jesus as simply a man – a creation on the part of God. In fact, it was Arianism that gave rise to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and the formal statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and against the unipersonal nature of God that would deny the deity of the Son.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Word Aflame) pg 117.

[ii] Id. at 117.

[iii] Id at 183-4.

[iv] Id. at 177.

[v] Id. at 177.

[vi] Id. at 177.

[vii] Id. at 178.

[viii] Id. at 177.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – Sent from the Father

Sent from the Father

In addressing the question of the Son being sent from the Father, Bernard questions whether this means that Jesus, as the Son of God, is a distinct person from the Father? He answers, “We know this is not so because many verses of Scripture teach that God manifested Himself in flesh…. He gave of Himself; He did not send someone else…. The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son or pre-existence of the man.”[i]

The Oneness explanation is simply that, “God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and then put that plan in operation. God gave the Son a special task. God manifested Himself in flesh in order to achieve a special goal.”[ii] “Briefly stated, the sending of the Son emphasizes the humanity of the Son and the specific purpose for which the Son was born.”[iii]

Again, this is a rather simple reading that tends to ignore the substance of the comments that are made in their particular context. Further, it presupposes a unipersonal God.

In John 3 we find Jesus speaking of being born from above. When Nicodemus questions Jesus on these things, Jesus replies, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” (John 3:12-13).

Christ’s knowledge of the heavenly is derived from the fact that his origination is the heavenly. This passage corresponds nicely to the previous passage in John 1:18. Here Jesus invokes the name the Son of Man for himself. Bernard agrees that the passage in John 3:13 demonstrates the deity of Jesus and acknowledges that Jesus uses the term Son of Man (which Oneness advocates would traditional argue pertains to his humanity and not his deity). So how could it be said that the Son of Man is in heaven? Well, Bernard argues this simply is a reference to the omnipresence of God.[iv] Jesus, as to his divine nature, could be on earth and in heaven at the same time. This is the explanation provided for the triune nature of God being revealed at the baptism of Jesus by Oneness advocates as well.[v]

“But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.” (John 5:36-38).

It is interesting to note that we never see Jesus sending the Son for Jesus was the Father, according to Oneness theology. To the contrary, the plain reading of these passages state that the Father sent the Son and, further, we see later in John 3 that the Son preexisted the incarnation for the Jesus refers to himself as descending from heaven. The Son had a heavenly origin.

“He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony.” (John 3:31-32) The message of Jesus is not simply that he was sent from the Father but that his origin is heavenly. The Son was sent from heaven by the Father. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Previously, in John 1:51, we find Jesus speaking to Philip these words, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” In Genesis, Jacob had a vision of the angels of heaven ascending and descending upon a ladder that was set upon on the earth that reached to heaven. (Genesis 28:12). Here we find Jesus in amazing fashion stating that Jacob’s dream is being realized in Christ in that he is the connection between heaven and earth, between God and humanity.

The standard argument from the Oneness perspective is that the scriptures clearly teach that God the Father manifested himself in flesh – he came himself to do what needed to be done and did not send another. The issue is these standard statements are based on the assumption that God is unipersonal and not tripersonal. These statements do not demonstrate that God is unipersonal – these statements demonstrate the divine nature of Christ.

Further, Oneness advocates will argue that the Son being sent from the Father is no different that John the Baptist being sent from God (John 1:6) and God sending forth his Son in Galatians 4:4. Along the same lines of God not sending someone else but coming himself, Bernard cites to Galatians 4:4 arguing, “The Son was sent from God as a man, not as God: ‘God sent forth his Son, made of a woman’….The word sent does not imply pre-existence of the Son or pre-existence of the man. John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God, and we know he did not pre-exist his conception. Instead, the word sent indicates that God appointed the Son for a special purpose. God formed a plan, put flesh on that plan, and then put that plan in operation.”[vi] Bernard further notes that in Hebrews 3:1, Jesus is called the Apostle of our profession with apostle meaning “one sent” in Greek.[vii]

Unfortunately, Bernard once again makes an argument based on the English meaning of words in the translations and reading that meaning back into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. In John 1:6, the text states that John the Baptist was a man sent from God – anthropos apestalmenos para Theou. The Greek term apestalmenos literally means ‘having been sent’ from the word apostello meaning sent. It is the word from which we derive the word Apostle or sent one.

Despite drawing the comparison between John 1:6, Galatians 4:4 and Jesus the Apostle or sent one, there is a sharp distinction between ‘sent’ in John 1:6 and ‘sent forth’ as we find it in Galatians 4:4. In Galatians, Paul uses the word exapesteilen to state that when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son having been born of a woman…. The Greek word here is markedly distinct from apestalmenos. Exapesteilen means to be sent forth from a place. It is made up from the Greek term ek meaning “out from” and apostello meaning “send out from”. Thus, while apostello has the generally meaning of being sent out from, exapesteilen means more specifically being sent from a particular place. It means not simply sent but to be sent from one place to another to fulfill a mission.

This Greek term is used in a number of places, including Acts 11:22 where it states, “Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.” (emphasis added). Barnabas was in one place and then was sent to another place in order to fulfill a particular mission. This meaning would require us to acknowledge the preexistence in the first place prior to the sending to fulfill the mission.

The normal reading of Galatians 4:4, based on the original language, would necessitate the preexistence of the Son prior to his being sent and born of a woman. This would lead us to the conclusion that it was the Son of God who was born of a woman and not the Father. The Son existed with the Father; when the time was come, the Son was sent forth from one place (heaven) and to another place (earth) took on flesh to fulfill a mission – the mission of redemption. (Galatians 4:4-5).

It is interesting to note that Bernard cites to the Greek term apostello in reference to Hebrews 3:1 and John 1:6 and yet makes no reference to the distinct Greek term used in Galatians 4:4, which presupposes the preexistence of the one being sent. Instead, the absence of any such comment on the distinct Greek word used in Galatians leads the reader of his book to assume that the same simple Greek word apestalmenos is used in Galatians for “sent forth” and has the same, simple meaning as it does in John 1:6. It is unfortunate that such disregard would be given to some of these fundamental points as it leads to a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the text – and a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of God.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God, at 184.

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id. at 185.

[iv] Id. at 81.

[v] Id. at 172.

[vi] Id. at 184.

[vii] Id. at 185.

Trinitarian vs. Oneness Theology – John 1 continued – the Only Begotten Son?

Monogenes – Only Begotten?

Oneness advocates rely heavily on certain passages to assert that the Son refers exclusively to the flesh or the humanity of Jesus and not to a distinct person in the essence of God. The only thing divine about the Son is that the Father was in him. According to Oneness theology, generally the Son refers to the flesh while the Father refers to the divine and they can relate to one another as a human relates to the divine. Yet, what made the Son unique was that he was divine in that the Father was actually in the Son, according to Oneness theology.

David Bernard states:

The term Father refers to God Himself – God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. God the Father, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable biblical phrase to use for God…. However, the Bible does not use the term “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). Son of God may refer solely to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh – that is, deity in the human nature.[i]

Let’s look at a several verses (from the King James Version):

John 1:14 – And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 – No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he had declared him.

John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 – He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Bernard and Oneness advocates argue based that begotten means to procreate, to father or to sire and denotes a definite point in time that the Father must have come before the Son and then begotten the Son.[ii] Bernard asserts that because the Son of God refers to humanity or deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.[iii] If the Son is begotten how can he be eternal?

In citing to verses that speak to the coming of the Messiah, such as Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6, Bernard argues that these passages are “looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten.”[iv] Further, he argues, “From all these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago. Many theologians who have not fully accepted the great truth of the oneness of God have still rejected the doctrine of the “eternal Son” as self-contradictory, unscriptural, and false.”[v] Unfortunately, this final statement is not supported by any references as to who those “many theologians” may be to appropriatly weigh this claim. Certainly, there has been dispute as to the eternal nature of the Son but those who do not hold to this view would not be considered orthodox Trinitarians and would need to provide an alternate exegesis of John 1 as well as the other passages that point to the Son having pre-existed the incarnation, at a minimum.

It is in looking at these “begotten” passages it becomes evident that the modalism of Oneness theology, it can be argued, is somehow denying the deity of Jesus Christ as Jesus was a man born of a woman in who was the Father. Clearly, the Son is not divine in Oneness theology because the Son simply refers to the human being born of Mary 2000 years ago. Yet to avoid the claim of falling into the heresy of Arius, Bernard and Oneness advocates will side-step this objection by stating that the Son can also refer to the deity and humanity together as they exist in the one person of Christ.[vi]

The translation “only begotten” appears in the KJV (a favorite translation among Oneness Pentecostals) and some other translations. The term “only begotten” is the translation of the Greek term monogenes. The origin of the word is monos (one) and genos (kind or class) and is understood to simply mean one of a kind or single of its kind. Monogenes is said to be a relational term but not one that has anything to do with origin or derivation. Thus, when the scripture states that Jesus was the monogenes of the Father, the emphasis in not so much on Jesus being “sired” by the Father but is speaking of his being the one and only, the unique Son. While I don’t believe that we can deny the fact that this term points to origination but that origination is in a relational sense – in the fact that the Son bears the nature of the Father – but the emphasis is not, as Oneness adherents argue origination in terms of pointing specifically to birth. The use of the term intends to convey nothing about his origin with respect to time but everything concerning the Son’s uniqueness and his sharing the qualities and nature of the Father.

Most modern translations tend to rely on the earlier and oldest Greek manuscripts to arrive at a translation of John 1:18 as follows:

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. (NIV)

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (ESV)

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. (NET)

Bernard acknowledges that there are variant readings of John 1:18 pitting later manuscripts against earlier manuscripts of John’s gospel. James White states that “there is every reason to accept the reading of the earliest manuscripts, and to see the later emendation as a natural mistake made by scribes who were accustomed to the phraseology ‘only begotten son.’”[vii] Bernard simply dismisses the variant readings by stating, “We do not believe these variant readings are correct.”[viii] He provides no further context for the dismissal, especially concerning the fact that he is dismissing variant readings from earlier manuscripts of John in favor of later manuscripts containing what textual critics would see as a variant resulting from scribal revisions rather than being what was originally written by John.

Looking further at the Oneness idea of “only begotten” to mean that the Father sired the Son we should consider again what was being conveyed in the Greek. Bernard makes no further argument other than to state that monogenes is properly translated as only begotten showing that the Son is not eternal but was born and begotten by the Father, reading the English into the meaning of the text. Yet, Bernard again seems to be ignoring the Greek. Genos is derived from the Greek word gignesthai or gignomai whereas the Greek word gennao, which pertains or means to birth or to become the father of, is derived from the word gennasthai. Whereas the term gennao and the words from which it derives pertain to birth and offspring, genos pertains only be being a member of kin or of a kind. While the distinction may be subtle, the distinction is significant.

John is not stating that the Son was the offspring of the Father (gennao) but was affirming that the Son is of the kind or class or member of kin of the Father (genos). Monogenes is not referring to a begetting of the Son by the Father but is referring to the Son’s existence. This understanding is supported by the context of John as well as the use of monogenes elsewhere in scripture.

First, let’s consider Abraham and Isaac. Matthew 1:2 tells us that Abraham was the Father of Issac (gennao). Abraham became of the father of Isaac or he sired him. Abraham was Isaac’s father as a result of Isaac’s birth. In Hebrews 11:17 we read, “By faith Abraham, when he was being tested, offered up Isaac; yes, he who had received promises was offering his only son.” Clearly, Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. Isaac was, in fact, not Abraham’s first born son. Here the writer of Hebrews uses monogenes to describe Isaac in terms of his relationship with Abraham. Isaac was not Abraham’s only son but he was the unique son or his one of a kind son in that Isaac was the son of promise, the son of Abraham in whom God’s covenant was to be established. Thus, monogenes is not emphasizing the fact that Abraham fathered Isaac but the uniqueness of Isaac himself in relation to his father and God. He was the unique son, the only and only son of promise.

John 1:18 – No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

When we turn back to John 1:18, we see similarly, based on the context, that there is no emphasis on birth, origin or derivation of the human Son from the Father. To the contrary, the emphasis is on the uniqueness of the Son. The prologue to John begins with an affirmation of the eternality of the Word, the personhood of the Word in being in relationship with God and deity of the Word as to his nature. In verse 18 we find the closing to this prologue with John stating that no one has seen God at any time and we see that he is referring to the Father. As we continue, we see that the monogenes has made the Father known or has explained him. With the use the term Father, it seems only natural that we would see the Son as being the one to exegete the Father – the only, unique Son has made the Father known. Yet, it is not simply the humanity that has made the Father known but the “monogenes theos” or “the only God who is at the Father’s side or bosom” has explained him. The monogenes is divine as to his nature just as was asserted by John in the first verse of this chapter.

The prologue to John demonstrates that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, that he is the eternal creator of all things and that he is the only Son who is God. He is distinct from and yet in relationship with the Father.

The reading of “only begotten” appears to be inconsistent with the original Greek and the Oneness reliance on the terms “only begotten” results in reading into the scripture meaning that was never originally intended by John. Instead of looking to the original understanding of monogenes and attempting to derive our understanding of the meaning of the text from what was originally written (earlier, more reliable manuscripts) and its intended meaning, Oneness advocates will stick with their KJV rendering of “only begotten” and will read their understanding of those English terms back into the text in an attempt to support their contention that the Son is merely referring to the humanity of Jesus. These contortions deny the plain teaching of the text as to the Son’s pre-existence as the Word, his role in creation, his relationship with the Father, and his sharing in the divine nature.

[i] David Bernard, The Oneness of God, at 98-99

[ii] Id. at 103.

[iii] Id. at 104.

[iv] Id. at 105.

[v] Id. at 105.

[vi] Id. at 100.

[vii] James White, The Forgotten Trinity, at 62.

[viii] Bernard at 100.