ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM AND THE TRINITY
A Biblical Critique by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
From: Christian Research Institute magazine Forward, Fall 1985.
. An astonishing number of professing Christians today reject the
doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, there are obvious examples of
this, like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Then there are
the "Christian" liberals who reject the Trinity along with the
Incarnation as myths. Evangelicals generally have no trouble
identifying such movements as heretical, since in each case they deny
the deity of Christ.
. Recently, though, anti-trinitarianism has emerged in yet another
form, that of Oneness Pentecostalism. (1) The movement began in 1913
and has grown quickly since then to over four million worldwide, (2)
making it the second-largest anti-trinitarian movement. (Mormonism is
the largest with over five million.)
. What sets Oneness Pentecostalism apart from other anti-
trinitarian heresies is its seeming orthodoxy. Unlike Mormons and
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, Oneness Pentecostals teach both that
there is one God and that Jesus is fully God. For this reason, many
Christians have difficulty seeing anything wrong with the Oneness
position. Moreover, unlike Mormonism and similar sects, Oneness
Pentecostals make no appeal whatsoever to extrabiblical literature or
modern leaders for authoritative interpretations of Scripture.
Compared to many other controversial sects, Oneness Pentecostalism
appears quite orthodox in many respects.
. If the Oneness doctrine is heretical, then, it must be admitted
to be a much subtler error than that of many current heresies.
Subtlety does not, however, make an error less dangerous, but more,
since the subtler the error the more people are likely to fall for it
(people are more apt to accept a criminal's counterfeit bills as real
money than they are Monopoly bills). This potential danger makes it
all the more important that the Oneness teaching be evaluated on the
basis of Scripture.
DEFINITIONS
. The Oneness position is "the doctrine that God is absolutely one
in numerical value, that Jesus is the one God, and that God is not a
plurality of persons." (3)
. God is generally said to be neither one "person" nor three, on
the assumption that the term "person" is applicable only to individual
human beings; the incarnate Jesus, though, is agreed to be one person.
(4)
. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three "manifestations" of the
one God, who is not, though, limited to these three manifestations.
(5)
. Because almost all Oneness groups hold to the Pentecostal
doctrine that receiving the Holy Spirit is evidenced initially by
speaking in tongues, these groups are generally called "Oneness
Pentecostals."
. Oneness believers usually reject the nick-name "Jesus Only,"
feeling that it implies a rejection of belief in the Father. (6)
However, the name derives from their insistence that baptism is to be
administered "in the name of Jesus only."
. The doctrine of the Trinity was concisely stated by the
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "In the unity of the Godhead
there be three persons (personae), of one substance, power, and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." (7)
. Thus, the Trinity is understood to be one God, yet three
"persons." The Athanasian Creed explicitly rejects tritheism (belief
in three Gods), stating that "they are not three Gods: but one God."
(8)
. Despite this fact, Oneness believers, along with Jews, Muslims,
Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, condemn the Trinity as tritheism. (9)
The principal reason for this misinterpretation is a faulty
understanding of the term "person." Its long and fascinating history
cannot be traced here. (10)
. The first theologian to use it of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
was Tertullian (circa A.D.200), who borrowed the term in its legal
sense of "a party to a legal action" and used it in a relational
context, while insisting that the three 'personae' were one God. (11)
. To speak of three eternal persons in this sense is to recognize
relationships among the Three that transcend manifestations in
history. That is, each person is a self-aware subject who relates to
each of the other two as "another."
. In our finite world, we are used to encountering only finite
beings, and every person we meet is an entity separate from all other
persons. However, God is not finite, so it may be that as an infinite
being He exists as three distinguishable persons, while remaining one
indivisible essence. Neither can the term "person" be restricted to
human beings, since angels are self-aware subjects also. Whether God
is three persons cannot be determined by reasoning alone, but only by
examining God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.
IS GOD ONE PERSON?
. The Bible repeatedly asserts that God is one. He is one God
(James 2:19) and one Yahweh or Jehovah (Deut.6:4). The first plank in
the trinitarian platform is the indivisible oneness of God. However,
nowhere in Scripture are we ever told that God is one person.
. It is sometimes argued that the use of 'echad' ("one") in
Deuteronomy 6:4 indicates that God is a composite unity. That is not
quite accurate, since "composite" speaks of a uniting together of
parts into a whole, whereas the three Persons are not three "parts" or
three "thirds" of God. Nor is it true that 'echad' necessarily
indicates some sort of inner plurality. Like its Greek counterpart
'heis' in the New Testament, 'echad' is simply the common Hebrew word
for "one." However, like both 'heis' and "one," 'echad' does not
necessarily imply absolute, unqualified and undifferentiated unity.
Rather, the word "one" in any language can only indicate unity as
unity, whether that unity is in some sense differentiated or not must
be determined by other factors. For example, to say that a certain
biological entity is "one organism" says nothing about whether it is
unicellular (e.g., an amoeba) or multicellular (e.g., a man). It may
be one organism in one cell or one organism in many cells. In a
logically analogous manner, God might be one God in one person or one
God in three persons.
. Of course, if God is three persons, these "three" cannot be three
parts (as cells are parts of an organism). Since God is an infinite
being, He cannot be composed of parts in any case. Yet it may be that
He exists as a kind of differentiated infinite unity that is 'triune'
(three in one) though not 'triplex' (three in parts). Since this is
the infinite God we are talking about, there will be no corresponding
or analogous instance of "triunity" or trinity in nature. We must be
careful, then, not to beg the question by assuming that the unity of
the Deity will be the same sort of unity as we find in the finite
world.
IS JESUS THE FATHER?
. According to Oneness theology, the term "Father" designates
Christ's deity, while "Son" designates either His humanity considered
separately or His deity as manifested in the flesh. Therefore, while
Oneness believers say that the Father is not the Son, they do hold
that Jesus is both the Father and the Son.
. The most common prooftext used to prove that Jesus is the Father
is Isaiah 9:6, which gives Christ the name "Everlasting Father," or
rather, "Father of eternity" (as Oneness writers admit). (12)
. The use of "Father" here supposedly identifies Jesus as the "God
the Father" of the New Testament. However, this is not the case. A
number of proper names in the Old testament use the term 'ab' "in
accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who
possesses a thing is called the father of it." (13)
. Thus 'Abiethon' (2 Sam. 23:31), "father of strength," means
"strong"; 'Abiaseph' (Ex.6:24), "father of gathering," means
"gatherer"; 'Abigail' (1 Chron.2:16), "father of exultation," is a
woman's name meaning "exulting"; and so forth. (14) Evidently, then,
"Father of eternity" in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is eternal. This
would imply, of course, that He is the creator of the ages (cf.
Heb.1:2; 11:3), but not that He is "the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ" (2 Cor.1:3).
. In John 10:30, Jesus stated, "I and the Father are one." Oneness
believers erroneously understand this to mean that they are one
'person.' As is often pointed out, such an interpretation is guarded
against by the use of the neuter 'heri' rather than the masculine
'heis' for "one," thereby suggesting essential unity but not absolute
identity. (15)
. Also precluding a one-person interpretation is the first-person
plural "we are" ('esmen'). If Jesus were the Father, He could have
said, "I am the Father," or "the Son and the Father are one ('heis'),"
or some other equivalent; but as it stands, John 10:30 excludes
modalism and Oneness as surely as it excludes Arianism.
. Another such prooftext is John 5:43, where Jesus rebukes the
Jews: "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if
another comes in his own name, you will receive him." Oneness writers
consistently interpret "in My Father's name" as meaning that Jesus'
name is the Father's name (i.e., Jesus is the Father). (16)
. However, the expression "in the name of" here clearly means "in
the authority of"; thus the person whom Jesus warned would come "in
his own name" will come with "no credentials but his own claim." (17)
. To receive someone who comes "in his own name" is therefore,
according to Jesus, a foolish act. This contrast between "My Father's
name" and "his own name" proves beyond question that Jesus did not
come "in his own name." Therefore, "Jesus" is not the Father's name,
and so Jesus is not the Father. Ironically, then, this is one of the
clear prooftexts against the Oneness doctrine that Jesus is the
Father.
. Also cited to prove that Jesus' name is the Father's name (and
therefore that Jesus is the Father) is John 17:6,11-12. Oneness
writers emphasize that Jesus "manifested" the Father's name, and that
the Father "gave" His name to Jesus, as evidence that Jesus is the
Father. This interpretation overlooks the fact that a human father
can give his name to his son, without the father and son being one
person!
. Moreover, notice that Jesus said twice that His disciples were
"in Thy {the Father's} name." If we interpret this phrase in the
sense that the Oneness believers assign to it in John 5:43, we come to
the ridiculous conclusion that the disciples are the Father! The
Oneness interpretation simply does not work since, as even Oneness
writers acknowledge, God's "name" represents His character and His
power,(18) and since in the context Jesus is asking the Father to keep
the disciples holy and united (17:11-12,15-23), it is apparent that
Jesus is saying that He possessed and manifested the character and
power of the Father.
. A favorite passage of modalists in all centuries has been John
14:6-11, where Jesus says, among other things, "He who has seen Me has
seen the Father." Jesus begins by asserting, "No one comes to the
Father except through Me" (v.6). The natural sense of these words is
that Jesus is, not the Father, but a mediator between us and the
Father. Then He states, "If you had known Me, you would have known My
Father also" (v.7a). This is true, not because Jesus is the Father,
but because those who know Jesus are led by Him to know the Father as
they see Him imaged perfectly in Jesus. Thus, says Jesus, "from now
on you know Him, and have seen Him" (v.7b). Existing with the Father
as the one indivisible Divine Being, Jesus can say, "He who has seen
Me has seen the Father" (v.9). Nevertheless, Jesus does not say, "I
am the Father," but rather, "I am in the Father and the Father is in
Me" (v.10, repeated in v.11; cf.10:38).
. Oneness believers frequently cite the second part of this last
statement, "the Father is in Me," to mean that the deity ("Father")
dwells in the humanity ("Son") of Jesus. This view, however, fails to
explain the first part of the sentence, "I am in the Father," which in
Oneness terms would have to mean that the human nature of Jesus dwells
in the deity - the opposite of what they believe. Moreover, it fails
to account for the fact that in this same context, as well as
elsewhere, Jesus uses this sort of expression to denote His unity with
believers: "In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and
you in Me, and I in you" (v.20; cf.17:21-23).
JESUS IS GOD
. Trinitarians affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God. This does
not mean that Jesus is the only person who is God; rather, it means
that His nature is that of perfect, essential deity. Thus the many
passages which identify Jesus as God (John 1:1; Tit.2:13; etc.) do not
teach that Jesus is the Father. Only by isolating these verses from
their context, and in some cases by ignoring the precise wording used
by the biblical authors, can the Oneness position be maintained.
. Perhaps the Scripture most often cited by Oneness believers in
favor of their view of God is Colossians 2:9, "For in Him {Christ}
dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This verse is the
basis for the title of Oneness writer Godon Magee's widely distributed
booklet "Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?" (19)
. Since Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of "the Godhead"
dwells in Jesus, Oneness believers argue, the Godhead is in Jesus, not
Jesus in the Godhead. This either/or approach, however, would force
Colossians 2:9 to contradict John 10:38 where Jesus states, "the
Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." Since "the Father" in
Oneness terms is "the Godhead," John 10:38 in their terms means that
the Godhead is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Godhead.
. When Oneness believers deny that "Jesus is in the Godhead," what
they mean to deny is that Jesus is one person in a triune Godhead.
Colossians 2:9, though, does not rule out that possibility. What it
affirms is that Jesus is no less than the full and complete revelation
of God's nature ('theotetos', "deity") in the flesh. While not all
three persons of God are incarnate in Jesus, all of God's essence is
incarnate in Jesus.
THE NAME OF JESUS
. Central to the theology of Oneness Pentecostalism is an emphasis
on the name "Jesus" as the name of God since the Incarnation. The
Oneness movement began, in fact, with the "revelation" that the "name"
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken of in Matthew 28:19 was the
name "Jesus," based on Acts 2:38 in particular. (20) This is why
Oneness Pentecostals are so adamant that baptism be administered in
the name of 'Jesus only.' This interpretation assumes that there can
be only one correct baptismal formula, which would not appear to be
provable from the texts themselves. It also makes much of the fact
that Jesus said "name," not "names." (21)
. While this is true, it does not absolutely rule out one name
applying to three persons, since a singular name can apply to two or
more persons (e.g., Gen.5:2; 11:4). Moreover, if one name is meant,
it need not be "Jesus"; it could be "Lord," the New Testament
equivalent of the name of Yahweh in the Old Testament.
. In order to reconcile Matthew 28:19 with Acts 2:38 and similar
passages it is helpful to see them as pertaining to two different
historical contexts. Those who were converted to Christ and baptized
in the name of Jesus were either Jews (Acts 2:5,38; 22:16), Samaritans
(Acts 8:5,12,16), God-fearing Gentiles (Acts 10:1-2,22,48), or
disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-5). (22)
. Already knowing of the God revealed in the Old Testament, the
critical issue for them was a confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior.
When pagan Gentiles who knew little or nothing of the God of Israel
were led to Christ, however, they would need to confess their faith,
not only in Jesus as Lord, but in the one God revealed in Scripture as
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (23)
. Jesus, ordaining that the gospel be taken "to all the nations,"
made provision for this in His "great commission" (Matt.28:19). In
order to demonstrate that "Jesus" is the name for God in the New
Testament, Oneness Pentecostals cite passages such as Acts 4:12 ("no
other name under heaven...by which we must be saved") and Philippians
2:9-10 (God "bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that
in the name of Jesus..."). The point of Acts 4:12 is identical to
that of John 14:6 - salvation is through Jesus Christ alone; it does
not mean that Jesus alone is God. In Philippians 2:9-10 "the name
which is above every name" does not mean the name 'Jesus,' but rather,
an additional name which the Father has bestowed on Jesus because of
His obedience to the point of death (v.8). In context, that name is
"Lord," since the passage concludes, "and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (v.11). That "Lord" is the name
given to Jesus can be confirmed by a multitude of texts (see, for
example, Acts 2:36; Rom.10:9, I Cor.12:3; 2 Cor.4:5). This is
consistent with the fact that "Lord" (kurios) is the New Testament
equivalent of "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," the name of God in the Old
Testament (e.g., Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13).
FATHER AND SON
. According to Oneness theology, the Father and Son are two natures
in the one person, Jesus Christ. If "person" is defined as "an
individual being," then without question God is only one "person" in
that sense. However, that is not the best definition of the term,
which is, as we have already explained, used to mean simply a "self-
aware subject," that is, an "I" aware of its own existence and the
existence of other self-aware subjects. If, then, the Father and the
Son are consistently presented in Scripture as two self-aware
subjects, then they are two persons, even if they are one being. And
the evidence for them being two persons is overwhelming; only a few
examples can be given here. (24)
. There are, first of all, two passages in John where Jesus states
that He and the Father serve as two witnesses authenticating His
ministry (John 5:31-32; 8:16-18). His statement, "there is another
('allos') who bears witness concerning Me (5:32), proves that Jesus is
not the Father. The term 'allos' is used here to mean someone
"different {from} the subject who is speaking." (25)
. In John 8:16-18, Jesus makes the same point, and clarifies it by
quoting the Old Testament principle that two witnesses, not just one,
are required for a judgment to be considered valid (Deut.17:6; 19:15;
also Num.35:30). According to Oneness theology, what Jesus must have
meant was that His divine Spirit and His human nature both testified.
. If Jesus is only one person, though, then only "one person"
testified, not two, as Jesus' words demand. It would make just as
much sense for a man to say in court, "I am two witnesses to the crime
- my body testifies, and my soul testifies," as for Jesus alone to be
two witnesses. These passages, then, are fairly explicit statements
to the effect that Jesus and the Father are two persons.
. Further evidence is gained from the many passages that state that
the Father sent the Son (John 3:17; Gal.4:4; I John 4:10; etc.). The
point here is not that the Son existed prior to His birth (though that
is true enough), but that the Son is a person other than the Father.
It is therefore irrelevant to our point to cite John 1:6 (which says
that God sent John the Baptist), as Oneness writers often do. (26)
. In fact, John 1:6 lends weight to the trinitarian view, since God
and John the Baptist are, of course, two persons. Moreover, note that
Jesus told the Disciples that He was sending them just as the Father
had sent Him (John 17:18; 20:21). Necessarily implied here is that
the disciples were not Jesus; neither was Jesus the Father. Also
relevant is the fact that the Father loves the Son (John 3:25; 17:23-
26; etc.), and that Jesus loves the Father (John 14:31). This most
naturally implies two persons; it certainly demands relationship,
which is central to our definition of "person." The Oneness
explanation, "The Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa,"
(27) amounts to saying that Jesus loved Himself. The fact is that
natures do not love, persons do. My human nature cannot love - only
I can love, in and through my human nature. If Oneness is correct,
why is it that Jesus clearly and consistently implied that He and the
Father were two persons, rather than saying the things which Oneness
theologians think He meant?
. Devastating to the Oneness view are the passages where Jesus
prays to the Father. Of course, they are aware of the problem and
have an answer - the human nature prayed to the divine nature.
However, this runs into the same problem as with the love of the two
for one another: natures do not talk, only persons do. In answer to
this difficulty, their response is, "What would be absurd or
impossible for an ordinary man is not so strange with Jesus." (28)
. But this response evades the point: when Jesus prayed He prayed
as a person talking to another person, not as one nature talking to
another nature. Jesus addressed God as "Father," which is a
relational term, not as "My divine nature," as the Oneness believers
assume He meant.
THE PRE-EXISTENT SON
. Since the "Son," in Oneness theology, is the incarnate Jesus
Christ, they cannot allow the doctrine that the Son pre-existed His
incarnation to go unchallenged. The concept of "eternal Sonship," and
especially "eternal generation," is, they say, both unbiblical and
unreasonable. On this point, a number of respected trinitarian,
evangelical scholars can be found who agree. (29)
. A mediating position rejects "eternal generation" but retains the
concept of "eternal Sonship." (30) For our purpose in this article,
it is not essential to settle this question. What we wish to know is
not whether it is proper to speak of "the Son" as such prior to the
Incarnation, but rather, whether the person who is the Son existed as
a person distinct from the Father prior to the Incarnation. To this
question, the biblical answer is a clear yes.
. For example, Proverbs 30:4 asks concerning God, "What is His name
or His son's name?" This statement clearly implies that the Son
existed at the time the passage was written. To circumvent this
conclusion, Oneness writers argue that the passage is a "prophecy"
(see 30:1, KJV, where this word appears), and is therefore referring
to the future time when God would manifest Himself as the Son. (31)
. However, the word rendered "prophecy" here and at Proverbs 31:1,
'massa', is usually rendered "burden" (over 50 times in the KJV). A
simple reading of chapters 30 and 31 should demonstrate that neither
"burden" is a predictive prophecy. Thus the Son existed at least as
far back as Agur's day (30:1).
. Then there are the many passages which state that the Word or Son
created the universe (John 1:3; Col.1:16-17; Heb.1:2; Rev.3:14; etc.)
Hebrews 1:2 says that God made the ages through His "Son" - to which
Oneness writers reply that "God used His foreknowledge of the Son when
He created the world. He predicated the entire creation on the future
arrival of Christ." (32) Whenever in Scripture the Son is said to
have said or done something, or even existed, prior to the
Incarnation, it is explained as only being true in God's
foreknowledge. This arbitrary handling of Scripture is justified by
appealing to Revelation 13:8, which speaks of those "whose names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world" (KJV). While this translation is grammatically
possible, the parallel passage in Revelation 17:8 suggests that the
correct rendering is, "whose name has not been written from the
foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been
slain" (NASB). (33)
. Once it is understood that Revelation 13:8 cannot be used to
relegate anything said of the past to the foreknowledge of God, it
becomes clear that Jesus existed prior to creation WITH the Father.
Thus, John 1:1, "the Word was with God," means He was really there.
. The Oneness explanation that "with" ('pros') here should be
rendered "pertaining to," based on Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 (34) ignores
the grammatical difference between John 1:1 and the Hebrews texts.
(35) Jesus' request to the Father in John 17:5 is to be taken
literally: "And now, glorify Me, O Father, with yourself, with the
glory which I had with you before the world existed." The word 'para'
("with") is "nearly always" used of a personal relationship,(36) and
is without question so used in this context, which uses the relational
pronouns "I" and "You" and the relational name "Father."
OBJECTIONS
. Confronted with the biblical evidence for a plurality of persons
in the unity of the Deity, Oneness advocates are likely to turn away
from the biblical text itself to one or more stock objections to the
doctrine of the Trinity, all of which are used by anti-trinitarians of
all persuasions. We can only respond briefly to two of these.
. The most common objection to the Trinity is that the doctrine
employs nonbiblical terminology ("Trinity," "person," etc.). While
this is true, it proves nothing. The word "Oneness" is not in the
Bible, either; nor does the Bible ever call the Father or Holy Spirit
"manifestations" of God. On another subject, the words "Bible,"
"canon," and "inerrancy" cannot be found in Scripture, either: shall
we then throw out these words, too, and the doctrines they represent?
Christians use such nonbiblical terms as "Trinity" and "person"
because they express the biblical truth about God in such a way as to
exclude unbiblical perversions of that truth. As Calvin explained
concerning Arius: "Arius says that Christ is God, but mutters that he
was made and had a beginning. He says that Christ is one with the
Father, but secretly whispers in the ears of his own partisans that He
is united to the Father like other believers, although by a singular
privilege. Say "consubstantial" and you will tear off the mask of
this turncoat, and yet you add nothing to Scripture." (37)
. The other common objection to the Trinity is that it was not
formulated until the fourth century. It was supposedly imposed on the
people by the Roman Catholic church (by then quite apostate, we are
told) through the political agency of Constantine at the Council of
Nicea in A.D.325. This argument is a mix of historical truth and
error. First of all, there was no "Roman Catholic church," in the
sense of a hierarchical church structure encompassing churches over a
wide area with the Roman bishop as the head, until the end of the
sixth century. Indeed, the Roman bishop did not even attend the
Council of Nicea, which was almost completely a Council of bishops
from the Eastern churches. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity as
such originated long before Constantine; all of the essential terms
(three persons, one substance, Trinity) were used by Tertullian well
over a century before Nicea. Third, although it is true that
Constantine originally supported Athanasius (the champion of
trinitarianism) and deposed Arius, in A.D.332 he reversed himself and
supported Arius; for the next fifty years or so, Arianism was the
ruling movement.
. Moreover, many doctrines which we now consider essential to
Christian faith came to us through an historical development similar
to that of the Trinity. The Bible does not list the books which
belong in the canon; such a list was not put together for the New
Testament until the fourth century, in response to heretics who were
adding or subtracting books from Scripture. The Bible never
explicitly insists that it is inerrant in historical and scientific
matters. Inerrancy 'per se' was not explicitly formulated until the
nineteenth century in response to those who said the Bible was
inspired but contained errors. Thus, doctrines that are taught or
implied in Scripture become 'formulated' (given formal structure and
definition) in response to heresy.
. The same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, which was
formulated to avoid the errors of Arianism and modalism. Thus, far
from being unbiblical, the Trinity is a faithful expression of the
biblical teaching concerning God, and it has guarded the church from
heresy for centuries. To throw out the doctrine of the Trinity in
favor of a modernized version of modalism betrays an ignorance of
church history, as well as a misunderstanding of Scripture.
HERESY?
. We have seen that the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to
the biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that
the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now
must be asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors
vary in their harmfulness.
. Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement
may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or
not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently,
some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its
denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.
. This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that
adherence to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and
while most pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully
God and fully man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough.
Indeed, it is possible to call Jesus "God" and still have "another
Jesus" (2 Cor.11:4), if in calling Him "God" one means something
significantly different from what the Bible means.
. Such is the case with the Oneness understanding of the deity of
Christ. When Oneness believers say that Jesus is God, what they mean
is that He is the Father. That is not what the Bible means, as we
have seen. Rather, when the Bible says that Jesus is "God," it means
that He exists eternally as a divine person in relationship with the
Father; or, to use the church's theological shorthand, it means that
He is the second person of the triune God.
. The apostle John warns us, "Whoever denies the Son does not have
the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John
2:23). Oneness Pentecostals will not admit to denying the Son, of
course; but that should come as no surprise. It is doubtful that any
heretic, including those about whom John specifically warned, has ever
admitted to denying the Son. Instead, heretics of all kinds have
simply redefined the meaning of the term "Son" (and along with it the
meaning of "Father"). Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses define "Son" as
"direct creation," while the Mormons claim that Jesus is the "Son" of
God by virtue of having been begotten through physical union between
God and Mary. The Oneness redefinition of "Son" as the human nature
of Jesus (and "Father" as His divine nature) may be less offensive
than the Mormon version, and less obvious than that of the Jehovah's
Witnesses, but it is a redefinition nonetheless. The fact is that the
Son and the Father are two persons, co-existing eternally in
relationship with one another. To deny this fact is to deny the
biblical Son, and thus to have a false view of Jesus.
. It turns out, then, that one's view of Christ cannot be separated
from one's view of the Trinity. Deny the Trinity, and you will lose
the biblical Christ; affirm the Christ of Scripture, the Christ who
was sent by the Father and who sent the Holy Spirit, and you will find
that your God is the Trinity. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the
Trinity that is the distinctive feature of the Christian revelation of
the nature of the true God. As Calvin expressed it: "For He so
proclaims Himself the sole God as to offer himself to be contemplated
clearly in three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and
empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the
true God." (38) Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently,
to deny the trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam
have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been
wrong. Oneness writers have said as much. (39) Therefore, while
there may be individual Oneness believers who are saved, the Christian
community has no choice but to regard the Oneness movement as a whole
as having departed from the Christian faith.
. We must conclude, then, that the Oneness teaching is a heresy,
that it denies a fundamental, basic belief of biblical Christianity,
and that those churches and denominations which teach this heresy are
actually pseudo-Christian sects. In popular Evangelical terminology,
such a heretical sect is known as a "cult," a term which simply means
that the group's beliefs are in some important respect non-Christian.
. In this sense, we regretfully conclude that the Oneness churches
are indeed cults, and we urge Christians to reach out to Oneness
believers in love and share with them the triune God revealed in the
Scriptures.
_____________________________________________
NOTES
l. On the history of Oneness Pentecostalism, see David Arthur Reed,
"Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in
the United States," Ph.D. diss. (Boston, MA: Boston University
Graduate School, 1978); and Oneness writer Frank J. Ewart, "The
Phenomenon of Pentecost" (Houston: Herald Publishing House, 1947;
rev.ed., Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1975). Word Aflame Press
(hereafter WAP) and Pentecostal Publishing House (hereafter PPH), both
located in Hazelwood, are the official publishing houses of the United
Pentecostal Church, the largest Oneness denomination in the world.
Due to the brevity of this article, our analysis of Oneness
Pentecostalism is largely restricted to the UPC.
2. David B. Barrett (ed.), "World Christian Encyclopedia" (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1982), p.837.
3. David K. Bernard, "The Oneness of God" (WAP, 1983), pp.321-322.
This book is probably the best and most complete defense of the
Oneness doctrine of God in print.
4. Bernard, op.cit., pp.257-258,287; Kenneth V. Reeves, "The Godhead"
(Revised), 6th ed. (WAP, 1962), pp.26-28; John Paterson, "God in
Christ Jesus" (WAP. 1966), p.40.
5. Bernard, op.cit., pp.142-143,288.
6. Reeves, op.cit., pp.24-26.
7. Philip Schaff, "The Creeds of Christendom" (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1983 reprint), Vol.III, pp.607-608.
8. Schaff, op.cit., Vol.II, p.67. An excellent line-by-line
discussion of the creed is found in "Creeds, Councils and Christ," by
Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), pp.175-
191.
9. Bernard, op.cit., pp.257-260; Reeves, op.cit., p.9.
10. See Bray, op.cit., pp.78-79,146-171.
ll. Bray, op.cit., p.78.
12. Paterson, op.cit., p.12.
13. Albert Barnes, "Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and
Practical: Isaiah," Vol.I (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950
reprint), p.193.
14. Benjamin Davidson, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon"
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981 reprint), pp.1-2.
15. For example, see R.C.H. Lenski, "The Interpretation of St. John's
Gospel" (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), pp.759-761.
16. David Campbell, "All the Fullness" (WAP, 1975), p.43; John
Paterson, "The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name" (PPH, 1953),
p.16; Bernard, op.cit., pp.126,137.
17. F.F. Bruce, "The Gospel of John" (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), p.138.
18. Bernard, op.cit., pp.42-44.
19. (Pasadena, TX: Gordon Magee, n.d.).
20. Reed, op.cit., pp.97-103; Ewart, op.cit., (WAP ed.), pp.105-109.
21. Paterson, "The Real Truth," p.12.
22. The Corinthian Christians were predominantly Jews and God-fearing
Greeks from the synagogue (Acts 18:1-8; cf. I Cor.1:13).
23. F.F. Bruce, "The Spreading Flame" (Exeter, England: Paternoster
Press, 1958), pp.240-241.
24. Space does not permit a discussion of the distinct personhood of
the Holy Spirit. However, it is safe to say that, once persuaded of
the fact that the Father and Son are two persons of an indivisible
God, most will concede the truth of the Trinity. This writer has
never yet encountered a "binarian."
25. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, "A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957), p.39.
26. Bernard, op.cit., p.184; Magee, op.cit., p.24.
27. Bernard, op.cit., p.186. 28. Bernard, op.cit., p.177.
29. Notably Adam Clarke; see David Campbell, "The Eternal Sonship"
("A Refutation According to Adam Clarke")(WAP, 1978). Walter Martin
also rejects the eternal Sonship doctrine, while insisting on the
eternal preexistence of the Word (Logos): see "The Kingdom of the
Cults" (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), pp.115-117.
30. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., "A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Religion" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), Vol.I,
pp.111-112.
31. Bernard, op.cit., pp.50,159-160; Magee, op.cit., p.23.
32. Bernard, op.cit., p.116.
33. Alan F. Johnson, "Revelation," in "The Expositors's Bible
Commentary," edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol.12 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p.528.
34. Bernard, op.cit., pp.61,188.
35. In John 1:1 we have 'pros ton theon', "with God," whereas in
Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 we have 'ta pros ton theon', "the things {'ta'}
having to do with God." The use of the neuter plural article 'ta'
changes the meaning of 'pros.'
36. Arndt and Gingrich, op.cit., p.615.
37. "Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion," edited by John T.
McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles; Library of Christian
Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Vol.I, p.127
(I.xiii.5).
38. Calvin, op.cit., p.122 (I.xiii.2).
39. Bernard, op.cit., pp.17,19,244,299,319; Reeves, op.cit., p.23.
Computers for Christ - Chicago