A Definitive Look at

Oneness Theology:
In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism

4th Edition, Revised, Updated, and Expanded

Adapted from Ph.D. Thesis from North-West University

entitled:

An Evaluation of “Oneness Theology”

in the Light of the
Biblical Emphasis on Trinitarianism

Edward L. Dalcour, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2016 by North-West University

Private Bag X6001
Potchefstroom, South Africa
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means,
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording—without
the prior written permission from author or publisher.

Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical citations are taken from the New American
Standard Bible, Copyright © 1960, 1963, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977,
1995 by the Lockman Foundation (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, 1996.

British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available

 I dedicate this book to my precious wife, Tia,
“An excellent wife . . . For her worth is far above jewels.”
 ABSTRACT

This work is an exegetical polemic against “Oneness” unitarian

theology and a positive and exegetical affirmation of biblical
Trinitarianism. As a refutation, this dissertation addresses and
systematically evaluates the Oneness view of God and its unitarian
starting point, namely, the assumption that monotheism equals
unipersonalism. As a positive affirmation of the Trinity, this work
addresses key biblical passages that exegetically substantiate the
doctrine of the Trinity. It carefully examines Oneness theology and
finds that it is not consistent with biblical theology.
First, since Oneness doctrine asserts a unipersonal God without the
distinction of three Persons, it sees Jesus then as the mere “name” of the
unipersonal deity, who manifested as the modes or roles of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, thus denying the unipersonality of Jesus Christ.
Second, since it asserts that only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus’ divine
nature/mode), the “Son,” then, represents only Jesus’ human
nature/mode, thus denying the Son’s deity. Third, since it rejects the
idea that the Son is God, Oneness Christology denies (a) the Son’s
preexistence, (b) the Son’s active role as the agent of creation (the
Creator), and (c) the Son’s eternal and intimate relationship with the
Father. Pertaining to redemption, Oneness doctrine maintains that Jesus
as the Father took flesh, hence denying the incarnation of the divine
Son.
In contrast, an exegetical analysis of particular biblical passages in
both the Old and New Testaments establishes the fundamental data for
the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, Scripture reveals in the clearest way
that there are three distinct Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit—that share the nature of the one God. Thus, the three Persons are
coequal, coeternal, coexistent, and codistinct. The full deity, incarnation
and preexistence of the Son, as a distinct Person from the Father, are
especially expressed in the Apostle John’s writings.
In the Pauline corpus, the deity, unipersonality and distinction of
all three Persons are seen frequently either in the same passage or same
context. Both John and Paul present the Son as God and Creator of all
things. In the prologue of Hebrews, the author asserts clearly and
coherently that the Person of the Son is the eternal Creator; this assertion
demolishes the Oneness position, which sees the “Son” representing
only the human nature of Jesus whose life started in Bethlehem. This
work concludes that the concept of the Trinity is inescapable in the light
of biblical exegesis.
Oneness theology cannot stand exegetically. It must circumvent
and redefine the plain reading of many passages that state or imply, for
example, the grammatical and contextual distinctions of the Persons in
the Trinity, the preexistence and deity of the Son, and the deity and
unipersonality of the Holy Spirit. This work also concludes that contrary
to the historical revisionism frequently employed by Oneness authors
and teachers, the early church prior to Nicaea held to the concept of the
Trinity and universally rejected both modalistic and dynamic forms of
Monarchianism.
 CONTENTS

PREFACE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 ONENESS UNITARIANISM 5

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Monotheism 8
2.3 Rooted in Monarchianism 11
2.3.1 The Re-emergence of Modalism 14
2.3.2 Statistics and Figures 15
2.4 Oneness Theology Defined 17
2.4.1 Oneness Semantics: “God-Man” =
“Father-Son” 18
2.4.2 Denial of the Incarnation 20
2.4.3 Denial of the Distinctions
within the Godhead 20
2.4.4 Denial of the Pre-Existence of the Son 23
2.4.5 Denial of the Perpetuity of the Son 24
2.5 Text Minus Context Equals Pretext 28
2.6 Incongruities among Oneness Teachers 31
2.7 Determining a Oneness Church 32
2.8 Summary 35

3.0 CHRISTOLOGICAL DIVERGENCES 38

3.1 Introduction 38
3.2 Essence and Substance of the Son 39
3.3 Jesus is not the Father 43
3.3.1 Unitarianism 45
3.3.1.1 Oneness Standard Unitarian
Proof-Texts (Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6) 46
3.3.2 Oneness Standard Proof-Texts to show
that Jesus is the Father (Isa. 9:6;
John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9; Col. 2:9) 48
3.3.3 Kai and the Salutations of Paul 58
3.3.4 Additional Considerations 61
3.3.5 The Final Analysis:
Jesus is not the Father 64
3.4 Jesus is not the Holy Spirit 66
3.4.1 Oneness Standard Proof-Texts to show
that Jesus is the Holy Spirit (John 4:24;
Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 3:17; Eph. 4:4-6) 67
3.4.1.1 Same Attributes Argument 74
3.4.2 The Biblical Teaching: Jesus is not the
Holy Spirit 76
3.4.2.1 The Holy Spirit is Distinct 77
3.4.2.2 The Holy Spirit is a Person 78
3.4.3 The Final Analysis: Jesus is not the
Holy Spirit 82

3.5 Baptismal Formula - A Case Study 83

3.5.1 Baptism: “In the Name of Jesus” Only 85

3.5.1.1 Bad Hermeneutics 86
 3.5.1.2 The Contextual and Historical
Significance of the Onoma, “Name” 88
3.5.1.3 Acts and the “Name of Jesus” 89
3.5.1.4 UPCI Standard Proof-Texts
and Arguments (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38) 90
3.5.1.5 Baptism: Unification/Identification 96

3.5.1.6 Baptizing in the Trinitarian Formula or

“In Jesus’ name” only 99
3.5.1.7 The Trinitarian Formula in the
Early Church 100
3.6 Summary 104

4.0 THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON 107

4.1 Introduction 107
4.2 Person and Being 108
4.3 The “Oneness” Position 108
4.4 An Orthodox Response to the “Oneness” Position 110
4.5 The Pre-Incarnate Son 110
4.6 Jesus Christ the Son as Co-Creator 141
4.7 The Implications of Monogenēs Huios 146
4.8 Summary 150

5.0 ORTHODOXY UNITED AGAINST HERESY 152

5.1 Introduction 152
5.2 Docetic Gnosticism 153
5.3 Arianism 155
5.4 Modalism 159
5.4.1 Dynamic Monarchianism 159
5.4.2 Modalistic Monarchianism 160
5.5 Orthodoxy Fights Back 161
5.5.1 Against Sabellius 165
5.6 The Doctrine of the Trinity and
the Early Church 170

5.6.1 Ecumenical Councils 173

5.6.2 The Trinity and the Early Church 175
5.6.2.1 Apostolic Fathers 176
5.6.2.2 The Apologists 179
5.6.2.3 Theologians 181
5.7 Summary 185

6.0 CONCLUSION 188

6.1 The Tri-Personal God Revealed in the Old Testament 190
6.1.1 Multi-Personal References 191
6.2 God in Three Persons: A Biblical Conclusion 193
6.2.1 Important Refutations Presented 193
6.2.2 Personal Loving Fellowship between
the Persons in the Trinity 198
6.2.3 Personal Loving Fellowship between the
Persons of the Trinity and Believers 198
6.2.4 The Soteriological Trinity 199
6.3 Summary 201

BIBLIOGRAPHY 206
 PREFACE
The work embodied in this thesis is the outgrowth of my passion for the
doctrine of the Trinity. As a Christian apologist and president of the
Department of Christian Defense (an apologetic organization) dealing
largely with the theology of non-Christian cults, much of the research
for this dissertation actually begun over a decade ago while writing and
preparing lectures on the objections to the Trinity made specifically by
the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Due to their unipersonal position (viz., that
only the Father is God) they falsely contend that Christians believe that
Jesus is the Father when they assert Jesus is God. In fact, I find that
Christians who have not been adequately taught about the Trinity make
the same error. Thus, unstudied Christians too often unknowingly affirm
Oneness theology in their efforts to explain how Jesus is God.
Therefore, a primary reason for my concentration on Oneness
theology in contrast to Trinitarianism is to disambiguate and clarify the
doctrine of the Trinity especially for evangelistic purposes. This
dissertation is an endeavour to express the salvific importance of the
Trinity and to provide some theological awareness of Oneness theology.
It is my hope that this work will develop some significant concepts of
Trinitarian theology. I have spoken and written much on the subject. A
great deal of space has been devoted to the preexistence of the Son, for
this doctrine is the theological breaking point of Oneness theology:
showing that the Son preexisted as God, as Creator and as distinct from
the Father turns Oneness theology upside down.
I am optimistic that the fruit of this research will equip and inspire
the body of Christ, both pastors and laity, to stress the importance of the
doctrine of the Trinity and provide an accurate presentation of it. It is
also my hope that through this research, Christians will fully understand
the fundamental differences that exist between Oneness theology and
Trinitarianism and thus realize that the Trinity is the very heart of the
gospel expressing the nature of the true God—the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
 INTRODUCTION

The biblical doctrine of the Trinity is arguably the pinnacle of

God’s self-disclosure to mankind. From the multi-personal references
to God in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen 19:24) to the personal
distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Spirit expressed in the New
Testament (cf. Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14), the triune nature of God has
been well established (Gunton, 2003: 12). Despite this evidence,
however, it seems that the preaching and teaching of the truth of the
Trinity is largely absent from many Christian pulpits. Moreover,
although all Reformed Systematic Theology books deal significantly
with the Trinity (e.g., Reymond, 1998) and some notable scholars have
produced worthy contributions on the subject (see Warfield, 1988;
White, 1998), there appears to be a definite lack of ecclesiastical
material, apologetic literature and other resources affirming and
defending the doctrine of the Trinity. It was in the third century A.D.
that a Libyan priest named Sabellius proposed unipersonalism as the
equation of monotheism, developing an idea earlier posited by Noetus
of Smyrna and Praxeas (cf. Walker et al 1997: 76, 81, 85). This was in
complete antithesis to the understanding of the early church, for the
concept of a plurality of divine Persons was deeply imprinted in the
apostolic tradition and the popular faith (Kelly, 1978: 88). In the same
way, modern advocates of Oneness theology assert a theologically
unitarian (or unipersonal) notion of God.
Thus, the advocates of Oneness theology (e.g., Bernard, 1983,
Magee, 1988), in common with other unitarian groups, vehemently
identify monotheism with unipersonalism (i.e., that God exists as one
Person). This is contrary to the testimony of Scripture, in which God is
constantly and consistently presented not as one Person, but rather as
one Being. Those who propose otherwise do so largely on the basis of
an erroneous assumption that whenever the word “one” is applied to
God (e.g., Deut. 6:4), it is in the context of absolute solitariness, which
is clearly not the case (see Magee, 1988).
Because of this unitarian/unipersonal a priori assumption,
adherents of Oneness theology deny that there is one God revealed in
three distinct Persons. Rather, they assert that “Jesus” is the name of the
unitarian deity and that the terms “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are
merely the different modes or expressions in which this “Jesus” is
1
manifested (Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, etc.; Bernard, 1983: 248). It
is essentially for this reason that Oneness devotees are baptised “in the
name of Jesus” only (cf. Beisner, 1998: 52-53). Their basic hypothesis
is that there is only one God, the Father (cf. Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; cf.
Kuschel, 1992: 276); since Jesus is also acknowledged as God (John
8:58; Titus 2:13), he must, therefore, be the Father and the Son while
the Holy Spirit is seen as merely “another term for the one God”
(Bernard, 1983: 128). Hence, Oneness teachers argue that the God Jesus
has two natures: divine, as the Father/Holy Spirit; and human, as the
Son of God (note, not God the Son). Because the essence of Oneness
theology is such that only the Father is God, the Son represents only the
humanity of their “Jesus.” Consequently, both the deity and the
preexistence of the Son are summarily denied. Such passages that
indicate the Son’s preexistence (e.g., John 17:5; Col. 1:16, 17) are
“explained” away by anti-Trinitarians on the basis of the Son existing
only as an intention in the mind of the Father, not as a personal
coexistence (Buzzard & Hunting, 1998: 158-161).
The logical development of their arguments is such that it was not
the Son but the Father who clothed Himself in flesh and that this “flesh”
was thence called “Son” (Bernard, 1983: 104, 299). The implications of
such a position are vast, for they extend to subjects of such
Christological import as the precise role of the Son as Mediator,
Intercessor and Saviour, amongst others.Aside from denying the
foundational doctrine of the Trinity, Oneness devotees typically
misrepresent the basis of its pivotal argument, purporting that it is
tantamount to worshiping three separate Gods (Bernard, 1983: 290).
This, however, would be tritheism, not Trinitarianism (see Torrance,
1999: 29, 59, 83). Since it seems that many Christian believers have not
received adequate teaching regarding the doctrine of the Trinity
(literally, Tri-unity—see Cunningham, 1998: 89-119), when faced with
the challenge of affirming and defending the doctrine, they often find
themselves ill-equipped to present anything but a defective
representation of it. The distinction that must be made between biblical
orthodoxy regarding the revelation of the Trinity and the position
adopted by those who promote the Oneness view is essentially that of
exegesis versus eisegesis. The central research question of this work,
therefore, is: How may one evaluate Oneness theology in the light of a
biblical exegesis, which reveals God as a Triune Personal Supreme
Being?

2
The questions that naturally emerge from this problem include:

➢ What are the theological assertions of those who promote

Oneness theology, and upon what basis are their conclusions
derived?
➢ What are the fundamental Christological differences between
orthodox Trinitarianism and the major tenets of Oneness
theology?
➢ What is the biblical presentation of the role of the second Person
of the Trinity in Creation and what are the implications of this?
➢ Are there any lessons to be learned from how the early Church
dealt with some of the major doctrinal controversies it was faced
with regarding the Person of Christ in a Trinitarian context?

The aim of this work is to evaluate the premise behind Oneness theology
in the light of the biblical evidence regarding its emphasis on a Triune
Personal Supreme Being—God. The objectives of this work must be
seen in their relationship to the aim. Therefore, the subject will be
approached from the following four angles:

i) To identify the theological assertions of those who promote

Oneness theology, and the hermeneutical and exegetical
methods employed by them;

ii) To assess the fundamental Christological differences

between orthodox Trinitarianism and the major tenets of
Oneness theology;

iii) To demonstrate the biblical presentation of the second

Person of the Trinity as co-Creator with the Father and the
implications of this presentation;

iv) To determine what lessons may be learned from how the

early Church dealt with some of the major doctrinal
controversies it was faced with regarding the Person of
Christ in a Trinitarian context.

The central argument of this study is that a valid exegesis of Scripture

demonstrates clearly that Oneness theology is based on an erroneous
view of God, which effectively denies the biblical revelation of the only
3
true God—who is triune in nature. Since Oneness theology embraces a
unitarian (unipersonal) concept of God, it shares the same fundamental
concept of God as that of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
unbelieving Jews.

4
 Chapter Two

ONENESS UNITARIANISM

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Arguably, in the last hundred years or so, there has been a marked
increase in biblical and theological illiteracy among Christians
universally (cf. Moreland, 1997: 22-38). Important biblical doctrines
such as the Trinity, substitutionary atonement and justification through
faith alone, which were so revered by the early Christians, are today
abdicated or exchanged for a consumer or seeker friendly message. Far
too many leading popular professing Christian TV evangelists, pastors
and authors carelessly and consistently present unfounded biblical
teachings and concepts (see Fee, 1985; Hanegraaff, 1993; and
MacArthur, 1993).
The tragic result of this phenomenon is a distorted and muddled
gospel message where biblical faith is reduced to a “positive
confession” of faith (viz., teaching to have faith in faith), which leads to
health, wealth and prosperity (cf. MacArthur, 1993; Tsoukalas, 1999:
47-48). British sociologist and theologian Os Guinness (see Moreland,
1997: 130) argues, “The Devil will allow short-term success in
evangelism and church growth if the means used to achieve it ultimately
contribute to the marginalization of the church and her message.” It is
largely for that reason that essential Christian doctrine is trivialized,
undefined, and distorted within mainstream evangelicalism (see Carson,
2002: 102). Because essential doctrine is far too often not the premier
attraction in many Christian churches, revivals, and especially Christian
television, many well-meaning Christians simply assume that anyone
who declares the words “Jesus is Lord” must be Christian. We are not
suggesting here that all of Christian television ignores and/or distorts
the gospel. We are only pointing out that many of the most popular
evangelists are teaching aberrant and heretical doctrines.
Even so, it must be realized, the mere phrase “Jesus is Lord” is
meaningless unless the phrase correlates with the Jesus of biblical
revelation, for “professing” Christian groups such as Jehovah’s
5
Witnesses, who deny the deity of Christ, and Mormons, who deny the
nature and eternal existence of the one true God, all claim “Jesus is
Lord.” Although Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, they too
declare, “Jesus is Lord” (cf. UPCI, 2008b).
However, the heretical teachings of Oneness theology are much
more subtle than that of many heresies. Oneness theology is perhaps
even more dangerous, in that people are more likely to accept it as
Christian. In other words, are the doctrines of Oneness theology
consistent with the teachings presented in Holy Scripture? Only by the
Scriptures, the sole infallible standard that categorically distinguishes
true Christianity from false or professing ones, can one accomplish an
accurate evaluation of Oneness theology.
In saying that, it is not the name “Jesus” itself that has any salvific
value, for there were many who were named “Jesus” (that is, Joshua) in
first-century Palestine. In contradistinction, however, it is only the Jesus
of biblical revelation who can truly save those enslaved to sin. It is this
Jesus who alone can forgive sins and it is this Jesus who “gives life to
whom He wishes” (John 5:21).1 When Jesus said, “He who believes has
eternal life” (John 6:47), the meaning of the word “believes” must be
considered.
The word translated “believes” (pisteuōn, literally, “believing”;
pisteuōn is the present active indicative participle of pisteuō) in
soteriological contexts has the denotative and lexical meaning of
intellectual assent, knowledge, and trust (cf. Bauer, 2000: 816-18).
Note, for example, that in passages such as John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 1
John 5:1, where salvation is in view, this present active indicative
participle form, pisteuōn, is used. This indicates that the “believing” is
on-going and active. Thus, truly regenerate Christians will keep on
believing. Their belief in Christ will not be temporary, but rather active
and constant in contrast to an anthropocentric faith, which is not the
result of regeneration (cf. John 6:66). In fact, throughout John’s gospel
and epistles, in the context of salvation, as with pisteuōn, “believing,”
present tense participles are used to denote this reality (e.g., akouōn,
“hearing” [John 5:24], erchomenon, “coming” [6:37], trōgōn, “eating”
[literally, “munching”], and pinōn, “drinking” [6:54, 56]).
Simply then, genuine Christianity is biblically defined by having an
ultimate trust (faith) in and possessing an accurate knowledge of the

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical citations within this thesis are from the New
American Standard Bible, 1996.
6
Person, nature and finished work of the Jesus Christ of biblical
revelation (cf. John 17:3). Oneness theology has a definite theological
position, which differs fundamentally and historically from the biblical
presentation. What is key in understanding Oneness theology is to
understand its basic theological starting point: God has revealed
Himself as a unipersonal, that is, unitarian Being. Theological
unitarianism asserts God to be unipersonal, existing exclusively as one
undivided Person, hence rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.
A distinction, though, needs to be made between religious groups
that are unitarian in their doctrine of God and the official Unitarian
religion itself. The former would include such religious systems as
Judaism, Islam, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah’s
Witnesses) etc., while the latter is applied exclusively to the Unitarian
Church as a religious denomination. Thus, unitarian (in lower case) will
be used throughout this thesis to refer to the unipersonal theology of the
Oneness view of God as well as all other theological unitarian groups,
but not necessarily the Unitarian Church. Technically, a unitarian belief
of God is synonymous with a unipersonal belief of God—unless one
asserts an impersonal “single” Deity, as with the Baha’i faith, which
excludes unipersonalism while still maintaining unitarianism.
Notwithstanding the fact that many Oneness theologians and
official organizations (e.g., Bernard, 1983:57; UPCI, 2008b) see God as
unipersonal, some Oneness teachers (cf. Reeves, 1962: 26-28),
however, would reject (though very indecisively) that notion. Some
would even object to the usage of “unitarian” as a description of
Oneness theology, confusing the categories of religious denomination
with theology as we have just discussed. Nevertheless, these objections
clearly rest on semantic and not exegetical grounds. In his argument
against Oneness theology labeled as “unitarian,” recognized United
Pentecostal Church International (hereafter UPCI) authority David K.
Bernard (1983: 326) explains that “Oneness believers affirm the full
deity of Jesus whereas Unitarians do not.” However, his argument here
emanates from his failure to make a coherent distinction between the
“official” religion of the Unitarian Church and the theological
unitarianism that Oneness theology embraces.
Moreover, Bernard (1983: 22) is ambiguous in his dissatisfaction
with Oneness theology, holding to the notion that God is unipersonal:
“We limit our conception of God if we describe Him as a person. For
this reason, this book has never said there is one person in the Godhead

7
or God is one person. The most we have said is that Jesus Christ is one
person, because Jesus was God manifested in flesh as a human person.”
This kind of elusiveness only serves to obscure the Oneness position.
Bernard makes a category mistake, confusing “person” with “people.”
It is personal attributes and personal characteristics, not necessarily
flesh, that constitute personhood. For example, angels, including the
devil, are certainly “persons” in that they possess personal attributes and
personal characteristics, especially in their ability to communicate
comprehensibly with others. However, they do not fall under the
category of human/people. Bernard here implies that Jesus (as the
Father) before manifesting in the flesh was not a Person (equating
“person” with “human/people”). To deny the personhood of the Father
and equivocate on the word “person” is the only tenable way Bernard
can stay consistent in his vague denial of God being unipersonal.
However, he is not consistent in promoting such a view, for he uses
personal pronouns and applies personal attributes in his descriptions of
God before manifesting in the flesh (Bernard 1983: 191). Without
question, Bernard is the most prolific and most cited Oneness writer
who accurately represents and understands Oneness theology (cf.
Beisner, 1998: 11). Therefore, throughout the course of this thesis, he
will be the primary source of reference as to what Oneness theology
teaches.
Regardless of the way Oneness teachers explain the Oneness
concept of God, unitarianism/unipersonalism cannot logically be
denied. If Jesus is unipersonal, which Oneness doctrine necessarily
implies, and if the entire Godhead (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) consists in
the “one Person” of Jesus, then it necessarily follows that Oneness
theology holds to a unipersonal view of God. That Oneness theology is
theologically unitarian is undeniable.
Therefore, examining Oneness theology in light of biblical
exegesis, and not the philosophical arguments so often presented by
Oneness defenders, will substantiate that Oneness unitarianism severely
opposes the biblical position, which is decidedly Trinitarian.

2.2 MONOTHEISM

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4).
The Shema was continuously quoted by every believing Jew to remind
him or her that there was only one true God, the Creator of all things,
8
from whom salvation and ultimate shalom, “peace,” was given (cf. vv.
4-9). Originally, the Shema (“Hear O Israel”) consisted of one verse
(Deut. 6:4; cf. Talmud Sukkot, 42a). The reading of the Shema in the
liturgy, though, consists of three portions: Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-
21; and Numbers 15:37-41. These three portions relate to Jewish core
beliefs. In Mark 12:29, Jesus quotes the Shema (from the Septuagint,
hereafter LXX) as the first and greatest of all the commandments.
Interestingly, the verb akouō appears here as a second person imperative
(akoue)—that is, a commandment. Thus, Jesus cites Deuteronomy 6:4
to underscore that the foremost commandment is “to hear” (i.e., believe,
understand, have knowledge, etc.) that the Lord is one.
To hear that the Lord is one was not a polite request, but rather a
divine command. Ontological monotheism, the belief in one true God
by nature, is what set apart the people of God from the crass polytheism,
which flourished in the surrounding pagan nations (cf. Deut. 4:35). No
one can read, for example, Isaiah chapters 40-48 and not recognize the
constant and definitive way the Lord expresses absolute monotheism to
His people.
When evaluating any theologically unitarian construct, such as
Oneness theology, monotheism must first be defined from a biblical
context in order to (a) correctly apprehend the doctrine of the Trinity
and (b) fully apprehend why Oneness theology is not consistent with
biblical theology. As with theologically unitarian believing groups,
Oneness theology views monotheism as unitarianism or more
specifically, unipersonalism (i.e., that God exists as one Person; cf.
UPCI, 2008b). Although this correlation is constantly maintained, there
is no place in Scripture where God is strictly defined as one Person, but
rather He is presented as one Being. There is a marked distinction
between “being” and “person.” “Being” is what something is, “person”
is who something is. Thus, maintaining a continued awareness of this
distinction is greatly efficacious in accurately communicating the
doctrine of the Trinity—one Being revealed in three Persons.
While the concept of monotheism does not expressly indicate
unitarianism, Oneness teachers (Reeves, 1962; Bernard, 1983; Magee,
1988) read into the places where God is said to be “one,” “alone,” etc.
(e.g., Deut. 4:35; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 1 Tim. 2:5) the idea of absolute
solitary “one” or the idea of “one Person.” The burden of proof, in
this case, would certainly fall on the one claiming that “one God” means
“one Person” having the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude.

9
This task, though, is evidently unachievable when unitarianism, and not
the biblical data, is the basis of the semantic assumptions. As previously
mentioned, Bernard (1983: 290) equivocates on the idea of a
“unipersonal” God, yet he has no problem with the idea that God is
absolutely one, hence affirming unitarianism while at the same time
prevaricating on unipersonalism. First, it does not follow that because
God is personal He must be unipersonal.
Second, though it is true that there are some Hebrew Old Testament
terms meaning “one” that can indicate absolute solitude or a single one,
it is untrue that every term that can mean “one” carries this same
meaning or emphasis. Morey (1996: 87) indicates that there are nine
words in biblical Hebrew that can mean “one” (ish, ishah, nephesh,
yachiyd, almoni, echad, gam, badad, chad). This is particularly true
regarding the key term for “one” when it is applied to God. The word
exclusively applied to God to denote that He is “one” is echad (viz.,
Deut. 6:4). What Oneness Pentecostals should consider is that the
Hebrew term echad can have the meaning of complex or compound
oneness or unity (e.g., Gen 2:24; 11:6; Exod. 26:6, 11; Swanson, 1997:
entry 285).
Note the use of the term “compound” or “composite” throughout
this dissertation in the sense of unity oneness, which is in contrast to
absolute solitary oneness. Though the terms “compound” and
“composite” can indeed denote “parts of a whole,” this definition is
inadequate in describing the multi-personal nature of God. For the
Persons of the Trinity are not parts or divisions of the one Being.
One cannot quantify or divide God into parts, for each Person exists
as fully God (cf. Col. 2:9; Tsoukalas, 1999: 222-24).
Thus, the Lord is one, that is, one Being. Nevertheless, what is
theologically significant is the fact that though echad can mean both
compound unity and solitary “one” or “alone,” the Hebrew word that
solely denotes absolute solitary “one” or “alone” is yachiyd (Brown et
al, 1979; cf. Judg. 11:34; Ps. 68:6). Dissimilar to echad and other
Hebrew terms meaning “one,” yachiyd carries the limited meaning of
solitary “one” or “alone.” If the biblical authors were unitarian,
envisaging Yahweh as one sole Person, as Oneness teachers propose,
one would expect to see the term yachiyd used of Him. But it is never
applied to God in the Old Testament, which uses echad exclusively.
Another monotheistic group, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, argue that
there is only one true God, the Father (Jehovah) and Jesus (“a god”)
being the “first of Jehovah’s works”—a created angel (Watchtower,
10
1989b: 16). Thus, along with Oneness believers, they assume a
conclusion: monotheism equals unipersonalism. This is a very
important point when dealing with Oneness theology. Biblical
monotheism must be set forth accurately and according to the biblical
presentation laid out by the biblical authors. Historically, in the face of
the polytheistic and gnostic ideologies which were being widely
promulgated, the Christian church systematically refuted such views
and persistently taught that there was only one true God ontologically
who alone is eternal. What is not well thought-out by unitarian groups
is that the very foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is ontological
monotheism: there exist three distinct, coequal, coeternal, and
coexistent Persons or Selves that share the nature of the one God.
Even so, against such language, Oneness teachers such as Bernard
(1983) assert that the doctrine of the Trinity departs from monotheism.
This contention, though, is due to their gross misapprehension of the
doctrine, namely, that monotheism and unitarianism/ unipersonalism
are interchangeable. Various Oneness teachers see the doctrine of the
Trinity as teaching or implying three separate Gods. Reeves (1962: 51-
52), for example, argues that a literal plurality of Persons would in effect
“be a belief in a plurality of Gods” (cf. Bernard, 1983: 290). In contrast
to this anti-Trinitarian straw man argument, absolute ontological
monotheism is the doctrinal bedrock of the Trinity.
The triune nature of God consists of the three distinct Persons, not
three separate Gods or Beings. A radical and incorrect view of biblical
monotheism and a theological misunderstanding of the tri-unity of God
was the very basis upon which Modalism first emerged historically.

2.3 ROOTED IN MONARCHIANISM

To achieve a correct theological cognition of Oneness theology, an

adequate familiarity with some of the more significant technical terms
is imperative. Historically, Oneness theology was first known as
Monarchianism, which comes from the Greek word monarchia meaning
single principle. In Chapter 5, there will be an expanded treatment of
the historical particulars of Modalism, but here a general summary will
suffice.
There were two forms of Monarchianism: modalistic, and the far
less accepted, dynamic (or more properly called Adoptionism), both of
which emerged at the end of the second century. Dynamic
11
Monarchianism taught that Jesus became “divinely inspired” at His
baptism to do miracles, but without actually becoming deified. In this
view, God merely “adopted” Jesus as His Son; hence this view was
known as Adoptionism. The early Christian church quickly refuted and
debunked this Christological heresy, which clearly denied the deity and
eternality of Jesus Christ. Because of this fundamental denial of the full
deity of Christ, dynamic Monarchianism never really gained widespread
status or acceptance and eventually faded out. On the other side of the
spectrum was modalistic Monarchianism, known also as Modalism, or
Sabellianism. Sabellianism took its name from the Libyan priest
Sabellius who came to Rome and promulgated Modalism at the
beginning of the third century A.D. (cf. Kelly 1978: 121).
It was also known as Patripassianism, which in Latin means “father
to suffer”. Because the basic premise of Modalism held to the idea that
Jesus was the Father, some early church fathers, for example
Hippolytus, envisaged this doctrine as teaching that the Father suffered
on the cross. Speaking of the first known modalist, Noetus of Smyrna
(c. A.D. 190), Hippolytus (Against Noetus 2, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 5:224) writes: “They [the modalists] answer in this manner:
“If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself,
if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and
consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself.”
As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, there were (and still
are) two forms of Modalism: successive (or developmental) and
simultaneous (or static). Successive Modalism teaches that the modes
were successive: starting with the mode of the Father in creation; then,
the Son for the task of redemption; and after, the Holy Spirit for
regeneration. Sabellius held unambiguously to successive Modalism
(cf. Schaff, 2006, vol. 2: 11:262), whereas simultaneous Modalism
teaches that the modes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist
simultaneously (using passages such as Matt. 3:16-17 as a so-called
proof text). Most Oneness groups today teach a form of simultaneous
Modalism (see UPCI, 2008b). Today, however, “Oneness
Pentecostalism” or simply “Oneness theology” describes the modalistic
belief.
Modalism earned its name from its distinctive theology. In general,
Modalism, that is, Oneness theology, teaches that God exists as a
unitarian, that is, a unipersonal, indivisible monad (Reymond, 1998:
597). Thus, the titles “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” merely
represent the different “modes” (or roles or offices) that God temporally
12
manifested for the sake of redemption (Bernard, 1983: 106). Oneness
teachers maintain that “Jesus” is the name of this unitarian/unipersonal
deity.
Since Oneness theology sees Jesus as the only real Person in the
Godhead, it asserts that Jesus has two natures, divine and human.
However, these two natures of Christ do not represent two natures of
the one Person, as defined in Scripture (John 1:14; 1 Cor. 2:8; Phil. 2:6-
11), but rather the divine nature represents the Father and the Holy Spirit
and the human nature represents the Son—namely, the humanity of
Jesus. Oneness theology flatly rejects unipersonality of Jesus Christ,
since they see Jesus as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In addition,
Oneness theology does not regard the Holy Spirit as a Person, but rather,
as with the Father, a mere manifestation or mode of Jesus’ divine nature
(cf. UPCI, 2008b). “The Holy Spirit,” Bernard explains (1983: 128), “is
another term for the one God.” There will be a further examination of
the Oneness position regarding the Holy Spirit in Chapter 3.
In studying the ancient heresy of Modalism and its relationship to
modern Oneness Pentecostalism, knowledge of its doctrinal origins is
vital. Precisely, Modalism emerged at the end of the second century.
Noetus of Smyrna (c. A.D. 190) was the first known modalist to allege,
“Christ was the Father Himself” (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:223-31). Additional leaders of the
movement included Praxeas (according to Tertullian), and shortly after,
the Libyan priest Sabellius. In spite of many Oneness teachers and
advocates throughout the years differing on many tangential doctrines,
one theological point is firmly agreed upon by all Oneness believers
historically and presently: God is unipersonal and has not revealed
Himself in three distinct, coequal, coeternal, coexistent Persons or
Selves. One cannot read the writings of church fathers such as
Hippolytus, Tertullian, Novatian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius
of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius and not see the magnitude
of importance they held for the doctrine of the Trinity and their utter
disdain for the heretical teachings of Modalism, for Modalism, as the
early Christian church universally recognized, denied the Son as eternal
God.
The early church fathers valued Scripture and they were passionate
and explicit in proclaiming the nature of God. When a false teaching
emerged that attacked any portion of essential Christian doctrine, they
polemically and vigorously refuted those promulgating such teachings.
Holy Scripture was their sole infallible ultimate rule of faith. It
13
instructed them to refute publicly those who opposed sound doctrine
(Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim. 5:20; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1). Accordingly, in loving
obedience to God’s infallible Word, they defended indefatigably the
biblical presentation of the two-natured Person, God the Son, Jesus
Christ. Oneness theology redefines the Person of the “Son,” Jesus
Christ. Observably, in order to make Oneness theology appear to be the
doctrinal norm of the early church, Oneness writers (Chalfant, 1979;
Bernard, 1991) greatly misuse and revise historical information
regarding church history. Commonly, Oneness writers quote early
church fathers selectively and out of historical context, which we will
factually demonstrate in Chapter 5.

2.3.1 The Re-emergence of Modalism

Shortly after the Christian church condemned Sabellius as a heretic

(Kelly, 1978: 121), Modalism generally died off, at least until Emanuel
Swedenborg (1688-1772) had a “revelation” that Jesus was the one
Person behind the masks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whereas
early Modalism (Sabellius in particular) taught that the one Person
behind the three masks or modes was the Father, not Jesus.
Modern Oneness Pentecostalism, also known as “Jesus Only”
churches, with the UPCI being the largest Oneness domination, is a
development from early Pentecostalism (early 1900s) emerging out of
the Assemblies of God Church in 1914. From 1913 to 1916 several
Pentecostal leaders including R. E. McAlister, Frank J. Ewart, Glenn
Cook and Garfield T. Haywood (Ankerberg and Weldon, 1999: 367)
began teaching that the “correct” baptismal formula must be “in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ” and not “in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Beisner, 1998: 7). McAlister’s
baptismal formula message, based on Acts 2:38, greatly influenced a
preacher named John Scheppe. One night, in the midst of intense prayer,
Scheppe claimed that he had encountered a type of revelation or
mystical experience confirming the power of the name of Jesus. Certain
passages of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 17:8; John 10:30; Phil. 2:9-11; and
Col. 3:17) led Scheppe to adopt a modalistic view of the Godhead that—
contrary to Sabellius—made Jesus, not the Father, the one true God (cf.
Ankerberg and Weldon, 1999: 367).

14
2.3.2 Statistics and Figures

The UPCI’s official website (UPCI, 2016a) provides the following

statistics:

The UPCI has been among the fastest-growing church

organizations since it was formed in 1945 by the merger of
the Pentecostal Church Incorporated and the Pentecostal
Assemblies of Jesus Christ. From 521 churches in 1945, the
UPCI in the United States and Canada grew to 4,602 churches
(including daughter works and preaching points) and 9,746
ministers in 2015. In the same year it reported works in 212
nations and territories outside the U.S. and Canada with
35,739 churches and preaching points, 23,401 licensed
ministers, 886 missionaries, and a constituency of 2.7 million.
The international fellowship consists of national
organizations that are united as the Global Council of the
UPCI, which is chaired by the general superintendent of the
UPCI. Total constituency is estimated at 3 million.

Notwithstanding the fact that literally hundreds of non-UPCI Oneness

churches worldwide have divested themselves of the strict legalism of
the UPCI, these non-UPCI Oneness churches still retain the same
modalistic definition of God. The UPCI bogs down its members with
strict dress codes such as hair style requirements, abnormally stringent
behavior requirements, attendance requirements, rules for “correct”
worship, and the teaching that speaking in tongues is the only true sign
or evidence of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” etc (cf. Boyd,
1992).2
It is quite difficult, however, to ascertain an accurate count of all
Oneness believers worldwide. For non-UPCI Oneness churches have
various names and many are not concerned about nor retain membership
data. Thus, aside from the more than four million members of the UPCI,

2
Although Gregory Boyd has skillfully provided a pointed refutation against Oneness
Pentecostalism and has disarmed the liberal scholarship of the “Jesus Seminar” (e.g.,
Jesus Under Siege [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995]), this author is in full disagreement
with his views on “open theism” (cf. Gregory A, Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical
Introduction to the Open View of God [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000]). See Bruce A.
Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 2000), wherein Ware provides a blow-by-blow refutation against the hyper-
Arminian system of “open theism.”
15
and taking into account the numerous non-UPCI Oneness churches and
organizations internationally, it is reasonable to say that the total
number of Oneness believers could exceed 15 million. Some of the main
Oneness organizations are as follows: Higher Ground Always
Abounding Assemblies; Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God
(AOHCG); Assemblies of the Lord Jesus, Inc. (ALJI); Bible Way
Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ World Wide, Inc. (Bible Way); Church
of Our Lord Jesus of the Apostolic Faith (COLJF); Pentecostal
Assemblies of the World (PAW); Pentecostal Church of Apostolic Faith
(PCAF); United Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic) (UCJC-A); United
Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). Some of the key Oneness
publications are The Pentecostal Herald (UPCI); The Global Witness
(UPCI); The Bible Way News Voice (Bible Way); The People’s
Mouthpiece (AOHCG); The Contender for the Faith (COLJF);
Christian Outlook (PAW).
Some of the key Oneness educational institutions are: Berean
Christian Bible College, Birmingham, AL (AOHCG); Aenon Bible
School, Indianapolis, IN (PAW); Institute of Biblical Studies,
Baltimore, MD (UCJC); Apostolic Bible Institute, St. Paul, MN (UPCI);
Apostolic Missionary Institute, Oshawa, ON (UPCI); Christian Life
College, Stockton, CA (UPCI); Indiana Bible College, Seymour, IN
(UPCI); Texas Bible College, Houston, TX (UPCI). This would make
Oneness believers the largest anti-Trinitarian professing Christian group
in the world, exceeding that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon
Church.
The official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
(Watchtower, 2009) currently reports a membership of close to seven
million (6,957,854) “active” Jehovah’s Witnesses and a reported
attendance of seventeen million at the annual Memorial Attendance.
According to the official website, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints (LDS, 2009; i.e., the Mormon Church) boasts a worldwide
membership of more than thirteen million (13,193,999) with a full time
missionary force of over fifty-two thousand young Mormon
missionaries.
Additionally, there are many popular and prolific preachers on the
airwaves that hold to and/or propagate the Oneness view of God. For
example, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), which is the largest
Christian television network, consistently features one of the most
recognized Oneness preachers, T. D. Jakes of the Potters House (located
in Dallas, Texas; cf. section 2.7 below). Regrettably, we see the
16
resurrection of the ancient theological heresy of Sabellianism starting
with Swedenborg to the present.

2.4 ONENESS THEOLOGY DEFINED

The basic Oneness doctrinal syllogism is as follows:

➢ Premise 1: There is only one God, the Father (e.g., Mal. 2:10; 1
Cor. 8:6; cf. Bernard, 1983: 66, 126).
➢ Premise 2: Jesus is God (e.g., John 8:58; Titus 2:13).
➢ Conclusion: Jesus is the Father (and the Holy Spirit). Jesus has
two natures: divine as the Father/Holy Spirit and human as the
Son of God.

While this syllogism is a brief description of the modern Oneness view

of God, it serves, nonetheless, as an accurate representation. Bernard
(1983: 248, 252) clarifies the Oneness doctrine of God:

The modalistic doctrine is usually explained simply as the

belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only
manifestations, modes, of the one God (the monarchia), and
not three distinct persons (hypostases) … In summary,
modalistic Monarchianism can be defined as the belief that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are manifestations of the one God
with no distinctions of person [sic] being possible.
Furthermore, the one God is expressed fully in the person of
Jesus Christ.

The Oneness position is made clear: modalistic Monarchianism, that is,

Oneness theology, is unitarian in its doctrine of God, thus categorically
rejecting the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Fundamentally, Oneness
theology maintains that God has revealed Himself as three roles, modes,
manifestations, etc., and that the entire Godhead consists in one
Person—Jesus Christ (cf. Bernard, 1983:57).
In an official UPCI doctrinal tract entitled “60 Questions on the
Godhead with Bible answers” (UPCI, 2008c), question 11 asks, “Does
the Bible say that all the Godhead is revealed in one person? Yes, in
Jesus Christ. II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:19; 2:9; Hebrews 1:3.”

17
In the same tract, question 56 asks, “Can Trinitarians show that three
divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John?
Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous
manifestations. Only one divine person was present—Jesus Christ the
Lord.” Oneness teachers thus present a Jesus who while on earth had
two natures: divine, as the Father/Holy Spirit, and human, as the Son of
God (though not God the Son). Hence, all Oneness teachers and
believers unconditionally reject the biblical presentation of God
revealing Himself in three distinct Persons: “To say that God is three
persons and find substantiation for it in the Scripture is a work of futility.
There is literally nothing in the Bible that supports God being in three
persons” (Weisser, 1983: 2).

2.4.1 Oneness Semantics: “God-Man” = “Father-Son”

The definitions of Oneness doctrinal terms must be properly

distinguished in order that phrases such as “God,” “Father,” “Jesus is
God,” “Jesus is man,” etc. can be understood from a Oneness
theological point of view.
Without the apprehension of such distinctions, the task of
understanding the Oneness language becomes increasingly difficult.
Therefore, in the presentation that follows, by way of Oneness
definitions, when the term “Son” is used, it is referring to the human
nature of Jesus. Likewise, when the term “God” or “Father” (or “Holy
Spirit/Ghost”) is used, it is referring only to the divine nature of Jesus.
Notwithstanding the fact that virtually every non-Christian cult denies
in some way, shape, or form, the full deity of Jesus Christ, Oneness
theology happily affirms it. As a result, many unassuming Christians
see Oneness Pentecostalism as merely another “Christian”
denomination. However, we must scrutinize the so-called affirmation of
the deity of Jesus Christ made by Oneness advocates in light of Oneness
Christology. To recall, the Oneness theological position maintains a
modalistic idea of Jesus being both God the Father and the human Son.
It is only in this sense, then, that Oneness believers can affirm that Jesus
is God—namely, as the Father according to His divine nature.
Only in this sense can they affirm such things as Jesus preexisting,
being the Creator, the great “I am,” the Alpha Omega, the Yahweh of
the Old Testament, etc. However, none of these features can apply to
Jesus as the Son (cf. Bernard, 1983: 104). This point must be clear: in
18
Oneness theology, the Father represents Jesus’ divine nature while the
Son represents Jesus’ human non-divine nature. Hence, God is defined
from a unitarian perspective: only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus’ divine
nature; Bernard, 1983: 66, 126). So, the Oneness affirmation of the deity
of Christ is merely a semantic equivocation. Thus, the meaning of “Son
of God” in Oneness theology refers primarily to the humanity (viz., the
human nature) of Jesus, not to His deity. Bernard (1983: 99, 103)
explains that “the Son of God” may refer to

God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature ...

We can never use the term “Son” correctly apart from the
humanity of Jesus Christ ... The Son always refers to the
Incarnation and we cannot use it in the absence of the human
element ... The Son did not have preexistence before the
conception in the womb of Mary. The Son preexisted in
thought but not in substance.

That Jesus is God-man in Oneness dogma is the same as saying that

Jesus is “Father-Son” since they equate “God” with “Father” and “Son”
with Jesus’ humanity. Oneness teacher John Paterson (1966: 22)
explains: “When we say that Jesus is both God and Man, we mean that
He is both Father and Son.” Paterson (1966: 22) goes on to say:

As the Father, He is absolutely and PURELY God, as the Son,

He is absolutely and PURELY Man. When Jesus claims to be
God, it is with respect to His Essence as the Eternal Spirit, the
Father; and when He says, “My Father is greater than I” (John
14:28), it is with respect to His created nature as Man, the Son.

Following this line of thought, therefore, when Scripture speaks of Jesus

as God (e.g., John 8:24, 58; 20:28 Titus 2:13), it is Jesus merely
speaking in the role or mode of the Father—namely, Jesus’ divine
nature. When Scripture speaks of Jesus as man (e.g., when He stated, “I
thirst” or asked, “Who touched Me?”), it is Jesus speaking in the role or
mode of the Son—namely, His human nature. Therefore, when reading
the New Testament, Oneness believers must determine in which role or
mode Jesus is speaking—the “Father,” or the human “Son,” or the “Holy
Spirit.”
“Sometimes it is easy to get confused,” says Bernard (1983: 88),
“when the Bible describes Jesus in these two different roles, especially
when it describes Him acting in both roles [divine and human] in the
19
same story … He could speak as man [i.e., the Son] one moment and
then as God [i.e., the Father] the next moment.” What is clear is that the
Oneness position denies the unipersonality of Jesus Christ. Yet, to
maintain the unipersonality of God, the Oneness position “implies that
Jesus was two persons [Father and Son] enabling each to talk to the
other” (Beisner, 1998: 16-17).

2.4.2 Denial of the Incarnation

The historical doctrine and biblical presentation of the incarnation of the

Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ, is the very essence of the gospel. It defines
the Savior’s mission: God the Son becoming flesh (cf. John 1:14).
Scripture clearly presents that the Son voluntarily became the very
nature (morphē) of a human (cf. Phil. 2:6ff.; both John 1:14 and Phil.
2:6ff. will be exegetically treated in Chapter 4). In vivid contrast to the
biblical/historical view, Oneness teaching denies the incarnation of the
Person of the Son. Biblically, the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ is
exegetically affirmed in such passages as, for example, John 1:1-14;
3:13; Philippians 2:6-11; and 1 Corinthians 2:8. Historically, the early
church fathers clearly spoke of the Son (or, in the apostolic fathers, the
eternal Word) becoming flesh. In addition, important early ecumenical
councils and creeds (e.g., Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc.) clearly affirmed
the biblical data regarding the incarnation of God the Son. We will
provide a most detailed examination of the early church regarding both
the development of the Trinity and Oneness theology in Chapter 5.
Assuming that God is unipersonal (existing solely as the Father),
the Oneness position rejects the preexistence of the Son, hence arguing
that it was the Father, “for the purpose of redemption” (Bernard, 1983:
106, 122), that came down and wrapped Himself in human flesh
(though, not actually becoming flesh; cf. Bernard, 1991:103). Thus,
Oneness theology denies and convolutes the biblical doctrine of the
Incarnation, which teaches that God the Son (cf. John 1:1c) “became”
flesh (egeneto from ginomai, thus, not put on or wrapped in, but actually
became).

2.4.3 Denial of the Personal Distinctions within the Godhead

As many Christian theologians have pointed out (e.g., Morey, 1996;
White, 1998, Beisner, 1998), significant Christological doctrines such
20
as the divine Son’s role as Mediator, Intercessor, and Redeemer are
reduced to a mere charade in Oneness theology. Insurmountable
theological problems become apparent when there is a denial of the
personal distinctions within the Trinity. For example, if Jesus is not a
distinct Person from the Father, between whom does He mediate? For
whom does He intercede? To whom did He propitiate? Even Bernard
(1983: 186) admits, “Many verses of Scripture distinguish between the
Father and the Son in power, greatness, and knowledge.” He then
argues:

It is a great mistake to use them to show two persons in the

Godhead. If a distinction exists between Father and Son as
persons in the Godhead, then the Son is subordinate or inferior
to the Father in deity. This would mean the Son is not fully
God, because by definition God is subject to no one ... The
way to understand these verses is to view them as
distinguishing the divinity of Jesus (the Father) from the
humanity of Jesus (the Son). The humanity or Sonship role of
Christ is subordinate to his deity (emphasis added).

First, to say, “If a distinction exists ... then the Son is subordinate or
inferior to the Father in deity,” begs the question. Bernard assumes his
conclusion (distinction = ontological inferiority) that he has not yet
proven. He also confuses the terms “subordinate” and “inferior”,
imposing a meaning of ontological inferiority on account of his pre-
committed theology. It is consistent with Trinitarian theology that the
Son’s subordination or subjection to the Father was a functional and not
an ontological aspect of His position (cf. Phil. 2:6-11). However, the
term “subjection” (or “submission, obedience,” etc.) is from the Greek
word hupotassō, literally, “to be under [the] organization” or
“arrangement” (hupo + tassō; cf. Bauer, 2000: 1042). Hence, it does not
necessitate ontological superiority or subjection. While the Son is
biblically presented as being ontologically coequal with the Father (cf.
John 1:1c; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:3), He is presented also as being
functionally (positionally) subordinate or subject to Him. That the Son
was “subjected” to the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) does not indicate that
He was less than or not equal to Him in terms of nature or essence.
In the same way, that wives are called to be hupotassō to their
husbands (e.g., Eph. 5:21-24; 1 Pet. 3:1) or that the husband is said to
be “the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23) does not indicate that wives are
less than or not equal to their husbands in terms of nature or essence,
21
but only by way of position. In Luke 2:51, we read that Jesus “continued
to be in subjection [hupotassomenos] to them” (i.e., His parents). This
certainly does not mean that the Son was inferior by nature to Mary and
Joseph, only that He continually obeyed them.
Here, the present tense passive participle of hupotassō is used
(hupotassomenos), which indicates that His subjection was voluntary
and continuous. In the same doctrinal vein, when Jesus said, “the Father
is greater than I” (John 14:28), it must be realized that the term
translated “greatest” (meizōn, from megas) denotes position or
function—not nature (cf. Bauer, 2000: 624; see John 14:12). In fact, no
standard lexicon offers a meaning of qualitative or ontological
superiority for the term megas. If the Son wished to communicate that
the Father was ontologically superior than He, He certainly could have
used the term kreittōn (“better”/”stronger”) to accomplish this. For this
term can indeed denote ontological superiority (e.g., Heb. 1:4: the Son
is “much better [kreittōn] than the angels”; see also Phil. 1:23; cf. Bauer,
2000: 566).
Further, there is no such passage indicating that the Son was
ontologically subordinate or subject to His Father, unless, of course, one
reads into those terms that meaning. Quite the opposite, Scripture is
replete with lucid examples of the Son’s coequality with the Father (e.g.,
John 1:1c; 5:18-24; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; Rev. 5:13-14).
Second, to say that “the Son was not fully God, because by
definition God is subject to no one,” ignores the fact that (a) as indicated,
the Son was functionally, not ontologically, subordinate to the Father,
(b) Scripture presents that the “Son” was fully God and not a part of
God (e.g., John 1:1c; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3, 8), and
(c) the Holy Spirit, who in Oneness theology was fully God, was subject
to both the Father and the Son in that He glorified the Son and obeyed
both the Father and the Son (e.g., John 15:26; 16:13-15).
The personal and intimate interaction between the Father and the
Son, as with Jesus’ prayers to Him, which obviously denote their
distinction, Oneness theology unnaturally explains away as not an
exchange between two Persons, but merely as an interaction between
the divine and human natures of Jesus (cf. Bernard, 1983: 176-82). In
other words, when Jesus prays to the Father, Jesus’ human nature (the
“Son”) is actually praying to His own divine nature (the “Father”); that
is, Jesus talks and interacts with Himself! This position implies that
Jesus spent much of His time on earth giving nothing more than a divine
monologue to His hearers. The great weakness of this notion, however,
22
is that natures do not love or interact with each other; only persons, that
is, self-aware subjects, do.

2.4.4 Denial of the Preexistence of the Son

Oneness theology has established that God exists strictly as one

Person—the Father. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the Son did
not exist before Bethlehem as a distinct (from His Father) conscious
self-aware Subject or Person. Hence, Oneness doctrine flatly denies that
the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ, preexisted. It rejects any idea of the
Son being the actual Agent of creation. Bernard is so convinced of this
premise that he claims (1983: 104-5):

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child

conceived in the womb of Mary ... Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals
that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in
time and that the Son had a beginning in time ... It is easy to
see that the Son is not eternal, but was begotten by God almost
2000 years ago.

In contrast to Bernard’s observations, the New Testament presents the

Son as a distinct Person from the Father and as the Agent of creation
(e.g., John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10); this will be
exegetically demonstrated in Chapter 4. Although the plain exegesis of
the passages mentioned above (esp. Col. 1:16-17) clearly present the
Son as the Creator, hence preexisting, Oneness theology holds to the
position that the Son was merely a “thought” or plan in the mind of the
Father (Bernard, 1983: 183).
When faced with passages that specifically speak of the Son
preexisting, including the numerous passages that speak of the Son as
the Agent of creation (esp. Col. 1:16-17), Oneness teachers claim all
these passages are speaking with the Son in view and not in Person.
Bernard (1983: 183) reasons that “The plan of the future Sonship existed
with God [the Father] from the beginning—an idea in the mind of God.”
Weisser (1983: 35) goes so far as to say that the Word in John 1:1
was merely a “concept in the Father’s mind.” According to this
philosophy, passages such as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, which
plainly teach that the Son was the Creator, are really teaching that the
Father created “all things” with the Son merely in view—a coming
attraction. What militates against such a view, however, is that
23
historically the book of Colossians was a pointed refutation of the
heresy of Gnosticism, which taught that Jesus did not create “all things”
or anything for that matter. The term “Gnosticism” (from gnōsis,
“knowledge”) is used here broadly to describe the various first and
second century sects who shared the same basic doctrinal
characteristics: spirit versus matter. Because formal Gnosticism had not
yet developed, some critics attack the Pauline authorship of Colossians
(e.g., Brown, 1997). It was not, however, the fully developed system
that Paul (and John in 1 and 2 John) addressed, but rather Paul grappled
with the main theological predilections of Gnostic philosophy, which
was wide-ranging in the first century. Despite the philosophical
dissimilarities, all Gnostics at least shared one common thread: spirit
was good and matter was inherently evil.
This system was later described as “Docetism” (from dokein, “to
seem,” which Serapion of Antioch [c. A.D. 200] first expressed; Maier,
1999: 216). Generally, however, both Gnosticism and Docetism held to
the spirit versus matter dualistic system. So accordingly, they did not
believe that Jesus (a good god or “aeon,” cf. Cerinthus; see Maier, 1999:
146) would ever become flesh. The mere thought of Jesus becoming and
remaining in human flesh (cf. 1 John 4:2-3 as discussed below) was
utterly repugnant to them.
Asserting a modalistic interpretation into Colossians 1:16-17 (and
2:9) fails to properly understand the historical background of Colossians
making Paul’s anti-Gnostic polemic entirely vacuous. The presentation
of the Son as the actual Creator of “all things” in verses 16-17 is
exegetically undeniable. Conclusively then, the exegetical presentation
of the preexistence of the Son and His role as the Agent of creation
demolishes Oneness theology. Because of the theological significance
of the preexistence of the Son, Chapter 4 is entirely devoted to it.

2.4.5 Denial of the Perpetuity of the Son

Assuming that Jesus’ role of Sonship had a beginning, Oneness teachers

postulate the notion that the Sonship will have an ending. In his most
popular Oneness book, under the title “The Ending of the Sonship,”
Bernard (1983: 106) explains,

Not only did the Sonship have a beginning, but it will, in at

least one sense, have an ending. This is evident from 1
24
 Corinthians 15:23-28 ... This verse of Scripture is impossible
to explain if one thinks of a ‘God the Son’ who is co-equal
and co-eternal with God the Father. But it is easily explained
if we realize that ‘Son of God’ refers to a specific role that
God temporarily assumed for the purpose of redemption.
When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God (Jesus)
will cease acting in His role as Son, and the Sonship will be
submerged back into the greatness of God, who will return to
His original role as Father, Creator, and Ruler of all (emphasis
added).

The denial of the preexistence of the Son and the assertion that the
Sonship will come to an end attacks the very essence of the Person of
Jesus Christ and thus, the heart of Christianity. Using nearly identical
language to the statement made by the heretic Arius of Alexandria (A.D.
318), Bernard (1983: 105) claims, “There was a time when the Son did
not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence.” Denying
the full deity of the Son, the heretic Arius assertively proclaimed: Ēn
pote hote ouk ēn (“There was [a time] when He [the Son] was not).”
Bernard’s concept here is very different from the belief of the early
Christians who condemned Arius for his belief.
In point of fact, those denying in any way, shape, or form that Jesus,
the Son of God, is eternal are guaranteed by Christ Himself that they
will perish in their sins: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your
sins; for unless you believe that I am He [egō eimi], you will die in your
sins” (John 8:24). The full force of Jesus’ assertion here is striking: Ean
gar mē pisteusēte hoti egō eimi apothaneisthe en tais hamartiais humōn,
literally, “For if you should not believe that I am you will perish in your
sins”). This passage is an absolute “I am” claim—i.e., there is no
supplied predicate (cf. Reymond, 1998: 231-32; White, 1998: 96-100;
Tsoukalas, 1999: 21-22). Jesus here clearly asserts that salvation rests
on believing that He (as the Person of the Son; cf. vv. 16-18, 27) is the
eternal God. In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes seven “absolute” (i.e.,
no supplied predicate) egō eimi (“I am”) declarations: John 8:24; 8:28;
8:58; 13:19; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8 (also cf. Mark 6:50).
When Jesus claimed to be the egō eimi, He was essentially claiming
to be Yahweh. Hence, the Jews wanted to stone Him for, as they saw it,
a most blasphemous claim (cf. John 8:58-59). The Hebrew phrase, ani
hu, which was translated egō eimi in the LXX, was an exclusive and
recurring title for Yahweh (cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; etc.).

25
Thus, salvation is conditioned (ean) on believing that the Person of the
Son, Jesus Christ, is the eternal God, Yahweh (cf. Rom. 10:9, 13). The
Oneness teaching that the Sonship of Jesus will expire, that is, cease to
be, is a theological error that severely challenges the apostles’
presentation of the unipersonality, deity, and eternality of the Son.
Indeed, the deity and eternality of the Son is plainly and exegetically
shown in such passages as John 1:1-3, 18; 8:24, 58; 17:5; Colossians
1:16-17; 2:9; Philippians 2:6-11; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 8, 10-12; 2
Peter 1:1; and Revelation 1:8; 5:13-14; 22:13.
Also note, the Oneness idea of the Sonship ceasing indicates that
the humanity of Christ will cease, since Oneness theology teaches that
the Sonship is a specific reference to the humanity and not the deity of
Jesus (Paterson, 1966: 22; Bernard, 1983: 99, 103). The Oneness notion
seriously conflicts with the very heart of the apostolic teaching. For
according to the Apostle John, the key ultimate test for Christian
orthodoxy is the acknowledgment of the perpetual state of Jesus Christ
as God-man—namely, Jesus remaining in the flesh.
In 1 and 2 John, John provides a sharp refutation against the flesh-
denying Gnostics (viz., Cerinthus, as mentioned above). This is
especially seen in 1 John 4:1-3: “By this you know the Spirit of God:
every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God”
(v. 2). The verb elēluthota is the perfect active participle of erchomai
(“to come”).
The import of the perfect tense is a completed action in the past
with continuous effects; it denotes a “present state resulting from a past
action” (Greenly, 1986: 50; cf. Mounce, 1993: 218-19). Therefore, verse
2 is cogently stating, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come
and remains in the flesh is from God.” Jesus Christ, God the Son,
became and now remains in the flesh (see also 2 John 7). John’s first
and second epistles, as with Paul’s letter to the Colossians, served as a
pointed refutation against the Docetic Gnostics who denied that Jesus
became and remains in the flesh.
In the same way, Oneness theology denies that the “Son” became
flesh and continues to remain in the flesh. Paul was clear: “For in Him
all the fullness of Deity continuously dwells in human flesh” (Col. 2:9;
trans. mine). As further expounded in Chapter 3, the word katoikei
(“dwells”) is a present active indicative form of katoikeō.” The present
tense indicates that the fullness of absolute Deity (theotētos)
permanently and continuously dwells in “bodily form” (sōmatikōs)—
thus contradicting further any idea of a cessation of the Son.
26
In support of the idea of a cessation of the Sonship, Oneness teachers
(e.g., Bernard, 1983: 106-7) typically appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28
(cf. 2.4.3 above). However, when we carefully analyze this text, it does
not teach what Oneness teachers assume. It is a categorical fallacy to
argue that 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 teaches that the Sonship of Jesus
Christ will be terminated, for such an argument confuses Jesus’ earthly
position as a humble man with His essential nature as God. The only
thing that will end is His earthly Messianic kingdom, not His Sonship
or Person (Reymond, 1998: 1011, 1028). The Oneness interpretation of
1 Corinthians 15:23-28 is a typical example of Oneness eisegesis.
Nowhere in this text, including the term translated “until” (achri; 1 Cor.
15:25), does it specifically state that Jesus’ position as Son will end—
that is an assumed Oneness conclusion, not an exegetical confirmation.
As mentioned, the only thing that will end is His earthly Messianic
kingdom.
Thus, Oneness teachers assume their conclusion without first
proving it from the text. Scripture positively affirms that the Person of
the Son, thus, the Sonship of Jesus Christ, will eternally remain:

➢ In Daniel 7:9-14, the Son of Man “was given [by the “Ancient
of Days,” viz., God the Father] dominion, glory, and a kingdom,
that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might
serve [“worship”] Him. His [the Son of Man’s] dominion is an
everlasting dominion, which will not pass away ...” (emphasis
added).

➢ It is to the “Son” that the Father can say, “Your throne,

O God, [ho theos] is forever and ever ... You are the
same, and Your years will not come to an end” (Heb. 1:8,
12; emphasis added). As noted, here the Father Himself
says that the Son’s “years will not come to an end.”

➢ Revelation 3:21 presents the “Son” as sitting on His own

throne (distinct from the Father’s throne).

➢ Revelation 5:13-14 presents two distinct divine objects of

religious worship: “To Him [the Father] who sits on the throne
and to the Lamb [the Son], be blessing and honor and glory and
dominion forever and ever.”
27
The foundation of the Oneness assertion that the Sonship will end is not
on the biblical exegesis of the passages offered, but on the assumed
conclusion that God is a modalistic, unipersonal deity that will cast
away His so-called “role” as Son. This is asserted in the face of the clear
language of the text, which militates against such a concept: “Your [the
Son’s] years will not come to an end.”
The biblical data presents the Son as ho theos (“the God”), the
second Person of the Holy Trinity (e.g., John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet.
1:1; Heb. 1:8; etc.). He will continue to be the Son forever, His “years
will not come to an end ... He is the same yesterday and today and
forever” (Heb. 1:12; 13:8). His “dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which will not pass away ...” (Dan. 7:14).

2.5 TEXT MINUS CONTEXT EQUALS PRETEXT

Oneness theology builds its theological framework on the philosophical

supposition that monotheism equals unipersonalism. For that reason, the
modalistic arguments put forward by Oneness advocates lack
meaningful and coherent exegetical interaction. For example, the
modalistic interpretations of such passages as Matthew 28:19, John
10:30 and Colossians 2:9, which will be exegetically treated in
subsequent chapters, clearly show that Oneness teachers are willing to
sacrifice the clear exegesis of the text for the sake of their pre-committed
theology. Only by ignoring and/or evading the normal rules of biblical
hermeneutics and exegesis can Oneness teachers make biblical passages
teach Oneness doctrine. Every false doctrine starts with a faulty
hermeneutic and/or exegesis. Hermeneutics (from hermēneia,
“interpretation”; cf. 1 Cor. 12:10), when applied to the area of biblical
theology, refers to the means whereby particular, objective principles of
interpretation are applied to the text so as to understand the biblical
authors’ meaning correctly.
The orthodox hermeneutic is the Grammatico-Historical Method,
consisting of 1) grammatico-syntactical considerations (i.e., the original
meaning of words and the syntactical structure must be studied), 2)
historico-cultural considerations, (i.e., the understanding of the
historical setting in which particular books were written), 3) contextual
considerations, (i.e., recognizing the natural context, thus avoiding a
pretext, for context always determines the meaning of the passages) and

28
4) theological considerations, (i.e., Scripture should always interpret
Scripture).
Hence, one should always observe in Scripture what the Reformers
called the analogia fidei (“analogy of faith”; Sproul, 1977: 46-48). This
principle maintains that there exist no contradictions in the Bible.
Theology does not determine doctrine, but rather it is the exegesis of the
text that establishes the plain intended meaning of the author. Exegesis
shows respect for the text and, by extension, for its author; eisegesis,
even when based upon ignorance, shows disrespect for the text and its
author (White, 2004: 81). Exegesis is the skill of “drawing out” the
intended meaning of the authors, utilizing the objective principles or
rules of hermeneutics.
Thus, exegesis is the application of the rules of hermeneutics. An
excellent example denoting the import of the term is in John 1:18, where
we read that Jesus “reveals” or explains (exēgēsato) the Father. Never
are Christians to engage in eisegesis (i.e., to “read into” the text a priori
assumptions). The rules of exegesis exist to protect the text from
misinterpretations (White, 2004: 82). The Christian must come to the
Bible with the supposition that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant
Word of God, hence, the starting point of all theological assertions.
Additionally, context plays a vital and significant part in correctly
interpreting the biblical text. One can wrench any passage of Scripture
out of its natural context, inevitably imposing a foreign meaning onto
the text, and thus postulate it as “biblical truth” (especially by non-
Christian cults).
For example, consider the way Mormons misinterpret passages
such as John 10:34 and 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 in order to teach both their
distinctive doctrines of exaltation (i.e., men becoming Gods) and
polytheism/henotheism (i.e., the existence of many “true Gods”; cf.
Smith, 1976: 370). Alternatively, consider the way Jehovah’s Witnesses
purposely mistranslate the singular present indicative eimi, “am” in John
8:58. This translation (New World Translation, 1984) renders the phrase
egō eimi as a past action, “I have been” (as if Jesus was claiming to be
very old), rather than the appropriate rendering of the present indicative,
“[I] am” (un-predicated; Wallace 1996: 530; cf. Reymond, 1998: 231).
In fact, since the inception of the New World Translation in 1950,
the Jehovah’s Witnesses have proposed several reasons as to why Jesus’
egō eimi affirmation was not a claim to deity. One such reason was to
view eimi as a perfect indefinite tense. In the 1950 edition of the New
World Translation, there is footnote at John 8:58 explaining the “‘I have
29
been,’ egō eimi ... properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense [‘I
have been’]. It is not the same as ho ōn (meaning ‘The Being’ or ‘The I
Am’) at Exodus 3:14, LXX” (also cf. Watchtower, 1985: 451). This may
sound legitimate to the grammatically unschooled in the area of biblical
languages; however, any first year student of biblical Greek knows that
there is no such tense in biblical Greek as a “perfect indefinite.”
The egō eimi affirmations of Christ do not exist in solitude nor are
they detached from the context in which they appear. There is a
progressive contextual pattern of all absolute egō eimi affirmations. This
progression is noted by 1) the non-response of the Jews in John 8:24 and
28; 2) the immediate response of the Jews in John 8:58 (understanding
now as to what Jesus was actually claiming); 3) Jesus’ prophecy in John
13:19 to His disciples in which the fulfillment was well observed in John
18:5, 6, and 8) the full impact of Jesus’ affirmation of deity here caused
the Roman guards to fall back.
Therefore, the theological import of Jesus’ egō eimi affirmations
and the evolution (progression) in understanding by both friends and
enemies as to what Jesus was actually claiming must be evaluated in
view of all egō eimi affirmations throughout His life and not merely
John 8:58.
Thus, an indispensable and foremost component of proper
interpretation is context, literary context at the proximate level and at
the level of the document as a whole, and also the (historical) context of
the author (cf. White, 2004: 86-87). A text without a context is a pretext
and a pretext always leads to a flawed interpretation. This is true in
establishing the “intended” meaning of any author. The modalistic
teachings and interpretations which Oneness teachers impose upon
various passages (such as Matthew 28:19; John 1:1, 10:30; 14:9;
Hebrews 5:5; etc.) are blatant examples of eisegesis. Rather than
allowing the text to speak for itself, thus engaging in right and proper
exegesis, Oneness teachers start with a unitarian assumption from which
their theological assertions flow.
Aside from a defective hermeneutic applied to the text of Scripture,
it will be revealed in Chapter 5 that Oneness writers (especially
Chalfant, 1979; Magee, 1988; Bernard, 1991) typically ignore, distort
and/or revise the context in which the early church fathers wrote.
Chalfant (1979: 116-17) asserts that no apostle of Jesus Christ ever
taught the Trinity nor did the immediate disciples of the apostles (e.g.,
Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Polycarp) teach it. Likewise, Bernard

30
(1983: 236) contends that the “early Christian leaders in the days
immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness.”
Even more, Bernard (1983: 236) claims that Bishop Irenaeus of
Lyons (c. A.D. 180) was Oneness in spite of his unambiguous
Trinitarian affirmations. For example, in one of his commentaries on
John 1:1, Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV:20, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 1:488) states that “the Word, namely the Son, was always
with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present
with Him.” Later, in Chapter 5, we will show that the early Christians’
understanding of God was poles apart from the Oneness allegation that
the early Christians held to a modalistic concept of God. The early
church, as Kelly (1978: 88) observes, envisaged a plurality of divine
Persons.

2.6 INCONGRUITIES AMONG ONENESS TEACHERS

Oneness Pentecostals pride themselves on the notion that they alone
unwaveringly follow the “apostolic teachings” (UPCI, 2008b).
However, the phrase “apostolic teaching” has become a meaningless
slogan. Many non-Christian cults claim to follow the teachings of the
biblical apostles (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.). Merely
claiming to follow the teachings of the apostles, though, does not ensure
an accurate representation of those teachings. Following the apostolic
example requires following the apostolic meaning. In order to reflect
accurately the teachings set forth by the New Testament apostles, one
must engage in a careful and proper exegetical interaction with the text.
Interestingly, not all Oneness teachers agree as to what the
“apostolic teachings” are on particular passages and significant
doctrines. For instance, the Oneness Pentecostal strict baptismal
formula (“in the name of Jesus” only) is not verbalized in the exact same
way among Oneness churches and teachers. Because Oneness teachers
incorrectly and carelessly handle the book of Acts disregarding the
context and grammar of particular passages (esp. Acts 2:38), variations
of the so-called baptismal formula have been proposed (this important
point is elaborated in the next chapter).
If the Oneness position of a strict baptismal formula is correct, then,
which exact formula is the correct one: “on [epi + dative] the name of
Jesus Christ” (2:38); “into [eis + accusative] the name of the Lord
Jesus” (8:16; 19:5); or “in [en + dative] the name of Jesus Christ”
(10:48)? As highlighted in Chapter 3, the main weaknesses of the
31
Oneness position regarding the so-called baptismal “name of Jesus
only” formula as well as baptismal regeneration (both held primarily by
the UPCI) are (a) a confusion between narrative and didactic literature
and (b) an assumption that the phrase “in the name of Jesus” (or any of
its variations) was an actual “verbal” formula.
There is a lack of unanimity between two prolific Oneness writers,
Bernard and Sabin, regarding the interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11.
Bernard (1983: 220-24) interprets the Carmen Christi as referring to the
Father who supposedly emptied Himself, whereas popular Oneness
writer and speaker Robert Sabin interprets it as speaking of Jesus’
earthly life (cf. Boyd, 1992: 106-7). Furthermore, Oneness theologians
disagree on the Apostle John’s identification of the Logos in John 1:1.
Paterson (1966: 29) and Graves (1977: 35), for example, identify the
Logos as the Father Himself.
In contrast, Bernard (1985: 22) sees the Logos as a non-personal
“unexpressed thought or plan in the mind of God” (i.e., the Father).
Bernard also states (1983: 103) that the Logos “had pre-existence and
the Word was God (the Father), so we can use it without reference to
humanity ... The Bible calls this foreordained plan the Word (John 1:1,
14).” Weisser (1983: 35) agrees with Bernard that the Logos was merely
a thought or a “concept in the Father’s mind.” The identification of the
Logos in the prologue of John is theologically significant. To distort the
identification of the Person of the Logos in John 1:1 is a fundamental
error. Yet Oneness theologians have different views on this vital
“apostolic teaching,” which is an essential aspect of the entire gospel,
for God’s covenant of redemption is contingent on the incarnation of the
Person of the eternal Logos, God the Son.

2.7 DETERMINING A ONENESS CHURCH

When arguably one of the most popular Christian pastors in America,
Joel Osteen, announces to millions worldwide on Larry King Live
(2005) that he does not know where the non-believing Jew, Muslim or
Atheist goes when he or she dies, something is wrong. Joel Osteen of
the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas who is “the most popular
preacher in the country right now—a best-selling author and the ‘most
watched minister’ in America” (Heslam, 2006). Note below some
excerpts from the Larry King Live (2005) interview, which aired on
June 20, 2005:
32
KING: What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and
wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know ...
KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong,
aren’t they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong ...
KING: But for someone who doesn’t share it is wrong, isn’t he?
OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don’t know if I look at it like that. I would
present my way, but I’m just going to let God be the judge of that. I
don’t know. I don’t know.

Too often, Christian leaders and pastors, particularly at large churches,

do not regard essential Christian doctrines such as the doctrines of grace
and the Trinity relevant to their “seeker friendly” messages. Even worse,
the Potter’s House, for example, located in Dallas, Texas, is a
nondenominational mega-church led by popular TV evangelist and
prolific author, T. D. Jakes. The “Belief Statement” provided on the
church’s website (Jakes, 2008) presents a decidedly “Oneness” concept
of God. In a strikingly modalistic tone, the first line of the Statement
reads: “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and
eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Note that Jakes provides a unitarian and distinctly Oneness concept
of God. Using the term “manifestations” (thus avoiding the use of
“Persons”) to describe God is consistent with Oneness doctrine, not
Trinitarianism. What is more, his previous doctrinal statement described
God as “THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD … Triune in His
manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost … We believe in
the Father who is God Himself, Creator of the universe. (Gen. 1:1; John
1:1)” (caps his). As with the current one, Jakes uses the terms
“dimensions” and “manifestation” to describe his modalistic idea of
God, thus avoiding the use of “Persons.”
Also, note that Jakes uses John 1:1 to show that the Father is God,
when both historically and theologically the church has used the passage
to show that the Word, the Son, was God. Nonetheless, that the “Word”
here was the Father, not the Son, is perfectly consistent with Oneness
doctrine (cf. Bernard, 1983: 103). Though John 1:1 does teach that the
Father is God (1:1b), it is the eternal “Word” who was with God and
was God that is the emphasis of the passage especially in light of the
“emphatic use” of the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c: kai theos ēn ho
33
logos, literally, “and God was the Word”). The result of a diet rich in
“seeker friendly” non-definitive messages is biblically obtuse Christians
not being equipped with the theological knowledge to distinguish
between a Oneness view of God and a Trinitarian view of God. Thus,
there is a toleration of both views as truth. Normally, one can discover
a church’s doctrinal view simply by examining its doctrinal statement,
although many independent churches provide a vague and
indistinguishable doctrinal statement in which they can appeal to the
majority of church-seekers in spite of their theological predilections.
One such church is the Shepherd of the Hills, which is one of the largest
churches in Los Angeles, California. In the What We Believe section
(Shepherd, 2008), a very indistinct description of Jesus Christ is
provided: “Jesus Christ was virgin-born, sinless, died on the cross for
sins, was raised from the dead on the third day, and is coming again
(Matthew 1:18, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Jn. 14:3).” Note
that the entire doctrinal statement lacks any mention of the deity of
Christ or the Trinity.
Compounding the issue even further, as with many Christian
churches, numerous Oneness churches provide unclear doctrinal
statements in which unstudied Christians cannot make a theological
distinction. For example, note the description of “The Godhead” in the
Articles of Faith (Bethel, 2008), which the Oneness organization Bethel
Ministerial Association provides: “THE GODHEAD: There is one God
in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is an invisible
Spirit (John 4:24, Colossians 1:15). Jesus Christ is God, the invisible
Spirit, manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16, John 1, 4)” (capitals
theirs). As with the doctrinal statement of Jakes and the Potter’s House,
Bethel Ministerial Association provides a theologically non-defined
equivocal statement regarding God. Jakes even uses the term “Triune.”
The problem is that undiscerning and unstudied Christians may fail
to make a correct theological distinction between (a) “manifestations”
and “Persons” and (b) the economic and ontological Trinity (which will
be explained shorty). In saying that, how is the common Christian able
to distinguish from a Oneness church and a Trinitarian believing
church? A general guide (not an infallible rule) as to a potential marker,
which may reveal a Oneness view of God is the omission of the word
“person” when describing the Godhead within a doctrinal statement.
As observed above, Oneness theology will use the term “Godhead”
but not “Trinity” to describe its unitarian/unipersonal view of God,
seeing Jesus as the Godhead and, of course, the Trinity as a false
34
doctrine (cf. Bernard, 1983: 22). This is common, for many Oneness
churches omit the term “Trinity” but retain the term “triune” particularly
when making Oneness assertions such as that God is “Triune in His
manifestation” (e.g., Jakes, 2008). Oneness churches typically describe
God as existing in three “manifestations,” “modes,” “offices” or even
“dimensions” (e.g., Jakes, 2008; UPCI, 2008b), but never in three
“Persons.” Orthodox Christianity has never used the terms exampled
above to describe God.
However, if a church claims to be Trinitarian, yet in their doctrinal
statement uses terms such as “manifestations” to describe the three
Persons of the Trinity, it reveals a theological ignorance or carelessness
on the part of the writer. For the term “manifestations” in describing the
Father, the Son and/or the Holy Spirit more frequently indicates
Oneness rather than Trinitarian theology.

2.8 SUMMARY

Regrettably, because of the strong influence of a postmodern society,

objective truth has little value in far too many churches. Hence, it is not
uncommon to hear such statements like, “It’s all the same God,” or “As
long as they love Jesus,” coming from the mouths of the unstudied and
theologically challenged. It is important, then, to realize that the
Trinitarian Oneness debate is not mere semantic quibbling or the
splitting of theological hairs. Nor is this a matter of simple differences
of opinion on peripheral views. The doctrine of the Trinity literally
defines the biblical revelation of God. To err on the doctrine of the
Trinity is a deadly error, for the consequences are eternal. There is a
qualitative difference between a unipersonal deity that temporarily
manifests at different times in different modes, roles or offices, and a
triune God who has eternally existed in three distinct Persons in a loving
unbroken intimate relationship with each other. Scripture presents
exegetically that the Son had loving intercourse with the Father before
time (esp. in Dan. 7:9-14; John 1:1; 3:13; 17:5).
Unity among Christians is a biblical directive, but it must be unity
around the essentials of biblical theology, not in spite of them. Who God
is, as to His nature, is an essential doctrine that establishes the
legitimacy of one’s salvation (cf. John 8:24; 17:3). Scripture opposes
the Oneness concept of God. As pointed out, since in Oneness theology
the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit represent merely the modes or
35
roles that the unitarian/unipersonal deity named “Jesus” projects, there
can be no real meaningful personal interaction between them.
The Oneness notion that the interactions between the Father and the
Son (and Holy Spirit) were mere interactions among natures or modes
severs the biblical teaching of the personal loving interaction between
the Persons of the Trinity. However, the Oneness idea that “natures” can
actually love, talk, or pray to each other, or exhibit any kind of emotion
toward one another is not only irrational, but also unbiblical.
Only self-aware cognizant persons can engage in personal emotive
activities such as giving and receiving love or intellectually
communicating with each other—abstract natures cannot. Scripture
presents that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each possess
personal attributes and characteristics, which constitute personhood. As
shown in subsequent chapters, the three Persons in the Trinity possess
personal attributes and personal characteristics such as love, anger, the
exercising of the will and mind, etc., which, as stated, constitute
personhood.
The Oneness position rejects the biblical teaching that God exists
in three distinct Persons (cf. Weisser, 1983: 2) equating three Persons
with three Gods and one God (i.e., monotheism) with one Person. Thus,
a unitarian solution is posited. This mischaracterization of the Trinity
implies that the doctrine of the Trinity is tritheistic, which is an obvious
“straw man” argument that redirects the issue. The Mormon Church
views the “Godhead” (for this world) as three separate Gods. The
founder and first so-called prophet of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr.,
declared to his followers (Smith, 1976: 370):

I will preach on the plurality of Gods ... I have always and in

all congregations when I preached on the subject of Deity, it
has been the plurality of Gods ...Jesus Christ a separate and
distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy
Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three
constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.

In addition, the Quran, in passages such as Sura 4:171 and 5:73, grossly
misrepresents the Trinity as three separate Gods: the Father, Jesus and
Mary. Unquestionably, the modalistic deity of Oneness theology is not
the God of the Bible. Either God exists in absolute solitude as an
invisible unitarian monad that comes out in different roles, modes,
manifestations, etc. using the mere “language of plurality” to seem as
36
though distinctions exist, or God actually revealed Himself in three
coequal, coeternal, distinct Persons sharing the nature of one Being
existing in an intimate inseparable unquantifiable loving relationship
from eternity (cf. John 1:1; 3:35; 17:3; 2 Cor. 13:14). The latter is based
on the biblical data; the former is not. The Holy Scriptures reveal that
apart from the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is,
there is no Savior and thus, no salvation (cf. Deut. 32:39; 17:3; 1 John
2:22-23).
Believing Christ to be anything or anyone other than what has been
biblically presented will result in eternal separation from the true God
(cf. Matt. 25:46; John 8:24). Oneness doctrine demotes Jesus Christ by
rejecting Him as Creator and hence, rejecting His preexistence. It also
denies (among many other essential doctrines) the biblical doctrine of
the incarnation. That the Father came to earth and only appeared to
become flesh (i.e., becoming the role of the Son) without actually
becoming flesh as Oneness Pentecostals believe, utterly contradicts
such passages as John 1:14, which clearly teaches that the Word (not the
Father) egeneto, “became,” not “wrapped” Himself in, flesh. It
categorically denies the unipersonality and deity of the Son and it denies
the personal distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, and therefore denies the biblical revelation of God Himself.

37
 Chapter Three

CHRISTOLOGICAL DIVERGENCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The ultimate test that unequivocally decides what is and what is not
genuine or orthodox Christianity is simply the biblical doctrine of the
Person, nature and finished work of Jesus Christ. Christ makes this clear
in a question to His disciple Peter: “What do you think about the
Christ?” (Matt. 22:42). Similar to Jesus’ statement in John 8:24 (cf.
Chapter 2, 2.4.5) eternal life is absolutely dependent on believing in the
Jesus of biblical revelation (cf. John 17:3). As pointed out, virtually all
major non-Christian cults assert, “Jesus Christ is Lord” (e.g., Mormons,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.). This is, to be sure, a meaningless assertion,
for the Jesus of these groups opposes the biblical presentation. Oneness
Christology is a clear and major departure from biblical orthodoxy. It
removes the personhood and deity from the Son, thus removing the Son
from the Trinity. The chief Oneness Christological divergences from
that of the biblical teachings are as follows:

➢ Oneness Christology denies the unipersonality of Jesus Christ.

➢ Oneness Christology denies that the “Son” is God. To recall,

Oneness theology teaches that Jesus’ divine nature represents
the Father and Holy Spirit, not the Son—i.e., the “Son” is not
God; He is merely the human nature of Jesus (see Bernard, 1983:
99, 103, 252; UPCI, 2008b).

➢ Oneness Christology denies the preexistence of the Son and His

role as the Agent of creation (cf. Bernard, 1983: 103-4; Magee,
1988: 25).

38
 ➢ Oneness Christology claims that Jesus is the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit (same Person), hence denying the concept of the
Trinity (cf. Bernard, 1983: 57; Weisser, 1983: 2; UPCI, 2008b).

➢ Oneness Christology claims that the cross-work of Jesus Christ

was not sufficient for justification/salvation. Specifically, the
UPCI (2008b) asserts baptismal regeneration, which teaches that
the meritorious work of water baptism utilizing the inflexible
verbal formula “in the name of Jesus” achieves regeneration.
UPCI teachers also assert that the proof or so-called evidence of
the reception of the Holy Spirit (thus, ultimate salvation) is
speaking in tongues, which should happen after water baptism
(cf. Paterson, 1953: 12, 27; Vouga, 1967: 18; Beisner, 1998: 52-
54; UPCI, 2008b).

3.2 ESSENCE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SON

It is clear that the Oneness Christological position radically distorts the

very essence of the Son by its main modalistic assertion: the Son was a
mere mode or manifestation of the unipersonal deity named Jesus.
Mainly, Oneness theology unequivocally rejects the Son’s nature as
God. As we have seen, the Oneness position views only the Father as
God. Any denial of the deity of the Son, God in the flesh, denies the
very essence of the Son’s Person. The Oneness position denies both the
Son’s unipersonality and His deity (cf. Paterson, 1966: 22; Bernard,
1983: 99, 103; UPCI, 2008b). The deity of the Person of the Son is
exegetically affirmed in the clearest way especially at places such as
Daniel 7:9-14; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; 10:13; 1 Corinthians
2:8; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; 2
Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:3-10; Revelation 5:13-14; and 22:13. Throughout
this thesis, the exegesis of many of these passages will clearly refute the
Oneness Christological position.
There are several places in the New Testament where the Son is
actually called ho theos, “(the) God.” These would be, as included
above, John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8 (which will be
fully discussed in Chapter 4); and 1 John 5:20. Regarding 1 John 5:20,
see Harris (1992: 239-53) and Reymond (1998: 201, 212), who argue
for the grammatical probability that ho alēthinos theos refers to Jesus.
39
Rogers Jr. and Rogers III (1998: 599) insist that “the pronoun houtos in
1 John 5:20 clearly refers to Jesus” (cf. also Wallace, 1996: 326-27).
What is theologically noteworthy is that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (and
perhaps 2 Thess. 1:12) are both Granville Sharp grammatical
constructions—namely, Sharp’s rule #1 (Sharp, 1803: 3-7). This rule is
named after its founder (not inventor) Granville Sharp (1735-1813; cf.
Sharp, 1803). Sharp was passionate in his unyielding belief in the full
deity of Jesus Christ. Sharp’s research of the Greek New Testament led
him to discover six grammatical rules by which the Greek article ho and
the conjunction kai were utilized. Remarking on the validity of Sharp’s
grammatical rules, Beisner (1998: 46) explains:

Those who know Greek can confirm the accuracy of the

conclusions drawn here by consulting C. Kuehne, “The Greek
Article and the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity,” Journal of
Theology: Church of the Lutheran Confession 13, no. 3
(September 1973): 12-28; 13, no. 4 (December 1973): 14-30;
14, no. 1 (March 1974): 8-19; 15, no. 1 (March 1975): 8-22,
in which Kuehne brilliantly explains, illustrates, and defends
the six parts of Sharp’s rule.

Although there were six grammatical rules that Sharp discovered, rule
#1 is most recognized and cited (cf. Greenlee, 1986: 23). Generally (not
verbatim), rule #1 states that when the connective kai connects two
nouns of the same case (singular nouns that are not proper [e.g., personal
names]), and the article ho precedes the first noun, but not the second,
each descriptive noun refers to the first named person (cf. Sharp, 1803:
3-7; Greenly, 1986: 23).
Rule #1 is also signified by the abbreviation, TSKS (i.e., The-
Substantive-Kai-Substantive). Hence, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 contain
TSKS constructions emphasizing the full deity of the Son. Titus 2:13
reads: “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of
our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Notice the phrase tou megalou
theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou, literally, “the great God and
Savior of us Jesus Christ.” Here, the conjunction kai connects both
singular descriptive nouns, theou and sōtēros and the article tou
proceeds the first noun, theou, but not the second noun, sōtēros.
Therefore, according to Sharp’s grammatical rule, Jesus Christ is tou
megalou theou kai sōtēros— “the great God and Savior.” The same great
truth is found in 2 Peter 1:1. Minus the extraneous words preceding the
40
TSKS construction and the adjective megas in Titus 2:13, the reading in
2 Peter 1:1 is virtually identical: tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou
Christou, literally, “the God of us and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
According to recognized Greek grammarians (e.g., Robertson,
1934: 786; Greenly, 1986: 23; Wallace, 1996: 273), lexicographers,
(e.g., Cremer, 1878: 279-81), and commentators (e.g., Hendriksen,
1980: 373-75) this rule is invariably valid, markedly showing the full
deity of the Son, Jesus Christ. In contrast, Oneness teachers (cf.
Paterson, 1966: 22; Bernard, 1983: 99, 103) insist that the Son denotes
only the humanity and not the deity of Jesus, blatantly rejecting the
Son’s deity. In sharp opposition, Scripture presents that the Son
possesses the very attributes of God:

• He has power to forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6)

• He is greater than the Temple (cf. Matt. 12:6)
• He is Lord of the Sabbath (cf. Matt. 12:8)
• He is the King of a kingdom and the angels are His, gathering
His elect (cf. Matt. 13:41; Mark 13:27)
• He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (cf. Matt. 16:13-
17)
• He was to be killed and raised from the dead (cf. Matt. 17:9, 22-
23; 19;26:2; Mark 8:31; 9:31; Luke 9:22; 18:31-33; John 2:19ff.)
• He is omnipresent (cf. Matt. 28:20; John 14:23)
• He is omniscient (cf. John 2:24-25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17)
• He is omnipotent (cf. Matt. 8:27; 9:6; 28:18; Heb. 7:25)
• He gave His life as a ransom for many (cf. Mark. 10:45)
• He gives eternal life (cf. Luke 10:21-22; John 5:21; 10:27-28)
• He is the monogenēs theos, “unique/one and only God” that
came from heaven (cf. John 1:18; 3:13)
• He preexisted with and shared glory with the Father (cf. Micah
5:2; John 1:1; 17:5; as will be shown in Chapter 4)
• He is immutable (cf. Heb. 13:8)
• He was worshiped (cf. Dan. 7:14; Matt. 14:33; John 9:35-38;
Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:13-14)

Virtually every New Testament book teaches the full deity of the Son
explicitly or implicitly. This is seen especially in passages such as
Matthew 1:23; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1, 18; 5:17-23; Jesus’ seven
absolute egō eimi statements; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians
41
2:8; 16:22; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 2:9; 1
Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 8-10; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20;
Jude 1:4-5; Revelation 1:8; and 5:13-14. The biblical evidence is
massive. As we have seen, aside from the fact that the New Testament
specifically presents the Son as God, even ho theos (cf. Harris, 1992),
the Son is presented as the Creator of all things, thus preexisting (cf.
John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10). This is the strongest point of
refutation against Oneness theology. In Chapter 4, there will be an
exegetical outline of the biblical evidence for the preexistence of the
Son.
There is another important piece of evidence affirming the deity of
the Son. Scripture presents the Son as receiving the same kind of
religious worship (proskuneō) as that of God the Father. This important
reality can be especially seen, for example, in Daniel 7:9-14, where two
distinct divine Persons are being presented (note, v. 9, “thrones,” not a
single throne), the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. In verse 14, the
Son of Man is “given dominion, glory and a kingdom,” by God the
Father in which “all the peoples, nations and men of every language
might serve [LXX, latreuō (in some LXX eds., douleuō), i.e., worship,
cf. Exod. 20:5; LXX] Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
which will not pass away” (emphasis added). In the New Testament,
Jesus receives religious worship (proskuneō), for example, by the men
in the boat (cf. Matt. 14:33) and the blind man (cf. John 9:35-38). In
Hebrews 1:6, the Father commands “all the angels of God” to worship
(proskuneō) the Son. This kind of worship is clearly religious in nature,
for the setting is in the heavenlies before God the Father. In Revelation
5:13-14, the Father and the Lamb receive the same kind of “blessing and
honor and glory and dominion” and worship: “And the four living
creatures kept saying, ‘Amen’ and the elders fell down and worshiped
[proskuneō].”
Note that these acts of worship to the Son are not merely in the
context of honor and/or falling prostrate before another in mere
obeisance, but rather the Son is worshiped in a religious context,
namely, worship that is reserved for God alone (cf. Exod. 20:5); for
worship of creatures is forbidden by the Lord. This revealing truth
shows that the Son shares the very essence of God the Father. He is God
in the same sense as that of the Father (cf. John 1:1b): “Who always
being the brightness of His glory, the exact representation [image] of
the nature of Him” (tēs hupostaseōs autou, i.e., nature of the Father;
Heb. 1:3; trans. mine). “He that does not honor the Son,” says Jesus,
42
“does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). By denying both
the Son’s unipersonality and His deity, Oneness Christology denies and
rejects the very essence of the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ.

3.3 JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER

Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father
and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love
(2 John 1:3; emphasis added)

To recall, the Oneness theological position holds to a unitarian idea of

God. It sees “one God” as “one Person,” the Father. For that reason, the
consequent proposition is that while on earth Jesus had two natures,
divine, which is the mode or office of the “Father” and human, the mode
or office of the human (not divine) “Son.” Accordingly, the Oneness
position argues that Jesus was both the “Father” and “Son.”
Notwithstanding the biblical data, Oneness teachers remove the three
distinct Persons of the Trinity and postulate a unipersonal deity:

There is one God with no essential divisions in His nature. He

is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of
manifestations, roles, titles, attributes ... Jesus Christ is the
Son of God [not God the Son]. He is the incarnation of the
fullness of God [the Father] in His deity, Jesus is the Father
and the Holy Spirit ... Jesus is the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (Bernard, 1983: 294-95).

Though there is no biblical passage in the New Testament that explicitly

calls Jesus the “Father,” Oneness supporters firmly maintain that Jesus
is the Father. While these adherents certainly claim to have a biblical
precedent for their views, providing a defense for their position based
on sound, biblical exegesis is a different matter. Discursive and
philosophical arguments, incorrect proof-texting, the misuse of the key
passages, and historical revisionism are common in the Oneness
approach. In the final analysis, however, the true test of any position is
its ability to withstand the examination of sacred Scripture. The Bible is
clear and able to define the issue as to what is and what is not “biblical.”
As demonstrated throughout this thesis, Oneness teachers must
maneuver the text in such an unnatural way in order to conform to their
pre-decided theologies. First, the standard Oneness proof texts used to
43
teach that only the Father is God include Isaiah 9:6, Malachi 2:10 and 1
Corinthians 8:6. Second, the passages generally employed to support
their modalistic assumption that Jesus is His own Father are John 5:43,
John 10:30, John 14:9 and Colossians 2:9. There is also a technical
argument asserted by Oneness teachers such as Bernard (cf. 1983: 208-
9), which has to do with the Greek conjunction kai in Pauline
salutations.
It is asserted that the conjunction kai should be translated not as the
connective “and” but rather as the ascensive “even.” Hence, Oneness
teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 208-9) render and interpret the standard
salutations as “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, even [kai]
the Lord Jesus Christ.” This rendering is divergent from virtually every
recognized translation, which translate the conjunction kai as the simple
connective “and” (“our Father, and [kai] the Lord Jesus Christ”). By
replacing “and” with “even,” Oneness teachers insist that Paul was
teaching that God the Father was “even” the Lord Jesus Christ—
namely, the same Person.
There will be a detailed discussion of this false grammatical
assertion below in section 3.3.3. There are other arguments postulated
by Oneness teachers, however, these above are used most to sustain their
position. Regardless of the passion and sincerity that Oneness believers
exude, when these passages are strained through an exegetical
examination, it is apparent that the Oneness interpretation of select
biblical passages greatly opposes the intended “plain reading” of the
text. Consider first the maximum redundancy of the way Scripture
speaks of the distinct relationship between the Father, Jesus and the
Holy Spirit. Former UPCI preacher Gregory A. Boyd 3 (1992: 68-69)
observes:

Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred

times in the New Testament, and never once is he called
“Father.” By contrast, over two hundred times “the Father” is
referred to by Jesus or someone else as being clearly distinct
from Jesus. In fact, over fifty times this juxtapositioning of the
Father and Jesus the Son is rendered explicit within the very
same verse ... whereas one hundred seventy nine times Jesus
is presented as referring to “the Father,” “my Father,” or “your
Father” in the Gospels as distinct from himself, at no time

3
Cf. note 1 above.
44
 does he refer to “my Son” or anything of the sort as distinct
from himself! Forty times in John’s Gospel, Jesus refers to
himself as “sent by the Father,” but never does he refer to
himself as the Father who sent the Son.

The biblical evidence expressing the personal distinctions between the

Father and Jesus is accumulative: over two hundred times Scripture
refers to Jesus as “Son”, and never once is Jesus explicitly or implicitly
called “Father.” As the Apostle John firmly declares that Jesus Christ is
“the Son of the Father” (2 John 1:3; cf. also 1 John 1:3). So instantly
recognizable are the biblical references of personal distinctions between
the Father and the Son such as these that Oneness theologians sacrifice
at the expense of their doctrinal predilections.

3.3.1 Unitarianism

In order to provide a logical and biblical refutation of the Oneness

Christological position as well as a positive affirmation of the eternal
distinctions that exist between the Persons of the Trinity, the
fundamental Oneness theological starting point, unitarianism/
unipersonalism, must be clearly recognized and thus made the object of
consideration. For it is this premise that gives rise to how Oneness
believers understand monotheism, as already seen, and the grid by
which they define the Person of Jesus Christ. The Oneness
presupposition as it relates to the term “Father” is that only the Father is
God, the divine nature of Jesus, and the “Son” being the human nature
of Jesus (Bernard, 1983: 66, 126; Magee, 1988: 25, 32). Hence, Jesus,
as the Son, was not deity. To maintain and defend this premise, they
appeal to passages that exclusively speak of the Father as “God” (e.g.,
Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6).
Following then, the Oneness teaching of the incarnation, as
previously shown, holds to the erroneous notion that it was the Father,
not the Son, who came down and wrapped Himself in flesh, not actually
becoming flesh, and that flesh was the “Son” mode or office (see
Bernard, 1983: 106, 122; 1991:103). To argue that because the Bible
refers to the Father as God means that only the Father is God is circular
reasoning. Passages such as Hebrews 1:8 shut down the Oneness
argument. God the Father here actually addresses the Son as ho theos:
“But of the Son [pros de ton huion] He says, ‘YOUR THRONE O GOD
[ho theos] IS FOREVER AND EVER ...’” That the Father directly
45
addresses4 the Son as “God” is a solid point of refutation to the Oneness
non-eternal, non-divine Son view. In verse 10, the Father directly
addresses the Son as the Elohim/Yahweh (“You Lord”; note the use of
the vocative kurie) of Psalm 102, who laid the foundation of the earth
and created the heavens by the works of His hands.

3.3.1.1 Oneness Standard Unitarian Proof-Texts: Malachi 2:10;

1 Corinthians 8:6

Malachi 2:10: “Do we not have one father? Has not one God created
us?” Oneness teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 126) see this passage as
teaching that there is only one (unipersonal) God: the Father. A few
initial observations prove otherwise. First, Malachi 2:10 does not
support the Oneness assertion; it only asks, “Do we not have one father?
Has not one God created us?” The passage does not say that only the
Father is God. Second, the New Testament revelation concerning the
intra-personal relationship between the “Father” and the “Son” was not
an entirely realized revelation in the Old Testament. Rather, the New
Testament fully reveals this truth particularly in the incarnation of God
the Son (cf. Eph. 3:4-5; Col. 1:26-27).
Third, to the Jewish mindset, the plain and normal meaning of
“father” in this passage would have meant Creator.5 That “father” (Heb.
āb) was a term that signified God as Creator is well exampled in the Old
Testament: “Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made
you and established you (Deut. 32:6); “But now, O LORD, You are our
Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work
of Your hand” (Isa. 64:8); “Do we not all have one father? Has not one
God created us?” (Mal. 2:10).
The concept of God as “father” in the Old Testament denoted the
relationship that Israel had with God. The God of Israel was “like that
of a father” in the sense that He redeemed, provided, comforted,
protected, created, etc.: “Just as a father has compassion on his children,

4
The nominative theos with the vocative force will be explicitly addressed in Chapter
4.
5
Consequently, the KJV (the UPCI’s standard translation) agrees that the term
“father” was not a formal title for Yahweh. In recognition of this fact, the KJV did not
capitalize “father” in Malachi 2:10 (as with many standard translations, e.g., KJV,
Young’s, ASV, NASB). Hence, the KJV translators rightfully saw “father” as
signifying God’s role as Creator; thus, not the later New Testament revelation of the
capitalized formal title, “Father.”
46
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him” (Ps. 103:13). This
thought is also brought out in Isaiah 63:16: “For You are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not recognize us.
You, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Your name.”
Biblical scholar Dr. Lawrence O. Richards (1991: 266) comments on
the use of the term “father” when applied to God in the Old Testament:

God is identified as Father only a few times in the OT.

In those instances the relationship is between God and
Israel as a people or between God and Christ as the seed
of David’s line. In the OT, God is not viewed as being in
a father-son relationship with individuals or as the father
of mankind in general.

Thus, the Old Testament did not fully conceptualize the New Testament
concept of Father and Son. It is anachronistic to put forward such an
assertion.

1 Corinthians 8:6: “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom
are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things, and we exist through Him.” From this isolated passage,
we again see the assertion of unitarianism: only the Father is God. Along
with Oneness Pentecostals, this passage is frequently utilized by
unitarian groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who say that only
Jehovah, the Father, is God Almighty.
The Oneness position cannot stand for many reasons. First, the
passage actually distinguishes between “one God, the Father,” and “one
Lord, Jesus Christ.” Second, if “one God” means that only the Father
(not the Son) is God, then, “one Lord” would mean that only the Son,
not the Father, is Lord. There are many passages that specifically call
the Father kurios (e.g., Luke 10:21) and specifically call the Son ho
theos, (e.g., John 20:28; Titus 2:13).
In the New Testament, Paul normally refers to the Father as theos
and the Son as kurios particularly when the Father and Jesus appear in
the same verse or context. In Paul’s mind, in a religious context, both
titles theos and kurios were two equal descriptions of deity. This is
especially seen when one considers that the very term used to translate
the Tetragrammaton (i.e., the Divine Name, Yahweh, “LORD”) in LXX
was kurios. Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield (1988: 220) comments
on the way Paul used the two terms:
47
 Paul knows no difference between theos and kurios in point
of rank; they are both to him designations of Deity and the
discrimination by which the one is applied to the Father and
the other to Christ is (so far) merely a convention by which
two that are God are supplied with differentiating appellations
by means of which they may be intelligibly spoken of
severally.

Along with 1 Corinthians 8:6, Oneness teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983:

126) also use Ephesians 4:6 to “prove” the unitarian view that only the
Father is God, but the same refutation above suffices. It is this
foundation, then, that gives formulation to Jesus as the one Person
behind the disguises or masks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Conversely, though, and it will be clearly demonstrated below, Jesus as
God was personally distinct from His Father, even before time (e.g.,
John 1:1; 18; 17:5; Phil. 2:6). Such exegetical evidence leaves the
Oneness position without any textual refuge.

3.3.2 Oneness Standard Proof-Texts to show that Jesus is the Father

As indicated above, the most common proof texts employed by Oneness

defenders are Isaiah 9:6; John 5:43; 10:30, 14:9; and Colossians 2:9.
There is also a technical argument concerning the Greek conjunction kai
in the salutations of Paul.

Isaiah 9:6: “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and
the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”
Because of the phrase “Eternal Father,” Oneness advocates argue that
the passage is teaching that the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ, is the
“Eternal Father.” However, there are several flaws in this kind of
modalistic interpretation:

1. Oneness teachers commit the fallacy of equivocation by

asserting that the term “father” has only one meaning. As
discussed above, the term “father” (ab) has various meanings in
the Old Testament, depending on the context.
2. When the term “father” is applied to God (or Yahweh) in the Old
Testament (only fifteen times), it typically denotes His parental
48
 character to His children, namely, Israel (cf. Isa. 63:16; Jer.
31:9). As seen, the usage of “father” also denoted God as Creator
(cf. Duet. 32:6; Isa. 64:8; Mal. 2:10). The fact is, the term
“father” was never a standard recurring title for God in the Old
Testament—again, applied to God only fifteen times.
3. The word translated “name” (shem) as in “His name will be
called” (shem + qara) was not a formal title for God, but rather
it denoted the essence or essential characteristics of who
someone is (Young, 1972: 331). This was clearly the Semitic
concept of “name.” Hence, as to the essence and character of the
Messiah, He is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father and Prince of Peace.
4. Corresponding with the meaning of Creator and Provider, the
term “father” carries the idea of “possessor” or “founder,” as
with His creation. For example, 2 Samuel 23:31 speaks of
Abialbon, which name means “father (or possessor) of strength,”
strong one. Exodus 6:24 speaks of a man named “Abiasaph,”
whose name means “father of gathering,” he who gathers. Thus,
the Messiah is ab of eternity, that is, possessor of eternity.
Richards (1991: 266) further explains:

The key word for “father” in the Bible is ab. It

occurs 1,191 times in Hebrew and 9 times in
Aramaic form. It is a complex word. Although it
usually indicates a literal father or grandfather, it
may also be used as a title of respect for a
governor or prophet or priest ... Ab is also used
to indicate the founder of a guild. Thus Ge 4:21
identifies Jubal as “father of all who play the
harp and flute”, i.e., he was the first musician ...
It is probable that the title “Everlasting Father”
ascribed to Messiah by Isaiah (Isa 9:6) is better
understood as “father of eternity,” i.e., founder
of the ages.

5. Syntactically, the Hebrew term “father” precedes the word

translated “eternal” (lit. “father eternal”) indicating the eternal

49
 nature of the Messiah. The Aramaic Targums6 reveal this
thought well: “For us a child is born, to us a son is given ... and
his name will be called the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty
God, existing forever [or “He who lives forever”]. The Messiah
in whose days peace shall increase upon us (Targum Jonathan;
emphasis added).”
6. There has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, or Christian
scholar or writer that has interpreted Isaiah 9:6 as Oneness
teachers do. Beisner (1998: 32) dismantles the Oneness exegesis
here simply by pointing out that “I am a father, but I am not my
father.” Oneness teachers must prove that Jesus is specifically
called the Father of the Son of God (i.e., His own Father). Isaiah
9:6 only calls Him “father of eternity.”

John 5:43: “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
doctrine holds to the position that the name of the unipersonal deity is
“Jesus.” Thus, Oneness teachers argue here that when Jesus claims that
He comes “in His Father’s name,” He is actually claiming that the
“name” of the Father (and the Son) is “Jesus.” In support of a modalistic
understanding of the passage, Bernard (1983: 126-27) first lays his
unitarian foundation, “The Bible plainly states that there is one Father
(Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the
one Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30).” Then he goes on to say:

It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for

this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43,
Jesus said, “I am [sic] come in my Father’s name.” In other
words, the Son inherited His Father’s name ... In what name
did the Son come? What name did He obtain from His Father
by inherence? What name did the Son manifest? The answer
is apparent. The only name He used was the name of Jesus,
His Father’s name.
As clearly seen thus far, Oneness teachers circumvent the immediate
context and the document context of asserted passages. At the outset,
6
The Targum was an ancient Aramaic translation providing explanations and
paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament. In the post-exilic period, Aramaic began to
be broadly spoken in the Jewish community in conjunction with Hebrew. As it will be
shown (Chapter 4, 4.4.5), there is solid evidence indicating that the targumic usage of
the Memra (“Word”) was the background for John’s Logos theology.
50
when one plainly reads the entire chapter of John 5, one cannot escape
the clear distinctions that exist between the Father and Jesus. Note the
straightforwardness in which Jesus differentiates Himself from the
Father in John 5:30-32:

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and

My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me. If I alone testify about Myself,
My testimony is not true. There is another [allos estin] who
testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives
about Me is true” (emphasis added).

Jesus said, “There is another,” not one, but another (allos). Bauer (2000:
46) defines allos, “other” as “pertinent to that which is other than some
other entity, other ... distinguished from the subject who is speaking or
who is logically understood ...” Jesus’ audience would have understood
Jesus’ words clearly. To abandon the plain reading, “There is another
witness,” and exchange it for a modalistic understanding is patently
eisegetical that is, reading into the text a meaning that is foreign or
external to the passage itself.
There is even a larger strike against the Oneness interpretation of
the passage. It concerns the term onoma. We find the term no less than
one hundred and fifty-six times in the New Testament (NA28). As
explicitly discussed and established below (3.5.1.2), the normal first-
century application of the phrase eis to onoma was predominantly to
signify “authority,” “power,” “on behalf of.” This New Testament
import extends back to such Old Testament passages as in the David
and Goliath narrative: “You come to me with a sword, a spear and a
javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD [Yahweh] of hosts,
the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted” (1 Sam. 17:45;
emphasis added).
David had informed the Philistines that he came in the “name” of
the Lord, that is, by the authority/power of the Lord, on His behalf.
Hence, the Oneness dogma that Jesus is the name of the Father does not
follow, for just as David was not claiming to be the Lord himself, only
coming in the authority of the Lord, so also Jesus was not claiming to
be the Father, only coming in His authority. Even in modern parlance,
this import is recognized, as in the phrase, “Stop in the name of (or
authority) of the law!” In the same way, then, Jesus here comes in the
authority or on behalf of the Father (cf. Acts 4:7).
51
John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” This passage is seemingly the
single most cited passage by Oneness supporters (e.g., Bernard, 1983:
126-7). However, a Oneness understanding of this passage would be
foreign both in a first-century Jewish and biblical context. The Oneness
doctrinal argument concerning John 10:30 is rather straightforward:
Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” therefore, Jesus and the Father are
the same Person. The use of this text is not new to the modern era, for
there have been many through the centuries who have sought to preserve
the Oneness premise by appealing to this passage. An exegetical
analysis of the passage in its grammatical structure actually proves the
very converse of the Oneness assertion. First, notice the Greek
rendering: egō kai ho patēr hen esmen, literally, “I and the Father one
we are.”
What directly challenges the Oneness assertion is the fact that the
verb “are” is the first person plural form (esmen) of the Greek verb eimi.
Hence, Jesus did not say, “I and the Father am [eimi] one,” but rather,
“I and the Father are [esmen] one.” The plural verb differentiates Jesus
from the Father. When Modalism first emerged, Christian theologians
brought out this grammatical point against misinterpretations of this
commonly implemented passage. Early church polemicist and defender
of Christian Orthodoxy, Hippolytus (Against Noetus 7, in Roberts and
Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:226) responds to the use of John 10:30 in the
modalistic assertion made by the first known modalist, Noetus of
Smyrna:

If, again, he [Noetus] alleges His [Christ’s] own word when

He said, “I and the Father are one,” let him attend to the fact,
and understand that He did not say, “I and the Father am one,
but are one.” For the word “are” is not said of one person, but
it refers to two persons, and one power (emphasis added).

In the same way, Tertullian (Against Praxeas 22, in Roberts and

Donaldson, 1994: vol. 3:618) grammatically refutes the modalistic
mishandling of the passage:

He says, “My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than

all,” adding immediately, “I and my Father are one.” Here,
then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to
see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation
of Two Beings–“I and my Father;” then that there is a plural
52
 predicate, “are,”—inapplicable to one person ... They argue
that this passage teaches that Jesus unquestionably claims to
be His own Father.

Lastly, there is another grammatical factor. The word hen, “one,” is in

the neuter gender. In Greek, the neuter hen carries the idea of unity of
essence, not absolute identity (cf. Thayer, 1996: 186; Rogers and
Rogers, 1998: 207; Bauer, 2000: 291). In John 17:21- 22, for example,
John uses the neuter hen to denote this concept: “that they may be
perfected in unity” (v. 23). If Jesus desired to communicate that He was
Himself the Father, He surely would have used the masculine heis (cf.
Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5). Robertson (1932: 5:186) comments on the
specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter,
not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one
essence or nature.” Likewise, New Testament scholar Murray Harris
(1992: 285) observes that

This dual conception of “distinction of person-community of

essence” also comes to expression in John 10:30, egō kai ho
patēr hen esmen, which refers to neither personal identity
(which would require heis esmen) nor simply to agreement of
will and purpose (since John 10:28b, 29b implies at least an
equality of power).

In his skilled commentary on the Gospel of John, biblical exegete David

J. Ellis (1986: 1249) notes:

The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning ‘one

Person.’ This is not a comment on the nature of the Godhead.
Rather, having spoken of the sheep’s security in both Himself
and the Father, Jesus underlines what He has said by
indicating that in action the Father and He can be regarded as
a single entity, because their wills are one.

The Oneness presupposition regarding John 10:30 is promptly refuted

by the grammatical certainty of the passage, namely, that the plural verb
esmen and the neuter hen are utilized rather than the masculine heis.
John 10:30 actually contradicts Oneness theology. As Robertson (1932:
5:186) concludes: “By the plural sumus [“are”] (separate persons)
Sabellius is refuted, by unum [“one in essence”] Arius.”

53
John 14:9: “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet
you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen
the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’” The Oneness
people routinely quote this passage, usually in the same breath with John
10:30, as though it was part of the passage. Only by removing this
passage from the document and immediate context can Oneness
teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 197-8) posit a modalistic understanding.
At the outset, as with John 10:30, Jesus never states in this passage, “I
am the Father,” only that “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”
There are four exegetical features, which provide a cogent refutation to
the Oneness handling of this passage.

1. Context: In verse 6 Jesus says, “I am the way, and the

truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
In verse 7, He explains to His disciples that if they “had known”
Him they would “have known” the Father also. Jesus then says
to His disciples, “From now on you know Him, and have seen
Him.” Thus, by knowing Him they “have known” and “have
seen” the Father (note the parallel: “have known,” “have
seen”). Still not understanding (i.e., by knowing Jesus they
know and see the Father), Philip says to Jesus, “Show us the
Father” (v. 8). Jesus then reiterates (as a corrective) that by
seeing Him they can see, that is, “know” or recognize the
invisible Father (v. 9). The context is obvious: by knowing and
seeing Jesus (as the only way to the Father; cf. v. 6), they could
really see (i.e., know/recognize, cf. John 9:39) the invisible
Father (cf. John 1:18; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:16). As we will
present in a more expansive and exegetical way in Chapter 4,
the Son is and has been eternally subsisting as the perfect and
“exact representation” (charaktēr) of the very nature
(hupostaseōs) of Him (autou, “of Him,” not “as Him”; Heb.
1:3). Therefore, when they see Jesus, they “see” the only way
to, and an exact representation of, the invisible unseen Father,
for Jesus makes Him known, He explains or exegetes Him. In
John 1:18, we read: “No one has seen God [the Father] at any
time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has explained Him.” The word translated “explained” is
exēgēsato (the aorist middle indicative of echēgeomai), which
means, “to lead out, unfold, declare” (Thayer, 1996: 223).
Hence, it is God the Son who is the very image of the invisible
54
 Father (cf. Col. 1:15) who brings out, that is, exegetes the
Father: “He [Jesus] has made known or brought news of (the
invisible God)” (Bauer, 2000: 349). One cannot have the Father
except through the Son, Jesus Christ: “Whoever denies the Son
does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has
the Father also” (1 John 2:23; see also John 17:3). Note also
that in 14:10, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the
Father when He declares: “The words that I say to you I do not
speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does
His works.” To reiterate, the undisputable fact is this: not one
time in the New Testament does Jesus (or any other person)
state that He Himself is the Father.

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

3. First and third person personal pronouns and verb references:

Throughout John 14 and 16 Jesus clearly differentiates Himself
from the Father. He does so by using first person personal
pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) and verb references to refer to
Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,”
“His”) and verb references to refer to His Father. Notice John
14:16: I will ask [kagō erōtēsō, first person] the Father, and He
will give [dōsei, third person] you another Helper, that He may
be with you forever” (John 14:16; emphasis added; also cf.
14:7, 10, 16; etc.). As marked out below, Jesus also
differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit.

4. Different prepositions: Throughout John 14 (and chapters 15-

16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using
different prepositions. Beisner (1998: 34) points out that the
use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between
them [i.e., the Father and Son]” and clearly denotes essential
distinction. Jesus says in John 14:6 and verse 12: “No one
comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me ... he who
believes in [eis] Me ... I am going to [pros] the Father”
55
 (emphasis added; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul frequently
uses different prepositions to differentiate the Father from
Jesus. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the
Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:
“For through Him [di’ autou, i.e., the Son] we both have our
access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera]” (Eph.
2:18; emphasis added). Only by circumventing these
significant details can one establish Modalism from John 14:9.

Philippians 2:10: “So that [hina] at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE
WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the
earth.” Philippians 2:6-11 is a beautiful high Christological hymn
known as the Carmen Christi (Hymn to Christ). Although an exegetical
analysis of the Carmen will be provided in Chapter 4, what is relevant
here is the Oneness understanding of the phrase in verse 10: “at the name
of Jesus.” Oneness adherents (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 223) typically utilize
it, along with John 5:43, to assert that the name of the unipersonal deity
is “Jesus.”
First, in refutation of the Oneness position, it is not the mere name
“Jesus” that is “above every name,” for the name Iēsous was a common
name in first-century Palestine. Rather, it was the “name” that belonged
to Jesus. Grammatically, Iēsous here in verse 10 is in the genitive case
(Iēsou), namely, a genitive of possession (cf. Moule, 1977: 95-96;
Morey, 1996: 525). This semantic category seems most fitting in light
of the context and source of Paul’s citation as explained below.
Therefore, the “highest name” in which every knee will bow and every
tongue will confess was the name that Jesus possessed or the name that
belonged to Him and not merely the linguistic symbols of the name
“Jesus.” For the name that belonged to Him, keeping with Paul’s context
(i.e., Jesus as the fulfillment of Isa. 45:23) is revealed in verse 11: kurios
Iēsous Christos—“Lord Jesus Christ”; thus, Paul identifies Jesus as the
Yahweh of Isaiah 45:23. For Yahweh, which the LXX translates as
kurios is the name that the Son possessed. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul
places kurios in the emphatic position (i.e., first word in the clause)
emphasizing the Son’s exaltation as Yahweh, the name that belonged to
Him (cf. Wallace, 1996: 474; Reymond, 1998: 312; this point will be
well established in Chapter 4, 4.5).

Colossians 2:9: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily
form.” As thoroughly established, Oneness teachers presuppose that
56
monotheism equals unipersonalism, hence rejecting the doctrine of the
Trinity. A unipersonal (or unitarian) view is not biblically coherent to
the graspable fact that the very foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity
is unequivocal monotheism: one true God. Scripture reveals that God is
an indivisible, inseparable, unquantifiable spirit.
He is omnipresent, existing everywhere: “But who is able to build
a house for Him, for the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain
Him?” (2 Chron. 2:6; cf. 6:18; Jer. 23:23-24; Heb. 4:13). Therefore, in
Colossians 2:9, one would expect that “all the fullness of Deity” dwells
in Christ, as it also dwells in the Father and the Holy Spirit—God cannot
be divided into thirds or parts.
As previously pointed out, the book of Colossians sharply refuted
the dualistic ideology (i.e., spirit vs. matter) of Gnosticism. The
Gnostics repudiated the idea that the so-called “supreme God” would
ever dwell in (or create) “evil matter,” and hence they repudiated the
concept of Jesus being God in the flesh. For that reason, Paul firmly
presented his anti-Gnostic polemic by saying in essence: “Jesus created
all things, in fact, all the fullness (plērōma) of the supreme the Deity
(theotētos) presently, continuously, and permanently dwells (katoikei)
in bodily form (sōmatikōs). Thus, Paul’s intention and purpose in his
letter to the Colossians was to refute the very heart of the Gnostic idea
by arguing that (a) Jesus Christ (the Son; cf. 1:14-15) was absolutely
God in flesh (theotētos sōmatikōs; cf. 2:9) and (b) that Christians are
reconciled “in His fleshly body through [His physical] death” (1:22,
again emphasizing His real flesh).
Therefore, against the Gnostics, Paul stressed in the strongest way
that in the Person of the Son, Jesus Christ, constantly dwells all the
fullness of God in human flesh. Paul was not teaching here that Jesus
was the Father, which would have been completely out-of-flow with his
anti-Gnostic polemic (and his entire theology). Nor was Paul simply
providing an expressive essay on the doctrine of the Trinity; this was
not his aim. Paul’s main purpose was to present Jesus Christ as the God-
man, Creator of all things (cf. 1:16-17), whose physical death provides
redemption (cf. 1:20-22). The Jesus that Paul preached sliced explicitly
through the Gnostic flesh-denying system—Jesus was God in human
flesh.
The Gnostic controversy did not surround the Father, but rather it
centered on the notion that “in Him,” Jesus Christ, the “fullness” of the
supreme God dwells permanently and continuously in human flesh. This

57
was the absolute zenith of Paul’s theology and the main thrust of his
argument against Gnostics in his letter to the Colossians.

3.3.3 Kai and the Salutations of Paul: “Grace to you and peace from
God our Father, and [kai] the Lord Jesus Christ.” The specific
benchmark of the Pauline corpus was Paul’s salutations. He included
them in the opening of every one of his epistles (e.g., Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor.
1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2 (partial); 1 Thess.
1:1 (inverted); 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; and
Philem. 1:3).
Paul clearly recognizes that the grace and peace flows equally from
God the Father and Jesus Christ. In the salutations, Paul clearly delivers
his point: the grace and peace is from (apo) God the Father and the Lord
Jesus. Paul does not say that the grace and peace is from God the Father
through (dia) the Lord Jesus Christ, as if Jesus were a mere instrument
and not a direct source of the grace and peace. Paul’s passion surges
when he stresses that the grace and peace flows equally from (apo) both
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Both Persons are the very
objects of Paul’s praise.
As discussed above, Paul comprehends the terms theos and kurios
as equal descriptions of deity. A plain reading of his salutations devoid
of a prior theological commitment clearly distinguishes God the Father
from the Lord Jesus Christ. In spite of this, Oneness teachers (e.g.,
Bernard, 1983: 208-9) insert Modalism into the salutations by proposing
the idea that the conjunction kai should be translated, not as a simple
connective “and,” but as the ascensive “even.” Paul’s salutations are not
teaching a distinction of Persons, Oneness teachers argue, but rather,
they are teaching that Jesus is God the Father. In view of that, the so-
called “correct” rendering, as Oneness teachers surmise, would be,
“God the Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ.” To sustain this Oneness
grammatical assumption, Bernard (1983: 208-9) attempts to explain that

A study of Greek is very interesting in connection with these

greeting passages. The word translated ‘and” is from the
Greek word kai. It can be translated as “and” or as “even” (in
the sense of “that is” or “which is the same as”). For example,
the KJV translates kai as “and” in II Corinthians 1:2 but as
“even” in verse 3 [Bernard then proceeds to give a few more
examples] ... So the greetings could read just as easily “from
God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ.”

58
This argument as applied to the Pauline salutations is fundamentally
flawed, grammatically and theologically.

Grammatically: The predominant usage of the logical conjunction kai

in the New Testament is the connective “and”, not the ascensive
(“even”). There are 9,153 instances of kai in the New Testament
(Mounce, 1993: 422). Of the total New Testament occurrences of kai,
4,829 times it is translated (in virtually every translation) as the simple
connective “and,” with only 97 times as the ascensive “even”
(Kohlenberger et al., 1997: 401). Although passages such as Ephesians 5:3
present a proper use of the ascensive conjunction, the burden of proof
unquestionably falls headlong on the one claiming that kai should be
translated as “even.”
In addition, according to Greek grammar (viz., Granville Sharp’s
rule #5; cf. 3.2 above) when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause
that are connected by kai and the first noun lacks the article, each noun
must denote a distinct person (Sharp, 1803: 12-14; Beisner, 1998: 36,
46). We see this in all of the Pauline salutations: charis humin kai eirēnē
apo theou patros hēmōn kai kuriou Iēsou Christou, literally, “Grace to
you and peace from God Father of us and Lord Jesus Christ.” However,
the salutation in Colossians 1:2 reads: “Grace and peace to you from
God our Father” in most modern translations in which the phrase “and
the Lord Jesus Christ” is absent, even though most manuscripts,
including some important ones ( ‫א‬A C F G I [P] 075 et al M it vgcl [syh**]
bo; Hier), read kai kuriou Iēsou Christou at the end of verse 2,
corresponding to the standard wording of the Pauline salutation. There
are, however, excellent and early witnesses (B D K L Ψ 33 81 1175
1505 1739 1881 al a m vgst.ww syp sa; Ambst) that exclude this phrase.
Since there is no textual reason for the omission as being derived
from the longer reading (otherwise, these manuscripts lacking the
phrase would certainly have omitted the phrase in the other Pauline
salutations), its authenticity is firm (cf. NA28, 1993: 523; Metzger, 1994:
552).7 Surveying the specific grammatical features that personally
7
The salutations in the Pastoral letters contain a variant reading as compared to Paul’s
earlier salutations. In 1 and 2 Timothy (1:2), the salutations read: charis eleos eirēnē
apo theou patros kai Christou Iēsou tou kuriou hēmōn, literally, “Grace, mercy, peace
from God Father and Christ Jesus the Lord of us.” As compared to the salutations in 1
and 2 Timothy, in Titus 1:4, Paul substitutes sōtēros for kuriou: charis kai eirēnē apo
theou patros kai Christou Iēsou tou sōtēros hēmōn, literally, “Grace and peace from
59
distinguish the Father from Jesus Christ in the salutations, New
Testament scholar Murray Harris (1992: 266) notes:

The formula theos kai kurios in reference to one person is not

found in the NT or LXX and is rare elsewhere ... whenever
theos and kurios Iēsou Christos are conjoined or occur in close
proximity (viz., within the same sentence), two persons are
always being referred to (31 instances).

In point of fact, there is no grammatical or contextual justification

offered by Oneness teachers in support of their view. The grammatical
conclusion is simply this: unless the context deems otherwise, in light of
the plain normal predominant New Testament usage, the logical
conjunction kai, “and,” should be translated as the simple connective
“and,” not the ascensive “even.” In spite of the grammatical analysis
regarding the rules of Greek, Oneness teachers must force a pre-decided
theology into the salutations to avoid the obvious: Jesus and His Father
are two distinct Persons.

Theologically: Due to their a priori unitarian assumption, Oneness

teachers infer the most unnatural rendering into the text. The end result
of the Oneness hermeneutic is the wholesale abandonment of the clear
reading of the text. In conclusion, the unipersonal deity of Oneness
theology is clearly absent in the salutations. Scripture presents in the
clearest way that the Father and the Son are two distinct, self-aware
Persons. The entire Pauline corpus clearly denotes a tri-personal God.

3.3.4 Additional Considerations

The Old Testament Law was clear: “On the evidence of two witnesses
or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be
put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deut. 17:6; emphasis

God Father and Christ Jesus the Savior of us.” Nevertheless, the case of the missing
articles before the first noun theou in the salutations of all three Pastoral letters
thoroughly protects against the assertions of Oneness unitarianism and indicates a
distinction of Persons, God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, in the
salutations of ten of his letters, all personal nouns (theou and kuriou) lack the article,
clearly differentiating the Person of the Father from the Person of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
60
added). In John 8:16-18, Jesus points to the authority of the Old
Testament Law to validate His testimony to the unbelieving Jews:

“But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not

alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your
law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.
I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent
Me testifies about Me” (John 8:16-18; emphasis added).

Jesus says two, which the Jews would have understood to mean simply
two. He does not say, as Oneness theology asserts, that His divine nature
testifies for His human nature, which would not line up with the Jewish
or Christian interpretation of Deuteronomy 17:6, which naturally
implies that the witnesses are two persons, not two natures. There are
also further considerations that militate against the Oneness conclusion
that Jesus is the Father:

1. The Oneness unitarian position denies essential historic biblical

doctrines. For example:
i. Oneness theology denies that the Son is the Creator. As briefly
seen already (and I will revisit this point in Chapter 4) in
Oneness theology Jesus as the Father is viewed as the Creator.
Therefore, since only Jesus as the Father preexisted, Oneness
teachers conclude that the “manifestation” of the “Son” had its
beginning at Bethlehem. In this sense, Bernard (1983: 104-5)
explains that the “Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with
the child conceived in the womb of Mary ... From all of these
verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal, but was
begotten by God almost 2000 years ago.” Oneness Christology
clearly denies the Son as Creator even in the face of Paul’s clear
presentation of the Son as the very Agent of creation (cf. Col.
1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6).
ii. Oneness theology denies the preexistence of the Son,
maintaining that Jesus as the Father preexisted (cf. Bernard,
1983: 104-5; Magee, 1988: 25; UPCI, 2008c).
iii.Oneness theology denies the biblical teaching of the incarnation
by asserting that the Father, not the Son, came down and wrapped
Himself (not became) flesh. John 1:14 declares, “The Word
61
 became flesh.” The Greek here (sarx egeneto, lit., “flesh
became”) clearly indicates that the eternal Word (cf. John 1:1a)
did not simply “wrap” Himself in flesh as one would put on an
outfit or a costume, but rather He actually became (egeneto)
flesh. Unfortunately, too many pastors and commentators miss
the grammatical significance of this passage and declare, “God
wrapped Himself in flesh” (a popular epithet among them). As a
result, they unknowingly gratify Oneness believers who think
that it was God the Father that put on or wrapped Himself in a
flesh-body without actually becoming flesh, as if the Father
dressed in flesh or put flesh on, as an actor would put on a mask
without, of course, becoming the person that he or she is
portraying.
iv. Oneness theology denies Jesus’ role as Mediator between God
(the Father) and His elect (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). By definition, a
mediator mediates between two parties other than himself.
Since Oneness theology holds to the idea that Jesus is the Father
(same person), the notion of Jesus being Mediator between the
Father and men would be senseless.

v. Oneness theology denies the Son as divine intercessor (cf. Rom.

8:34). Jesus cannot intercede before the Father on behalf of the
believer if He Himself is the Father. For whom would He
intercede?

vi. Oneness theology denies Jesus as the substitutionary atoning

sacrifice that provided satisfaction before the Father (i.e., the
hilasmos; cf. 1 John 2:2). If Jesus is both the Father and the
Son, to whom did His sacrifice on the cross provide
satisfaction? The mutual operation of the three Persons
infallibly accomplishes the work of salvation (viz., the
soteriological Trinity).

2. Jesus’ use of first person references to refer to Himself and third

person references to refer to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
As discussed above, Jesus’ use of first person personal pronouns to refer
to Himself and third person personal pronouns to refer to the Father and

62
the Holy Spirit positively dissolves the modalistic claim (e.g., John 14:7,
10, 16, 26; 15:10; 16:13-14; 17:5).

3. Jesus used first person ‘plural’ verbs to refer to both Himself and
the Father.
For example, in John 14:23, Jesus specifically used two first person
plural verbs (eleusometha, “We will come” and poiēsometha, “We will
make”) in reference to both Himself and His Father, which clearly and
precisely distinguished Jesus from His Father. And, as we saw above, in
John 10:30, Jesus used the first person plural verb esmen (“are”) to
differentiate Himself from His Father and yet show that they are one
(hen) in essence, as Trinity so vividly and consistently teaches: “I and
the Father are [esmen] one”; emphasis added).

4. Speaker-hearer distinctions.
There are many examples of a clear speaker-hearer relationship between
the Father and Jesus, thus demonstrating that they are distinct cognizant
Persons. This would be extremely inconsistent if Jesus and the Father
were the same Person: “After being baptized, Jesus came up
immediately from the water ... behold, a voice out of the heavens said,
‘This is My [speaker] beloved Son, [hearer] in whom I [speaker] am
well-pleased’” (Matt. 3:16-17; emphasis added; see also Matt. 17:5); “I
[speaker] glorified You [hearer] on earth, having accomplished the work
which You [hearer] have given Me [speaker] to do” (John 17:4;
emphasis added; see also Luke 23:34, 46). The Father and the Son, Jesus
Christ, stand in an “I” - “You” relationship to each other; Jesus refers to
the Father as “You” and Himself as “I.” The Father likewise refers to
Jesus as “You” and Himself as “I.” Jesus personally and distinctly
relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether
true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other.

5. The early church universally rejected Modalism.

Since its inception, the early church universally and unambiguously
rejected both modalistic and dynamic forms of Monarchianism, and
condemned those who promulgated it (e.g., Theodotus, Noetus, Praxeas,
Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, etc.). As well, many important early church
fathers sharply spoke out against it (e.g., Hippolytus, Tertullian,
Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius bishop of Rome). What is more,
every important ecumenical council (and resulting creed) from Nicaea
(A.D. 325) to the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) was
63
firmly Trinitarian. They clearly affirmed and safeguarded the
distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity as well as the
unipersonality and dual nature of the Son. In Chapter 5 these historical
facts will be fully exposed and used as a main line of refutation to show
that the early church was not Oneness, but rather envisaged God as
triune.

6. Biblical scholarship throughout church history (and subsequently)

has rejected the teachings of Modalism.
There have never been any recognized Greek grammarians or
recognized biblical scholars/commentators who have endorsed the
UPCI or any other Oneness organization or agreed with Oneness
theology.

3.3.5 The Final Analysis: Jesus is not the Father

Nowhere in Scripture do Jesus or His apostles ever claim that Jesus is

the Father. The writers of the New Testament always identified Jesus as
the “Son” never as the Father: “Over fifty times Jesus and the Father are
rendered distinct in the same verse” (Boyd, 1992: 68-69). In a
straightforward way, the New Testament presents the Father and Son
interacting with each other as two distinct Persons.
In addition, there are specific grammatical features, as seen above,
which clearly denote an authentic and actual personal distinction
between them: 1) the case of the missing articles in the salutations of
Paul, 2) repeated and different prepositions, 3) the repetition of the
article, and 4) speaker-hearer distinctions between the Father and the
Son. The idea that Jesus is both the Father and the Son turns their
intimate relationship into a mere simulation. The Father and Son
intimately and lovingly relate to one another: “The Father loves the Son
and has given all things into His hand” (John 3:35; cf. 5:20; 10:17); and
Jesus really does love the Father: “So that the world may know that I
love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me ...” (John
14:31). This love exchange plainly differentiates between the Person of
the Father and the Person of the Son as well as the Person of the Holy
Spirit.
The Oneness solution to the many passages that speak of the
personal loving interaction between the Father and the Son is the
assertion that “The expression of love between Father and Son are
explained as communication between the divine and human natures of
64
Christ” (Bernard, 1983: 22). In other words, the “Father” mode loves
the “Son” mode, or Jesus’ human nature loves His own divine nature,
and the reverse. This does not follow. By way of definition and logic,
two abstract natures cannot have fellowship and love for each other.
Natures cannot intellectually express emotion. Natures can neither give
love nor receive love, for they are not self-aware nor cognizant. Only
conscious persons are capable of giving and receiving love. The Son is
the object of the Father’s love. In Scripture, either two of all three
Persons give as well as receive love (e.g., John 14:23; Rom, 15:30; 2
Cor. 13:14; 2 Thess. 2:16; Jude 1:1).
The Son is not the Father. It is the Son who is presented as God-
man, the very image and perfect representation of His Father (cf. John
1:18; Heb. 1:3). In the Son’s preexistence (cf. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17),
He had loving intercourse and glory with the Father (cf. John 1:1; 17:5).
The Son is clearly presented as the divine Priest (cf. Heb. 7:1ff.)
who revealed His Father to mankind (cf. John 1:18). The Son is the one
and only Mediator between the Father and humans (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). As
a result, it was the Son, Jesus Christ, the monogenēs theos (John 1:18),
who said: “No one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me”
(John 14:6; emphasis added). The unipersonalism of Oneness theology
nullifies Jesus’ own authentication: “If I alone testify about Myself, My
testimony is not true. There is another [allos: other than the one
speaking] who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He
gives about Me is true” (John 5:31-32; emphasis added; cf. 8:17-18).
Jesus and the biblical authors utilized plain uncomplicated language that
established a real distinction existing simultaneously between the
Persons of the Trinity. The essential distinctions between the Father and
the Son (and of the Spirit) were not merely distinctions of illusory
modes, or functions, but actual:

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life,
even so the Son, also gives life to whom He wishes ... For I
have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the
will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:21; 6:38; emphasis added).

3.4 JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT

65
As we have shown, in Oneness theology Jesus is the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. This premise rejects the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ.
So far, we have centered on the Oneness Christological assertion that
Jesus is the Father. So now, we will address the Oneness doctrine of the
Holy Spirit. Bernard (1983: 128) briefly explains the Oneness position
regarding the Holy Spirit:

The Holy Spirit is simply God. God is holy (Leviticus 11:44;

1 Peter 1:16). In fact, He alone is holy in Himself. God is also
a Spirit (John 4:24), and there is one Spirit of God (1
Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:4). Therefore, “Holy Spirit” is
another term for the one God.

In Oneness doctrine, the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit” are merely
names or descriptions of the divine nature of Jesus. Thus, the divine
nature of Christ is the Holy Spirit as well as the Father.
This is yet another example of the patent denial of both the
unipersonality of Jesus Christ and the unipersonality of the Holy Spirit
(cf. UPCI 2008b). Keeping consistent with this Oneness notion, in all
passages where the Holy Spirit is said to be the speaker (e.g., Acts 8:29;
13:2; 21:11; Heb. 3:7-11), it is merely Jesus switching from the Son or
Father mode to the Holy Spirit mode. Yet there no indication or mention
to Jesus’ audience of this vacillation between modes. In point of fact,
Jesus was a masterful communicator; if indeed Jesus was really the Holy
Spirit, He would not have been so secretive, so utterly evasive or vague
as to hide this so-called important truth, for He was absolutely clear
pertaining to His deity (e.g., John 5:17ff.; 8:58; 10:30) and His humanity
(e.g., Matt. 26:26, 28, 38; John 8:40). In contrast, there are many
passages where we read that the Holy Spirit was “sent” by the Father
and Son. In John 15:26, we read that the Son sent the Holy Spirit para
(“from”) the Father to testify of the Son: “When the Helper comes,
whom I will send to you from the Father [para tou patros], that is the
Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father [para tou patros], He will
testify about Me” (emphasis added; cf. John 14:26).
Nevertheless, in spite of the plain reading of many passages,
Oneness doctrine maintains that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, rendering any
so-called implied distinction (such as 2 Cor. 1:14) as nothing more than
a divine charade, namely, Jesus’ divine nature being distinguished from
His human nature. It is not biblically justified nor is it a reasonable
inference to suggest that Jesus was speaking to His disciples in such a
66
way as to lead them to believe that there were three subjects, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit, when in fact there was really only one
subject, Jesus.

3.4.1 Oneness Standard Proof-Texts to show that Jesus is the Holy

Spirit

Oneness teachers have fewer arguments in presenting Jesus as the Holy

Spirit than in presenting Jesus as the Father. As demonstrated, the
fundamental premise upon which the entire Oneness position rests is the
assumption that God is unipersonal. This conviction provides the
governing hermeneutic for Oneness teachers. The most frequently
employed passages in which Oneness teachers maneuver to teach that
Jesus is the Holy Spirit are John 4:24; Romans 8:9-11; 2 Corinthians
3:17 and Ephesians 4:4.
Aside from that, Oneness teachers posit the “same attributes”
argument in that the works attributed to Jesus are the same works
attributed to the Holy Spirit. Said another way, what Jesus does, the
Holy Spirit does (e.g., creation, the resurrection of Jesus, salvation,
being called the paraklētos dwelling with the believer, etc.). External
influences enslave the biblical text when exegesis is abandoned.
The Oneness conclusion that Jesus is the Holy Spirit derives from
a faulty method of proof-texting: citing a sequence of passages entirely
detached from their defining contexts. Generally, the sequence forms
around Romans 8:9-11 and Philippians 1:19 where the phrase “the Spirit
of Christ” appears. Ephesians 4:4 is then cited: “There is one ... Spirit”
connected with 1 Corinthians 8:6: “one Lord Jesus Christ.” Concluding
with 2 Corinthians 3:17 (a most used text): “Now the Lord is the Spirit.”
Therefore, Oneness teachers (cf. Bernard, 1983: 128; UPCI, 2008b)
deduce that Jesus must be the Holy Spirit. In terms of John 4:24 (“God
is spirit”) and Ephesians 4:4, Oneness teachers assert that the word
“spirit” (or “Spirit”) is speaking specifically of the Holy Spirit (Bernard,
1983: 128 Magee, 1988: 16; UPCI, 2008b). As attractive as this scheme
above may sound to Oneness believers, this kind of biblical hop-
scotching only equivocates and confuses the terms “spirit” and “Lord.”

John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in
spirit and truth.” The Oneness assumption of unipersonalism dictates
how the phrase “God is spirit” is to be taken in that the “spirit” in this
passage is a reference to the Holy Spirit (Bernard, 1983: 128). As
67
previously presented, Oneness theology maintains the notion that Jesus
as the Father/Holy Spirit is God while the “Son” refers to His non-divine
human nature (cf. Paterson, 1966: 22; Bernard, 1983: 99, 103). To assert
here that “spirit” is the Holy Spirit is a fallacy of equivocation. It
confuses the term translated “spirit” (pneuma) as having only one
meaning—Holy Spirit. Although some older translations (e.g., KJV,
YLT, ASV) render pneuma as a capitalized “Spirit,” no standard biblical
commentary presents a modalistic understanding of the passage.
First, as briefly touched upon, the Greek term pneuma appears
many times in the New Testament carrying a wide-range of meanings.
For instance, pneuma is applied to the inward part or simple essence of
a human being (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:20; Heb. 4:12). Scripture generalizes the
nature of humans as dichotomous consisting of the outer quality (i.e.,
soma, sarx, etc.) and the inner quality, in which pneuma and psuchē,
synonymously describe this element (cf. Reymond, 1998: 420-24).
Pneuma is also applied to the unregenerate (e.g., 1 John 4:3); human
characteristics (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:7); Jesus’ human spirit (e.g., John 19:30);
angels both good (e.g., Heb. 1:14) and demonic (e.g., Mark 9:17; Acts
5:16), etc. Pneuma is also used symbolically, such as where Paul says:
“I am present in spirit” (1 Cor. 5:3) or when he speaks of the “spirit of
gentleness” (1 Cor. 4:21). Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, pneuma is
translated “breath” representatively of the Lord’s judgment against the
“lawless one”: “Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord
will slay with the breath of His mouth.”
Even though the preponderance of the New Testament occurrences
of pneuma signifies the third Person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit,
it cannot be hastily assumed that at all times pneuma signifies the Holy
Spirit (esp. at John 4:24). Pneuma occurs about 380 times in the New
Testament (cf. NA27/UBS4). In the so-called Textus Receptus, it occurs
385 times. Hence, the KJV, for example, translates these occurs of
pneuma as (Jesus’ own) ghost, 2 times; (Jesus’ own) spirit, 6 times;
(My) Spirit, 3 times; (evil) spirit, 47 times; Holy Ghost, 89 times; Spirit,
111 times; Spirit (of Christ), 2 times; Spirit (of God), 13 times; Spirit
(of the Lord), 5 times; Spirit (of truth), 3 times; human spirit, 49 times;
miscellaneous, 21 times; spirit, 8 times; and spirit (general), 26 times.
The ultimate deciding factor in determining a particular word’s function
and definition is the context. Therefore, it is simply a gross misreading
of any text to assume that a term carries the exact same meaning in every
occurrence. Contextually, the dialogue leading up to verse 24 centers on
the woman’s misconception that worshiping God is limited
68
geographically (i.e., on Mount Gerizim; cf. v. 20), a misconception
which Jesus corrects.
Second, note how the phrase reads: pneuma ho theos, literally,
“spirit the God” (the verb estin is implied). Grammatically speaking,
pneuma is an anarthrous predicate nominative. The predicate pneuma
expresses information pertaining to the subject, theos, that is, as to
God’s quality of nature or essence He is spirit, not “flesh and bones”
(Luke 24:39). When pneuma has the article, the Person is usually being
thought of; and when pneuma is anarthrous, His nature (i.e., what He is)
or His activity is usually being thought of (Greenlee, 1986: 24).
Semantically, then, pneuma is not definite (i.e., “the Spirit”). Nor, is it
indefinite (i.e., “a spirit,” one of many) as the KJV mistranslates. Rather,
pneuma is qualitative (Wallace, 1996: 270). Hence, the anarthrous
predicate emphasizes the character and nature as with theos in John 1:1c
(Rogers Jr. and Rogers III, 1998: 189; this point will be fully discussed
in the next chapter).
A similar example is found in John 1:14: ho logos sarx egeneto.
The Greek syntax of John 1:1 and 4:24 differ only on one minor aspect;
in 4:24, the verb is implied, as indicated above, while in John 1:14, the
verb (egeneto) is stated. The Logos did not become the flesh (tagging
sarx, as definite) or a flesh (indefinite, one of many), but rather the
eternal Logos became flesh. He partook qualitatively of human nature.
It is for this reason that most modern translations do not capitalize
“spirit” keeping faithful to the qualitative tag of pneuma.
So, in contrast to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus taught in John
4:24 that 1) God is omnipresent, hence, He can be worshiped anywhere
and 2) His Father as to His essential quality or essence was spirit, but
not the Holy Spirit (i.e., not as to His identity) which a definite tag would
surely denote. In other words, Jesus uses pneuma here in John 4:24, to
refer to the nature of the Godhead, and not the third Person of the Trinity
(cf. Geneva Study Bible, 1995).

Romans 8:9-11: “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if
indeed the Spirit of God [pneuma theou] dwells in you. But if anyone
does not have the Spirit of Christ [pneuma Christou], he does not belong
to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of your sin,
yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit [pneuma]
of Him who raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, He who raised
Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies

69
through His Spirit [autou pneumatos] who dwells in you” (emphasis
added).
In verse 9, we read of the “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ.”
And in verse 11, we read of the “Spirit” and “His Spirit.” So starting
with a modalistic premise, Oneness teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 16,
128; Magee, 1988: 16; UPCI, 2008b) deduce that because each of these
occurrences of “Spirit” (or “spirit”) specifically denote the Holy Spirit,
and thus the phrase “Spirit of Christ” proves that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
In Oneness doctrine, the “Spirit of Christ” is the Holy Spirit, thus merely
a mode of Jesus’ divine nature (cf. Bernard, 1983: 128; UPCI, 2008b).
However, this line of argumentation is defective. First and most
importantly, the text does not explicitly state anywhere that Jesus is the
Holy Spirit as promptly assumed by Oneness advocates. Second, in
pointed contrast to the entire system of Oneness theology, Romans 8:3
clearly differentiates the Father from the Son: “For what the Law could
not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned
sin in the flesh” (emphasis added).
There is no contextual (or theological) justification for the Oneness
assertion that the term pneuma used repetitiously identifies Jesus as the
Holy Spirit. A careful exegesis of these passages positively controverts
the Oneness position. In verse 9, Christou (as in pneuma Christou) is in
the genitive case—namely, a genitive of source or origin in that the
Spirit originated from Christ (Sanday and Headlam, 1904: 196;
Greenlee, 1986: 25). Jesus promised His disciples: “When the Helper
comes, whom I will send to you from the Father [para tou patros], that
is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father [para tou patros],
He will testify about Me” (John 15:26; emphasis added; cf. 14:26).
Thus, the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and from the Son. The
same semantic force can be seen in 2 Corinthians 3:3, where Christians
are said to be epistolē Christou, “a letter from Christ” (see also Rom.
9:16; and Rev. 9:11).
There is absolutely no exegetical or contextual justification to assert
that Paul was teaching here that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. In reference
to Romans 8:9-11, Calvin (1989: 1.13.18) states:

The Son is said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the
Father and the Son. This is done in many passages, but none
more clearly than in the eighth chapter of Romans, where the

70
 same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and
the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead.

In Philippians 1:19 we see the same grammatical significance: “For I

know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and
the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ [tou pneumatos Iēsou
Christou; i.e., the Spirit originating from Jesus Christ]” (emphasis
added). A usable way of illustrating this point is the phrase “Son of
David.” This appellation denoting the royal line and kingly office of our
Savior obviously does not mean that Jesus was Himself David. The
phrase, in addition to being a kingly title, expresses the relationship that
Jesus has with David in that Jesus is the royal descendent from David,
and the rightful Messianic heir to the Davidic throne.
Therefore, in light of that, the “Spirit of Christ” does not mean that
Christ is the Holy Spirit, only that the Spirit proceeds or originates from
Jesus Christ. Robertson (1931: 4:373) sees the “Spirit of Christ” and the
“Spirit of God” as the same Spirit—the Holy Spirit from both God and
Christ:

The Spirit of Christ (pneuma Christou). The same as “the

Spirit of God” just before. See also Philippians 1:19; I Peter
1:11. Incidental argument for the Deity of Christ and probably
the meaning of II Corinthians 3:18 “the Spirit of the Lord.”
Condition of first class, assumed as true.

Hawthorne and Martin (1993: 407) rightly observe that “The Spirit of
Christ (as with the Spirit of God) seem to overlap or even become
completely interchangeable ... where ‘the Spirit of God,’ ‘the Spirit of
Christ’ and ‘Christ in you’ all refer to the same reality.” The Holy Spirit
bears a relationship to both the Father and Christ, and yet is distinct from
both of them as a divine Person. Allowing the context to define the
understanding of pneuma in Romans 8:9-11 (and v. 3) actually leads to
the very opposite of the Oneness position: the Spirit is intimately
connected to the Father and the Son, so that He is identified as belonging
to and proceeding from both. Yet the Spirit is neither the Father nor
Jesus. Therefore, to suggest that the Father sent Himself is not only a
misreading of the passage, but removes the plain intended meaning of
the biblical author.

2 Corinthians 3:17-18: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face,
71
beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed
into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the
Spirit.” Oneness teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 16, 128; Magee, 1988:
16) see the phrase “The Lord is the Spirit” as a solid so-called proof-
text confirming that Jesus, who is “Lord,” is the Holy Spirit. However,
as with Romans 8:9-11, nowhere do these passages state that Jesus is
the Holy Spirit, only that “the Lord is the Spirit.”
Note first that the context actually prevents a Oneness
interpretation. In verses 1-18, Paul is simply contrasting the Old
Testament Law, which “kills” and “fades away” (vv. 7, 11), with the
New Testament Spirit of grace, which “gives life” and will “last.” In
keeping with Paul’s theme, the Lord, Christ Jesus, is the Spirit that gives
life. Paul had previously stated in reference to Christ: “The last Adam
became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). The ministry of the Spirit of
grace is Jesus Christ (cf. v. 8). Jesus is that Spirit, but He is not the Holy
Spirit. 2 Corinthians cannot be taken as so-called evidence that the
identity of the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ. The first occurrence of “Lord”
in the passages refers to the wording of Exodus 34:34 (in the LXX).
Hawthorne and Martin (1993: 407) observe that

When those in this age “turn to the Lord” (i.e., God) as Moses
did at Sinai, a veil of spiritual blindness is lifted from their
eyes; only now “Lord” signifies “the Spirit” who is the key to
knowledge of God. This is Paul’s interpretation of the OT
passage’s meaning, which he applies to his conflict with Jews
and Jewish Christians. The next verse must be understood in
this context: it is the work of “the Lord who is the Spirit” to
transform believers into the image of Christ, the Last Adam,
the pattern of a new humanity (2 Cor. 3:18).

The expression, “Spirit of Christ” cannot be taken as “an epexegetical

genitive phrase, meaning ‘the Spirit which = Christ’” (Hawthorne and
Martin, 1993: 407). Throughout Paul’s epistles, Jesus and the Holy
Spirit are always personally distinguished. Jesus is portrayed as 1) the
Father’s Son (cf. Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4), 2) possessing a human nature (cf.
Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7; 1 Tim. 2:5), 3) dying “for our sins”
(1 Cor. 15:3; Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:15), and 4) being resurrected physically
to life and seated at God’s right hand (cf. Col. 3:3; Phil. 2:9). These are
not works said of the Holy Spirit (cf. Hawthorne and Martin, 1993: 407).

72
To assert that pneuma in 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 (and Eph. 4:4) is the
Holy Spirit ignores Paul’s own theology (Paul constantly distinguishes
the Holy Spirit from Jesus), the surrounding context, and Paul’s pressing
connection with the Old Testament concept of the Spirit in Exodus 34.
John 4:24; Romans 8:9-11; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and Philippians 1:19
are passages that Oneness teachers mishandle to avoid the biblical truth
that Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 4:4-6: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you
were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and
in all.” As with other passages that read, “one God” and/or “one Father”
(e.g., Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6), the Oneness unitarian assumption governs
how they are to be interpreted. Here, as with John 4:24, the terms “one”
and “Spirit” are equivocated and thus a Oneness meaning is posited:
“Spirit” equals “Holy Spirit” and “one” equals unipersonal. Therefore,
according to Oneness reasoning (Bernard, 1983: 128), the “one”
describes the unipersonal God (Jesus), and the terms “Spirit,” ”Lord”
and “God/Father” are descriptions of Jesus’ three modes or
manifestations.
At the outset, Ephesians 4:4 does not specifically indicate that “one
Spirit” is the Person of the “Holy Spirit.” Since Pneuma here is not
preceded by the adjective hagios (hen sōma kai hen pneuma), any
intended reference to the Holy Spirit must be demonstrated
contextually. This is not to say that only where hagios precedes pneuma
does pneuma denote the Holy Spirit. For there are places in Paul’s
epistles (and other New Testament books) where Paul specifically refers
to the Holy Spirit as pneuma, and lacks the adjective hagios (e.g., 1 Cor.
12:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; etc.). At these places, however, there is a clear
contextual justification to conclude as much. Some see the Holy Spirit
here in Ephesians 4:6, but within a Trinitarian context, for Robertson
(1931: 4:535) says: “One God and Father of all ... Not a separate God
for each nation or religion. One God for all men. See here the Trinity
again (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit).”
Even so, there is no contextual reason to interpret the passages as
Oneness teachers do, assuming what they have not proved. However,
even if Ephesians 4:4 were pertaining specifically to the Holy Spirit,
which is possible, the passage would actually support the doctrine of
Trinity, presenting the essential unity of the three Persons: “There is ...

73
one Spirit ... one Lord ... one God (vv. 4-6). Either way, the verse is
definitely not teaching Modalism.
That God is one Being (one Spirit) and three separate Spirits is
consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. To connect these passages to
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 (as Oneness teachers do; cf. Bernard, 1983: 16,
128; Magee, 1988: 16) ignores the fact that Ephesians 4:4 specifically
speaks of “one Spirit,” and 2 Corinthians (“the Lord is the Spirit”) may
be, as indicated above, speaking of the fundamental nature or essence
of God. Oneness believers may attempt to turn these passages into
modalistic proof-texts, but the Oneness dilemma still remains: there is
no place in the New Testament that states explicitly that Jesus is the
Holy Spirit.

3.4.1.1 Same Attributes Argument

Since Scripture presents the full deity of the Holy Spirit, one would
expect to find references to the Holy Spirit as having the same attributes
as God the Father. The biblical evidence of the full deity of the Holy
Spirit is extensive:

1. Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as “God” (cf. Acts 5:3-4).

In addition, Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as kurios, “Lord”
in a religious context (cf. 2 Thess. 3:5).

2. The New Testament authors cite Old Testament passages

referring to Yahweh and apply them to the Holy Spirit (cf.
Acts 5:9; 28:25-27, Heb. 3:7; 10:15). This is also true of the
Son. For example, compare Psalm 102:25-27 with Hebrews
1:10-12; Isaiah 6:1-10 with John 12:39-41; Isaiah 8:12-13 with
1 Peter 3:14-15; Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10-11; Joel
2:32 with Romans 10:13.

3. The Holy Spirit possesses the same attributes as God. For

example, the Holy Spirit is presented as eternal (cf. Heb. 9:14);
omnipresent (cf. Ps. 139:7); omniscient (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10-11);
omnipotent (cf. Luke 1:35); and Creator (cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4;
Ps. 104:30).

4. The Holy Spirit accomplishes works that are exclusively

divine. He is the very Agent of Mary’s pregnancy: “She was
74
 found to be with child by the [ek + genitive, lit., “from the
source/means/agency of”] the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18;
emphasis added). He regenerates the spiritually dead person
(cf. John 3:5; Titus 3:5). He dwells in the believer (cf. 1 Cor.
3:16). He distributes spiritual gifts according to His own will
(cf. 1 Cor. 12:11). He seals the believer for redemption (cf.
Eph. 1:13). He works sanctification in the believer’s life (cf. 2
Thess. 2:13), etc. Only because He is God, omnipotent,
omniscient and omnipresent, is He able to accomplish these
acts.

5. The Holy Spirit is worshiped as God. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus

commands His disciples to baptize new converts into the Name
(i.e., “authority”) of the triune God. Water baptism is an act of
spiritual worship to God, namely, to the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit. It signifies a unification or identification with
the triune God and the one baptized, as illustrated in section
3.5.1.5 below. The Holy Spirit is truly God—coequal,
coeternal and coexistent with (distinct from) the Father and the
Son (cf. Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; Titus 3:5-7). As
God, He receives worship and honor in the same sense as that
of the Father and the Son. For only in a Trinitarian context is
the Person and deity of the Holy Spirit biblically tenable.
Trinitarianism biblically maintains that all three Persons share
the nature of the one true God and therefore all three Persons
possess the very attributes of God.

The “same attribute” argument, however, is used by Oneness teachers

(e.g., Paterson, 1966: 22), but in a different sense. Oneness teachers
reason that because Scripture teaches that both Jesus and the Holy
Spirit (and the Father) possess and have accomplished and/or
completed the same works (e.g., creation, resurrection of Jesus,
salvation, dwelling with the believer, empowering the church, etc.),
Jesus, as God, must be the Holy Spirit (and Father, as to His divine
nature).
Specifically, Oneness teachers (e.g., Paterson, 1966: 22) point to
biblical passages where Jesus makes intercession for His people (e.g.,
Heb. 4:15; 7:25) and passages where the Spirit likewise makes
intercession for the people of God (e.g., Rom. 8:26). In the case of
Matthew 28:20, Jesus exhorts His followers that He will abide with
75
them forever, and yet the same is true with the Holy Spirit, according
to John 14:26. There are many more examples. However, the “same
attribute” argument put forward by Oneness advocates only
demonstrates their theological presupposition that molds and shapes
Oneness theology, namely, unitarianism/unipersonalism.
In other words, if Jesus (or the Father) and the Holy Spirit share
the same attributes, they must be the same Person. This, of course, is
to be expected. If one starts with the assumption of unipersonalism,
then any attributes possessed by both Jesus and the Holy Spirit (and
the Father) are attributes possessed by a unipersonal deity, Jesus, in
either the Father or the Holy Spirit mode. Oneness advocates use this
same kind of erroneous argument in their effort to identify Jesus as the
Father as well. Such reasoning has no merit. Because Jesus and the
Holy Spirit do in fact share equivalent attributes, it does not follow that
they are the same Person. The three Persons in the Trinity indivisibly
and inseparably share the nature of the one Being; what is said of one
Person can be said of all, which is entirely harmonious with the
doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, as God, any one of the three
Persons can accomplish the same things.
Thus, one or all of the three Persons can claim to be the “Alpha
and Omega,” “Yahweh,” or the “one true God.” The biblical doctrine
of the Trinity asserts one Being, not one Person or three separate Gods,
but three distinct Persons or Selves.
There is no place in Scripture which indicates that the works of
God are limited to only the Father, or only the Son, or only the Holy
Spirit. The works of God are the works that all three Persons in the
Trinity accomplish. These works include the specific functions
accomplished by designated Persons in the Godhead, which are aspects
of the economic Trinity.

3.4.2 The Biblical Teaching: Jesus is not the Holy Spirit

Scripture plainly presents the unipersonality of the Holy Spirit and thus
the Spirit’s personal distinction from Jesus. One cannot accept this
premise, however, if one starts with an a priori theological assumption
that is adventitious to an exegetical examination of Scripture. Contrary
to the faulty hermeneutical method employed by Oneness teachers, to
understand correctly the interpretation of any biblical text, one must
attain the biblical authors’ intention. Bearing that in mind, we shall
76
focus on some biblical key points that exegetically establish the Holy
Spirit as a divine Person existing distinct from Jesus.

3.4.2.1 The Holy Spirit is Distinct

On its own merit, Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit is personally
distinct from the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, “the Holy
Spirit,” as Boyd (1992: 117) observes, “is distinctly referred to over two
hundred times in the New Testament!” Thus, throughout the New
Testament, Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit and Jesus as distinct
Persons over two hundred times. Never once does Scripture call Jesus
the “Holy Spirit.” In passages such as 2 Corinthians 13:14, the Holy
Spirit is grammatically distinguished from the Father and Jesus. The
Greek reads: Hē charis tou kuriou Iēsou Christou kai hē agapē tou theou
kai hē koinōnia tou hagiou pneumatos meta pantōn humōn, literally,
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of the God and the
fellowship of the Holy Spirit with all of you.” According to the rules of
Greek grammar, when the Greek conjunction (i.e., the copulative kai) is
inserted between nouns of the same case and each of those nouns are
preceded by the article (ho) each noun denotes “a different person, thing,
or quality from the preceding noun” (Sharp, 1803: 14-19; cf. Beisner,
1998: 36, 46). Within the particular limitations of the rule, there exist
no exceptions.8

8
The validity of the six grammatical rules discovered by Sharp (1803) are limited
within the specifications of the rule itself. For example, according to Sharp (cf. 1803:
3-7), TSKS constructions (i.e., rule #1) that involve plurals and/or proper nouns, etc.,
do not properly fall under the category of rule #1. In terms of Sharp’s rule #6 (i.e.,
TSKTS constructions), Oneness advocates may point to John 20:28 in order to nullify
the rule. In other words, John 20:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19
contain TSKTS constructions, thus falling under rule #6. On one side, Trinitarians
would happily point out to Oneness believers that the TSKTS construction contained
in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19 denote three distinct Persons according to
the rules of Greek grammar. On the other side, however, Trinitarians would point out
that John 20:28 is referring to only one Person, Jesus Christ. Thus, Oneness advocates
would assert the inconsistency of the rule as applied to 2 Corinthians 13:14 and
Matthew 28:19. In response, first, within the specifications of the rule itself, as stated
by Sharp (1803: 14-19), TSKTS constructions do in fact distinguish between things or
persons as in the case of 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. Second, exceptions
to rule #6 are those to which nouns refer to the same person. However, “The context
must explain or point out plainly the persons to whom the two nouns relate” (Sharp,
1803: 15). In the case of John 20:28, Sharp (1803: 16) stated: “The context clearly
77
Therefore, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “the Lord Jesus Christ and ... the God
and ... the Holy Spirit” (emphasis added) are clearly distinguished from
each other as distinct Persons. There are many places in the Bible (in
the same verse or context) where this grammatical construction is found
differentiating either all three Persons in the Trinity or Jesus from the
Father (e.g., Matt. 28:19, as discussed below; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 3:11; 1
John 1:3; 2:22-23; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 5:13; etc.). To revisit this point of
evidence, which clearly demonstrates a personal distinction between
Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Jesus uses first person personal pronouns and
verb references to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns
and verb references to refer to the Holy Spirit:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in My [mou, first person] name, He [ekeinos, third person, i.e.,
indirect reference], will teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I [egō, first person] have said to you”
(John 14:26; cf. also 14:16; 16:13-14).

3.4.2.2 The Holy Spirit is a Person

Oneness theology depersonalizes the Holy Spirit. The Oneness idea of

the Holy Spirit bears many similarities to the definition offered by
Jehovah’s Witnesses: an impersonal active force likened to electricity
(cf. Watchtower, 1989a: 380-81). Bernard (1983: 128) provides his
understanding of the Oneness idea of a non-personal Holy Spirit:

When we speak of the Holy Spirit, we are reminding ourselves

of God’s invisible work among men and of His ability to
anoint, baptize, fill, and indwell human lives. The term [Holy
Spirit] speaks of God in activity: “And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2) (emphasis
added).

expresses to whom words were addressed by Thomas.” The context of John 20:28,
unlike 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19, clearly shows that Thomas was
directly applying/addressing both nouns (“Lord” and “God”) to the one Person, Jesus
Christ: Apekrithē Thōmas kai eipen autō, literally, “Answered Thomas and said to
Him” (note the dative pronoun of address, autō, “to Him”). Therefore, when no such
direct address clause occurs within a context to whom the nouns clearly refer to a
single person, the nouns refer either different or distinct things or persons in TSKTS
constructions as with 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19, clearly refuting the
Oneness position.
78
Consider the following:

1. Personal pronouns applied to the Holy Spirit.

Antithetical to the modalistic understanding is the way in which
Scripture plainly speaks of the Holy Spirit as a personal Self.
Indeed, as just presented, Jesus Himself uses personal pronouns to
refer to the Holy Spirit, demonstrating very clearly His view of the
Spirit as a self-aware Person. In passages such as John 14:26, the
masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos is used in contextual
reference to the Holy Spirit who is said to be the paraklētos.
However, the grammatical referent is not the neuter pneuma, but
rather the masculine paraklētos. Thus, the pronoun is naturally
translated as “He.”
In Greek, pronouns generally match their referents in person
and gender (Tsoukalas, 1999: 218). However, in John 16:13-14, this
“general” rule is not followed. As some would point out (ibid.),
Jesus notably emphasizes the Spirit’s personhood by the use of the
masculine personal pronoun ekeinos (and the reflexive masculine
personal pronoun heautou, lit., “He Himself”) to denote specifically
the neuter noun pneuma, “Spirit”:

“But when He [ekeinos - masculine], the Spirit [pneuma -

neuter] of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;
He will not speak on His own initiative [heautou, masculine],
but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to
you what is to come. He [ekeinos - masculine] will glorify Me,
for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you” (emphasis
added).

Notice here that the masculine pronoun ekeinos does not match the
neuter noun pneuma. If this general (but not absolute) rule were
followed, the pronoun would have been the neuter ekeino agreeing
with the corresponding neuter noun pneuma. Thus, Jesus may have
purposely emphasized the Spirit’s personhood by using masculine
pronouns, which disagree grammatically with their referent,
pneuma.

2. The Holy Spirit coherently and intelligently communicates.

79
Scripture is replete with references to the Holy Spirit
communicating, hence, personally interacting with other persons
(e.g., Acts 8:29; 13:2; 28:25, 26; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17).
Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower, 1973: 27), who
also deny the deity and personhood of the Spirit, define “person” as
one with the ability to communicate with others. This explains their
reason for identifying Satan as a person and not an impersonal
entity. Only cognizant persons can exercise intelligent
communication. In Acts 10:19-20, not only does the Holy Spirit
personally communicate (i.e., issues commands) to Peter, but He
even refers to Himself as egō: “While Peter was reflecting on the
vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, the three men are looking for
you. But get up, go down stairs and accompany them without
misgivings, for I [egō] have sent them Myself” (emphasis added).
The same is true in Acts 13:2, where the Holy Spirit personally
communicates using first person personal references (pronoun/verb)
to refer to Himself: “While they were ministering to the Lord and
fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me [moi] Barnabas, and
Saul for the work to which I have called [proskeklēmai] them”
(emphasis added).

3. The Holy Spirit possesses personal attributes.

Along with personal communication, the Holy Spirit possesses
emotions and personal attributes, which only self-aware persons or
selves can experience:

• He can be blasphemed (cf. Mark 3:29, 30)

• He can be lied to (cf. Acts 5:3)
• He intercedes or prays on the behalf of the believer (cf.
Rom. 8:26)
• He issues commands (cf. Acts 6:6; 10:19-20; 13:2)
• He is intelligent in that He investigates and searches (cf.
1 Cor. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:27)
• He has a will (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9-11)
• He can be grieved (cf. Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30)
• He testifies (cf. Neh. 9:30; John 15:26; Heb. 10:15) and
teaches (cf. John 14:26)
• He loves and has fellowship with believers (cf. Rom.
15:30; 2 Cor. 13:14; as further emphasized below)
80
By way of biblical definition, then, the Holy Spirit is a distinct
Person from Jesus Christ. He is God, having the same attributes as
God. He possesses all the qualities and attributes that self-aware
persons inherently have. The biblical presentation of the Holy Spirit
is in opposition to the Oneness description. Bernard (cf. 1983: 128)
sees the Holy Spirit as merely “God in activity.” Passages such as
Acts 10:19-20 and 13:2 clearly indicate that the Holy Spirit
identifies Himself as an egō, a self-aware Person. The theological
commitment to unipersonalism prevents the Oneness advocate from
envisaging the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person. The Holy Spirit is a
relational distinct Person in contrast to the modalistic idea of the
Holy Spirit as a unipersonal temporary mode of Jesus. In spite of the
biblical substantiation of the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the
UPCI (2008c) asks, “Does the Bible call the Holy Ghost a second or
third person in the Godhead?” to which they sharply respond: “No.
The Holy Ghost is the one Spirit of God, the one God Himself at
work in our lives. John 4:24; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19; 12:13.”
Oneness Christology maintains the idea that Jesus is Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, differing only in function, not in Person. When
reading the Gospels, Oneness believers must determine if Jesus is
speaking as the Father, or Son, or as the Holy Spirit. In contrast to
this unnatural way of reading the text, Jesus speaks very plainly
regarding His personal distinction from the Holy Spirit.

4. The Holy Spirit gives, loves and continually has fellowship with
believers.
The Apostle Paul was certainly bold and clear when it came to
exhorting the people of God with grand Trinitarian benedictions.
Turning again to 2 Corinthians 13:14, notice how Paul comforts the
saints in Corinth with these words: “The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship [koinōnia] of the
Holy Spirit be with you all” (emphasis added).
Again, only self-aware persons can experience and give true
fellowship. This same koinōnia believers have with the Father and
the Son: “We proclaim to you also, so that you too may have
fellowship [koinōnia] with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the
Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3; emphasis added).
As a distinct emotional Person, the Holy Spirit gives love. Thus, the
Apostle Paul provides absolute solace with these encouraging words
81
 to the Christians in Rome: “Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord
Jesus Christ and by [dia] the love of the Spirit, to strive together with
me in your prayers to God for me” (Romans 15:30; emphasis
added). Observe also here how Paul again grammatically
distinguishes the three Persons: “Our Lord [tou kuriou] Jesus
Christ,” and [kai] “the Spirit” [tou pneumatos], and “God” [pros
ton theon, lit., “to God”]. First, as discussed above (cf. 3.4.2.1), the
repeated article tou and the insertion of kai between tou kuriou and
tou pneumatos denotes a clear distinction between Jesus and the
Holy Spirit. Second, note that the love comes by/from (dia) the Holy
Spirit. Love is an act accomplished solely by self-aware persons, not
natures, offices, modes, or manifestations. True emotion expresses
true personhood.

3.4.3 The Final Analysis: Jesus is not the Holy Spirit

The Oneness assertion that Jesus is the Holy Spirit Himself, as to His
divine nature, in which no personal differentiation exists, does not take
into account the profuse amount of ink that the biblical authors spent
distinguishing Jesus from the Holy Spirit in the same context (esp. John
chaps. 14-16). In Luke 10:21-22, Luke records a very intimate and
beautiful prayer of Jesus Christ addressed to the Father in which Jesus
rejoices in the Holy Spirit:

At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and

said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent
and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way
was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed
over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is
except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and
anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Luke 10:21-
22).

In the same decidedly Trinitarian context, the Apostle Paul speaks of

salvation accomplished by means of the triune God:

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in

righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He
82
 poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so
that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).

This examination has exegetically demonstrated, yet again, the ability

of the Scriptures to distinguish clearly between Jesus and the Holy
Spirit. When one allows the plain reading of the text to govern the
exegesis, one sees clearly the lack of substance in the Oneness claim.
Biblically seen, the Holy Spirit is a divine Person distinct from Jesus
Christ in the Trinity.

3.5 BAPTISMAL FORMULA - A CASE STUDY

As mentioned, the largest of the Oneness churches is the UPCI. While

there is diversity of belief on many minor issues, all Oneness churches
share one fundamental common denominator: an a priori commitment
to unipersonalism, and consequently an utter rejection of the doctrine of
the Trinity. Among the many minor differences between Oneness
churches are the issues of water baptism and salvation. Observably
though, some Oneness churches do not hold to the notion that water
baptism is a necessity for salvation. Others, including the UPCI, take a
firm and very unalterable stand on baptismal regeneration, which is the
view that water baptism is necessary for regeneration (salvation).
Bernard (1984: 133) affirms that water “baptism has become a means
of salvation.” The “official” UPCI website (2008b) under the title
“Salvation” openly asserts that water baptism is essential for salvation:

The New Testament experience of salvation consists of

repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the
Holy Ghost, after which the Christian is to live a godly life
(Acts 2:36-41) … Water baptism is an essential part of New
Testament salvation and not merely a symbolic ritual. It is part
of entering into the kingdom of God (God’s church, the bride
of Christ), and therefore, it is not merely a part of local church
membership. (See John 3:5; Galatians 3:27).

In terms of the issue of “speaking in tongues” (i.e., the perpetuity of

spiritual gifts), there is an assortment of dissimilar views among
Oneness churches. In this section, however, we will discuss primarily
83
the particular aspect of the UPCI doctrine of water baptism (viz.,
baptismal regeneration). Also discussed will be the UPCI inflexible
assertion that water baptism (by immersion) employing the so-called
“apostolic” verbal formula (“in the name of Jesus”) is the only valid and
acceptable means of baptism—one’s salvation utterly depends on it (cf.
Bernard, 1983: 138; Boyd, 1992: 132; UPCI, 2008b).
Aside from water baptism “in the name of Jesus” only, the UPCI
system of salvation includes faith, repentance and the “baptism of the
Holy Ghost” with the absolute evidence, as they assert (cf. Paterson
1953: 12, 27; Boyd, 1992: 132; Beisner, 1998: 52-54; UPCI, 2008b), of
speaking in other tongues. Hyper-meticulous is the God of the UPCI
who demands that if one is not water baptized “in the name of Jesus”
only, their faith, repentance and sincerity are of no value (cf. UPCI,
2008b). However, not all Oneness churches hold to the same exact
soteriological requirements. There are many UPCI breakaway churches,
which do not hold to the same dogma as that of the UPCI in terms of the
necessity of speaking in tongues and water baptism with an exact verbal
formulation (e.g., the Pentecostal Church, Inc. [PCI]).
The UPCI system of salvation is, indeed, a salvation based on a
works system. The official UPCI view of salvation is entirely opposed
to the biblical doctrine of salvation (being monergistic). Thus, it
becomes clear that the UPCI’s system of salvation has no room for the
biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone. The UPCI sees
(2008b) faith plus the “work” of water baptism accompanied by the
unyielding Jesus’ name baptismal formula as a necessary requirement
for salvation, teaching that the “New Testament experience of salvation
consists of repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy
Ghost” (emphasis added).
The UPCI (2008b) in addition teaches that “speaking in tongues” is
the evidence that one has received the Holy Spirit, thus, salvation. Of
course, this severely opposes Paul’s definitive theology of justification,
which is apart from any works (including the sinner’s faith-act), which
is exegetically seen in great passages such as Romans 4:4-8; 5:1; 8:1,
28-30; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2
Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5-7; etc. Indeed, justification through the lone
instrument of faith is clearly seen throughout the entire New Testament
(e.g., Luke 10:22; John 1:13; 5:21, 24; 6:37-40, 47; 10:28; Acts 10:43;
13:48; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Pet. 1:1-2; 1 John 5:12; etc.).

84
 As many former UPCI members and pastors (e.g., Boyd, 1993)
have observed, there is great fear within the UPCI Church, which serves
a legalistic deity that is watching and judging every move of its
creatures. The many that have left, admittedly, experienced fear as a
result of a bound conscience that believes they have really left God. This
kind of sociological spiritual abuse is commonplace in many non-
Christian cults (Hutchinson, 1994: 182-183). I have personally helped
those who, in tears, have told me of the traumatic fear they experienced
as members of the UPCI. It is commonplace to see members leave such
religious systems—systems that are based on precise formulas and/or
that require works so as to merit a “right-standing” before God, systems
that are spiritually and intellectually bankrupt.
The antithesis of the UPCI works/faith system of justification is the
firmness of the biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone, by
God’s grace alone, seen throughout the pages of Scripture. Thus,
baptismal regeneration as taught by the UPCI (cf. Paterson, 1953: 12,
27; Vouga, 1967: 18; Bernard, 1984: 132-33; UPCI, 2008b) radically
contradicts the biblical presentation of justification. It diminishes and
thus rejects the sufficiency of the cross-work of Jesus Christ, asserting
that the ordinance of water baptism contributes to the work of the Son.
Hence, it is not the sole work of Christ that saves, in UPCI thinking, but
rather “another” work is required—water baptism accompanied by the
specific formula, “in the name of Jesus.”

3.5.1 Baptism: “In the Name of Jesus” Only

Although the UPCI rejects the concept of “infant baptism,” seeing it as

heresy, the UPCI teaches that water baptism “in the name of Jesus” is,
in fact, a necessary condition to receive salvation (Clanton et al 1984:
79; Bernard, 1984: 132-33; UPCI, 2008b). As UPCI writer Oscar Vouga
(1967: 18) explains: “There is remission of sins in no other name but
the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), therefore, baptism cannot possibly
signify that the believer receives remission of sins, unless the “name of
Jesus” is used as the baptismal formula. Of all the distinct Oneness
churches, it is the UPCI that is most dogmatic and absolutely inflexible
regarding their view of baptizing with the “correct” formula and, of
course, baptismal regeneration. Their official position (UPCI, 2008b) is
quite clear:

85
 The church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”
(Ephesians 2:20). The apostles not only preached baptism in
Jesus’ name, but they practiced it. Nowhere can we find that
they baptized using the words “in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Instead, we find them
baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In baptizing in
Jesus’ name, they fulfilled the command of the Lord in
Matthew 28:19. Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).
Let this be a solemn warning to us.

As previously revealed, when the UPCI first emerged in 1913-1916

various Pentecostal leaders (e.g., R. E. McAlister) taught that baptism
should be done in the “name of Jesus” only (based largely on Acts 2:38),
and hence, not in the Trinitarian formula (Beisner, 1998: 7). The
baptismal formula issue was one of the main reasons many broke away
from the Trinitarian Pentecostals to Oneness theology early in the
twentieth century.

3.5.1.1 Bad Hermeneutics

In Chapter 2 (2.5), we saw the effects and resulting condition when a

faulty hermeneutic is employed upon the biblical text. At bottom,
Oneness theology is the result of the lack of a proper hermeneutical
method and a defective exegetical approach. In regard to the UPCI’s “in
the name of Jesus” assertion, its principal theological argument rests
solely on a few selected passages, particularly from Acts and, of course,
Matthew 28:19. Unmistakably, the UPCI’s “Jesus’ name only” doctrine
was mainly fashioned out of Luke’s historical narrative in the book of
Acts.
However, before turning to the exegesis of utilized passages in
Acts, one must take into account that Luke wrote Acts as a historical
narrative to someone named Theophilus (cf. Acts 1:1). Hence, his
overall purpose was not to teach a course in systematic theology, but
rather provide a historic account of the first thirty years or so of the early
church. A proper interpretation of Acts will be unattainable if one does
not consider this point. In biblical hermeneutics, there is a very
important rule known as the priority of didactic. The rule states that the
86
didactic or teaching portions of Scripture are to interpret all historical
narratives (Crampton, 1986: 27). Because of an enormous ignorance in
the area of biblical hermeneutics, whole doctrines have been wrongly
developed from narrative portions of Scripture. Note the following
examples:
➢ The first two chapters of Acts are the sole reason why many
charismatic churches see the so-called baptism of the Holy Spirit
as a second infilling, which normally results in speaking in
tongues.
➢ The long ending of Mark has caused more than a few churches
to literally drink poison and handle snakes, as well as promote
the perpetuity of speaking in tongues for all believers.
➢ Various Old Testament passages, which are narrative in nature,
are used by pastors to teach their hearers the necessity of
“tithing” and other Old Testament theocratic activities for
Christians today, in spite of the fact that these Old Testament
directives were specifically given to the Israelites, not to the not
yet established New Testament church.
Reformed theologian W. Gary Crampton (1986: 27), comments on this
significant hermeneutical rule:

Didactic passages are those that are specifically meant to

teach theological truth. For example, the gospels teach us
about the life of Christ and the New Testament epistles further
interpret for us the significance of the things Christ did and
taught. They are didactic in nature. On the other hand, the
book of Acts is a history of the New Testament church. The
main purpose of Acts is not to teach doctrinal truth, but rather
to give a brief history of the workings of the apostles and the
first century church.

This does not mean that the book of Acts does not provide any teachings
for the Christian church. It means that we are to analyze the narratives
of Acts in light of the doctrinal portions of the New Testament. Building
biblical doctrines on historical narrative sections of the Bible can lead
to flawed interpretations. Only by violating this hermeneutical rule can
the UPCI establish their “in the name of Jesus” dogma from Acts—they

87
confuse description (narrative) with prescription (the epistles and other
teaching portions of Scripture).

3.5.1.2 The Contextual and Historical Significance of the Onoma,

“Name”

Understanding the priority of didactic will reveal the fatal flaws in the
UPCI exegesis regarding their idea of the meaning of passages that use
the phrase “in the name of Jesus.” As mentioned, when one comes to
Scripture, the foremost objective should be to ascertain the authors’
intended meaning. In 2 Timothy 2:15, Paul inculcates pastors to “Be
diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does
not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of truth.” The
phrase “accurately handling” is from the Greek term, orthotomeō, which
literally means, “cutting straight” (Mayhue, 1986: 74; Bauer, 2000:
722). In early Greek literature, the term describes the task of a guide,
whose goal was to cut a straight path. It also describes the priest cutting
the sacrificial animals according to divine instructions. In all cases, it
carries the idea of precision. As previously underscored in Chapter 2
(2.5), in order to establish an accurate interpretation of any biblical
passage one must meticulously consider and thus analyze the grammar,
lexical meaning of words, historical setting, and context.
In Scripture, the phrase “in the name of” is certainly not
uncommon. Both Jesus and others use the phrase with varied meanings
and varied emphases. To prove the idea that the only valid water baptism
is one done “in the name of Jesus,” the UPCI points to times where the
phrase appears with water baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; etc.).
On the face of it, passages such as Acts 2:38 seem to support the UPCI’s
notion. However, to properly deal with the UPCI’s hallmark “proof-
texts,” it is important first to be cognizant of the Jewish contextual
meaning of the phrase “in the name of” (Heb. shem, Gk. eis to onoma).
This certainly plays a major role in understanding the import of the
phrase within the cultural context of the day. Along with a grammatical
and syntactical analysis of the biblical text, there must be an evaluation
of the historical-cultural context/setting in order to achieve an
exegetically correct interpretation. In other words, in the places where
the phrase “in the name of” occurs, the interpretation must be consistent
within a first-century Jewish context.

88
 To begin with, the phrase “in the name of” (eis to onoma)9 has
various meanings depending on the context. When Jesus and others
employ the phrase (as indicated above in our discussion of John 5:43),
it has the denotative meaning, “in/by the authority of.” In his Grammar,
Robertson (1934: 740) cites Matthew 28:19 as an example where onoma
carries the meaning of “in the authority of.” Likewise, Bietenhard sees
the formula “in the name of Jesus” as another way of saying, “according
to His will and instruction” (1976, 2:654). Therefore, the “name” of
Jesus is the manifestation of His authority as the only true Lord (Spence
and Exell, 1962: 155); it also denotes “the authority of the person”
(Moulton and Milligan, 1982:451). This idea becomes apparent at the
arrest of Peter and John recorded in Acts 4:

On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were
gathered together in Jerusalem, and Annas the high priest was
there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were
of high-priestly descent. When they had placed them in the
center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what
name, [onoma] have you done this?” (Acts 4:5-7; emphasis
added; also cf. Vine, 1966: 100).

Concerning the phrase “in My name” in Matthew 18:20 (“For when two
or three have gathered together in My name [eis to emon onoma], I am
there in their midst”), Ellison (1986: 1140) explains:

The rendering ‘unto my name’ (J. N. Darby) is more literal

but hardly intelligible, eis to onoma in the papyri means ‘to
the account of,’ ‘into the possession of,’ i.e., they meet as the
conscious possession of Jesus … it offers no support to those
who think that by using a verbal formula they have become
God’s favorites.

3.5.1.3 Acts and the “Name of Jesus”

The hermeneutical error of confusing narrative with didactic or

teaching portions of Scripture inevitably leads to a distorted exegesis.
In the book of Acts, Luke was simply providing an accurate account of
the events of the first thirty years or so of the church to a man named

9
Or any of its prepositional variants: “in/by/on/upon/ the name of.”
89
Theophilus. Thus, Luke tells what happened (narration), not how it
ought to happen (didactic) in the early church.
Because of this hermeneutical faux pas, UPCI teachers (e.g.,
Paterson, 1953: 12, 27; Bernard, 1984: 132) take and dissect the book
of Acts thoroughly disregarding the context and grammar, deducing that
baptism should only be done using the verbal formula, “in the name of
Jesus” in order to achieve salvation. The UPCI’s (2008b) foundational
assertion of following the “apostolic doctrine” exposes two major
hermeneutical flaws: 1) it neglects the Semitic concept and significance
of what the expression “in the name of” meant to a first-century
audience as addressed above, and 2) it confuses narrative with didactic
portions of Scripture.
Because there are many places in Scripture where the term
“baptism/baptize” is mentioned, lacking the so-called “Jesus’ name”
formula (e.g., Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:10-12), the UPCI faces even
more difficulties in its assertion since the UPCI (2008b) sees the terms
“baptism,” “baptize,” etc. as referring exclusively to water baptism.

3.5.1.4 UPCI Standard Proof-Texts and Arguments

Although there exist other passages that contain the phrase “in the name
of Jesus” (e.g., Acts 8:16; 10:48), the UPCI (2008b) Oneness advocates
use Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 as their chief witnesses in support of
their position. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all
the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit.” Verifiably, both the early church (as outlined below)
as well as more recent scholarship (see Reymond, 1998: 225-26) has
benefited greatly from Matthew 28:19 in substantiating the doctrine of
the Trinity. Regardless of this, the UPCI (along with all other Oneness
groups) actually use it to challenge the plain and historic understanding
of the passage. The UPCI and Oneness groups maintain that Jesus was
in reality teaching that the three names, “Father,” “Son” and “Holy
Spirit” are mere titles (or modes) of Himself, the unipersonal deity (cf.
Bernard 1983: 136; UPCI, 2008b).
The basic Oneness argument (cf. Paterson, 1953: 12; UPCI, 2008b)
centers on the singularity of the term “name” (onoma) used in the
baptismal command. Hence, Jesus says to baptize in the “name of” and
not the “names of.” The direct basis of the Oneness doctrinal assertion
is the assumption of unipersonalism. Stated another way, according to

90
Oneness theology, since the term “name” is singular, the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit must represent a single name—the one Person, Jesus.
Therefore, it is concluded that baptism should be administered “in the
name” of Jesus and not with a Trinitarian formula. However, one cannot
derive a modalistic conclusion from a plain reading of this text; one
must read into this text a modalistic understanding.

“Name” (singular), not “Names” (plural)? To get an accurate

representation of how the UPCI draws a modalistic conclusion from the
passage, Bernard (1983: 136) clarifies:

In this passage, Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize “in

the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.” However, this verse of Scripture does not teach that
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate persons.
Rather, it teaches the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
identify one name and therefore one being. The verse
expressly says “in the name,” not “in the names.”

At the very start of his exegesis, Bernard clearly starts with his
conclusion: God is a unipersonal Being. In fact, all of Bernard’s
arguments start with this basic presupposition. Hence, he and other
Oneness teachers will always end up with the Jesus of their starting
point: a unipersonal deity. Bernard’s assertion is clear: “The verse
expressly says ‘in the name,’ not ‘in the names.’” The Oneness
interpretation of Matthew 28:19, then, is that the “name” (singular)
“Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Ghost” are the offices, roles, or modes that
Jesus temporarily assumed. The UPCI (2008b) maintains the position
that

Jesus is the name in which the roles of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost are revealed. The angel of the Lord instructed Joseph,
“She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name
JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew
1:21). Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name,” and, “The
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost … the Father will send in
my name” (John 5:43; 14:26). Thus by baptizing in the name
of Jesus, we honor the Godhead. “For in him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

91
Such an argument is exegetically unsound. In point of fact, never in
church history has any church father interpreted Matthew 28:19 in this
way. As mentioned, the canned argument set against the obviously
Trinitarian baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19 centers on the
singularity of the word “name” (cf. Bernard, 1983: 136; UPCI, 2008b).
However, in refutation, that the singularity of a word necessarily implies
absolute solitude is a gratuitous assumption. Genesis 11:4 records the
people of Babel saying: “Come let us build for ourselves a city, and a
tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a
name [Heb. shem, LXX, onoma, “name”], otherwise we will be
scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (emphasis added).
Certainly, “name” here applies to a whole multitude of people.
Although, as noted previously, the UPCI’s method of hermeneutics
starts at its prior theological assumption: Jesus is the one unitarian deity
behind the masks or manifestations of “Father,” “Son” and “Holy
Spirit.” Oneness teachers misapprehend monotheism to mean that God
is unipersonal. Again, there is no statement in the Bible that says that
God is “one Person,” but rather monotheism indicates that God is one
Being. Thus, the three Persons share the nature of the one Being under
the single name Yahweh.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the apostles to baptize their
converts “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
It does not say “in the names” (plural), which would teach three separate
Beings enumerated, each with merely a distinguishing name. Rather,
Christian baptism symbolizes the unification of the new convert into (cf.
eis at 1 Cor. 10:2) the name, that is, the power/authority of the one
Triune God, Yahweh. Jesus is very precise in His command, identifying
Himself as “Son,” placing Himself along the same plane of equality
together with the Father and the Holy Spirit signifying the one true God.
It is, of course, the Trinity, which He is describing, and that is as much
as to say that He announces Himself as one of the persons of the Trinity.
This is what Jesus, as reported by the Synoptics, understood Himself to
be (Warfield, 1988: 204). In his brilliant expository on the passage,
Warfield (1988: 153-54) states:

With stately impressiveness it asserts the unity of the three by

combining them all within the bounds of the single Name; and
then throws up into emphasis the distinctness of each by
introducing them in turn with the repeated article: “In the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”
92
 (Authorized Version). These three, the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, each stand in some clear sense over
against the others in distinct personality: these three, the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all unite in some
profound sense in the common participation of the one Name.

In the Old Testament, Yahweh was the name of God. Here Jesus
commands that new converts unite under the “name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The ordinance of Christian water baptism (as
with the Lord’s Supper) is an act of obedience and worship to God
alone. To comprehend fully the import of Jesus’ statement, one must
appreciate the significance of the term “name” for the Hebrew mind. In
the Old Testament, the term does not merely serve as a designation of
the person. Rather, it refers to the essence of the person himself
(Reymond, 1998: 226). Therefore, “What Jesus did in this great
injunction,” says Warfield (1988: 204), “was to command His followers
to name the name of God upon their converts, and to announce the name
of God which is to be named on their converts in the threefold
enumeration of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ and ‘the Holy Ghost.’”
The three Persons, then, “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Ghost,” are
the one God, Yahweh. As well, the use of the plural (onomata, “names”)
in this text would supply a polytheistic implication (three separate Gods)
severely contradicting Jesus’ own monotheistic teachings (cf. Mark
12:29).
There are also grammatical considerations noted by many biblical
commentators (e.g., Sharp, 1803: 14-19; Beisner, 1998: 47; Reymond,
1998: 225-226). Notice first that the text does not read: “In the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This reading would grammatically
imply what Oneness teachers have been asserting all along. For in this
reading, only the “Father” is preceded by the article (ho), grammatically
negating any distinction of the Persons. Nor does the text read: “In the
names of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This reading
would in fact teach polytheism—three separate Beings. Nor is the
preposition eis (“in,” or “into”) repeated as in the reading: “In the name
of the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit,” which also can be
construed as teaching three separate Beings. Rather, the Scripture reads:
“In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (eis to
onoma tou patros kai tou hiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos).
As discussed (3.4.2.1), in this passage the repetition of both the
article (tou) and conjunction (kai) grammatically differentiates the
93
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons (cf. Sharp,
1803: 14-19): “In the name of the [tou] Father, and the [kai tou] Son,
and the [kai tou] Holy Spirit.” The same contextual juxtaposition is
found in passages such as Matthew 3:16-17; Luke 10:21-22; 2
Corinthians 13:14 (as cited above); Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 1
Thessalonians 1:3-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Peter 1:2-3;
and Jude 1:20-21. This grammatical construction (viz., Sharp’s rule #6)
clearly indicates, particularly in Trinitarian contexts where a
juxtaposition of all three Persons exists in the same passage, a
distinction between the Persons.

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins …” (KJV). Along with Matthew
28:19, UPCI members as well as all Oneness believers redundantly cite
this passage. The Oneness theological position is clear: Peter commands
hearers to repent and be water baptized “in the name of Jesus” for the
remission or forgiveness of sins (justification). Thus, according to the
UPCI (2008b), one must repent (and have faith) and be water baptized
using the formula “in the name of Jesus” to achieve salvation.
That God requires that one must enunciate a precise formula at
baptism in order to receive forgiveness of sins does prompt the question:
Which precise formula is the correct apostolic baptismal formula: “on,”
“into,” or “in” the name of Jesus? Reducing Luke’s intent to the bare
words of the UPCI proof texts outside of the author’s intended meaning
creates more problems than the UPCI advocate is prepared to handle.
Consider for a moment what the recorded baptisms in Acts actually
say. There are at least three “Jesus’ name” formulas stated in Acts: “on
[epi + dative] the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38); “into [eis + accusative]
the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5); and “in [en + dative] the name
of Jesus Christ” (10:48). If in fact these baptisms recorded in Acts were
performed by means of a “verbal” baptismal formula (which will be
argued against shortly) and thus mandated to the church, as is supposed,
then according to the record, the early Christians did not utilize any
“exact” verbal formula by which they baptized.
The UPCI vigorously argues that they exactingly follow the
“apostolic doctrine.” They insist that the “Jesus’ name” formula is the
apostolic formula (cf. Paterson, 1953: 12, 27) in spite of the fact that the
apostles did not use (verbal or not) the same exact baptismal formula.
What is more, in every recorded water baptism in Acts, the apostles did
not use the same exact title for Jesus; sometimes it was in the name of
94
“Jesus Christ” (2:38; 10:48) and at other times it was in the name of the
“Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5).
Acts 2:38 is also used (along with a few other passages such as John
3:5 and Acts 22:16) to teach baptismal regeneration (i.e., the notion that
water baptism is necessary for regeneration/justification). A careful
exegetical analysis of Acts 2:38, however, precludes that assertion. The
doctrine of baptismal regeneration clearly controverts the entire
theology of Luke (e.g., Acts 10:43; 16:30-31) as well as the totality of
Scripture (cf. Rom. 4:4-8; 5:1; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Pet.
1:1-2; 1 John 5:12; etc.). Even so, UPCI teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983:
139) maintain that Acts 2:38 teaches the salvific necessity of water
baptism. Admittedly, there is diversity of opinion amongst Christian
theologians (as cited below) in the interpretation of this text, which
requires some exegetical homework.
Even though there are differences of opinion on the exact meaning
of this passage, no recognized New Testament grammarian, biblical
theologian/scholar, or commentator has even suggested baptismal
regeneration as a tenable interpretation. Noted Greek grammarian J. R.
Mantey (1927: 104) offers one acceptable interpretation. He argues that
the preposition eis, “for,” could be taken in a causal sense. In this way,
the passage would read: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be
baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because
of/for/unto [eis] the forgiveness of your sins.’” In other words, the
preposition eis should be translated “because of,” or “in view of,” not
“in order to” or “for the purpose of” forgiveness of sins. Mantey (cf.
Wallace, 1996: 370-71) believes that if a causal eis were not evident in
Acts 2:38, it would violate the concept of salvation by grace. Robertson
(1930: 3:35-36) also agrees with Mantey in his analysis of Acts 2:38.
There is also another grammatical aspect that one should consider.
There is a shift from second person plural to third person singular and
back to second person plural. The verb metanoēsate (“repent”) is a
second person plural and is in the active voice. Baptisthētō, (“be
baptized”) is a third person singular and is in the passive voice; and the
Greek pronoun humōn (“your”) is a second person plural. Therefore,
the grammatical connection is metanoēsate (second person, active
plural) with humōn (second person, plural); thus, repent “for the
remission of your sins.” The usual connection of the forgiveness of sins
in Luke-Acts is with repentance and not with baptism at all (Polhill,
1992: 117). In fact, Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 use the same wording, “for
the remission of your sins,” in reference to John’s baptism. John’s
95
baptism did not save; it was a preparatory baptism of the coming
Messiah and a call to repentance (cf. Acts 19:1-5). Wallace (1996: 370-
71) suggests an additional and perhaps more likely view where the
baptism mentioned here represents both the spiritual reality and the
ritual, which works well within the scope of the context:

It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well

as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the
spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words,
when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—
the reality and the ritual … Water baptism is not a cause of
salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public
acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession
(by the convert) that one has been Spirit–baptized.

Notwithstanding the different pools of interpretation, which in fact are

not opposing views, all are exegetically acceptable, whereas the UPCI
baptismal regeneration position violates not only the soteriology of Acts
(e.g., 10:43), but also the entire soteriology of the New Testament:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law

but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in
Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and
not by works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no
flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16; cf. 3:1ff).

3.5.1.5 Baptism: Unification/Identification

Understanding the relationship of (a) the Semitic significance of the

term onoma, and (b) the exegetical import of what being baptized into
something actually means will certainly supply a coherent perception as
to the erroneous assertion of the UPCI. As pointed out above (3.5.1.2),
the Jewish contextual meaning of the phrase “in the name of” (Heb.
shem, Gk. eis to onoma) had the denotative meaning, “in/by the
authority/power of.” In other words, in the papyri, eis to onoma, “in the
name” means “to the account of,” or “into the possession of” in that they
meet as the conscious possession of Jesus (Ellison, 1986: 1140). Hence,
baptism “in the name of Jesus” signifies unification or identification
with Him. The concept of baptism in the New Testament is
unquestionably unification or identification. This concept is well
96
exampled in Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 10:2, the Israelites were all
“baptized into Moses” (emphasis added; see also 1 Cor. 1:13, 15). The
Apostle Paul frequently uses the term “baptism” (or the verbal form,
baptizō) as an expressive picture of unification or identification with
Jesus Christ at both His death and His resurrection:

How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not
know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been
buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so
we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become
united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall
also be in the likeness of His resurrection. (Rom. 6:2-5;
emphasis added).

In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul presents a vivid picture of the unification

Christians have with Christ, that is, “baptized into,” “clothed with,” and
“one in” Him, thus, “Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to
promise.”

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For
all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to
Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according
to promise (Gal. 3:26-29; emphasis added).

In his definitive commentary on Romans, Wuest (1955: 96-97) explains

the meaning of baptism mentioned in Romans 6:3-4:

The word is used in the classics of a smith who dips a piece

of hot iron in water, tempering it, also of Greek solders
placing the points of their spears in a bowl of blood. In the
LXX (Lev. 4:6) we have, “The priest shall dip his finger in
blood ... where “dip” is baptō (related to baptizō), and
“sprinkle,” rantizō, baptō, referring to the action of placing
the finger in the blood. In Luke 16:24, the rich man asks that
Lazarus dip (baptō) his finger in water and cool his tongue.
The usage of the word as seen in the above examples resolves
itself into the following definition of the word baptizo: “the
97
 introduction or placing of a person or thing into a new
environment or into union with something else so as to alter
its condition or its relationship to its previous environment or
condition.” And that is its usage in Romans 6. It refers to the
act of God introducing a believing sinner into vital union with
Jesus Christ.

Groups that hold to baptismal regeneration, in whatever form,

misunderstand what New Testament baptism was (in contexts of
unification), limiting it exclusively to water baptism. Similar to
circumcision for the Jew, Christian baptism identified those called or
“set apart” from the surrounding pagan nations. However, the only
commonality of Jewish washings and rituals (of the proselyte) and
Christian baptism was unification/identification (cf. Richards, 1985:
100). As with circumcision, the ordinance of water baptism did not save
anyone (cf. Gal. 2:16). Keeping with the New Testament idea, when a
new convert was “baptized,” he or she was (by way of outward
significance) united into the name or authority (exousian, cf. John 1:12)
of Jesus Christ as adopted children of God, Abraham’s descendants (cf.
Gal. 3:27-29). Reymond (1998: 925-26) remarks on the New Testament
import of baptism:

“Baptizing into the name” (baptizontes eis to onoma; see 1

Cor. 1:13, 15—“baptized into the name of Paul”; see 1 Cor.
10:2—“baptized into Moses”), it becomes apparent that the
formula expresses a relationship to the person into whom or
into whose name the person is being baptized. Baptism then
basically denotes the fact of a relationship … it becomes plain
that the nature of the relationship is one of union with Christ,
more particularity, union with Christ in his crucifixion, death,
burial and resurrection (not just union with him in the last
two).

The expression then, “in the name of Jesus,” in essence defined the kind
of baptism. Correspondingly, when the early church would baptize the
new convert, it was in the “name,” that is, the authority or on behalf of
Jesus Christ, hence the phrase “in the name of Jesus.” The phrase does
not seem to be an actual “verbal” formula.
To assert that it was, would be an argument from silence. In fact,
there is no text (or patristic evidence) that indicates explicitly that a so-
called “Jesus’ name” baptismal formula was a verbal pronouncement.
98
The actual verbal formula would have been, out of obedience, the
Trinitarian formula that Jesus Christ inaugurated in Matthew 28:19,
namely, unification with the three Persons of the Godhead.
As seen below, the early church seems to confirm this view.
However, even if the phrase “on/into/in the name of Jesus” was a verbal
pronouncement, this does not in any way, shape or form support the
Oneness assertion of unipersonalism. Thus, while a verbal
pronouncement is plausible, it is far more exegetically consistent to see
the phrase, not as a verbal formula, but simply demonstrative of the type
or kind of baptisms administered. They were Christian baptisms, or,
technically speaking, unification ceremonies, signifying the unification
of the new convert with Jesus Christ. Even if one grants the idea that
early Christians actually used a verbal name formula, there clearly is no
exegetical justification for asserting that the name formula or even the
ordinance itself is a rigid doctrinal mandate in order to obtain salvation.
This is something that the apostles never even intimated, but rather
strongly controverted. Therefore, it was Jesus Christ the Messiah of
Israel, God in the flesh, who was the fulfillment of the entire Old
Testament sacrificial system, being the ultimate human sacrifice.

3.5.1.6 Baptizing in the Trinitarian Formula or “In Jesus’ name”

only

In this section, we will address the UPCI’s confusion between the

Trinitarian baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19 and the so-called
“Jesus’ name” formula found in Acts. In order to circumvent the clear
Trinitarian connotation of Matthew 28:19, the UPCI postulates a very
awkward interpretation. UPCI teachers (e.g., Paterson, 1953: 12;
Bernard, 1983: 136; UPCI, 2008b) start with the premise relating to the
singularity of the term “name,” from which they then conclude that
Jesus is the single unipersonal deity behind the masks or roles of
“Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit.” This interpretation of Matthew 28:19
is exclusively Oneness. As already indicated, the grammar of the text
(viz., Sharp’s rule #6) distinctly militates against such an assertion and
in effect promotes the doctrine of the Trinity. Nevertheless, Oneness
advocates assume that they have solved the dilemma of the two
supposed baptismal formulas.
There are some key issues, some of which were previously
addressed, that can aid in the understanding of the supposed formulaic
discrepancy between Matthew and Acts. Even assuming that “in the
99
name of Jesus” was a verbal formula utilized in Acts, there is a plausible
explanation that is wholly consistent without suggesting a “Matthew vs.
Acts” tension.
The first detail to consider is that when Jesus gives His disciples the
so-called Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), He instructs them to go out
into panta ta ethnē—“all the nations.” Conceivably, many nations were
pagan, worshiping creatures or things in creation and not the true
Creator (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.). Hence, the full revelation of God, the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit was at issue. On the other hand, in Acts,
the new converts who were baptized were Jews (e.g., 2:5; 22:16), God-
fearing Gentiles (e.g., 10:1-2, 22, 48) and disciples of John the Baptist
(e.g., 19:1-5). The point is this: the new converts that were baptized as
recorded in Acts had a prior knowledge of “God” per se (though, not
the true God), thus the emphasis and salvific focus of the baptism was
on Jesus Christ. He was the One in whom “all the prophets bear witness
that through His name everyone who believes on Him receives
forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43), and through Him, “there is salvation
in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been
given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
However, whether or not a phrase “on/into/in the name of Jesus”
was a verbal pronouncement in the recorded baptisms in Acts, one
cannot deduce exegetically a modalistic concept of Jesus merely based
on the phrase “on/into/in the name of Jesus.” Although both views, the
Matthean Trinitarian pronouncement and the so-called “Jesus’ name”
verbal formula in Acts, are theologically conceivable, the UPCI’s inept
hermeneutic of Matthew 28:19, along with their hyper-dogmatic strict
name formula, which is required for salvation, sharply opposes both the
grammar and context as well as the entire theology of the New
Testament.

3.5.1.7 The Trinitarian Formula in the Early Church

If a “Jesus’ name” verbal baptismal formula was an essential part of

justification as taught and practiced by the apostles themselves, then one
would certainly expect to find this supposed apostolic tradition existing
somewhere in patristic writings. Today there exists massive amounts of
patristic writings, most of which are easily accessible. Many of these
writings come down to us from the earliest of church fathers, namely,
the apostolic fathers, who were actual disciples of the original apostles
(e.g., Hermes; Clement bishop of Rome; Ignatius; Mathetes; Papias;
100
Polycarp; etc.). These men wrote copiously, teaching and commenting
on all kinds of issues.
Within these writings, although, not one of these apostolic fathers
taught or even implied that a “Jesus’ name” baptismal formula was the
“correct” formula and thus essential to one’s salvation, as the UPCI
teaches today. In Chapter 5 we will clearly present, in its proper context,
numerous clear and unambiguous Trinitarian statements that are
contained in the writings of the apostolic fathers, early apologists and
theologians. When examining the issue of water baptism, one thing is
clear: the baptismal formulaic norm of the early church was decidedly
Trinitarian, not modalistic. In fact, no Christian writings from the first
several centuries insisted on a “Jesus’ name” formula or specifically
discussed what baptismal formula should be used (Beisner, 1998: 61).
Also, it is wholly irrelevant to cite a few early church fathers who have
“loosely” quoted the passage rendering it as “baptize them in the name
of Jesus” or “baptizing them in my name” with no mention of the
Trinitarian clause (cf. Nolland, 2005: 1286).
First, because of a great lack of available biblical manuscripts,
many early church fathers cited (usually from memory) passages in
short and/or in paraphrase as did some biblical authors (e.g., Phil. 2:10-
11 from Isa. 45:23). Second, in the case of Eusebius, this is an argument
from silence. His partial rendering of the passage does not indicate that
he denied the concept of the Trinity or the Trinitarian formula
enunciated in Matthew. It only shows that he loosely quoted the
passage. In fact, Eusebius does use the full Trinitarian formula at least
four times, twice in Contra Marcellum, once in De Ecclesiastica
Theologia, and once in a letter written to the church at Caesarea
(Ferrarx, 1981: 152-59).
Adding to this, prominent textual scholars believe that Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were two of the fifty copies of the
Scriptures that the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to
have written, all containing the Trinitarian phrase (Metzger, 1994: 47-
48). There are plenty of earlier church fathers (as referenced below) that
quote the full Trinitarian clause of Matthew 28:19. Third, of all the
extant Greek manuscripts that contain the ending of Matthew, not one
omits the Trinitarian formula and no variant reading of the formula
exists. Fourth, there has never been a church father (Greek or Latin),
recognized Christian theologian, or biblical commentator that has
provided a modalistic understanding of Matthew 28:19.

101
 Despite the consequences of the historical evidence, the UPCI
vigorously contends that “the early church Christian leaders in the days
immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness” (Bernard, 1983:
236-37) and taught that water baptism must be done “in the name of
Jesus” to achieve salvation (cf. Paterson, 1953: 12, 27; Vouga, 1967:
18; Bernard, 1984: 132-33; UPCI, 2008b). Note the following sample
citations from early church fathers and patristic documents from the late
first to the late fourth century concerning water baptism; these are
decidedly Trinitarian. They will demonstrate and dispel the historical
revisionism that leads the way for the present dogma of the UPCI.

Didache (c. A.D. 90-120). The Didache, which in Greek means

“teaching,” formally called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, was a
very early church document. It was an instructional church manual read
in the early churches. Although it never gained universal recognition as
canonical, both Clement of Alexandria and Origen treated the Didache
as “Scripture” (graphē). Athanasius saw it as “edifying and profitable
to be read in the church” (Niederwimmer, 1988: 4, 7). Speaking of water
baptism, the Didache (7, in Richardson, 1970: 174) provides Trinitarian
instructions alluding to Matthew 28:19:

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public

instruction on all these points, and then “baptize” in running
water, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.” If you do not have running water, baptize in
some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have
neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155; First Apology 61, Richardson, 1970: 282):

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are

reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves
were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name
of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus, bishop of the church at Lyons (c. A.D. 180, A Discourse in

Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 3, in Kelly, 1978: 90):

102
 We receive our baptism for [because of] the remission of sins
in the name of God the Father, and the name of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, Who was incarnate, died, and rose again, and
in the Holy Spirit of God.

Tertullian (c. A.D. 213, Against Praxeas 26, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 3:623):

After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples

that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly,
He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed, it is
not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the
Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.

Cyprian (c. A.D. 250, To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of

Heretics LXXII:5, 17-18, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:380-83):

“Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the

name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” He suggests
the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be
baptized … How, when God the Father is not known—nay, is
even blasphemed–can they who among the heretics are said to
be baptized in the name of Christ judged to have obtained the
remission of sins? … Christ Himself commands the pagans to
be baptized in the full and united Trinity.

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. A.D. 390, VII:3, in Roberts and

Donaldson, 1994: vol. 7:476):

[The bishop] ... will anoint the head of those who are to be
baptized (whether they are men or women) with the holy oil,
as a representation of the spiritual baptism. After that, either
you, the bishop or a presbyter that is under you, will in the
solemn form pronounce over them the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, and will dip them in the water … For even our
Lord exhorted us in this manner, saying first, “Make disciples
of all nations,” But then he adds: “and baptize them into the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Commenting on the historical revisionism promulgated by UPCI and

Oneness teachers, Beisner (1998: 61) explains:
103
 Oneness authors Weisser and Bernard claim that historical
evidence supports a Jesus’ name formula as original and
condemns a triune formula as a latter corruption of Christian
practice … Of the 23 they cite from the first four centuries,
only 3 (the Marcionites and two Arians) require a Jesus’ name
formula; only 2 clearly and 6 possibly permitted either
formula; 6 clearly and 4 possibly require a triune formula; and
6 clearly and 2 possibly present no evidence for any formula.

So bountiful are the explicit Trinitarian references penned by the early

church Fathers (especially pre-Nicaea). However, it would be
superfluous to provide here mounds of citations on an issue never
argued about in church history. It was not until the UPCI/Oneness
churches surfaced in the twentieth century that the Jesus’ name
formulation dogma first emerged (cf. Beisner, 1998: 7; Ankerberg and
Weldon, 1999: 367).

3.6 SUMMARY

Jesus Christ consistently affirmed that salvation consist of having

accurate knowledge/assent/trust in the Son of biblical revelation (cf.
John 8:24). One cannot deny the Person and nature of the Son and yet
claim to have the Son, for he does not (cf. John 3:36). As exegetically
outlined above, Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second Person of the
Holy Trinity. As to the essence of the Son, He has full deity in the same
sense ontologically as that of God the Father. He is the eternal Word,
the Lord of Glory who became flesh; thus, He is the God-man.
Undeniably, Oneness Christology radically departs from the exegetical
presentation of the Son, thus redefining Him as a mode or a mere role.
Because of its rejection of the Trinity, Oneness doctrine asserts another
Christ than that of the biblical presentation.
The Oneness Christological divergences include a patent denial of
the unipersonality and deity of the Son, His preexistence, and His role
as Creator (cf. Chapter 4). Oneness theology maintains that Jesus is the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus asserting a unitarian/unipersonal
concept of God. Yet, neither Jesus nor His apostles ever claimed this.
Nor was Jesus ever called Father or Holy Spirit.
Over two hundred times Jesus is specifically referred to as “Son” and
over fifty times Jesus and the Father are rendered distinct in the same
104
verse (Boyd, 1992: 68-69). The Oneness view of Jesus Christ along with
its crass unipersonalism is in direct conflict with the New Testament
presentation, responsible exegesis of which substantiates the following
facts:

➢ The unipersonality of Jesus Christ

➢ The full deity and humanity of the Son (and His preexistence
and role as Creator)

➢ The numerical and personal distinction between the Father, the

Son and the Holy Spirit

➢ The distinct personhood of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit

➢ The personal intimate loving (giving and receiving love)

interaction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
which clearly differentiates between the three Persons

Scripture presents a clear Christology. The Person of the Son is fully

God (cf. John 1:1; Titus 2:13). He has distinctly coexisted with
(pros/para) God the Father (cf. John 1:1; 17:5). He became human (cf.
John 1:14; Phil. 2:7-8) and was sent by the Father (cf. John 6:37ff.) to
redeem the elect of God by His sacrificial death on the cross (cf. Mark
10:45; Rom. 5:9-11; 8:32). The Son is the only mediator and intercessor
between the Father and humans (cf. Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, the
Christ of biblical revelation is the divine Son, a personal self-aware
subject distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is the Christ
that saves, this is the Christ that Paul and the other New Testament
authors preached. The very ground of justification is through this God-
man’s vicarious, infallible, and efficacious cross-work; the very
instrument being faith alone, not the ordinance of water baptism (i.e., a
work) accompanied by a five word formula (viz., “in the name of
Jesus”) to which the church has never prescribed.
The rejection of the unipersonality and deity of the Son, the
rejection of the unipersonality of both the Father and the Holy Spirit,
and the rejection of the personal distinctions between Jesus, the Father
and the Holy Spirit constitute a rejection of the very nature of God
Himself (cf. John 17:3; 1 John 2:22-23).
105
106
 Chapter Four

THE PREEXISTENCE OF THE SON

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The preexistence and deity of the Person of Jesus Christ was well
established in the early Councils of the Christian church such as Nicaea
and in the theology and hymns of the Faith. It is the very bedrock of
historical biblical Christianity. Jesus Christ made this point clear many
times in His life (e.g., Matt. 8:26; 12:6, 18; John 2:19; 3:13; 6:35-40;
8:58; 16:28). In contrast, as we have clearly shown, Oneness doctrine
rejects the unipersonality, deity, and eternality of the Son (cf. Chapter
3, 3.1). Oneness Christology further maintains that only for the sake of
redemption did the unipersonal deity named “Jesus” manifest as the
“Son.” Prolific Oneness author and teacher David K. Bernard (1983:
104-5) explains the Oneness position concerning the non-eternal Son:

The Sonship—or the role of the Son—began with the child

conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this
perfectly clear … The Son was made under the law—not
before the law (See also Hebrews 7:28) … Hebrews 1:5-6 also
reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific
point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time …From
all of these verses, it is easy to see that the Son is not eternal,
but was begotten by God almost 2000 years ago.

As delineated below, the exegesis of particular passages and analysis of

biblical terms proves false the Oneness position of a non-eternal, non-
personal Son. Specifically, the biblical presentation of 1) the eternality
of the Son, 2) His role as the Agent of creation, and 3) His eternal
existence with the Person of the Father will be the driving force that
demolishes the Oneness theological position.

107
4.2 PERSONHOOD AND BEING

Since the fundamental premise upon which Oneness theology is built is

the notion that God is unitarian or unipersonal (as previously
established), the Oneness position denies the deity, unipersonality and
preexistence of the Son. By way of definition, modes, roles and offices
are non-personal. Oneness theology asserts that Jesus is unipersonal,
thus the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mere modes or roles, not
Persons. Thus, the Oneness idea of the Son differs severely from the
biblical presentation. To deny the deity and preexistence of the Son is
to deny the very essence of Jesus Christ. Commenting on John 8:24,
Luther (1959: 365) can say: “The Lord Christ is angry below the surface
and says: ‘Do you know who I am? I am God, and that in the fullest
sense. Do as you please. If you do not believe that I am He, then, you
are nothing, and you must die in your sins.’”

4.3 THE “ONENESS” POSITION

Bernard (1983: 105) declared, “There was a time when the Son did not
exist,” thus rejecting the preexistence of the Son. This resembles the
very center point of the controversy at Nicaea. Bernard’s statement here
is theologically comparable to the key phrase in Arius’s teaching:
“There was a time when He [the Son] was not.” However, the historic
Christian church’s belief was quite different, for Arius was roundly
condemned for his teachings. As will be vividly shown in Chapter 5, the
early church was not tolerant in any way, shape or form towards heresies
that denied the nature of God and the full deity and humanity of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God. Oneness theology (or Modalism) maintains that
God exists as a unipersonal deity (cf. Chapter 1). Hence, the
fundamental Oneness position regarding Jesus Christ is this: the
unitarian or unipersonal deity named Jesus has two natures: divine, as
the mode of the Father/Holy Spirit and human, as the mode of the Son
of God (though not God the Son).
In Oneness thinking, the meaning of “Son of God” (or “Son of
Man”) refers primarily to the humanity (viz., the human nature) of Jesus,
not to the deity. Bernard (1983: 99, 103) indicates that the “Son of God”
may refer to

108
 God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature …
We can never use the term “Son” correctly apart from the
humanity of Jesus Christ … The Son always refers to the
Incarnation and we cannot use it in the absence of the human
element … The Son did not have preexistence before the
conception in the womb of Mary. The Son pre-existed in
thought but not in substance.

Since unitarianism is the starting point, Oneness teachers (e.g., Paterson,

1966: 22; Bernard, 1983: 102-3) see Jesus as the Father, not as the Son,
existing before time. Only in this sense, can Oneness advocates say that
Jesus (as the Father) is eternal in that He preexisted. Therefore, as
sufficiently documented thus far, Oneness theology rejects the idea that
the Son preexisted with the Father (cf. Bernard 1983: 184). Oneness
teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 103-4; Magee, 1988: 25) further argue
that according to John 3:16, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5,10 the Son cannot be
eternal because the Bible says He was “begotten” on a certain day.
Although the translation of monogenēs is subject to translators,
Oneness teachers, nevertheless, assume the meaning, of “origin” or
“beginning” to show that the Person of the Son had a beginning.
However, as pointed out below, the lexical support and contextual
meaning of monogenēs militates against this assertion.
Passages that depict the Son’s preexistence (e.g., the “sending” of
the Son passages; John 3:16; Col. 1:16-17) are explained away by
Oneness teachers as mere references to the so-called future plan of the
coming of the Son mode to earth. Bernard (1983: 102-3) explains that
the “plan of the future Sonship existed with God [the Father] from the
beginning—an idea in the mind of God.” The Son preexisted as a divine
thought, but not as a divine Person in Oneness theology. While this may
sound plausible as an explanation in denying the preexistence of the Son
in those passages, it is a hollow claim lacking exegetical support. To
adopt such a view is to rip the heart out of passages that specifically
speak of the Son as the divine Agent of creation, the very Creator of all
things.

10
Cf. note 22 below for a discussion of these passages.
109
4.4 AN ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO THE “ONENESS”
POSITION

As demonstrably established in Chapter 5, when Monarchianism

(modalistic and dynamic) first emerged early in the second century, it
was roundly and universally condemned as non-Christian. What marks
Oneness theology as non-Christian, as thus far substantiated, is their
denial of the deity and unipersonality of the Son. It re-defines the
biblical doctrine of the Son, sinking Him to the level of a mere mode or
office of a unitarian deity named “Jesus.”
We will also show subsequently that the Old Testament authors, the
apostles, the earliest of church fathers, early important ecumenical
councils and creeds, present-day scholarship, and the people of God
directly attested to and positively proclaimed the preexistence of the
preincarnate Son. The Christian church has stalwartly refuted the denial
of the preexistence of the Son by Oneness and other unitarian groups.
The words of Christ Himself in John 8:24 should send shock waves
through the many groups that deny His preexistence: “Therefore I said
to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He
[egō eimi, i.e., the eternal God; cf. Chapter 2, 2.4.5], you will die in your
sins.”

4.5 THE PREINCARNATE SON

Thus far, we have seen the New Testament affirmation of the full deity
of the Person of the Son (cf. Chapter 3, 3.2), and hence, His eternality.
Here in this chapter, the biblical declaration and establishment of the
Son’s eternal existence with the Father (pre-incarnation) will be the
chief focus. Although this presentation will consist of specific passages
primarily from the New Testament, the Old Testament provides many
references to the preexistence of the preincarnate Son (e.g., Gen. 19:24;
Prov. 30:4; Isa. 6:1ff.;11 Dan. 7:9-14; Micah 5:2; “the angel of the Lord”

11
John 12:41 reveals that the “Lord” (adonay, lit., “sovereign master”) and His divine
glory that Isaiah saw (6:1-2) was the preincarnate Son. We find at several places, New
Testament authors citing Old Testament passages referring to Yahweh and yet applies
them to the Son (e.g., compare Ps. 102:25-27 with Heb. 1:10-12; Isa. 6:1-10 with John
12:39-41; Isa. 8:12-13 with 1 Pet. 3:14-15; Isa. 45:23 with Phil. 2:10-11; Joel 2:32
with Rom. 10:13).
110
[lit., “angel of Yahweh”] appearances12 [e.g., Gen. chaps. 18-19; 22:9-
14; Exod. 3:6-14; 23:20-21; Num. 22:21-35; Judg. 2:1-5; 6:11-22; 13:9-
25; Zech. 1:12; etc.]; and the targumic13 identification of the “angel of
the Lord” as the Memra of the Lord.14
Of the many New Testament passages and terms that exegetically
affirm the preexistence of the Son, John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:6-11;
and the “sending” of the Son passages (esp. in John) provide a weighty
amount of exegetical evidence. Further evidence (viz., John 1:3, Col.
1:16-17 and Heb. 1:8-10) will include passages that clearly designate
the Son as the Creator, that is, the Agent of creation. In conclusion, there
will be a discussion of the theological implications of the participle ōn
(articular and anarthrous) as applied to the Son (John 1:18; 1:3; 2 Cor.

12
The “angel of the Lord” references in the Old Testament provide a strong and clear
refutation to the unitarianism of Oneness doctrine. The “angel of the Lord” claimed to
be Yahweh on several occasions, yet being distinct from Yahweh (the Father). In
Zechariah 1:12, we read that the angel of the Lord (who had been claiming to be
Yahweh previously throughout the Old Testament) prayed to Yahweh—Yahweh
praying to Yahweh, as we see in the New Testament, God the Son praying to God the
Father.
13
Again, the Targum was an ancient Aramaic translation providing explanations and
paraphrases of the Hebrew Old Testament.
14
Both the Hebrew and LXX of Genesis 19:24 irrefutably presents two distinct
Yahweh’s (“Then the Lord [Yahweh] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and
fire from the Lord [Yahweh] out of heaven”), which utterly shatters the Oneness-
unitarian view of God. Even more, notice how the Aramaic Targum renders Genesis
19:24:
And the Word [Memra] of the Lord had caused showers of favour to
descend upon Sedom and Amorah, to the intent that they might work
repentance.... Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and
fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven…. (Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan; emphasis added).

And the Word [Memra] of the Lord Himself had made to descend upon the
people of Sedom and Amorah showers of favour, that they might work
repentance from their wicked works. But when they saw showers of favour,
they said, So, our wicked works are not manifest before Him. He [i.e. the
Word] turned (then), and caused to descend upon them bitumen and fire
from before the Lord from the heavens. (Fragmentary Targum; emphasis
added).

As revealed below, the Apostle John presents the Logos in the same sense as that of
the targumic presentation of the Word (Memra)—namely, as Yahweh/God, Creator,
distinct from another divine Person referred to as Yahweh/God. Thus, as in Daniel
7:9-14 and passages already cited, we repeatedly find that the Old Testament
authors/believers embraced a multi-personal God.
111
8:9; Heb. 1:3) and the implications of the Son as the monogenēs
huios/theos.

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God” (En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton
theon, kai theos ēn ho logos). From a theological and grammatical
standpoint, the three clauses of John 1:1 powerfully and effectively
refute the theology of every non-Christian group that denies the full
deity of Jesus Christ and His distinction from God the Father. Consider
the three clauses of John 1:1:

John 1:1a: En archē ēn ho logos, literally, “In [the] beginning was the
Word.” The first clause of John 1:1 teaches the eternality of the Son.
The Greek verb ēn is the imperfect tense of eimi. The force of an
imperfect tense indicates a continuous action normally occurring in the
past. Hence, the Word did not originate at a point in time, but rather in
the beginning of time the Word ēn already existing. Note the contrast
between ēn and egeneto (the aorist indicative form of ginomai). The
aorist indicative normally indicates a punctiliar action normally
occurring in the past (cf. Greenlee, 2000: 49). In the prologue of John,
ēn is exclusively applied to the eternal Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10,
while in verses 3, 6, and 10, the aorist egeneto is applied to everything
created. Not until verse 14 does egeneto refer to the Son denoting His
new nature—“the Word became [egeneto] flesh.”

John 1:1b: kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, literally, “and the Word was
with the God.” The second clause of John 1:1 teaches the absolute
personal distinction between the eternal Logos and ton theon (the
Father), as we will thoroughly discuss below.

John 1:1c: kai theos ēn ho logos, literally, “and God was the Word.”
The third clause of John 1:1 teaches the deity of Jesus Christ. This is so
stunningly clear that one would have to alter the actual rendering of the
clause and/or read into the clause a polytheistic (“a god”) or, as with
Oneness theology, a modalistic interpretation to circumvent the author’s
intended meaning. The “Word in Oneness theology is basically the
Father’s spoken “word” or His thought or plan. Hence, Oneness
believers deny the unipersonality of the Word—namely, His
identification as the Person of the Son.

112
 Another severe blow to the Oneness notion of the “Word” is the
targumic usage of the Memra (“Word”). There is compelling evidence
substantiating that the theological and conceptual background for the
opening of John’s gospel and his other literature (esp. his Logos
theology) was the ancient Targum—particularly with reference to the
deity and unipersonality of the Word, Jesus Christ (cf. Martin
McNamara, John L. Ronning et al).15 Noted Reformed apologist,
Anthony Rogers (2015: 19-20), observes:

The ancient Targums identify the speaker in Deuteronomy

32:39 as the Word of God, which is the very title John gives
to Jesus in the prologue to his gospel (John 1:1, 14; cf. 1 John
1:1–3, Rev. 19:13). In other words, according to the ancient
Jews who paraphrased this passage in Aramaic, the one who
originally said “I Am” in the Old Testament is the Divine
Word, even as the one who said “I Am” in John’s gospel is
the Divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:1b is particularly relevant concerning the Oneness denial of the

preincarnate Son: kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon. In spite of the clear
differentiation between ho logos and ton theon denoted by the
preposition pros (“with”), Bernard (1983: 102-3) claims:

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed

in the mind of God. The Word can also mean the plan or
thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.
What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms,
Word and Son? The Word had preexistence and the Word was
God (the Father), so we can use it without reference to
humanity. However, the Son always refers to the Incarnation
and we cannot use it in the absence of the human element
(emphasis added).

15
To recall, the “angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament is frequently identified as
the “Memra” of the Lord in Targum. Further, at many places, the Targum identifies
the Memra as the Creator of all things (e.g., the targumic reading of Gen. 1:27; Ps.
33:6; etc., see also Gen. 1:1, Neofiti Targum). So too, the Apostle John identifies the
“Word,” who in John’s mind was the Son (cf. John 1:14, 18; 1 John 1:3), as the Creator
of all things (cf. John 1:3). To affirm again, that the Son, Jesus Christ, was the Creator
of all things is a constant and recurring teaching in the New Testament (cf. John 1:3,
10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10), as thoroughly and exegetically treated
below.
113
Thus, the “Word” in Oneness theology was merely a plan of the Father.
This is the most abnormal application of the passage, thoroughly
distorting what John was actually saying. As seen in Chapter 2 (2.6), in
spite of Bernard’s position, other Oneness teachers have dissimilar
views as to exactly what or who the Word was. One group of Oneness
teachers (e.g., Paterson, 1966: 29 and Graves, 1977: 35) seems to be
saying that the Word was the Father Himself, but manifested in the
flesh, while others (e.g., Weisser, 1983: 35; Bernard, 1985: 22) see the
Word as merely the thought or plan of the Father. This, however,
prompts the question: “Who is the Son in Oneness theology?” As
previously recognized, Oneness theology identifies the Son with the
humanity and not the deity of Jesus.
They also assert that since the Sonship began (was created) in
Bethlehem, the Sonship will cease to exist after time (cf. Bernard, 1983:
106). Historically, the early church used John 1:1 to show that the
eternal Word was fully God and distinct from the Father. Clement of
Alexandria (Fragments 3, in Alexander and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
2:574) declares: “The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being,
by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.
That the Son was always the Word is signified by saying, ‘In the
beginning was the Word.’” Hippolytus (Against Noetus 14, Alexander
and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:228) likewise comments on John 1:1 to
refute the first known modalist, Noetus of Smyrna:

If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what
follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall
not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons
however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace
of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are
two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is
the third, the Holy Spirit.

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, John Calvin (1994: 15)

remarks on the distinction of the three divine Persons expressed in John
1:1b:

We have already said that the Son of God is thus placed above
the world and above all the creatures, and is declared to have
existed before all ages. But at the same time this mode of
expression attributes to him a distinct personality from the
Father; for it would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say
114
 that the Speech was always with God, if he had not some kind
of subsistence peculiar to himself in God. … This passage
serves, therefore, to refute the error of Sabellius, for it shows
that the Son is distinct from the Father.

Expounding on John 1:1, Warfield (1988: 190-92) remarks:

In three crisp sentences he declares at the outset His eternal

subsistence, His eternal intercommunion with God, His
eternal identity with God: ‘In the beginning the Word was;
and the Word was with God; and the Word was God’ (John i.
1) … He was nevertheless not a separate being from God:
“And the Word was”—still the eternal “was”—“God.” In
some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally
true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God;
this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may
distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet
not another than this God, but Himself is this God … John
would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was
not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self
(emphasis added).

And the Word was—pros ton theon. The modalistic interpretation of

John 1:1 is annihilated by both the grammar and syntax of John 1:1b:
ho logos ēn pros ton theon. To highlight the intimate loving fellowship
that the Word shared with the Father, the Apostle John specifically used
the preposition pros, translated “with” here. The preposition pros has
various meanings depending on the context (e.g., to, toward, in the
presence of, pertaining to, against, etc.; Greenlee, 1986: 39-40). When
applied to persons, however, pros regularly denotes intimate fellowship
and always their distinction. Of all the prepositions that John could have
utilized, which can be mean “with” (e.g., en, meta, para, sun), he chose
pros (lit., “facing”/“toward,” with the accusative, theon as the object of
the preposition). Hence, pros with the accusative clearly indicates that
the Word was “at, with, in the presence of ... God” (Greenlee, 1986: 39).
In reference to John 1:1b, pros indicates “by, at, near; pros tina einai:
be (in company) with someone” (Bauer, 2000: 875). Robertson (1932:
5:4) elucidates the significance of the preposition pros in John 1:1b:

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with

God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with
the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face
115
 to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of
pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton
echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face
to face, 1 Cor, 13:12), a triple use of pros.

Examining John 1:1b, Moloney (1998: 4:35) notes:

The Word preexists the human story, and the Word does not
preexist for its own sake but in relationship with God (pros
ton theon). The proposition pros means more than static
“with.” It has a sense of motion toward the person or thing
that follows. The translation therefore reads, “the Word was
turned toward God.” There is dynamism in the relationship
that must somehow be conveyed.

White (1998: 52) remarks as to the personal intimacy expressed by the

preposition pros:

Just as Greek verbs are often more expressive than their

English counterparts, so too are Greek prepositions. Here
John uses the preposition pros. The term has a wide range of
meanings, depending on the context in which it is found. In
this particular instance, the term speaks to a personal
relationship, in fact, to intimacy. It’s the same term the apostle
Paul uses when he speaks of how we presently have a
knowledge comparable to seeing in a dim mirror, but
someday, in eternity, we will have a clearer knowledge, an
intimate knowledge, for we shall see “face to (pros) face”
(Corinthians 13:12). When you are face-to-face with
someone, you have nowhere to hide. You have a relationship
with that person, whether you like it or not.

Commenting on the intimate nature of pros, Robertson (1934: 625)

correlates John 1:1b and 2 Corinthians 5:8: “It is the face-to-face
converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. John thus conceives the
fellowship between the Logos and God.” So Vincent (1973: 2:34) says,

The preposition pros, which, with the accusative case, denotes

motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New
Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being
near or beside, but as a living union and communion;
implying the active notion of intercourse … Thus John’s

116
 statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the
Father from all eternity but was in the living, active relation
of communion with Him.

Lenski (1943: 32-33) similarly shows that pros in John 1:1b signified
the inseparable communion that the distinct Person of the Word had
with the Father:

The preposition pros, as distinct from en, para, and sun, is of

the greatest importance … The idea is that of presence and
communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos,
then, is not an attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating
from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in
loving, inseparable communion toward God, and God turned
equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than
God. This preposition pros sheds light on Gen. 1:26, “Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Pros expresses the intimate and special relationship that Christians will
experience “at home with [pros] the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). In Romans 5:1,
Paul teaches that the believer, having been justified from faith (ek
pisteōs), presently and permanently has (echomen) peace with God
(pros ton theon). Notwithstanding the mass of biblical scholarship,
Oneness teachers postulate a unitarian assumption, denying the
appropriate and natural meaning of pros in John 1:1b. Evading the
lexical denotation and contextual substance of pros in John 1:1b,
Bernard (1983: 188-89) states:

We should also note that the Greek word pros, translated here
as “with,” is translated as “pertaining to” in Hebrews 2:17 and
5:1 … Furthermore, if God in John 1:1 means God the Father,
then the Word is not a separate person for the verse would
then read, “The Word was with the Father and the Word was
the Father” To make this imply a plurality of persons in God
would necessitate a change in the definition of God in the
middle of the verse.

Here Bernard attempts to make a grammatical connection, asserting that

pros in John 1:1b means the same in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. He then
commits the fallacy of equivocation when he implies that theos in 1:1b
and theos in John 1:1c refer to the same thing: the identification of the
Father.
117
 First, let us deal with the use of pros in John 1:1b and Hebrews 2:17
and 5:1. Bernard’s assertion overlooks the grammatical differences. In
both Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 (and Rom. 15:17), the phrase ta pros ton
theon appears. However, note that the neuter plural article ta (“the
things”) precedes the preposition pros, while in John 1:1b, the imperfect
form of eimi (i.e., ēn) precedes the preposition pros. The neuter plural
article points to impersonal concepts, “the things pertaining to God,”
while pros is preceded by the imperfect verb (ēn) in John 1:1b, which
points to a personal interaction—the Word “was with God.” Second, the
specific phrase pros ton theon as in John 1:1b and Hebrews, occurs
twenty times in the Greek New Testament. In each occurrence, pros
differentiates between a person or persons and God (except, of course,
the three times where the neuter plural article precedes the phrase). In
1:1b, John envisages a marked distinction between two Persons—ton
theon and ho logos. Pros ton theon expresses the distinct personality of
the Logos, which another preposition (such as en, meta, para, or sun)
would have obscured. It is a “face-to-face” with God or “at home with
God” that is indicated (Plummer, 1900: 64).
Next, Bernard attempts to make theos in both 1:1b and 1:1c have
the same referent (the Father) and thus, the same semantic meaning
(definite). As a result, he implies that the equative verb ēn carries the
same force as the mathematical equal symbol: theos in 1:1c (the Word)
equals theos in 1:1b (the Father). In other words, his assumption of
unitarianism brings about his conclusion that “God” can only refer to
the Father. Therefore, Oneness teachers see both occurrences of theos
in John 1:1 as referring to the Father, which, of course, tags theos in 1:1c
as semantically definite.
In response, grammatically speaking, logos, is the subject of the
clause (1:1c) and theos, is the predicate nominative, technically, an
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. The predicate nominative
describes the class or category to which the subject (logos) belongs
(Wallace, 1996: 262, 265). Hence, theos, is the category to which the
logos belongs in terms of nature, not identity. Generally, as Wallace
illustrates (ibid), there are three semantic categories to which the
anarthrous predicate nominative theos may belong: definite, indefinite,
or qualitative—although, “80 percent of anarthrous preverbal PNs are
qualitative” (ibid). To which category theos belongs is determined by
the grammar, syntax, and, most importantly, the context of the passage.
Regarding John 1:1c:

118
Is theos Definite? If theos were tagged as definite it would indeed force
Modalism into John 1:1. The predicate nominative tells what the logos
is, not who He is (Greenly, 1986: 24). John could easily have established
Modalism in John 1:1c by definitizing theos (i.e., ho theos ēn ho logos,
“the God was the Word”), turning John 1:1c into a “convertible
proposition” (i.e., the subject, logos being interchangeable with the
predicate, theos, in contrast to a “subset proposition”). Rebutting the
Oneness position, New Testament scholar Harris (1992: 61) provides
this analysis:

What is grammatically admissible [viz. the rendering: ho

theos ēn ho logos, “the God was the Word”] is contextually
inadmissible. If theos were taken as subject and as equivalent
to ho theos ... the clause would contradict what precedes (“the
Word was with God,” distinguishing two persons) and would
reduce the logos to merely a divine attribute (cf. 1 John 4:8:
ho theos agapē estin).

In the same vein, Robertson (1932: 5:4) comments on the way John
actually guards against Sabellianism (i.e., Modalism):

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and
careful language, John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho
logos ēn ho theos. That would mean that all of God was
expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable,
each having the article.

Oneness teachers that comment on John 1:1 (e.g., Paterson, 1966: 29

and Graves, 1977: 35; Bernard, 1983: 188-89) do not provide any
scholarly sources, which agree or even imply that John 1:1 teaches
Modalism or that John 1:1c is a convertible proposition.
The pre-decided unitarian theology precludes Oneness teachers
from exegetically interacting with the text. Hence, the intended meaning
of John 1:1b is removed by the Oneness unitarian conviction. Even
though the theological consequence of a definitized theos is a modalistic
understanding of John 1:1, many well-meaning Christian apologists and
counter-cult writers incorrectly regarded theos as definite (e.g., Rhodes,
1993: 107; Martin, 1997: 138; Ankerberg and Weldon, 1999: 170). This
is mainly due to a sizeable misunderstanding of E. C. Colwell’s
grammatical rule (viz., asserting the converse; cf. Wallace 1996: 257-

119
62).16 In sharp contrast to a definite tag, Wallace (1996: 26) indicates
that

Calling theos in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it

had followed a verb it would have had the article … (i.e., “the
Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem with
this argument is that the theos in 1:1b is the Father … This, as
older grammarians and exegetes point out, is embryonic
Sabellianism or modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the
least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

Adding even more credence against the modalistic definite view of

theos is John 1:1c (“and the Word was with [pros] God”) and the
unalterable fact the three Persons of the Trinity are constantly
differentiated throughout the Gospel of John (esp. 14-16). Therefore, to
say that theos is definite (i.e., seeing 1:1c as a convertible proposition)
would clearly induct a unitarian/modalistic concept of God into the
passage. Against such a view is both the grammar of the passage and

16
In 1933, Ernest Cadman Colwell published an article entitled, “A Definite Rule for
the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” in the Journal of Biblical
Literature (52:12-21; cf. Wallace 1996: 257). We must distinguish, however, between
“Colwell’s construction” and “Colwell’s rule.” The Colwell construction is an
anarthrous pre-verbal (before the equative verb) predicate nominative, whereas
Colwell’s rule states:
Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article …
a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an
indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article;
if the context suggest that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as
a definite noun (cf. Wallace 1996: 257; emphasis added).
Though the rule is more involved than indicated by this summary citation, it
nevertheless denotes the main spotlight of the rule. It was from this initial statement
that so much confusion emerged—mainly, from citing the converse of the rule, which
is “Anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are definite,” rather than citing the
rule itself: “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article.”
The other problem in applying (i.e., misapplying) Colwell’s “rule” to John 1:1 was
that Colwell had stated at the onset of his study that he only examined definite
predicate nominatives (Wallace, 1996: 259). Hence, Colwell was mainly concerned
with definite (not qualitative) predicate nominatives. Forty years later in a more
expansive work on Colwell’s rule, Philip B. Harner (published in the Journal of
Biblical Literature, [1973]: 92:85; cited in Wallace, 1996: 259) remarked and
compared his study to that of Colwell: “As Colwell called attention to the possibility
that such nouns may be definite, the present study has focused on their qualitative
force.”
120
the context and John’s own theology envisaging a distinction between
the Persons of the Trinity.

Is theos Indefinite? An indefinite rendering (such as the rendering, “a

god,” in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT, 1984) reduces Jesus to an
indefinite non-eternal god (one of others). Whereas a definite tag throws
Modalism into John 1:1, an indefinite tag throws polytheism (i.e., many
gods) into the passage. If Jesus is a true “mighty god” (“a god”) and
Jehovah is a true “Almighty God,” as Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, this
would also present a decidedly Gnostic theological construct: a supreme
God (Almighty) and a demigod (mighty god). Either way, an indefinite
rendering introduces the idea of multiple true gods/Gods. The NWT’s
grammatical assumption at John 1:1c that the anarthrous theos = an
indefinite rendering, “a god” (Watchtower, 1989a: 212) is both flawed
and inconsistent.
If the NWT were to be consistent, then John 1:6 should read: “There
came a man sent from a god” (theos is anarthrous). Verse 12 should
read: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to
become children of a god” (theos is anarthrous). Verse 13 should read:
“Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of
man, but of a god (theos is anarthrous). And verse 18 should read: “No
one has seen a god” (theos is anarthrous).17 If John had envisaged Jesus
as an indefinite “god” that would be utterly cacophonous with his entire
presentation of Jesus Christ, the Son, as fully God (e.g., 1:3, 18; 2:19;
8:24; 58; 10:27-30; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 22:13). Again, it is not
grammar alone that refutes the Watchtower (and Oneness unitarian)
understanding of John 1:1, but rather it is the context of the prologue
(and the entirety of John’s literature).
Besides the polytheism that an indefinite rendering produces, there
are two additional problems with an indefinite tag. The first problem is
that theos in 1:1c is placed in the emphatic position, which makes an
indefinite rendering all the more improbable. The second problem is that
John 1:1a indicates clearly that the Word was eternal: “In the beginning
was [ēn] the Word” (emphasis added). We have already seen above the
import of the imperfect ēn. In addition, John 1:3 teaches that the eternal
17
There are approximately 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos in the Greek New
Testament (NA27). At sixteen places, the NWT has either “a god,” “god,” “gods,” or
“godly.” Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators of the NWT were faithful to
their translation principle (viz., the anarthrous theos = an indefinite rendering) only six
percent of the time (Countess, 1982: 54-55).
121
Word was the actual Agent of creation: “All things came into being
through Him [di’ autou]”18 (emphasis added). Clearly, it was not the
grammar that determined how the NWT was to render John 1:1c, but
rather, it was the theological bias (unitarianism) of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses.

Is theos Qualitative? In view of John’s theology, along with the

grammar and context, the highest semantical possibility for theos in 1:1c
is qualitative. Pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall
predominantly into this category (Wallace, 196: 269). As a predicate
nominative (pre-verbal), theos is the category or class to which the
divine Logos belongs.
The Word as to His essence or nature was definitely God. He was
“identical” to ton theon in 1:1b, not in identity or Person, but rather
identical (i.e., coequal) in ontological “quality” (cf. Heb. 1:3). There are
numerous examples in the New Testament of anarthrous pre-verbal
predicate nominatives that are qualitative in semantic force. In John
1:14 we read: “the Word became flesh.” He did not become “a flesh”
(indefinite), or “the flesh” (definite), but rather He became “flesh”—as
to His nature (qualitative).19 Robertson (1932: 5:4-5) refers to 1:14 to
exemplify the qualitative force of theos in 1:1c and the semantic
problem of a definite tag:

The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the
predicate without it (theos) … So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx
egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became
Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism
also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the
Father and Son, what Origen called Eternal Generation of the
Son … Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship.

18
We will examine below the significance of the preposition dia + the genitive here
in John 1:3 and passages such as Colossians 1:16-17 where the same construction (dia
+ the gen.) appears.
19
The qualitative force of the anarthrous predicate nominative is well exampled at
John 4:24: ho theos [estin—implied verb] pneuma, literally, “the God [is] spirit,” not
“a spirit,” or “the Spirit,” but “spirit”—as to God’s essence or nature (qualitative).
Other clear examples of qualitative predicate nominatives include John 5:10; Romans
14:23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:19; 2 Corinthians 11:22, 23; Philippians 2:13; 1 John 1:5;
and 1 John 4:8.
122
In clear opposition to Oneness unitarian assertion of a definite theos in
1:1c, Reymond (1998: 300) notes that John wrote theos anarthrously
most likely to his desire to keep the Word hypostatically distinct from
the Father to whom he had just referred as ton theon.
In conclusion, the Word as to His very nature was God. Though
God, He was not the very Person of Father, in which case theos in 1:1c
would be definite (ho theos). Nor was He one of a pantheon of gods or
aeons, which an indefinite rendering of theos would produce. Rather, as
to His inherent sum quality, He possessed all the fullness (plērōma) of
God in human flesh, as Scripture loudly presents: “The Word was God.”
Only by reading the Bible through the lens of
unitarianism/unipersonalism can one maintain the false Oneness notion
that God was only one Person (the Father) and the Word was the Father.
Before we leave John 1:1, there is one more point to address. It is
the question of who or what the Word is in Oneness doctrine. We have
seen the disagreement among Oneness writers as to the identity of the
Word (the Father Himself or the “plan or thought” of the Father). In
spite of the differences, one thing is clear in Oneness doctrine: the Word
is the Father (either in Person or in thought/plan). Let us deal first with
the Oneness view that the Word is the Person of the Father (i.e., viewing
theos in 1:1c as definite). As we have shown, along with John 14-16,
John 1:1b provides a clear refutation to this notion: the Word was (ēn)
with (pros) God (the Father).
In glaring refutation to the alternative view postulated by Oneness
teachers (e.g., Weisser, 1983: 35; Bernard, 1985: 22) that the Word was
a mere plan or thought (or prophecy) of the Father, and thus an
impersonal concept, the Word possessed personal attributes:

➢ “The Word was with [pros] God” (1:1b).

➢ “In Him was life and He was the Light of men” (v. 4).

➢ John “came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that all

might believe through Him” (v. 7). John did not testify about the
Father’s impersonal future concept or a plan, but rather, He
proclaimed the Person of the Word, the Light of all people.

➢ The Word created “all things” and “the world was made
through Him” (di’ autou, vv. 3, 10). The Word is the Agent of
creation and not a mere instrument, which John’s use of dia
123
 followed by the genitive autou, shows. There will be a thorough
discussion of this exegetical characteristic below (4.6).

➢ “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not
receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave
them right to become children of God, even to those who believe
in His name” (vv. 11-12).

➢ “And the Word [not the Father] became flesh, and dwelt among
us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten
[monogenēs] of the Father, full of grace and truth” (v. 14;
emphasis added).

John’s own commentary and explication of John 1:1 in 1 John 1:1-

2:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we

have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched
with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life
was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to
you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was
manifested to us.

Note the remarkable similarities:

➢ John 1:1: In the beginning [archē] was the Word [ēn ho logos],
and the Word was with God [ēn pros ton theon] (emphasis
added).

➢ 1 John 1:1-2: What was [ēn] from the beginning [archēs] ...
concerning the Word [peri tou logou] of life.... which was with
the Father [ēn pros ton patera] (emphasis added).

Both John’s gospel and epistle use the same and highly significant
Greek nouns, prepositions, and verbs to denote “the Word” and His
relationship with the Father. Both use archē (“beginning”) and both use
the imperfect verb ēn (“was”). Both use the same preposition pros
(“with”) indicating the eternal Word’s intimate relationship with
(distinct from) God the Father (“was [ēn] ... from the beginning”). The
124
prepositional phrase in 1 John 1:2 (the Word was “with [pros] the
Father”) identifies20 “God” in John 1:1b as the Father, who was with
the Word: “and the Word was with God”—that is, the Word was with
the Father, not was the Father. What is also worth mentioning is that the
Word is referred to as zōē (“life”) in both the prologue of John (in 1:4)
and in 1 John 1:1-2. “Life” seems to be a distinguishing motif of the Son
throughout John’s literature (cf. John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 5:12); “an
epithet nowhere else used of the Father” (Wallace, 1996: 327).
Lastly, as we clearly observed in the prologue of John, the apostle
portrays the Word as personal—not as an impersonal plan or concept as
Oneness theology maintains. In the same way, in 1 John 1:1-2, the
apostle expresses clearly that the “Word of Life” is a divine Person:

what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what
we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the
Word of Life and the life was manifested, and we have seen
and testify and proclaim to you….

If the “Word” (logos) were merely a plan or thought, which only

preexisted in the Father’s mind, as Oneness believers argue, how could
John legitimately say to his readers regarding the Word that he has
heard, seen with his eyes, looked at, touched with his hands, testified of
and proclaimed a mere non-corporeal plan or thought?
It is of no use and entirely inconsistent for Oneness teachers to
apply a different meaning to the “Word” in 1 John 1:1-2 than that of the
prologue of John. In John’s theology, the Person of the Word is the
same Person in His preexistence (John 1:1-3, 10), in His incarnate life
and ministry (John 1:4-18; 1 John 1:1-2), and in His glory (Rev. 19:13).
The prologue of John proves false the Oneness idea that the Word
was only a plan, thought, or a mere concept in the Father’s mind devoid
of personhood. This beautiful prologue presents the Word as the “Light
of men,” the monogenēs (“one and only/unique One”) of the Father, and
the Creator of all things (in vv. 3, 10), to whom personal pronouns are
applied. We have shown above that John 1:1 (and the prologue)
powerfully and exegetically refutes those who deny 1) the eternality of
Christ (because of the imperfect ēn in 1:1a), 2) His distinction from the
Father (because of the preposition pros in 1:1b), and 3) the full deity of
20
Both nouns, “God” in John 1:1b and “Father” in 1 John 1:2 are articular, thus, both
signifying identification: John 1:1b: ēn pros ton theon (lit., “was with the God”) and 1
John 1:2: ēn pros ton patera (lit., “was with the Father”).
125
Christ (because of both 1:1a and the qualitative and emphatic force of
theos, in 1:1c). Although a few technical issues regarding some points
of grammar were discussed, we must keep in mind: it is the entire
content of this significant prologue and not the grammar alone in 1:1
that shows Oneness theology as biblically incoherent,

John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, [para

seautō] with the glory which I had [eichon] with You [para soi] before
the world was” (emphasis added). In Jesus’ High Priestly prayer to the
Father, He commands or requests (we will discuss the import of the
imperative doxason below) the Father to glorify Himself together with
the Father with the glory that He had or shared (eichon) with (para) the
Father before the world was (pro tou ton kosmon einai). According to
the Son’s own words, He preexisted with the Father before time.
It is on this biblical plane alone that we see the falsity of the
Oneness claim. The exegetical significance is undeniable. It is a shared
glory here, the Father and the Son. It is the divine glory that Yahweh
does “not share” with anyone else (cf. Isa. 42:8). Notice that the
glorification applies to both the Father and the Son here, with the glory
they shared before the creation. It is not glory apart from the Father that
the Son seeks, but rather glory alongside (para) of the Father. The glory
of which Jesus speaks is a “Me with You” glory. No creature can make
this claim. This glory here is a defined glory exclusive to Yahweh alone
(as in Isa. 42:8). Whereas the glory that Jesus gives to His disciples in
verse 22 is undefined, thus, not the same.
In verse 24, this glory is given in the sense of participating with,
seeing it, experiencing it, etc. (“in order that they may see My glory”)—
thus, not sharing it with the Father. The verb theōrōsin (“they may see”)
denotes the idea of “looking at/gazing at/experiencing,” etc., in contrast
to the unshared divine glory that the Son said hē eichon (“that I had”)
with the Father “before the world was.” In terms of this divine glory
that the Son had with the Father, Hebrews 1:3 corresponds in a
remarkable way to John 17:5: Hos ōn apaugasma tēs doxēs kai
charaktēr tēs hupostaseōs autou (lit., “Who is [ōn] [the] radiance of the
glory and [the] exact representation of the nature of Him”). Hence, the
Son is (always, timelessly) the radiance or effulgence of the Father’s
glory and the exact representation of His nature.
In Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah saw (eidon) the glory of Yahweh (tēs doxēs
autou, lit., “the glory of Him”; also at v. 2). Amazingly, this glory that
Isaiah saw was the glory of Jesus, according to the author:
126
“These things Isaiah said because he saw [eiden] the glory [tēn doxan]
of Him [Jesus, cf. v. 37] and he spoke of Him” (John 12:41; emphasis
added). The same terms found in verses 1 and 2 in the LXX of Isaiah
(horaō and ho doxa) are used in John 12:41 to reveal that the glory of
Yahweh that Isaiah saw was the glory of Jesus Christ. As Calvin says
(1989: 1.13.23): “For assuredly the God who appeared to Isaiah was the
one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ (Isa. vi; John xii.
41).” Aside from this amazing passage, which clearly displays the
intimate relationship between the Father and the Son and their
distinction, there is the issue of the aorist imperative form of doxazō
(doxason). The most common usage of the imperative mood is for
commands (Wallace, 1996: 485; Kevern and Gooder, 2004: 125).
However, the imperative can also denote a request. On occasion, “the
request imperative will be used by a superior when addressing an
inferior” (Wallace, 1996: 485). Wallace (1996: 485) further elaborates:
“With the aorist, the force generally is to command the action as a
whole, without focusing on duration, repetition, etc.” (emphasis his).
Since the Son is biblically presented as ontologically coequal with
the Father (cf. John 1:1c; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:3), His “commanding” the
Father to glorify Him would not infringe on the doctrine of the Trinity—
one divine Person commanding another divine Person of the same
ontological class or category. Although it is possible that the imperative
here can be one of request, it is in the assumption of unipersonalism,
denying that the Son is a divine Person coequal with Father, that we find
a natural and automatic rejection of the imperative of command. Even
though the plainness of the passage cannot be denied (the Father and the
Son sharing glory before time), Oneness teachers (cf. Bernard, 1983:
116-17) argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father
only signified the future glory or plan in the Father’s mind. The fact is,
plans, thoughts, ideas, etc. are abstract, not personal.
In other words, the Father “can regard things that do not exist as
though they do exist ... that is why the man Jesus could pray, ‘O Father,
glorify thou me with thine self with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was’” (Bernard, 1983: 116-17). In this way, Oneness
teachers often assert that believers were also “foreknown” before the
world was—before they existed without literally being “with” God.

127
They usually point to passages such as Ephesians 1:4: “He chose us
before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless
before Him.” This attempt to remove the Son from His preexistence
demonstrates an obvious unfamiliarity with the normal meaning of
words, grammar and context of both passages, for God’s elect cannot
make this claim. Christians cannot say they had, shared, or possessed
something with the Father before the world was—this glory is a divine
glory (not the same as in v. 22). This is a glory that Yahweh does not
share with anyone. Ephesians 1:4 speaks of God’s election, not
possession. To take this verse any other way is blatant eisegesis.
Para with the Dative. What erases the Oneness notion is that,
grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the
dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, lit., “together with Yourself”;
para soi, lit., “together with You”) especially in reference to persons, it
indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of” (cf. Wallace, 1996:
378). In the exhaustive Bauer (2000: 757), the preposition para with the
dative is well defined: “[para] w.[ith] the dat., the case that exhibits
close association … marker of nearness in space, at/by (at the side of),
beside, near, with, acc.[ording] to the standpoint fr.[om] which the
relationship is viewed.” Robertson (1932: 5:275-76) brings to light the
exegetical particulars of verse 5:

With Thine own self (para seautōi). “By the side of Thyself.”
Jesus prays for full restoration to the preincarnate glory and
fellowship (cf. 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John
1:14). This is not just ideal preexistence, but actual and
conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee)
“which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō, I used to
have, with attraction of case of hēn to hēi, because of doxēi),
“before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before
the being as to the world.”

Likewise, Reymond (1998: 230) remarks on the Son’s eternal

preexistence as taught in John 17:5:

The Gospel of John witnesses that Jesus claimed eternal

preexistence: “Glorify me, Father,” Jesus prayed, “with
yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world
was” (John 17:1, 5), indeed, with “my glory which you have
given me because you loved me before the foundation of the
world” (John 17:24). This claim in Jesus’ part to an eternal
128
 preexistence with the Father is not an aberration, for he speaks
elsewhere, though in somewhat different terms, of that same
preexistence.

In a desperate attempt to rescue Oneness theology from the plain

teaching that the Son preexisted as a divine Person sharing glory “with”
the Father, Oneness advocates find it commonplace to engage in lexical
abuse. That is, they will appeal to various lexicons that show para with
the dative can have the meaning of “in the mind.” However, no standard
lexicon ever applies that meaning to John 17:5, but only to unrelated
passages. In point of fact, all standard lexicons (regarding para + dat.),
recognized Greek grammars, and the mass of biblical scholarship affirm
John 17:5 as exegetically affirming the Person of the Son sharing glory
with (in the presence/association of) the Father, before time—thus a true
preexistence of the divine Son. Again, this “is not just ideal
preexistence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side.”
In fact, in John’s literature, para with the dative is used ten times
(John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25, 17:5 [twice]; 19:25; and Rev.
2:13). In every place, para with the dative carries a meaning of a literal
“alongside of” or “in the presence of,” that is, “with” in a most literal
sense —thus, nowhere in John's literature does para with the dative
denote “in one’s mind—unless one sees 17:5 as some kind of exception.
For example, note John 14:23:

“Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he

will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will
come to him and make Our abode with him [par’ autō]”
(emphasis added; again, the first person plural verbs
(eleusometha, “We will come,” and poiēsometha, “We will
make”) clearly distinguish Jesus from His Father).

And John 19:25:

“Therefore, the soldiers did these things. But standing by the

cross [para tō staurō] of Jesus were His mother, and His
mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary
Magdalene” (emphasis added).

So with John 17:5, para with the dative denotes a meaning of a literal
“alongside of” or “in the presence of.”

129
What is also worth mentioning (as referenced in Chapter 5, 5.6.2.1) is
the remarkable parallel in Ignatius’s letter to the Magnesians (c. A.D.
107) with John 17:5: “Jesus Christ, who before the ages [pro aiōnōn]
was with the Father [para patri] and appeared at the end of time” (6, in
Holmes, 1999: 153, 155; emphasis added). Specifically, both use para
with the dative denoting a marked distinction between Jesus and the
Father and both use the preposition pro (“before”) to indicate that their
distinction existed from eternity—“before time.” Thus, Ignatius
following the apostolic tradition envisages Jesus Christ as being para
(“with/in the presence of”) the Father— pro aiōnōn (“before time”)—,
which again is consistent with Trinitarianism, not Oneness unitarianism.
Oneness doctrine contorts Jesus’ High Priestly prayer to the Father. It
reduces it to a mere un-intimate mirage: Jesus as the non-divine Son
praying to His own divine nature (the Father), only appearing to be
numerically distinct. In sum, John 17:5 presents a potent affirmation of
the preexistence of the Son as outlined in the following points:

➢ The Son, not the Father, is praying (“Now, Father, glorify

Me”).
➢ The Son commands the Father to glorify Him, signifying His
coequality with the Father.
➢ This divine glory is shared between the Father and the Son,
and
➢ The Son declares that He possesses this divine glory
alongside of/with (para) the Father, before time.
➢ Para with the dative is used only ten times in John’s
literature. In every single case, para denotes a literal
“alongside of,” “in the presence of,” “in association
of/with”).

Philippians 2:6-11: “Who [Christ], although He existed in the form of

God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but [He]
emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in
the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled
Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a
cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on
Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus
130
EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:6-11, known as the Carmen Christi (“Hymn to
Christ”) and also known as the Kenosis Hymn (from kenoō, “to make
empty”) was utilized by the early Christian church to teach and magnify
the preexistence, incarnation, and the full deity of Jesus Christ.
Hippolytus in The Extant Works and Fragments, Exegetical, On
Genesis (Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:167) says of the Hymn:

For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God,

emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling
Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and
took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the “form
of a servant,” and “became obedient to God the Father, even
unto death ...” And it is for this reason that, when He had
assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of
humanity, He said, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I
had,” etc. For He who was co-existent with His Father before
all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had
the glory proper to Godhead.

The context of Philippians 2 is clear: Paul stresses to the Philippians that

they ought to act in a harmonious and humble way. Paul then instructs
them to have an attitude in themselves “which was also in Christ
Jesus”—humility (v. 5). Which then leads Paul in verse 6 to present the
ultimate act of humility: Christ, who was always subsisting as God,
“emptied Himself [heauton ekenōsen], taking the form of a bond-servant
... becoming obedient to the point of death.” In these seven short verses,
Paul provides a beautiful delineation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This
Hymn to Christ as God systematically encapsulates Jesus’ nature as
subsisting as God (preexisting), His incarnation, His cross-work, His
exaltation, and His distinction from God the Father whom He glorifies.
The philosophy of Modalism, conversely, eradicates the high
Christological significance and Paul’s summit illustration of humility.
To avoid the Hymn’s Christological significance, Oneness teachers
have offered various views, all of which are unusual, awkward, and out
of context. There seem to be two main interpretations offered by
Oneness teachers: 1) the Hymn is not referring to eternity past; rather,
the time-frame of the words “existing in the form of God” is actually a
reference to earthy life and ministry of Christ, as the human Son (cf.
131
Boyd, 1992: 106-7, 222). Or 2), the Hymn is a reference to the Father
who supposedly emptied Himself (cf. Bernard, 1983: 220-24).
Let us first address Paul’s clear presentation of the deity of the Son.
Unquestionably, the consciousness of Paul was so fixed on the deity of
Christ that he implicitly and explicitly asserted it in virtually every one
of his epistles (e.g., Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4;
Eph. 2:18ff; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:13). In verse 6,
Paul utilizes very specific terms to bolster his case in which he plainly
asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: “Who although He
existed [huparchōn] in the form of God [morphē theou]” (emphasis
added). The word translated “existed” is huparchōn, which is the
present active participle of huparchō.
The participle here indicates a continuous existence or state of
continually subsisting (Thayer, 1996: 638; Bauer, 2000: 1029). Hence,
Jesus, the Son of God (cf. 1:2; 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or
nature of God at a certain point in time, rather He always existed as God,
just as Paul definitely expressed. The word translated “form”
(NASB) or “nature” (NIV) is morphē. This word denotes the specific
qualities or essential attributes of something. Here, it denotes “the
expression of divinity in the preexistent Christ” (Bauer, 2000: 659). It
expresses that which is intrinsic and essential to the thing. Thus, here it
means that our Lord in His preincarnate state possessed essential deity
(Ryrie, 1986: 261). Warfield (1988: 177) clearly expresses its semantic
force:

Paul does not simply say, “He was God.” He says, “He was in
the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws
emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality
of God. “Form” is a term, which expresses the sum of those
characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing
that it is … And “the form of God” is the sum of the
characteristics which make the being we call “God,”
specifically God, rather than some other being—an angel, say,
or a man. When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,”
therefore, He is declared, in the most expressed manner
possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fullness of
attributes which make God God.

To deny that the Son was truly the morphē of God is to deny that the
Son was truly the morphē of man, “taking the form [morphē] of a bond-
servant.” This obliterates the Oneness argument that “existed in the
132
form of God” is a reference to the non-divine human Son’s earthy
ministry, posited by such Oneness writers as Robert Sabin (cf. Boyd,
1992: 106-7). However, Bernard’s view differs from that of Sabin.
Bernard holds to the view that “existed in the form of God” is a
reference to Jesus as the Father who took on a new nature—the Son. He
thus concludes that the “Lord” mentioned in verse 11 is merely Jesus as
the human non-divine Son (cf. Bernard, 1983: 222). Because of his
theological commitment to unitarianism, Bernard (1983: 222) says of
the Hymn: “From the Oneness point of view, Jesus is not God the Son,
but He is all of God, including Father and Son [i.e., the human nature].
Thus, in His divinity, He is truly equal to, or identical to God.” In the
face of both Oneness interpretations, which deny both the deity and the
preexistence of the Son, there are several grammatical and contextual
reasons, which (a) refute the Oneness exegesis of the Hymn and (b)
positively affirm the deity and preexistence of the distinct Person of the
Son:

1. Throughout this epistle, Paul plainly distinguishes between God the

Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as two distinct subjects (e.g., 1:11; 2:6-
11; and esp. in Paul’s salutation [1:2] as exegetically brought out in
Chapter 3, 3.3.3). In the Hymn itself, Paul clearly differentiates between
the Father whom Jesus glorified (v. 11) and the Lord Jesus Christ whom
the Father exalted (v. 9). In effect, we see the distinction between the
Father and Jesus uncomplicatedly.

2. Oneness teachers also err to think that the phrase “equal with God”
(isa theō; v. 6) means “identical to God [Father].” In Bernard’s (1983:
222) claim that Paul is speaking here of Jesus as the Father, he distorts
the meaning of the word translated “equal” (isa): “In His divinity, He is
truly equal to, or identical to God. The word equal here means that the
divine nature of Jesus was the very nature of God the Father” (emphasis
added). Contrary to Bernard’s understanding of the term, the adjective
isa (which is the neuter plural of isos) carries the meaning of “equal, in
quality, or in quantity ... to claim for one’s self the nature, rank,
authority, which belong to God, Jn. v. 18” (Thayer, 1996: 307);
“pertaining to being equivalent in number, size, quality, equal” (Bauer,
2000: 480-81).
In point of fact, there is no standard lexicon that offers “identical”
(or a synonym) as a possible meaning for isos in the New Testament. Of
the eight uses in the New Testament, not once does isos mean identical
133
(cf. Matt. 20:12; Mark 14:56, 59; Luke 6:34; John 5:18; Acts 11:17;
Phil. 2:6; Rev. 21:16). Boyd (1992: 106) says, “There are a number of
ways in Greek for saying one thing is ‘identical to’ or ‘the same as’
something else, but Paul does not employ them here.” The passage is
indisputably teaching that Jesus was in very morphē theou huparchōn,
literally, “nature of God subsisting.” What the passage is not saying,
however, is that Jesus “existed in the form of the Father.”

3. It was the Son who voluntarily “made Himself nothing [heauton

ekenōsen], taking [labōn] the nature of a servant” (v. 7). Note the
reflexive pronoun heauton, “Himself.” The force of reflexive pronoun
here indicates that the subject (Jesus) is also the object (i.e., the one
receiving the action of the verb—the verb being ekenōsen, “emptied”).
Therefore, Jesus Christ, in His preexistent state, emptied Himself; it was
a “self-emptying” (lit., “He Himself emptied”; cf. Wallace, 1996: 350-
51; Reymond, 1998: 263). Also, note the parallelism in verses 7 and 8
in regards to the reflexive self-action of the Son: heauton ekenōsen (“He
Himself emptied Himself”) and in verse 8: etapeinōsen heauton
(“humbled, He Himself”).
The term “taking” is from the Greek aorist active participle, labōn.
Semantically, this is a participle of means (cf. Wallace, 1996: 630). The
participle of means describes the means or manner of the emptying.
Hence, the Son emptied Himself by means of His incarnation (cf. John
1:14). The emptying did not involve His deity, for Paul safeguards
against such an assertion in verse 6: hos en morphē theou huparchōn,
“Who [Christ] always and continually subsisting in the very nature and
substance of God” (translation mine). It was not the Father, as Oneness
teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and
became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v. 8).

4. Verse 9 reads: “Therefore God [the Father] exalted Him [the Son; cf.
v. 5] to the highest place.” Hence, God the Father did not exalt Himself,
but rather the Father exalted Jesus, God the Son. It was God the Son
who Himself emptied Himself (heauton ekenōsen) by taking (labōn) the
nature (morphē) of a servant (cf. John 1:14) and being obedient to death,
even death on a cross.

5. In verses 10-11 (starting at v. 9), Paul concludes his glorious

Christological Hymn with a “purpose of exaltation” (hina) clause. The
purpose of God highly exalting Him and bestowing on Him “the name
134
which is above every name” (v. 9) was for the result of (“So that,” hina)
“at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW ... and that every
tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [kurios Iēsous Christos], to
the glory of God the Father” (vv. 10-11). Most English translations read,
“Jesus Christ is Lord,” whereas the Greek reads, kurios Iēsous Christos,
literally, “Lord Jesus Christ.” In biblical Greek, the placement of a word
in a sentence was not always dependent on the subject-verb word order,
but rather on emphasis. In verse 11, the anarthrous predicate nominative
kurios, occupies the “emphatic position” (i.e., first word of the clause;
cf. Chapter 3, 3.3.2): “Lord Jesus Christ.”
As we have shown, the same is true in John 1:1c where the
anarthrous predicate nominative theos, is also in the emphatic position:
theos ēn ho logos, drawing attention to the Word’s nature as God. In
verses 10-11, Paul coherently emphasizes that Jesus is the Lord—
namely, the Yahweh of Isaiah 45:23 (cf. Rom. 14:11). Without question,
Paul here is loosely drawing from Isaiah 45:23, which is an undeniable
reference to Yahweh. Paul, however, applies it here to Jesus Christ the
Lord who glorifies the Father. According to Paul’s own theology, Jesus
Christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: every knee will bow and
every tongue will confess that the Son, Christ Jesus, is Yahweh (cf.
Rom. 14:11). There are further exegetical details that enhance the force
of Paul’s Jesus-Isaiah connection.
First, both Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) and Romans 14:11 contain future
indicatives: “every knee will bow [kampsēi] ... every tongue will confess
[or “will swear,” exomologēsetai]” indicating the future certainty of the
event. However, Paul modifies the original tenses and moods of the
verbs in Isaiah and Romans (to aorist subjunctives) to make Philippians
2:10-11 a purpose and result clause (cf. Wallace, 1996: 474). Again, the
purpose of God the Father exalting the Son and bestowing on Him “the
name which is above every name” was for the result of every knee
bowing and every tongue confessing that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” thus,
the Yahweh of Isaiah 45:23—hence the fulfillment of Isaiah’s (future)
prophecy.
Second, as shown in Chapter 3 (3.3.2), Oneness teachers maintain
that according to the phrase onomati Iēsou, in verse 10, the “name” of
the unipersonal deity is “Jesus” (cf. Bernard, 1983: 223). However, the
grammar of the text does not indicate what Oneness believers assume.
It was not the mere name Iēsous that was “above every name,” rather, it
was the onoma that belonged to Jesus, thus, Iēsou being a genitive of
possession, as previously mentioned. In light of Paul’s own argument,
135
the “highest name” in which every knee will bow and every tongue will
confess was the name that belonged to Jesus, the name that Jesus
possessed. Verse 11 reveals that name (i.e., authority): “Lord Jesus
Christ”—thus, Yahweh, the fulfillment of Isaiah 45:23.
Therefore, both Oneness interpretations of the Hymn cannot stand
exegetically. The view that the Hymn is merely referring to the non-
divine non-eternal Son’s “earthy ministry” goes against Paul’s words in
verse 6: “He [continuously] existed in the form of God.” Bernard’s view
(Jesus as the Father who became flesh, i.e., the Son) goes against Paul’s
words in verse 10-11: “So that [hina] at the name of Jesus EVERY
KNEE WILL BOW … and that every tongue will confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” There is another serious
defect shared by both views. They both assert the “Lord” in verses 10
and 11 is the human non-divine Son. If so, this would mean that a man
(viz., the human Son according to Oneness belief) could be Yahweh (the
name that He possessed) and the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophetic word
pertaining to Yahweh alone.
The Oneness interpretations of the Hymn do not follow
theologically or contextually. From start to finish, the Hymn presents a
positive affirmation that the Son was in the very nature of God
subsisting and preexisting. It was the Son who emptied Himself,
becoming incarnate, taking the very nature of humanity. He Himself
humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death
on a cross. Paul sees the Son as the Yahweh of Isaiah’s prophecy in
45:23 who glorifies the distinct Person of God the Father.

6. What is most problematic for the Oneness advocate is to answer the

question: Who is the subject of the participles in the Hymn particularly
in verse 7, labōn (“taking”) and genomenos (“being made”), the Father
or the Son? That the Father was the one doing the action of the
participles is clearly inconsistent with the entire New Testament
revelation of God the Father. How did God the Father “not
regard/consider equality with God [Himself?] a thing to be grasped”?
Or, when did God the Father “became obedient to death”? But, as most
Oneness believers see it, the Son is the subject of the participles;
however, in Oneness thinking, it is the human non-preexistent non-
divine Son in His “earthy” life/ministry that is in view.
The most revealing flaw to this assertion is simply Paul’s statement
in verse 6. How is it that the human non-divine Son is always subsisting
(huparchōn) in the nature of God? It would be a hermeneutical error to
136
disconnect the subject of the participle in verse 6 (i.e., the one who is
always existing in the nature of God) from the participles (and verbs) in
verses 7 and 8. It is the same subject throughout the Hymn: the Son who
glorifies the Father by His self-emptying and self-humbling.
So, at which point did the human non-divine Son do the actions of
the participles, taking the nature of a servant and being made in human
likeness if He never preexisted? If, as Oneness teachers suggest, the
“Son” represents merely Jesus’ humanity whose life started in
Bethlehem, then, what exactly did the Son empty of Himself? If the
participles and self-emptying refer merely to the Son’s non-preexistent
human birth, then, could Paul or anyone else say that their human birth
was some kind of emptying?
If the Son represents merely Jesus’ humanity, at what point in the
Son’s human life did He humble Himself? Again, this was a self-
humbling that the Son Himself did. In contrast to the Oneness notion,
was not the Son always in a state of humiliation while on earth? Of
course He was! The fact is, both the self-emptying (incarnation) and
self-humbling were parallel actions describing the eternal Son’s
redemptive work. Even if Oneness teachers respond by saying that the
“Son” preexisted, but as a mere concept or plan in the Father’s mind,
that does not explain how an impersonal “plan” or “thought” can self-
empty and self-humble itself.
Biblically, there is no refuge for Oneness advocates. Remember,
the context of Philippians 2 is humility of which Paul provided the
ultimate example: The Person of the Son, who was always existing in
the nature of God (“rich” in glory; 2 Cor. 8:9), emptied Himself (“He
became poor”; 2 Cor. 8:9) by taking the nature of a servant being made
in human likeness, He humbled Himself becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross, in which every knee shall bend and every tongue
shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Yahweh), to the glory of God the
Father. Whichever way Oneness advocates see the subject of the
participles (and other verbs), either the Father or as the human non-
divine Son, this high Christological Hymn turns Oneness theology
upside down.

The implications of the present active participle ōn (articular and

anarthrous). The biblical evidence of the preexistence of the Son
irrefutably proves the Oneness position false. Just as the present active
participle huparchōn, in Philippians 2:6 communicates the perpetual
existence of the divine Son, more than a few passages contain the
137
present active participle ōn (from eimi), which also denotes the Son’s
eternal existence (cf. Harris, 1992: 157-58). In explicit reference to the
Son’s eternality, the present active participle ōn is used both articularly
(ho ōn) and anarthrously (ōn). Two such examples of the articular form
of the participle are John 1:18 and Romans 9:5.

➢ John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten
God who is [ho ōn, i.e., “the One who is/being always”] in the
bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (emphasis added).

➢ Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the
Christ according to the flesh, who is [ho ōn, i.e., “the One who
is/being always”] over all, God blessed forever. Amen”
(emphasis added).

Note the defining context of both passages: the Son’s absolute deity.
Both authors even call the Son theos, which further supports the
affirmation of the Son’s deity and His preexistence. Referring to John
1:18, Reymond (1998: 303) remarks on the significance of the articular
participle: “The present participle ho ōn … indicates a continuing state
of being: ‘who is continually in the bosom of the Father.’”
In the LXX of Exodus 3:14, we find the same articular present
participle to denote Yahweh’s eternal existence: Egō eimi ho ōn,
literally, “I am the eternal/always existing One.” Also note, the egō eimi
phrase precedes the participle here (cf. John 8:24, 58). We moreover
find the use of the anarthrous present active participle ōn, in contexts
where the deity of the Son is clearly in view. In Hebrews 1:3, the present
active participle (i.e., hos ōn) “marks the Son’s continuous action of
being, which denotes total and full deity” (Robertson, 1932: 5:17-18; cf.
Tenney, 1981: 34).21
It “refers to the absolute and timeless existence” (Rodgers and
Rodgers, 1998: 516).22 The participle ōn in Hebrews 1:3 is set in

21
The prologue of Hebrews provides a marked contrast between things created (viz.,
the angels, the heavens, and the earth) and the eternal divine Son (cf. vv. 3, 8) whom
the author presents as the Creator of all things (cf. vv. 2, 10). There will be a thorough
examination of this important prologue below.
22
In Revelation 1:8, the articular participle (ho ōn) is used to denote the “timeless
existence” of the “Lord God,” which is especially amplified by the title, “Alpha and
Omega”: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is [ho ōn] and
who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” Although it is possible that the speaker
138
contrast with genomenos, in verse 4. This is similar to the use of ēn, in
John 1:1, which is set in contrast with egeneto, in 1:14, and of
huparchōn, in Philippians 2:6 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9), which is set in contrast
with genomenos, in verse 7. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast
between the eternal preincarnate Son and all things created.

The Preincarnate Son sent from the Father

“The very works I do testify about Me, that the Father has sent
Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You
have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not
believe Him whom He sent” (John 5:36-38).

Scripture presents in plain and normal language the preincarnate Person

of the Son that was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17; 6:33,
38, 44, 46, 50-51, 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4). Nowhere in
the New Testament, however, do we see Jesus sending the Son. If Jesus
were the Father, as Oneness teachers contend, one would expect to find
a clear example of Jesus sending the Son—at least one passage. As we
have shown, in Oneness doctrine, the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) came
down out of heaven and put on a flesh outfit, calling it “Son.” In full
denial of the incarnation of the preincarnate Son, Bernard (1983: 122)
states: “God the Father so loved the world that He robed Himself in flesh
and gave Himself as the Son of God to reconcile the world to Himself”
(emphasis added; see also Bernard, 1983: 104-5; Magee, 1988: 32).
This teaching unquestionably contradicts the unadorned words of
Jesus Christ: “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended
from heaven: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). The Bible so fluently states

in verse 8 could be the Father, the evidence identifying the Son as the speaker is more
compelling and more contextually apparent (esp. in light of v. 7 and 22:13). Plus, as
seen, not only is the articular participle applied to the Son at John 1:18 and Romans
9:5 (and the anarthrous ōn at Heb. 1:3), but note the targumic rendering of
Deuteronomy 32:39, which the speaker is the Memra, that is, the “Word” of the Lord:
When the Word [Memra] of the LORD shall reveal Himself to redeem His
people, He will say to all the nations: “Behold now, that I am He who am,
and was, and will be, and there is no other God beside Me.
The phrase, “I am … who am, and was, and will be,” which the Memra ascribes to
Himself, is virtually the same phrase as in Revelation 1:8, “I am … who is [ho ōn] and
who was and who is to come,” which the “Alpha and the Omega” ascribes to Himself
(note the same tense sequence: present, past, and future). Hence, further evidence of
the Apostle John’s targumic reliance.
139
that the Person of the Son preexisted in heaven prior to His coming to
earth. The Son prior to Bethlehem was with the Father who sent Him
(e.g., Dan. 7:9-14; John 1:1b; 17:5). The Father sent the Son of Man ek
tou ouranou (“from out of the heaven”; John 3:13).
The massive amounts of biblical evidence confirming that the
Father sent the preincarnate Son crushes the Oneness
unitarian/unipersonal view of Christ. It proves false the entire Oneness
system of a Jesus who as the Father existed in absolute aloneness prior
to creation. Notwithstanding the overwhelming biblical evidence of the
Father sending the preincarnate Son, Oneness exegesis maintains that
passages that speak of the sending of the Son are in reality speaking of
Jesus as the Father sending His “plan” (i.e., the future Son) to earth. It
claims that the Father “put flesh on” (without actually becoming flesh)
at Bethlehem. Bernard (1983: 184) further explains this decidedly
modalistic notion:

He [the Father] gave of Himself; He did not send someone

else (John 3:16). The Son was sent from God as a man, not as
God: “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman” (Galatians
4:4). The word sent does not imply preexistence of the Son or
preexistence 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 ...
God [the Father] manifested Himself in flesh in order to
achieve a special goal (emphasis added).

Bernard argues, “The word sent does not imply preexistence of the
Son,” concluding that the word “sent” in Galatians 4:4 is the same “sent”
as in John 1:6, where we read that John was “sent.” This assertion,
however, is incorrect. His assumption that the word “sent” carries the
exact same meaning in both passages displays his unfamiliarity in the
area of Greek grammar. Simply, in John 1:6, the word translated “sent”
(“There came a man sent from God”) is apestalmenos (the perfect
passive participle of apostellō). The term carries the normal meaning of
“to send” with no indication of preexistence (cf. Liddell et al, 1996: 219;
Bauer, 2000: 120-21).
However, the word translated “sent forth” in Galatians 4:4 (“God
sent forth His Son”) derives from a different Greek word than that of
John 1:6. The term is exapesteilen, which is the aorist active indicative
140
of exapostellō. This verb, unlike apostellō, has the meaning of being
sent from a place, “to send away from one’s self ... out of the place”
(Thayer, 1996: 221) or “for fulfillment of a mission in another place”
(Bauer, 2000: 345-46). Note the prefixed preposition ek (“out of/from”)
of the verb exapostellō (ek + apostellō), which clearly expresses the
preexistence of the Person of the Son (cf. Wallace, 1996: 371; Bauer,
2000: 295). Hence, God the Father sent Jesus Christ, God the Son, from
heaven to earth:

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the
world, but that the world might be saved through Him … For
I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me … I am the bread that came down
out of heaven … This is the bread, which comes down out of
heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living
bread that came down out of heaven … What then if you see
the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John
3:17; 6:38, 41, 50-51, 62).

4.6 JESUS CHRIST THE SON AS CO-CREATOR

In Chapter 3, we demonstrated the overwhelming Scriptural evidence

for the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. We have also shown
that the New Testament presents the Son as the very object of divine
worship. In addition to these verifiable proofs of the Son’s deity, the
New Testament shows that the Son was the very Agent23 of creation,

23
In the New Testament, agency is commonly expressed in three ways: ultimate
agency (the ultimate source of the action; the one directly responsible for the action—
apo, hupo, para, + the genitive); intermediate agency (that which the ultimate Agent
uses to carry out the action—dia + the genitive); and impersonal agency (that which
the ultimate Agent uses to perform the action—en, ek + the dative; cf. Wallace, 1996:
431-32). Biblically, then, the Father was the source (ultimate Agent) of creation, the
Son being the intermediate Agent in that He carried out the act for the ultimate Agent
(cf. ibid, 431). That the Son is the intermediate Agent of creation does not mean that
He was a mere “helper” of sorts, or a secondary agent of God, but rather, He was the
actual Agent of creation—namely, that which the ultimate Agent (the Father) used to
carry out the action—namely, the Creator of all things. As further discussed in detail,
several passages unambiguously and exegetically reveal this important truth (viz. John
1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, and vv. 10-12). To say again, this point alone
utterly collapses and destroys the entire theological foundation of Oneness theology.
141
Keeping consistent with the assumption of unitarianism, Oneness
teachers (e.g., Bernard, 1983: 116-17; Segraves, 1996: 31-32) reject this
idea. The normal Oneness response to passages that apparently show the
Son as Creator is to argue that the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) was the
Creator and had the future human non-divine Son in view or on His mind
when He created. Thus, Oneness teachers are quick to point out that the
Father, through the Son (i.e., the Son in view) created all things (cf.
Bernard, 1983: 183; Weisser, 1983: 35).
To establish that the Son was the Creator would mean that He
preexisted, hence refuting all Oneness claims. It would turn the Oneness
position on its head. For if the Son were the actual Creator, that would
mean that He 1) existed before time, thus, was not a part of creation, 2)
coexisted with the Father, and hence, 3) is a distinct Person alongside
of the Father, as co-Creator. We shall now examine John 1:3, Colossians
1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:2, 10, which affirm that the Son was the actual
Creator.

John 1:3: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being.” The Greek reads:
panta di’ autou egeneto, kai chōris autou egeneto oude en ho gegonen.
As noted above, the prologue of John presents a well-defined contrast
between all things created or that had origin (i.e., egeneto; cf. vv. 3, 6,
10, 14) and the eternal divine Word (ēn; vv. 1, 2, 4, 9) who created all
things. In verse 3, we see the creative activity viewed as one event in
contrast to the continuous existence in verses 1 and 2 (Robertson, 1932:
5:5). The phrase panta di’ autou seems to be particularly appropriate to
describe the role of the Logos vis-à-vis God and the world (Rodgers and
Rodgers, 1998: 175).
What deepens the argument even more is John’s usage of the
preposition dia, followed by the genitive autou. This is a very
significant aspect as it relates to the exegesis of the passage. In Greek,
dia followed by the genitive clearly indicates “agency” or “means” (cf.
Greenlee, 1986: 31; Wallace, 1996: 368; Bauer, 2000: 225). In our
exegesis of Colossians 1:16-17 below, this important grammatical point
will take precedence in establishing that the Son was the Agent of
creation—thus refuting again the Oneness notion of a non-eternal Son.
In such a comprehensible and undeniable way, the Apostle John

142
presents the Son, the eternal Word, who was “with” the Father, as the
Creator of all things.24

Colossians 1:16-17: “For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through
Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold
together.” Despite the biblical simplicity, Bernard (1983: 116-17)
attempts to circumvent the biblical truth that the Son is the Creator of
all things:

Perhaps these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that

can be expressed as follows: Although the Son did not exist at
the time of creation except as the word in the mind of God,
God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the
world … The plan of the Son was in God’s mind at creation
and was necessary for the creation to be successful. Therefore,
He created the world by the Son (emphasis added).

This is an obvious case of eisegesis. Bernard’s assertion is clear:

passages that speak of the Son as the Creator mean that when the Father
created all things, He had the “plan of the Son” in mind or in view, that
is, “God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the
world.” Bernard’s conclusion assumes unitarianism and disallows
normal exegesis.
In the first place, Colossians 1:13-15 clearly differentiates Jesus
from the Father. These verses contextually prohibit the Oneness notion
that Jesus is both the Father and the Son: “For He rescued us from the
domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved
Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He [the Son]
is the image of the invisible God [the Father].” Consider also, as we
have shown (cf. Chapter 2, 2.4.4), that Paul’s main purpose for writing

24
Another interesting note pertains to our repeated contention that the Targum may
have been the source of John’s Logos theology. Both the Targum and John present the
“Word” as the Creator of all things. For example, we read in places such as the
targumic rendering of Isaiah 44:24: “I am the LORD, who made all things; I stretched
out the heavens by My Memra….” And Isaiah 45:12: “I by My Memra made the earth,
and created man upon it; I by My might stretched out the heavens.” There are many
other places where the Targum identifies the “Word” (Memra) as the Creator of all
things, as in John 1:3 (cf. also Gen. 14:19 [Neofiti]; Ps. 33:6; Isa. 48:13; Jer. 27:5;
etc.).
143
the book of Colossians was to provide a meaningful refutation of the
proto-Gnostic ideology concerning spirit versus matter.
The Gnostic system did not allow Jesus to be the Creator of
something so inherently evil as “matter.” In light of this, Paul provides
a clear anti-Gnostic polemic by firmly demonstrating that Jesus the Son
of God did in fact create all things. Note the clear and forceful (and even
redundant) way he presents this: “By Him [en autō] all things [panta]
were created … all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’
autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things [autos estin pro
pantōn], and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together”
(emphasis added). The following grammatical aspects pointedly codify
Paul’s argument:

1. Along with John 1:3, Paul employs the neuter panta, which indicate
that the Son was the actual Creator of all things. White (1998: 213)
remarks on the theological implication of Paul’s use of the neuter:

It is significant that Paul does not use the more popular terms
pas or pan, both of which had meanings in Greek philosophy
that allowed the creation to be a part of God or God a part of
creation (as in pantheism). Instead, he uses a term that makes
the creation a concrete, separate entity with the real existence.

2. Paul utilizes four different prepositions to magnify his affirmation

that the Son was the Agent of creation: All things were created “by/in
Him” (en + dative; vv. 16, 17); “through Him” (dia + genitive; v. 16);
“for Him” (eis + accusative; v. 16); and, He is “before all things” (pro
+ genitive; v. 17). To say again, Paul is speaking here of the Son, not
the Father (cf. v. 14).

3. As a final point, as with John 1:3, what immediately demolishes the

“Son in view” theory is that Paul specifically states that “all things”
were created “through [dia] Him [autou]” (viz., the Son). As observed
above, we find the preposition dia, followed by the genitive autou
grammatically revealing that the Son was the actual Creator Himself.
There is no stronger way in which Paul could have articulated that the
Son was the real and actual Agent of creation.25 If Paul wanted to

25
In 1 Corinthians 8:6 and, as discussed below, Hebrews 1:2, dia, is followed by the
genitive signifying the Son as the Agent of creation.
144
convey the idea that the Son was merely “in view” of the Father or an
absent mere conceptual instrument of creation, as Oneness teachers
assert, he would not have used dia followed by the genitive. Rather, he
would have exclusively used dia followed by the accusative, but he does
not.26 The Oneness theological assumption that the Son was not the
Agent of creation,27 but merely in view of creation, cannot stand
grammatically or contextually—it changes the intended meaning of the
text and ignores the chief theme of Paul’s letter.

Hebrews 1:2, 10: “In these last days [God the Father] has spoken to us
in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also
He made the world ... And, ‘YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID
THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE
THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.’” The prologue of Hebrews
annihilates the Oneness position regarding its rejection of the
preexistence of the Person of the Son.
In this prologue the full deity and unipersonality of the Son is
cogently expressed (esp. vv. 3, 8). Relative to the preexistence and
creatorship of the Son, verses 2 and 10 more than adequately
communicate both truths. As with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 (and
1 Cor. 8:6), verse 2 affirms that the Son was the Creator. In this passage
we find again the preposition dia, followed by the genitive: “In these
last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all

26
Although Paul does use the accusative case in verse 16 (auton), but he uses it after
the preposition eis meaning “for” or “because of” and not after dia.
27
Oneness teachers along with other unitarian groups (esp. Jehovah’s Witnesses and
Muslims) argue that the Son could not have been the Creator because passages such
as Isaiah 44:24 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 teach that God (viz. the Father) alone created all
things. But as consistently pointed out, Oneness teachers assume
unitarianism/unipersonalism in that they envisage God as one Person—the Father. The
doctrine of the Trinity, in contrast to a unitarian assumption, teaches that God is one
undivided and unquantifiable Being who has revealed Himself as three distinct
coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons. The three Persons share the nature (ousia)
of the one Being. As fully God it can be said that the Father is the Creator (cf. Acts
17:24), the Son was the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Col. 16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10), and the Holy
Spirit is the Creator (cf. Job 33:4). For the one God is indivisible and inseparable (cf.
Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5). Therefore, passages like Isaiah 44:24, which speak of God
creating by Himself and alone are perfectly consistent with Trinitarian theology.
Again, the three Persons are not three separate Beings; they are distinct self-conscious
Persons or Selves sharing the nature of the one Being. Unless one clearly realizes what
the biblical doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches, the doctrine will be confounded
and misrepresented as tritheism.
145
things, through whom [di’ hou] also He made the world” (emphasis
added). Contextually, the core line of evidence that the author presents,
which promptly affirms the Son’s creatorship, is the well defined
contrast between created things (viz., angels and the heavens and the
earth) and the eternality of the divine Son (cf. vv. 2-3, 8-10). In verses
10-12, the author (quoting the Father) applies Psalm 102:25-27 (101:25-
27 in the LXX) to the Son. This is so heavily significant because (a) the
Psalm is a reference to Yahweh and (b) the Father is speaking to the Son
differentiating Himself from the Son (esp. in light of vv. 8-9). The
referent to the pronoun su, “You” at the beginning of verse 10 (kai su)
is back in verse 8: pros de ton huion— “but of the Son He [the Father]
says.” Irrefutably, it is God the Father directly addressing the Son. In
verse 8, the nominative for the vocative of address28 is used, whereas in
verse 10, the actual vocative of kurios (kurie) is used, which strengthens
the author’s argument even more: “YOU, LORD [kurie], IN THE
BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND
THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.”
Conclusively, the prologue of Hebrews is one of the most
theologically devastating prologues in all of the New Testament for
Oneness defenders. Not only does the prologue affirm the deity and
eternality of the Son as well as the distinction between the Father and
the Son, but also it clearly presents the Son as the actual Agent of
creation, the Creator Himself.

4.7 THE IMPLICATIONS OF MONOGENĒS HUIOS

On several occasions, the phrase monogenēs huios (and monogenēs
theos, at John 1:18)29 is applied specifically to the Son at John 3:16, 18;

28
The fact that the nominative theos with the vocative force is used does not in any
way remove the meaning of direct address. The usual way of addressing God in both
the LXX and the New Testament was the nominative for the vocative (cf. Wallace,
1996: 56-57; Reymond, 1998: 272; also cf. John 20:28; Rev. 4:11). So common was
the nominative for the vocative that every time theos is directly addressed in the New
Testament, only in one verse (Matt. 27:46) does theos actually appear in the vocative
case: thee mou thee mou— “My God, My God ...”
29
In John 1:18, Jesus is called the monogenēs theos. However, there are a few variant
renderings contained in extant Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John. The three
renderings are monogenēs theos; ho monogenēs theos; and (in later manuscripts) ho
monogenēs huios. The textual support is as follows (cf. NA28, 2012: 293):
monogenēs theos: P66 ‫ *א‬B C* L syp.hmg; Orpt Did
ho monogenēs theos: P75 ‫א‬1 33; Clpt ClexThd pt Orpt
146
and 1 John 4:9).30 Because of the standard translation of monogenēs
huios, as “only begotten Son,” Oneness advocates, along with other
leading non-Christian groups (esp., Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
Mormons), pour a meaning into the term monogenēs that is foreign to
the biblical meaning—namely, assuming a meaning of “origin” in some
sense. We must first address the Oneness interpretation of the term
before examining the term in its original significance. As we have
consistently shown, the Oneness theological conclusions are largely
based on English word meanings (esp. that of the KJV) not on the
original. For this reason, Oneness teachers detach monogenēs from its
lexical (and contextual) denotation. Bernard (1983: 103-4), for instance,
with no contextual markers or lexical support, explains that the term
means:

“To procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus, begotten indicates a

definite point in time—the point at which conception takes
place. There must be a time when the begetter [the Father]
exists and the begotten [the Son] is not yet in existence, and
there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs
… So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the
word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

ho monogenēs huios: A C3 K G L Q Y f 1.13 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241.

1424. M lat syc.h; Clpt ClexThd pt
Monogenēs theos is contained in the NA28 (2012: 293). It is the rendering theos and
not huios after monogenēs that is concurred with most textual scholars (e.g., Westcott
and Hort, 1896: 166; Metzger, 1994: 169-70; cf. also Harris, 1992: 82). In support of
the rendering monogenēs theos, Robertson (1932: 5:17) states that “The best old Greek
manuscripts (‫ *א‬B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is
undoubtedly the true text.” Theos (articular and anarthrous) and not huios is also
supported by many important early church fathers (e.g., Clement of Alex., Clementfrom
Theodotus
, Origen, Didymus, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Serapion, Cyril).
Because the majority of manuscripts contain the rendering ho monogenēs huios, the
KJV follows respectively. In the face of the earliest and best manuscripts, Oneness
supporters gladly hold to the late variant rendering in order to reinforce their a priori
theological commitment, namely, the Son is not God. “We do not believe,” says
Bernard (1983: 100), “these variant readings [i.e., monogenēs theos] are correct.”
30
Although John 1:14 contains a similar phrase (monogenous para patros), it
nevertheless carries the same meaning. All together, monogenēs is used nine times in
the New Testament: Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17;
and 1 John 4:9.
147
In the same unscholarly fashion, Oneness teacher Gordon Magee (1988:
25) states: “Indeed the Bible flatly and plainly contradicts the eternal
‘Son idea’ in John 3:16 and everywhere it mentions the ‘begotten Son.’
The Words eternal and begotten are contradictory and mean completely
opposite things” (emphasis his).
The fundamental problem with these definitions is that they
conveniently impose a concept of origin or derivation to the term
monogenēs. Monogenēs is a relational term. As applied to the Son, it
has nothing whatsoever to do with origin or derivation. Thus, when used
in reference to the Son, the term signified the unique relationship that
He has with His Father. The English phrase “only begotten” (KJV,
NASB) is translated from the single Greek term monogenēs. “Only
begotten” is ambiguous and misleading, and could indeed imply a
concept of begettal and/or generation. However, the English meaning of
any New Testament word or phrase “must, in all cases, be consistent
with the Greek original, and we must take any emphasis from the Greek,
not from the English” (White, 1998: 201).
Some modern translations (e.g., NIV, NET, NLT), recognizing the
lexical meaning, render monogenēs as “one and only.” The compound
word monogenēs is derived from monos meaning “alone,” or “one”
(Bauer, 2000: 658) and genos meaning “class” or “kind” (Bauer, 2000:
194-95). Hence, monogenēs huios simply means “one and only Son,”
“unique Son,” or “one of a kind Son,” lacking any notion of origin or
beginning. Warfield (1950: 56) says of the term: “The adjective ‘only
begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of
uniqueness and co-substantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and He alone
is this.” The lexical support is undeniable and overwhelming (cf.
Moulton and Milligan, 1930: 416-17; Liddell et al, 1996: 1144; Thayer,
1996: 417-18; Bauer, 2000: 658).
As stated, the term monogenēs is a compound word, monos,
“alone/one” + genos, “class/kind.” Erroneously assuming that second
part of the word (genos) comes from gennaō, which does mean “to
beget” or “to give birth” (or “to bring forth”; Bauer, 193-94), Oneness
teachers grossly misinterpret the term, asserting that the Son had a
beginning (cf. Magee, 1988: 25). Quite the opposite, the second part of
the word is not gennaō, but genos. Notice the two nu’s (nn) in gennaō,
compared to the one nu (n) in genos. It is genos, not gennaō, which
forms the second part of monogenēs. This shows that the derivation of
genos is from a different word than that of gennaō.

148
The derivation of genos is from gignesthai/ginomai, and gennaō is from
gennasthai (cf. White: 1998: 202). “Etymologically,” Harris (1992: 86-
87) observes, “monogenēs is not associated with begetting (gennasthai)
but with existence (gignesthai) … This leads us to conclude that
monogenēs denotes ‘the only member of a kin or kind.’” Hebrews 11:17
provides even more clarification as to a proper understanding of the
term. In this passage, Abraham’s son Isaac is called, ho monogenēs. Yet,
Isaac was not his first or only son (cf. Gen. 16:15-17). Thus, Isaac was
the unique son or one of a kind son from whom God’s “covenant would
be established” (Gen. 17:19-21). For God’s covenant was with
Abraham’s monogenēs son Isaac, not with his first son Ishmael.
Therefore, the lexical and contextual evidence shows that the term
does not carry the idea of “beget,” “to give birth,” “origin,” etc., as
Oneness teachers claim (Bernard, 1983: 103-4).31 Certainly, it would be
utterly nonsensical for the authors of the anti-Arian Nicene Creed (A.D.
325) to use the term if it had any denotation of origin. As noted in
Chapter 5, the Creed positively affirmed the full deity of the Son
(against Arius) and His distinction from the Father (against Modalism):
“Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only begotten
[monogenē]; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of
Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance
[homoousion] with the Father …” (emphasis added). Jesus Christ is the
unique Son of God. He is God’s Son in a one of a kind sense. In every
use of monogenēs contained in the Gospel of John (1:14, 18, 3:16; and
3:18), we observe this meaning.
31
Two other passages should also be mentioned, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Oneness
teachers argue that the Son had a beginning because both passages contain the phrase
“TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN [gegennēka] YOU” (from Ps. 2:7). However, the
term sēmeron (“today”) is clearly a relational term. It denoted His Sonship in reference
to His Messianic kingship, not deity. His Sonship was openly declared at several
different times throughout His life (e.g., at His baptism [cf. Matt. 3:16-17]; at the
Transfiguration [cf. Matt. 17:5]; at His resurrection [cf. Acts 13:33]). We also see this
open declaration in Romans 1:3-4, where the Son was “declared the Son of God [in
reference to Messianic kingship] with power by the resurrection from the dead,
according to the Spirit of holiness …” Here the two attributive participles, genomenou
(“was born”) and horisthentos (“was declared”) modify huiou at the beginning of verse
3. Hence, verse 3 indicates that Jesus was already the Son of God when He was
declared to be the Son of God in verse 4. In Acts 13:32-34, Paul cites the same Old
Testament passage (Ps. 2:7), but he applies it to Jesus’ resurrection. Consequently, if
“today” in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 means that the Son did not exist before Bethlehem, as
Oneness teachers suppose, then “today” in Acts 13:33 would likewise mean that He
did not exist before His resurrection.
149
The correct understanding of the term monogenēs in its proper sense
when applied to the Son negates the idea of origin, derivation, or
beginning. It establishes the Son’s unique status as the “one and only
God” who is (ho ōn, i.e., “the One who is always subsisting”) in the
bosom of the Father explaining (viz. exegeting) Him (cf. John 1:18).

4.8 SUMMARY

To remove the Person of the Son from the Trinity is to remove God from
Scripture: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one
who confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23; cf. John 5:23;
8:24; 1 John 5:20). The customary term agennētos (i.e., “uncreated”)
was used by the early church to denote God’s eternal nature and His
self-existence (i.e., His unoriginateness). In his letter to the Ephesians,
Ignatius (7, in Holmes, 1999: 140-41), applies agennētos to the Son:
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both
made and not made [agennētos]; God existing in flesh; true life in death;
both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus
Christ our Lord” (emphasis added). Explicitly demonstrated, Scripture
presents the preexistence of the preincarnate Person of the Son. In John
1:1 (and 1 John 1:1-2), the Son is presented as 1) eternal (on the account
of the imperfect ēn), 2) coexisting with the Father (on account of the
preposition pros), and 3) coequal with God the Father (on account of the
qualitative theos, in 1:1c).
In John 17:5, the Son Himself states that He possessed/shared
(eichon) glory with (para) the Father before the world was (pro tou ton
kosmon einai). In the gospels (esp. John’s), the Son expresses His
preexistence by consistently claiming that He was sent by the Father out
from heaven (e.g., John 3:13; 16; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28). In
Paul’s high Christological Hymn (i.e., Phil. 2:6-11), Paul poetically and
directly delineates both the humiliation and exaltation of the God the
Son, who, as Paul so deliberately points out, was the fulfillment of
Isaiah’s prophecy in 45:23. These passages are so clear, so expressive,
that Oneness teachers, must resort to the most unnatural and eisegetical
ways of interpreting the passages.
The biblical presentation of the Son as the Agent of creation
annihilates the Oneness notion that the Son’s life started in Bethlehem
(cf. Chapter 2, 2.4.4). As we have shown exegetically, the Son is the
Creator of all things (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).
150
Scripture militates against the Oneness idea that the non-eternal non-
personal Son was a mere thought or plan that originated in the Father’s
mind. The apostles of Jesus Christ clearly and cogently affirmed that
Jesus Christ the eternal Son was the Agent of creation, God in the flesh.

151
 Chapter Five

ORTHODOXY UNITED AGAINST HERESY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Since the Garden of Eden (where the first deception occurred; cf. 2 Cor.
11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14), false teachings have subsisted amongst the people
of God. There are many examples of false prophets and false teachers
found in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 13:1ff.; Isa. 47:13-15; Jer.
23:9ff.). In the first century, Jesus continually warned about false
teachers and false teachings (e.g., Matt. 7:15-23) and the apostles
provided pointed and specific polemics against the false teachings of the
day. For example, both Paul (in Colossians) and John (in 1 and 2 John)
provided a potent anti-Gnostic polemic and a positive affirmation of the
humanity of the Son of God (as discussed below). Further, the Apostle
Paul made a clear case against the Judaizers in Romans and especially
in Galatians.
Subsequent to the death of the apostles, false teachings were
pervasive and escalating, as Paul had predicted (cf. Acts 20:29-31; 1
Tim. 4:1ff.). Thus, the early church continuously battled and vigorously
stood up against heresies that were just as prevalent then as they are
today. Some of the main Christological heresies in the first few centuries
included Gnosticism (especially Docetism), Modalism and Arianism.
There were many other heresies; however, these seem to have had the
greatest impact on the Christian church. Even today, although
repackaged under different names, these heresies still live on.32
Although this chapter will provide a brief examination of some of
the important heresies, the chief focus will be on Modalism, exploring
both its origin and some of its key proponents. This chapter will also
provide an objective, concise and accurate presentation of the orthodox

32
Notice the theological parallels between the following groups: Gnosticism then, now
Christian/Religious Science; Modalism then, now Oneness Pentecostalism; Arianism
then, now Jehovah’s Witnesses.
152
reaction (refutation) to Modalism and factually substantiate that the
early church believed and taught a triune concept of God.
The repetitious assertion made by Oneness teachers (Bernard,
1983: 43, 236) that “the early Christian church leaders in the days
immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness” is proven false
by the profuse amount of patristic documentation affirming the concept
of the Trinity and the definitive Trinitarian implications set forth in
every important early Christian Council and its resulting creed
It has been well observed that every important ecumenical Council
(including the first at Jerusalem, cf. Acts 15) and its subsequent creed
was reactionary. In other words, the early church sharply reacted (i.e.,
affirming and defending/refuting) to any teaching that rejected and/or
convoluted the Person, nature and finished work of Jesus Christ. The
overall encompassing thought of the early church was to stand
unwaveringly on the solid ground of Scripture, from which they would
filter and test all teachings. Accordingly, the universal church
vociferously opposed Modalism. Modalism denied the biblical view of
the triune God, denying both the unipersonality and deity of the Son and
the unipersonality of the Holy Spirit. The early church rightly
condemned Modalism as patent heresy that denied the only source of
salvation, Jesus Christ.

5.2 DOCETIC GNOSTICISM

Aside from the Judaizing heresy, which was the first major heresy that
the church had to combat (cf. Gal. 2:14; Acts 15), there was, as briefly
defined in Chapter 2 (2.4.4), a form of Gnosticism33 known as
Docetism.34 Whereas the Judaizing teaching was an attack against
justification by faith alone, Docetism was an attack on the very Person
of Christ, namely, a denial, not of His deity (as is the case with most
modern non-Christian cults), but rather of His real humanity (cf. White,
1998: 107). Some Docetics taught that “Christ” appeared as Jesus, but
that Jesus was never really a physical human (Olson and English, 2005:
10). Docetism and Oneness theology share a significant commonality:
33
The greater part of information regarding Gnosticism is primarily drawn from the
writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and some later manuscripts
discovered in the eighteenth century such as the Codex Askew, Codex Bruce, the
Berlin Gnostic Codex, and the recent discoveries in the Nag Hammadi collection.
34
From dokein (“to seem”), which Serapion of Antioch first expressed in A.D. 200
(Maier, 1999: 216).
153
they both deny that the Son was God in human flesh. As we have shown,
Gnosticism was a dualistic system seeing matter (flesh, world, etc.) as
inherently evil, and only that which is spiritual was good (e.g., soul,
angels, God). Docetism, however, denied that “matter” even existed
(White, 1998: 107).
Since their system of salvation consisted of obtaining certain
“knowledge” (gnōsis) by which they could escape their “evil body,”
they viewed Jesus (as good “Aeon”) as bodiless and denied that He was
the Creator of all things (cf. Harris, 1999: 132-33). Noted early Docetic
Gnostics include Cerinthus, Simon Magus, Basilides, Marcion of
Sinope, Simon Magus’ pupil, Menander of Antioch, and Valentinus
(Maier, 1999: 138-46).
It was quite natural that the Apostles John and Paul (as well as Peter
and Jude) provided a pointed refutation against it and a most positive
affirmation of the incarnation of God the Son. As we have shown, the
book of Colossians was a piercing refutation of the heresy of
Gnosticism, which, of course, taught that Jesus did not create “all
things” or anything consisting of matter, and especially that He did not
become flesh. The refutation Paul provided in Colossians was so perfect
and so detailed that it shot right through the heart of the flesh-denying
Gnostics. The theological highlights of this refutation include the
teaching that 1) Jesus as the Agent of creation, the Creator of all things
(cf. 1:16-17), 2) Jesus’ “physical” death provides redemption (cf. 1:20-
22), and 3) all the “fullness” of “Deity,” presently, continuously, and
permanently “dwells” in human flesh/bodily. The Docetic view
separated Jesus from the so-called Christ spirit (esp. the teachings of
Cerinthus35; cf. González, 1988: 132). Conversely, the Apostle John
resolutely argued that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 1 John 5:1) who became
and remains in the flesh. This was John’s ultimate test of orthodoxy:

By this you will know the Spirit of God: every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come [elēluthota, lit., “having
come and remains”]36 in the flesh is from God; every spirit

35
Cerinthus (c. A.D. 100), with whom the Apostle John was well acquainted (Maier,
1999: 146), denied that Jesus was the Christ. According to Irenaeus in Against
Heresies (III: 11:1-3, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994, vol. 1:426-27), Cerinthus
viewed the “Christ” as a heavenly spirit separate from the man Jesus. He also asserted
that the Demiurge, a subordinate power, created the material world.
36
As noted, the verb elēluthota is the perfect active participle of erchomai. Thus, the
perfect tense indicates a completed action in the past with continuous effects (Greenly,
154
 that does not confess Jesus [ellipsis: has come and remains in
the flesh] is not from God, this is the spirit of antichrist, of
which you have heard that it is coming and now it is already
in the world (1 John 4:2-3; emphasis added; cf. 2 John 7).

Subsequent to the time of the apostles, the early Christians roundly and
universally condemned all forms of Gnosticism and affirmed both the
humanity and deity of the Son.

5.3 ARIANISM

In A.D. 318, in Alexandria, Egypt, confusion and tensions grew between

professing Christians to the point of riots in the streets over a single but
quite essential point of theology (Olson and English, 2005: 29). It all
started with a debate between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and
the striving presbyter named Arius (A.D. 250-336) on the issue of the
nature of Jesus Christ. Both men held to the ontological immutability
and impassibility of God. Arius argued that if Jesus was God in the flesh
that would indeed involve a change in the nature of God. Hence, because
of his essentially unitarian belief, Arius accused Alexander of having
Sabellian views and pontificated his own view in a sermon:

If ... the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a
beginning of existence: and from this it is evident that
there was a time when the Son was not [ēn pote hote ouk
ēn,]. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his
subsistence [hupostasis] from nothing (Socrates,
Ecclesiastical History I:5, in Schaff and Wace, 1994:
2nd. ser., vol. 2:3; emphasis added).

Notice the key phrase above, which became a catch phrase for all
Arians, that is, all who deny the deity of the Son: “There was a time
when the Son was not.” Bernard (1983: 105) makes a near identical
statement in his rejection of the deity of Son: “There was a time when
the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence.”
For Arius, the Son was a product of creation, but He Himself was
before all things in time here on earth. Thus, as a part of creation, He is

1986: 50): Christ came in the flesh, God incarnate (the completed action), and He
forever remains in the flesh (the continuous effect).
155
“Son,” but merely in the lesser sense of adoption, as with all Christians.
In this way, Arius can call Jesus “God,” but only in a secondary sense
or as God’s representative on earth, not “God” in the same sense as the
Father (just as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach). To show that the Son was
not God, the Arians would focus on passages dealing with the Son’s
humanity, for example, He had to grow in wisdom (e.g., Luke 2:52) or
passages where the Son is said to be ignorant of future events (e.g., Mark
13:32), arguing that any such human development or ignorance would
violate God’s immutable perfect nature. Schaff (2006: vol. 3: 9:384-85)
explains:

The Arians drew their exegetical proofs from the passages of

Scripture which seem to place Christ in any way in the
category of that which is created, or ascribe to the incarnate
(not the pre-temporal, divine) Logos growth, lack of
knowledge, weariness, sorrow, and other changing human
affections and states of mind, or teach a subordination of the
Son to the Father.

There was also a confusion of terms such as “begotten.” As applied to

the Son, the Arians understood the term as meaning “originate”
(created) while the Father being agennētos, “unoriginate.” However, as
indicated before (cf. Chapter 4, 4.7), the term monogenēs as applied to
the Son, carries the denotative meaning of unique one, one of a kind, or
one and only—hence, not originate or created. Constantine had a high
regard for Christianity although his doctrinal understanding was scant.
Even so, his objective throughout the controversy was peace and unity.
When he first discovered that there was a controversy between Arius
and Alexander, he accused them of arguing about “small and very
insignificant questions” (Eusebius, The Life of Constantine II:71, in
Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 1:517).
The heresy of Arius grew until it hit a point of major disunity in
Constantine’s Empire (Olson and English, 2005: 33). At the advice of
his theological advisor, Hosius (Maier, 1999: 365), he called for an
ecumenical council at Nicaea and invited about 300 bishops from all the
churches in the Empire to attend. Because Arius denied the deity of the
Son, virtually all the bishops in attendance greatly opposed the position
of Arius.
The main issue at Nicaea revolved around three Greek terms:
homoousion (“co-essential” or “same substance”) represented by the
156
orthodox party (including Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius),
homoiousion (“like” or “similar substance”) represented by the semi-
Arians (including Eusebius of Caesarea), and heteroousian (“different
substance”) represented by the Arian party (viz. Arius and Eusebius of
Nicomedia). Regarding the term proposed by the orthodox party
homoousion, which described the Son as co-essential with the Father,
many bishops did not readily accept the term, at first, for the term had
been previously condemned at the Council of Antioch in A.D. 268 along
with the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, who used the term (in a
false sense) promoting his doctrine of dynamic Monarchianism (or
Adoptionism).
Because of a confusion of terms, the “middle group” or semi-Arians
were very resistant to the term homoousion—it sounded too modalistic.
Many in the East had fought long and hard against
Sabellianism/Modalism (cf. White, 1998: 187). Those who objected to
the word homoousios conceived that those who approved it favored the
opinion of Sabellius and they therefore called them blasphemers, as
subverting the existence of the Son of God (Socrates, Ecclesiastical
History I:23, in Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 2:27).
Hence, with good intentions, the semi-Arians had sought a
compromise acceptable to both the catholic (i.e., universal) church and
the Arians by offering homoiousion (“like substance”) instead of
homoousion (“same substance”). However, the Arians rejected the
comprised term for they saw the Son “unlike” the Father—a “different
substance.” Therefore, it was incumbent on the orthodox party to
explain clearly to the semi-Arians that their use of homoousion did not
denote in any way an adoptionist or modalistic understanding. Nor did
it compromise the distinction and existence of the three co-equal
Persons in the Trinity, rather it affirmed and defended the full deity of
the Son (cf. Reymond, 1998: 318).
In the end, the biblical evidence prevailed. Scripture was the
deciding factor, according to which the church countered the arguments
of the Arian party. Unanimously, the bishops at the Council declared
that the Son was of the “same substance” (homoousion) as that of the
Father. The resulting creed of the Council proclaimed the Son’s co-
equality and co-eternality with the Father (that is, the expression of the
homoousion of the Son with the Father): “[The Son was] God of God,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance [homoousios] with the Father …” (emphasis added). Only
Eusebius of Nicomedia and four others refused to sign the Creed.
157
Arius was not there because he was not a bishop and the church at
Alexandria had previously excommunicated him. No doubt, the Nicene
fathers were satisfied that they had carefully guarded the full deity of
the Son by their affirmation of the homoousia and by their insistence
that the Son was “begotten not made” (Reymond, 1998: 326).
Constantine banished Arius from the empire, at least for a short
time. However, this was not the end of Arius, nor was it the end of his
views for Arius eventually gained sympathy from Constantine.
Constantine even tried to reinstate Arius to the fellowship of the
Alexandrian church. However, Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria at
that time, repudiated Arius and refused to readmit him (Schaff, 2006:
vol. 3: 9:376). For nearly six decades, Arianism saw many victories and
there were many Arian bishops. The once condemned Arian doctrine
had reversed. Subsequent to Constantine’s death, under Constantius’s
reign (his son), numerous councils met, producing Arian and semi-
Arian creeds (White, 1998: 189). In reference to this dark time in church
history, Jerome said (Greenslade, 1996: 206), “The whole world
groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.”
During this time, the great defender of the deity of the Son,
Athanasius, bravely proclaimed the homoousion even when it seemed
as though everyone was against him. Thus, his motto Athanasius contra
mundum, “Athanasius against the world”37 is a well-known sentiment,
which strikingly expresses his fearless independence and immovable
fidelity to his convictions (Schaff, 2006: vol. 3: 10:523-28). Even
though various emperors banished him from his See (five times),
Athanasius would not capitulate. His faith in the full deity of the Son
was uncompromising. So firm was his commitment to Scripture. In
reference to the Council, Athanasius (De Synodis 6, in Schaff and Wace,
1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 4:453) would later explain:

For divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a

Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of
the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter,
but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their
words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the
religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

37
The full quote reads Athanasius contra mundum, et mundum contra Athanasius,
“Athanasius against the world, and the world against Athanasius” (Schaff, 2006: vol.
3: 10:523).
158
Ultimately, the church repudiated Arianism, re-establishing and firmly
solidifying the Nicene definition of God in A.D. 381 at the Council of
Constantinople. Just as the church reacted to Gnosticism, they rightfully
reacted to the patent heresy of Arianism, affirming and defending the
full deity of the Son, Jesus Christ.

5.4 MODALISM

The unity of the Being of God is justly an orthodox belief. However,

when it is overstressed or modified for the sake of a radical approach to
monotheism, the biblical meaning of the “Trinity” is abandoned and
serious errors result. As a result, the third great heresy that crept into the
church (after the Judaizer and Gnostic heresy) was Monarchianism
(from monarchia, meaning, “single principle”). Both forms, dynamic
and modalistic, first emerged around the end of the second century. This
was a time when the passion for the “rule of faith” (regula fidei)
consumed the early Christian apologists and theologians. For them, all
things were to be judged by Scripture, the infallible, sole authority and
rule of faith for the church.

5.4.1 Dynamic Monarchianism

We revealed previously that there were two forms of the Monarchian

heresy, both of which were launched around the same time: modalistic
and the less popular form, dynamic. Dynamic Monarchianism, also
called (more appropriately) Adoptionism, held to the idea that God
merely “adopted” Jesus as Son (at His baptism), after which He worked
miracles without becoming divine. Some adoptionists, however, did
teach that He became deity (in some sense) at His baptism (e.g., Paul of
Samosata). Theodotus, the leather merchant from Byzantine, first
brought this doctrine to Rome around A.D. 190. Information regarding
the particularities of the Monarchian controversy and its theology is
derived primarily from the great polemicist, theologian, Roman
antipope and martyr, Hippolytus (c. A.D. †235) and early church
historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. A.D. 260-339).
In his most important work, The Refutation of All Heresies,
Hippolytus speaks of the beginnings of dynamic Monarchianism and its
distinctive theology (VII:23, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
5:114-15):

159
 But there was a certain Theodotus, a native of Byzantium,
who introduced a novel heresy ... he alleges that (our Lord)
appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe.
(According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a
(mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the
Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men,
and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at
his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above
and descended (upon him) in the form of a dove. And this was
the reason (according to Theodotus) why (miraculous) powers
did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of
that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be
the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are
disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even)
at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he
was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.

Accordingly, Victor, the bishop of Rome, excommunicated Theodotus

for his teaching. However, the most noted adoptionist was Paul of
Samosata, of whom Eusebius of Caesarea speaks of his
excommunication at the Third Council in Antioch in A.D. 268 (Maier,
1999: 274-79; Kelly, 2006: 247). Apparently, dynamic Monarchianism
did not flourish, since the popularity of the early church held immovably
to the full deity of Jesus Christ. For that reason, it was very difficult to
retain followers of dynamic Monarchianism. Regardless of theological
variations, both systems, dynamic and modalistic, shared the same core
foundation: unitarianism.

5.4.2 Modalistic Monarchianism

Monotheism was, to be sure, the bedrock of Christianity. The early

Christians shuddered at the thought of polytheism (or henotheism), that
is, the idea of many true gods. The people of God constantly had to deal
with polytheism starting from the days of Eden (cf. Gen. 3:5). The early
modalists were equally as valiant to uphold the monotheism of their
religion. Nevertheless, their idea of monotheism as one undifferentiated
single monad (unipersonal) was a radical and distorted view. Modalism
attempted to answer the question of how one could truly hold to
monotheism and yet maintain the deity of Jesus Christ. Even though we
should applaud the early modalists for their determined stance for the
oneness of God in the face of polytheism, they were far too quick to
160
sacrifice the biblical presentation of a multi-personal God for their
unbending view of what they thought monotheism was—God as an
undifferentiated unipersonal Being.

5.5 ORTHODOXY FIGHTS BACK

The Apostle Paul instructs Titus to refute those who oppose sound
doctrine (Titus 1:9, 13). The Apostle Peter charges the church to be
ready always to give a defense (apologia, i.e., biblical refutation) and a
reason (logos, i.e., positive affirmation) for the faith (1 Pet. 3:15). Jude
says to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 1:3). God has clearly
instructed His people to affirm and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So naturally, sincere devoted Christians in the early church followed
this command, even to point of martyrdom. Just as the apostles put up a
fight for the faith, affirming and defending the gospel, so did the early
church. So when they were faced with Modalism they reacted and
treated it as a destructive heresy that attacked the very nature of God.

Against Noetus by Hippolytus (c. A.D. 203)

The first known generator of Modalism was Noetus of Smyrna in

around A.D. 190 (Kelly, 1978: 120). Still, there is some evidence of a
modalistic idea percolating prior to Noetus. About thirty years before
him, Justin Martyr made an interesting statement in his First Apology
(63, in Richardson, 1970: 284-85): “For they who affirm that the Son is
the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the
Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also,
being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Nevertheless, the
first person historically identified for introducing Modalism was
Noetus. So disturbing was Noetus to the Christian community that
Hippolytus devoted an entire work against him entitled, Against the
Heresy of One Noetus (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:223-31).
From the start, Noetus’s position was clear: “If therefore I acknowledge
Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and
Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father
suffered, for He was the Father Himself” (Against Noetus 1, in Roberts
and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:223; emphasis added).
Hippolytus also reports that Noetus claimed he was Moses and that
Aaron was his brother. In response to the presbyters who criticized him,
161
Noetus asked, “What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ?”
(Against Noetus 1, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:223). The
heresies of both Noetus (Modalism) and Theodotus (Adoptionism) were
the product of a misunderstanding of Scripture—namely, assuming God
to be unipersonal. Hippolytus went on to say in his refutation:

The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different

mind from them ... Theodotus employed when he sought to
prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one
party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the
Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest
the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they
have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is
Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself
suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so. The
Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different
mind from them (Against Noetus 3, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 5:224).

Because of his passion for truth, Hippolytus devoted his life to

defending the nature of God and His Word. This is clearly marked in all
of his works, especially in his later work, Refutation of All Heresies. So
clear was his refutation of the Modalism of Noetus, that his writings
have long been, along with Tertullian’s, the most referenced literature
pertaining to the Christological error of Modalism.

Against Praxeas by Tertullian (c. A.D. 213)

The second leading modalist was Praxeas. The identity of Praxeas is

difficult to determine. Some have even speculated that Praxeas was
really Callistus the Roman bishop (A.D. 217-22) since Hippolytus
accused him of helping to promote Modalism. All the same, whoever
Praxeas was, he and his Modalism were sternly refuted, primarily by the
brilliant Latin church theologian from Carthage, Tertullian (cf. Kelly,
1978: 121-22). We saw in Chapter 3 (3.3.2), Tertullian’s response to the
modalizing of John 10:30 in Against Praxeas. It is worth mentioning
here that Tertullian was the first church father in the West to use the
word “Trinity” (Lat. trinitas) in reference to the three Persons of the

162
Godhead38 against the Modalism of Praxeas: “Unity into a Trinity,
placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit three …” (Against Praxeas 2, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 3:598). Tertullian was a man utterly enthralled with
perpetuating and defending the church’s rule of faith against the crass
Modalism of Praxeas (Against Praxeas 1, in Roberts and Donaldson,
1994: vol. 3:597):

He [Praxeas] maintains that there is one only Lord, the

Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this
doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that
the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself
born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus
Christ.

It amazes Tertullian that the modalists are so convinced of their

misunderstanding that monotheism means unipersonalism. “In the case
of this heresy,” Tertullian writes, “which supposes itself to possess the
pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any
other way than by saying that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
are the very selfsame Person” (Against Praxeas 2, in Roberts and
Donaldson, 1994: vol. 3:598).
Interestingly, Tertullian experienced the same arguments that
Oneness teachers assert today, namely that the Trinity is three separate
Gods: “They [modalists] are constantly throwing out against us that we
are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves
pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God” (Against
Praxeas 3, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 3:599). In addition, as
we have also noted, early and present-day Oneness teachers misconstrue
John 1:1, asserting that the “Word” was a non-entity, future plan, or
“reason” of the Father. Tertullian demonstrates the absurdity that
follows this thinking:

Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is

called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” It is written, “You
shall not take God’s name in vain.” This for certain is He

38
However, Theophilus, in a letter to his friend Autolycus (To Autolycus II:15, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994, vol. 2:101) was the first church father in the East to use
the term “Trinity” (triados) to describe God in AD. 180.
163
 “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God.” In what form of God? Of course he means
in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a
body, although “God is a Spirit?” (Against Praxeas 7, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 3:602).

Tertullian shows that Modalism, when taken to its logical end, is

biblically incoherent:

Either, then, the Son suffered, being “forsaken” by the Father,

and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He
forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then
to what God was it that He addressed His cry? ... The Son,
then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures. It
is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also
descends to the inner parts of the earth. “He sits at the Father’s
right hand”—not the Father at His own (Against Praxeas 30,
in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 3:626-27).

Throughout his polemic, Tertullian never ceases in underscoring the

rule of faith and stressing the inseparability of the Being of God.
Through his writings, we can easily see how the modalists did not
absorb the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity does not separate nor does
it divide the Being of God:

This is the rule of faith, which I profess; by it I testify that the

Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each
other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now,
observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son
one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each
Other ... God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father ...”
(Against Praxeas 9, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
3:603).

At the conclusion of Tertullian’s polemic, he emphasizes the eternal

consequence of embracing a Jesus other than the Jesus revealed in the
biblical text as he cites 1 John 5:12: “He that has not the Son, has not
life. And that man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other
than the Son” (Against Praxeas 31, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 3:627).

164
5.5.1 Against Sabellius

A few decades later, a Libyan priest named Sabellius brought new light
and popularity to Modalism. The modalistic arguments of Sabellius
were by far more refined and sophisticated than that of his predecessors.
He came to Rome toward the end of Zephyrinus’s reign (A.D. 198-217).
After enjoying the confidence of the Bishop Callistus, he was attacked
fiercely by Hippolytus, and eventually excommunicated by Callistus
(Kelly, 1978: 121). Rejecting the concept of the ontological Trinity,
Sabellius postulated his own version of an “economic Trinity.”
He saw God as one indivisible substance, but with three
fundamental activities, or modes, appearing successively as the Father
(the creator and lawgiver), as the Son (the redeemer), and as the Holy
Spirit (the maker of life and the divine presence within people) (Kelly,
1978: 121-22). Subsequently, the term “Sabellianism” included all sorts
of speculative ideas attached to the original ideas of Sabellius and his
followers. He traveled to Rome, where he gained many devoted
followers on account of his craftiness and cerebral arguments.
It should also be noted here, as pointed out in Chapter 2, that early
modalists, particularly Sabellius, taught successive or developmental
Modalism, in which the modes are successive, starting with the mode of
the Father in creation, then the Son for the task of redemption, and after,
the Holy Spirit for regeneration. Patristic authority Philip Schaff
explains (Schaff, 2006, vol. 2: 11:262):

Sabellius embraces the Holy Spirit in his speculation, and

reaches a trinity, not a simultaneous trinity of essence,
however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. The
Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old
Testament economy (not in the creation also, which in his
view precedes the trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the
incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration ... The revelation
of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit
goes on in regeneration and sanctification.

This view is somewhat dissimilar to that of modern Oneness theology,

which teaches simultaneous or static Modalism, in which God can
project all of His so-called manifestations or modes simultaneously. For
instance, Oneness teachers use the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:13-17) to
prove that Jesus’ so-called three modes can simultaneously exist (cf.

165
UPCI, 2008b). Of course, the event of Jesus’ baptism plainly and
naturally affirms the Trinity—all three Persons are directly and
distinctly involved. What obviously proves simultaneous Modalism
false are the numerous passages indicating a personal distinction
between the three Persons of the Trinity (e.g., Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1b;
6:37-40; 14:23; 2 Cor. 13:14). Promoting Modalism throughout Rome,
Sabellius aggressively opposed the ontological Trinity. As a result, in
A.D. 220, Callistus excommunicated him as a heretic. Athanasius traced
the doctrine of Sabellius to the Stoic philosophy (Schaff, 2006, vol. 2:
12:582-83). As it had condemned previous heretics, the universal
church condemned Sabellius and his ideas.
The error of Sabellianism was no small matter to the Christian
church. It attacked the very nature of God. Thus, Oneness theology in
all forms was universally condemned. In order to achieve a correct
understanding of the attitude of the early church one must realize that
the massive amounts of information written against the Modalism of
Sabellius show beyond doubt that the early Christians did not see
Oneness theology as simply a non-essential matter, it was of the utmost
importance.

The Passion of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria

Dionysius “the Great” was bishop of Alexandria from A.D. 248 until his
death in A.D. 265. He was a student of Origen and a respected leader of
the church as well as an esteemed theologian. He passionately
proclaimed and defended the Trinity. Dionysius wrote against many
major Christological heresies such as the Adoptionism of Paul of
Samosata and Sabellianism. He also commented on many controversies
of the day such as re-baptism, Easter, and the authorship of the
Apocalypse (i.e., Revelation). His writings were abundant. Athanasius
and Eusebius preserved most of his work. At least forty years after
Callistus excommunicated Sabellius, Dionysius, in his outrage towards
the unipersonal theology of Modalism, also excommunicated Sabellius
around A.D. 260. His strong passion for the Trinity incited him to write
many polemics against Sabellius.
Both Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius the bishop of Rome
championed the doctrine of the Trinity. They were not alone in their
open and rigid affirmation and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity and
their railing refutation against the Modalism of Sabellius. Because of
his over-emphasis on the personal distinctions existing between the
166
Persons of the Trinity, Sabellius accused Dionysius of dividing the
Father and Son (in essence) and failing to acknowledge that the Jesus
was of the “same substance” (homoousios) with the Father (cf. Kelly,
1978: 133-34). Of course, Sabellius interpreted homoousios not only as
“same substance,” but also as “same Person.”39
They even accused him of stating that the Son was a creature. They
also made a formal complaint to the bishop of Rome whose name was
also Dionysius (Kelly, 1978: 133-34). Even so, Athanasius in his
Defense of Dionysius (9, in Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol.
4:179) says that Dionysius rightly “acted as he learned from the
Apostles.” In a response, Dionysius, the bishop of Rome, wrote a short
epistle entitled Against the Sabellians (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 7:365) around A.D. 259, which was not directly addressed to
Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, but was to censure his “language
of separation” on account of his fixated desire to refute Sabellius.
Dionysius’s epistle also clarified and defined Trinitarian theology. Note
some of the highlights of the epistle:

Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut
apart and destroy the Monarchy, the most sacred proclamation
of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers,
distinct substances, and three godheads ... He, [Sabellius] in
his blasphemy, says that the Son is the Father and vice versa
... For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever
and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins—a devil’s
teaching, not that of Christ’s true disciples and lovers of the
Saviour’s lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached
by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New
preaches three Gods.

In the concluding remarks of the epistle, Dionysius stressed his essential

key point, which the modalists (and Oneness believers today) clearly
misunderstood: the Trinity does not divide God into three parts. God is
inseparable and indivisible: “Neither then may we divide into three
Godheads ... we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ
Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the
39
We will see below, in our discussion of the Council of Nicaea, that the inclusion of
the key term homoousios was the principal reason why some bishops were hesitant in
signing the Creed. For nearly a hundred years before Nicaea, the church had
condemned the term on account of its usage by the modalists and adoptionists, but in
a different sense.
167
universe the Word is united.” After which, Dionysius of Alexandria
responded to the bishop to Rome, toning down his emotional anti-
Sabellian fury. Undeniably, Dionysius’s view on the Trinity was solidly
orthodox. However, to clarify and confirm to the bishop of Rome that
he did not in any way separate or divide the Persons of the Trinity,
Dionysius of Alexandria redefined and disambiguated his position in an
Epistle to the Bishop of Rome. Below are some important excerpts from
the epistle (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 6:92-93):

The Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled
with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father …
neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from
the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and
conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for
this word Father indicates association between them. And
there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be
disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings
Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these
are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other?
… Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a
Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be
diminished, into a Unity … For on this account after the Unity
there is also the most divine Trinity … And to God the Father,
and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Additional church fathers against Sabellius

Novatian (c. A.D. 250) in A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity

(12, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:622) argues persuasively
against the heresy of Sabellius: “The sacrilegious heresy of Sabellius is
embodied. Since Christ is believed to be not the Son, but the Father;
since by them He is asserted to be in strictness a bare man, in a new
manner, by those, again, Christ is proved to be God the Father Almighty
(emphasis added). Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 262), in A Sectional
Confession of Faith (7, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 6:42)
speaks against the unipersonal God of Sabellius and defends the Trinity:

But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and
introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence.

168
 Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the
Father and the Son are the same [Person] … we believe that
three persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are
declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity
showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity
establishes the oneness of the nature (emphasis added).

And of course, Athanasius, the great defender of the doctrine of the

Trinity, who championed the homoousion at the Council of Nicaea,
speaks very assertively against Sabellius in his Discourses Against the
Arians (III:23, in Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 4:395):

They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now
divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one
thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the
Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what
Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary,
they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own
Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father.

In his teaching on the Holy Spirit, Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 348) in
his Catechetical Lectures (XVI:4, in Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser.,
vol. 7:116), after referring to the Trinitarian baptismal formula,
explains: “We preach not three Gods; let the Marcionites be silenced;
but with the Holy Ghost through One Son, we preach One God ... We
neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some; nor do we, as Sabellius,
work confusion [into it]” (emphasis added). Aside from these men of
great faith, and many others, the Christian church is greatly indebted to
the three Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus,
and Basil’s younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa. They persistently
affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity in precise language.
In his letter, To the Notables of Neocaesarea, Basil speaks
expressively on the Trinity, sharply countering the Sabellian heresy
(CCX:3, in Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 8:249-251):
“Sabellianism is Judaism imported into the preaching of the Gospel
under the guise of Christianity ... And I hear that even rasher innovations
than those of the foolish Sabellius are now ventured on among you ...
For of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost there is the same nature and one
Godhead” (emphasis added). In the end, Basil sees Sabellianism as
denying Jesus Christ:

169
 Now Sabellius ... saying as he did that the same God, being
one in matter, was metamorphosed as the need of the moment
required, and spoken of now as Father, now as Son, and now
as Holy Ghost. The inventors of this unnamed heresy are
renewing the old long extinguished error ... denying the name
of the Son of God. They must give over uttering iniquity
against God, or they will have to wail with them that deny the
Christ (emphasis added).

As with all the Christological heresies in the first four centuries, the
church did not tolerate blatant denials of Jesus Christ in any form. Even
with the sophisticated arguments of Sabellius and the inflated ego of
Paul of Samosata, the church universally condemned both dynamic and
modalistic Monarchianism. Because of heresies such as
Monarchianism, the early church greatly increased its effort to codify
the creeds in precise language, to advance the church’s rule of faith, and
protect the people of God from the false teachings that were rampant in
those first four centuries.
The theory of Sabellius broke the way for the Nicene church
doctrine, by its full coordination of the three persons. He differed from
the orthodox standard mainly in denying the Trinity of essence and the
permanence of the Trinity of manifestation; making Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost only temporary phenomena, which fulfill their mission and
return into the abstract monad (Schaff, 2006: vol. 2: 12:583).

5.6 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND THE EARLY

CHURCH

To maintain the idea that the early church was Oneness is a complicated
task for Oneness teachers, for in order to do so, Oneness teachers must
revise history. For instance, Bernard (1983: 236-37) claims:

1. As far as we can tell, the early church Christian leaders in

the days immediately following the apostolic age were
Oneness. It is certain they did not teach the doctrine of the
trinity as it later developed and as it exists today. 2. Even after
the emergence of the trinitarian doctrine in the latter part of
the second century, the doctrine of the trinity did not replace
Oneness as the dominant belief until around 300 A.D., and it
did not become universally established until late in the fourth
170
 century. 3. Even after trinitarianism became dominant,
Oneness believers continued to exist throughout church
history (emphasis added).

As we will see, Oneness teachers routinely practice this kind of

historical revisionism in order to substantiate the notion that the early
church taught distinctive Oneness doctrines. Bernard’s assertion that the
Trinity “did not replace Oneness as the dominant belief until around 300
A.D.” is the very conclusion he has yet to establish. His assertion
prompts two questions. First, if Oneness theology was the rule of faith,
the apostolic doctrine, or, as Bernard argues, “the dominant belief until
around 300 A.D.,” then why did the early Christians not only abandon
the doctrine, but also, as substantiated below, condemn and denounce it
as Christological heresy? And, if the second and third century Christians
actually held to Oneness doctrine, then why did the early church fathers
prior to A.D. 325 make explicit statements that clearly speak, not of a
unipersonal God, but rather a tri-personal God? In dissimilarity to
Bernard’s historical delusion, Kelly (1978: 88) makes these
observations:

The reader should notice how deeply the conception of a

plurality of divine Persons was imprinted in the apostolic
tradition and the popular faith. Though as yet uncanonized,
the New Testament was already exerting a powerful
influence; it is a commonplace that the outlines of a dyadic
and a triadic pattern are clearly visible in its pages.

Bernard’s argument that “after trinitarianism became dominant,

Oneness believers continued to exist throughout church history” does
not prove anything, only that there were some Oneness believers
existing after the third century. If one follows Bernard’s logic to its
conclusion, then Gnosticism must be true, since Gnostic believers
continued to exist throughout church history as well, even to this very
day. Bernard’s main assertion (1983: 236) that “The early church
Christian leaders in the days immediately following the apostolic age
were Oneness” demonstrates his lack of data and/or understanding in
the area of church history.
The problem with Bernard’s statements alleging what particular
early church fathers said or what they meant to say is that he does not
provide the exact addresses of the citations. This is a fundamental
requirement in order to authenticate the very claims made. Ascertaining
171
the historical data of the early church is not, by any means, a
monumental task. We have masses of extant and very accessible data on
the early church fathers, councils, creeds, and virtually every heresy and
teaching promulgated in the early church. There is no excuse. Those
who write or teach on church history should objectively examine and
thus offer an accurate presentation of the historical record in context,
providing the specific addresses of all citations submitted.
Before examining the early church regarding their view of the
nature of God, one must bear in mind that the specific doctrinal words
and phrases such as “coequal,” “Trinity,” “Godhead,” “incarnation,”
etc., which are not “biblical” words, simply define the biblical data. In
other words, because of the absence of particular key doctrinal words
and phrases prior to Nicaea, Oneness teachers and other unitarian
groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (cf. Watchtower, 1989b: 8) allege
that the Trinity was not developed until the fourth century. This
argument mistakenly assumes that prior to the utilization of doctrinal
words and phrases by the early church these doctrines could not have
existed.
Here we see a confusion of the biblical data with the biblical
doctrine. It does not violate the principal of sola Scriptura (“Scripture
alone”) to use non-biblical words or phrases in defining a biblical
doctrine as long as the non-biblical words or phrases accurately describe
the biblical revelation. For example, the non-biblical term “incarnation”
describes the biblical revelation communicated in John 1:14: “The
Word became flesh.” Whereas non-biblical phrases such as “coequal,”
“coeternal” and “coexistent” suitably describe the biblical revelation set
forth in passages such as John 1:1 and 17:5. So the dreaded word
“Trinity,” which the unitarians outright despised, rightly describes or
defines the biblical revelation of three divine Persons sharing the nature
of the one God.
On the same plane, although the pre-Nicene early church fathers
lacked the eloquent definitive language to define in exact terms
particular biblical doctrines, their statements clearly show contextually
that (a) they conceived God as existing as a tri-personal Being and (b)
they did not hold to a lone unitarian undifferentiated concept of God as
Oneness teachers presuppose. To achieve a coherent and objective
understanding of how the early church envisaged God we shall present
two branches of evidence that concisely and clearly demonstrate what
the early universal church believed and taught: 1) important ecumenical
councils and 2) early patristic documents.
172
5.6.1 Ecumenical Councils

Unarguably, the leading reason for ecumenical councils, starting with

the first in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1ff.), was heresy. The function of these
councils was to confirm, defend and standardize important biblical
doctrines. They effectively and clearly affirmed the full deity and
humanity of the Son, Jesus Christ, as well as safeguarded the essential
distinctions between the Persons in the Godhead. The theological
bedrock of these councils and creeds of the Christian church was the
doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, the theology contained in these councils
and creeds presupposes that God is triune and God the Son became
flesh. Since this is the case, it is an extraordinarily difficult task for
Oneness teachers to explain why the most important councils and creeds
of Christendom for the first several hundred years not only affirmed the
doctrine of the Trinity, but also specifically condemned the anti-
Trinitarian teachings of Modalism.
We have already explored briefly the first ecumenical Council of
Nicaea and have seen the positive affirmation of both the full deity of
Jesus Christ (against Arius) and the distinctions existing between the
Persons of the Trinity (against Modalism). Aside from Nicaea, here
below are some excerpts (Schaff and Wace, 1994: 2nd. ser., vol. 14:3-
540) from some of the significant ecumenical councils,40 which affirm
the Trinity and militate against the modalistic/unitarian position.

First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381):

We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of

heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light,
true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial
with the Father, through whom all things came to be ... And in
the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding

40
There were seven important ecumenical councils (aside from the Council of
Jerusalem around A.D. 50; cf. Acts 5:1ff): I. First Council of Nicaea (A.D.. 325); II.
First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381); III. Council of Ephesus ( A.D. 431); IV.
Council of Chalcedon ( A.D. 451); V. Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553);
VI. Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681); and VII. Second Council of
Nicaea (A.D. 787).
173
 forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with
the Father and Son (emphasis added).

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten

Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul
and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his
godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation,
born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and
the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and
consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures
took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one
Lord (emphasis added).

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451):

This selfsame one [the Son] is perfect both in deity and in

humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and
actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the
same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the
same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is
concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted ... this
one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten—in two natures
...The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the
union. Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved
and both natures concur in one “person” and in one reality.
They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together
the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord
Jesus Christ (emphasis added).

Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553):

If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the

Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the
force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a
consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three
subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but
one God even the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and one Holy
Spirit, in whom are all things.

174
When we scrupulously examine the masses of documentation, we do
not find a single council or creed that affirmed Modalism. As we have
shown and will continue to show below, the early church universally
condemned modalistic/Oneness theology and affirmed the doctrine of
the Trinity.

5.6.2 The Trinity and the Early Church

There is no disputation as to the distinctive Trinitarianism taught and

defended in the church after the fourth century. Thus, the references
provided below are primarily from the apostolic church fathers, the
apologists, and the theologians of the early church prior to the fourth
century. The historical evidence indisputably shows that the early
church believed in a tri-personal God and not a unitarian/unipersonal
deity. In light of this, Oneness writers provide revised and disjointed
historical information in order to convince the Oneness people that the
early church fathers were modalists. Revising the historical record,
William B. Chalfant (1979: 116-18) makes these remarks:

The trinity doctrine exists only on paper … No apostle of our

Lord Jesus Christ ever taught such a doctrine … None of the
immediate disciples of the apostles (e.g., Clement Ignatius,
Hermas, or Polycarp) taught such a doctrine … Who began
such a teaching? … Trinities abound in the ancient, false
religions.

Here Chalfant assumes the conclusion he is wishing to reach, namely,

that the early church fathers were modalists. With no objective historical
justification provided, Oneness writers (e.g., Bernard 1991: 24, 264-65)
engage frequently in this kind of patent historical revisionism. The
foremost and most recognized Christian theologians and church
historians41 strongly oppose the Oneness historical premise that “the
early church Christian leaders in the days immediately following the
apostolic age were Oneness” (Bernard, 1983: 236). On the contrary, we
will show that the evidence consistently verifies that the early church
envisaged God as tri-personal. Note that the examples provided below
are not an exhaustive list of every citation of every church father
attesting to the triune nature of God. However, these examples do
41
Such as Eusebius, Socrates, J. B. Lightfoot, Philip Schaff, J. N. D. Kelly, Francis
Beckwith, etc.
175
provide corroborating evidence that supports the supposition that the
early church held to the concept of the Trinity.

5.6.2.1 Apostolic Fathers

The earliest patristic writings are those that belong to the category of the
apostolic fathers (c. A.D. 70-150). As the name indicates, many of these
church fathers had personally known the original apostles. Their
testimony is of great worth in evaluating the theology of the early church
subsequent to the days of the original apostles.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 70)

The document is the work of an anonymous teacher. It is extremely

unlikely that it was the biblical character Barnabas (Holmes, 1999: 271).
The Epistle of Barnabas was written very early, when perhaps some of
the original apostles were still alive (Holmes, 1999: 272). Notice in this
citation (5, in Holmes, 1999: 285) the usage of the plural verb, “Let Us
make” (citing Genesis 1:26) in reference to the preincarnate Son:

And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer

for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God
said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after
our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that
he endured to suffer at the hand of men (emphasis added).

Note, when the early church fathers appealed to the first person plural
verbs, nouns, and prepositions in the Old Testament that were applied
to the one true God, they did not see them, as often postulated by
unitarians, as “plural of majesty” references. The church used the first
person plurals references to mark out and demonstrate the multi-
personal nature of God. In point of fact, there is absolutely no clear Old
Testament example where a so-called “plural of majesty” was used of
Yahweh or of any human king including secular ones, as anti-
Trinitarians ignorantly assume.42

42
Regarding the misuse of the anachronistic “plural of majesty” assertion, biblical
scholar, R. A. Torrey (1923: 64), correctly states:
The best answer that they [ancient Hebrew lexicographers and
grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title)
of God was the “pluralis majestatis,” that is the plural of majesty…. In other
176
Clement bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 96)

Clement of Rome wrote an epistle to the original Corinthian church. He

was perhaps the same Clement who was Paul’s close companion
mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Schaff (2006: vol. 1: 13:637) says of
Clement that he was a “name of great celebrity in antiquity, was a
disciple of Paul and Peter, to whom he refers as the chief examples for
imitation. He may have been the same person who is mentioned by Paul
as one of his faithful fellow-workers in Philippi (Phil. 4:3).” Early
Church historian Eusebius (History of the Church III:4, in Maier, 1999:
95) says that “Clement too, who became the third bishop of Rome, was
Paul’s co-worker and co-combatant, as the apostle himself testifies.” In
Clement’s salutation (To the Corinthians, in Holmes, 1999: 29), he
clearly differentiates God the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ:

The Church of God which sojourns in Rome, to the Church of

God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and
sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace to you, and peace, from almighty God through Jesus
Christ, be yours in abundance.

Ignatius bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 98-107)

Ignatius was an important apostolic church father. He was a bishop of

the original church at Antioch. In his writings, Ignatius constantly refers
to Jesus as the “Son of the Father.” In reference to the Son, he frequently
declares ho gar theos hēmōn Iēsous ho Christos (“For our God, Jesus
the Christ,” or a similar phrase), thus referring to the “Son” as theos
(Ephesians 18; Romans 3; and To Polycarp 8).
As we read, in his letter to the original church at Ephesus, he writes
(7, in Holmes, 1999: 141): “There is one Physician who is both flesh
and spirit; born and unborn [agennētos] God in man, true life in death,
both from Mary and from God” (emphasis added). To recall, the early

words, they concluded that a plural name was used for God because of the
majesty of His person. Now, to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all
certain that the “pluralis majestatis” is ever found in the Old Testament,
there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is,
that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense
monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one
Godhead.
177
church used the term agennētos to denote God’s unoriginate eternal
existence. Rightfully so, Ignatius applied agennētos to the Son. Clearly,
Ignatius does not see the Father and Jesus as the same Person. In the
same letter (9, in Holmes, 1999: 143), he differentiates the Father from
both the Son and the Holy Spirit: “Stones of a temple, prepared
beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights
by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy
Spirit” (emphasis added). Challenging the Oneness view of a non-
eternal Son, in his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius speaks of “Jesus
Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end
of time” (6, in Holmes, 1999: 153, 155).
At the beginning of his letter to the church at Rome, Ignatius uses
very detailed language to differentiate the Father and Jesus (in Holmes,
1999: 167, 169): “In the majesty of the Father Most High and Jesus
Christ, his only Son ... Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the
place of the district of the Romans ... I also greet in the name of Jesus
Christ, Son of the Father.” In spite of the Ignatius’s own words (in
context), Bernard (1991: 33) actually says of Ignatius: “The writings of
Ignatius (c. 110-115) equate Jesus with the One God so strongly that
some historians have called his doctrine modalistic ... Assuming
Ignatius understood God to be the Father ... he thought of Jesus as God
the Father incarnate.” Yet Bernard does not provide a single reference
to the “some historians” that have supposedly called Ignatius’s doctrine
modalistic. Nor does he provide any examples from the writings of
Ignatius that reveal that Ignatius believed that Jesus was the Father.
When Ignatius refers to Jesus and the Father in the same passage or same
context, the grammatical constructions always denote a distinction of
two Persons.43

Hermas (c. A.D. 120)

43
As shown earlier in Chapter 4 (4.5, “John 17:5”), in his letter to the Magnesians (as
cited above), Ignatius grammatically differentiates between Jesus and the Father. To
recall, notice closely this portion in the Greek: Iēsou Christou, hos pro aiōnōn para
patri, literally, “Jesus Christ, who before ages [was] with [the] Father.” Ignatius makes
an obvious parallel with John 17:5 using para with the dative denoting a marked
distinction between Jesus and the Father and using the preposition pro (“before”)
indicating that their distinction existed from eternity, “before time”—as consistently
affirmed in both the Old and New Testament revelation (cf. Gen. 19:24; Den. 7:14;
John 1:1, 18; Heb. 1:10-12; Rev. 22:13).
178
Hermas was perhaps the same Hermas to whom Paul sends greetings in
Romans 16:14, around the year A.D. 57. Eusebius says of Hermas
(History of the Church III:3, in Maier, 1999: 94): “But as the same
apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has
made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The
Shepherd is ascribed.” In his Shepherd, Hermas believes that the “Son
of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s
adviser in his creation. Therefore, also he is ancient” (III Sim. IX:12, in
Holmes, 1999: 491).

Polycarp bishop of Smyrna (c. A.D. 130-150)

The beloved Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who claimed he had been a

Christian for eighty-six years, was also, according to both Irenaeus and
Eusebius, a disciple of the Apostle John. In his last prayer just before he
was martyred, Polycarp glorifies not a unipersonal God, but rather a tri-
personal God (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14, in Holmes, 1999: 239):

O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed

Son Jesus Christ ... I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you,
through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ,
your beloved Son, through whom to you with him and the
Holy Spirit be glory both now and for the ages to come. Amen.

Mathetes,44 Letter to Diognetus (c. A.D. 130)

In his letter to Diognetus (11, cited in Holmes, 1999: 551), Mathetes,

who claimed himself “having been a disciple of the Apostles,” speaks
clearly of the eternality of the Son: “He sent the Word, namely, that he
might appear to the world ... This is the Eternal One, who today is
accounted as Son” (emphasis added).

5.6.2.2 The Apologists

The next category of church fathers subsequent to the apostolic fathers

is the category of the apologists. These early apologists courageously

44
Although the author of the Letter to Diognetus is anonymous, he gives himself the
title “Mathetes”—aποstolōn genomenos mathētēs (“having been a disciple of the
Apostles”).
179
defended and affirmed biblical truth against the prevalent heresies of the
day.

Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 155)

Justin Martyr consistently distinguishes the Persons of the Trinity

throughout his writings. As we saw in Chapter 3 (3.5.1.7), Justin, in his
First Apology (61, Richardson, 1970: 282), naturally quotes the
Trinitarian baptismal formula: “For they are then washed in the water in
the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” In Dialogue with Trypho (62, in Roberts
and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 1:228), Justin explains that the usage of the
first person plural verb (“Let Us make”) by Moses in Genesis 1:26
signifies God the Father conversing with someone “numerically distinct
[arithmō heteron] from Himself”—another Person:

“Let Us make”—I shall quote again the words narrated by

Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that
[God] conversed with someone who was numerically distinct
from Himself … [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain]
number of persons associated with one another … [The Son]
was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father
communed with Him (emphasis added).

Athenagoras (c. A.D. 175)

Athenagoras in A Plea for the Christians (10, in Richardson, 1970: 309)

speaks in reference to the Son as “not as having been brought into
existence. It astonishes Athenagoras that any man could declare
someone as an atheist, if they “speak of God the Father, and of God the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union
and their distinction in order.”

Theophilus bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 180)

As noted, Theophilus uses the term “Trinity” (triados) in a letter to his

friend Autolycus (To Autolycus II:15, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 2:101) in describing God: “In like manner also the three days which
were before the luminaries, are types of the trinity, of God, and His
Word, and His wisdom”
180
5.6.2.3 Theologians

The next category of church fathers is the theologians. These men

devoted their lives to the extreme study and meticulous examination of
Scripture. Their refutations of false teaching were brilliant and their
biblical proclamations were powerful and textually substantiated. The
theologians, as with their predecessors, defended and affirmed the
church’s rule of faith exposing the destructive false teachings of their
day.

Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (c. A.D. 180)

A true champion of orthodoxy, Irenaeus provided the Christian church

with scholarly polemics against various heresies, particularly in his
greatest work, A Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-
Called (i.e., Against Heresies, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
1:315-567). “Irenaeus is an enemy,” says Schaff (2006: vol. 2: 13:751),
“of all error and schism, and, on the whole, the most orthodox of the
ante-Nicene fathers.” From his youth, Irenaeus benefited greatly by
having Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John
(and perhaps other apostles), as his instructor. An examination of his
own doctrinal statement reveals clearly that he held to a Trinitarian
concept of God.
As with the Epistle of Barnabas, in Against Heresies (IV:20, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 1:487-88), Irenaeus refers to the first
person plural verb in Genesis 1:26 to show that God is multi-personal:
“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and
the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made
all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our
image and Our likeness.” In this same work, notice a mere few of a
massive collection of decidedly Trinitarian references made by
Irenaeus:

[The church believes] in one God, the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are
in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who
proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God
(I:10, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 1:330).
181
 As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed
in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made ...
[it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say,
“If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no
previous existence. For I have shown that the Son of God did
not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the
beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man
… (III:18, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 1:446;
emphasis added).

The Son who “was always with the Father; and that Wisdom
also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him (IV:20, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 1:488; emphasis added).

Throughout Against Heresies Irenaeus unmistakably differentiates the

Person of the Father from the Person of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,
thus presenting a tri-personal God.

Hippolytus (c. A.D. 203-228)

Hippolytus was adamant in defending against Christological heresy,

especially that of Oneness doctrine in his polemic Against Noetus: “For
us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing
contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He,
while existing alone, yet existed in plurality” (10, in Roberts and
Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:227). In this same work, Hippolytus explains:
“For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there
is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit” (14, in
Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 5:228).

Tertullian (c. A.D. 213)

We have shown above the firm anti-Oneness polemic of Tertullian in

Against Praxeas, where he refuted the modalistic interpretation of John
10:30 (cf. Chapter 3, 3.3.2). We also saw how he uses, as do so many
church fathers, the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 to
prove to the modalists that God is not unipersonal: “He commands them
to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a
unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that
we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of
182
Their names” (Against Praxeas 26, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 3:623).

Novatian the Roman Presbyter (c. A.D. 250)

The Roman Presbyter Novatian wrote expansively on the Trinity. In his

Treatise Concerning the Trinity (18, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 5:629), appealing to Genesis 19:24, he argued against Sabellianism,
showing that although Jesus was fully God, He was not the Father:

“Then the Lord [Yahweh] rained upon Sodom and upon

Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord [Yahweh] out of
heaven.” But although the Father, being invisible, was
assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be
touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this
the Son of God ... It was not the Father, then, who was a guest
with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen
then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore,
Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by
Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of
God the Father before Abraham himself (emphasis added).

His entire Treatise reveals how strong was his devotion to affirm and
defend the Trinity, especially against the Modalism of Sabellius:

Many heretics, as we have said, have so accepted Him as God,

as to think that He must be pronounced not the Son, but the
Father ... This, however, we do not approve; but we quote it
as an argument to prove that Christ is God, to this extent, that
some, taking away the manhood, have thought Him God only,
and some have thought Him God the Father Himself; when
reason and the proportion of the heavenly Scriptures show
Christ to be God, but as the Son of God; and the Son of man,
having been taken up, moreover by God, that He must be
believed to be man also (23, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 5:634; emphasis added).

Gregory Thaumaturgus the Wonder-worker (c. A.D. 262-265)

Gregory Thaumaturgus the Wonder-worker was a student of Origen, as

was Dionysius of Alexandria. In his decidedly Trinitarian essay, A
183
Declaration of Faith (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol. 6:8), he
opposes the Modalism of Sabellius and the Adoptionism of Paul of
Samosata:

God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son,
who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and
eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged.
Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the
Trinity; nor anything super induced, as if at some former
period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was
introduced. And thus, neither was the Son ever wanting to the
Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and
without change, the same Trinity abideth ever (emphasis
added).

Methodius of Olympus (c. A.D. 305)

Writing in the very early fourth century, Methodius’s work was widely
read and highly valued. Jerome refers to him several times, as does
Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Andrew of Caesarea, Theodoret and
Eustathius of Antioch. His Trinitarian view of God was extremely
definitive. In Oration on the Psalms (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994:
vol. 6:396-97), he states: “For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their
dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we
worship the one Deity in three Persons” (emphasis added).
In Oration concerning Simon and Anna on the Day that they met in
the Temple, Methodius declares (in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
6:384):

Glory to be adored by all of that one of the sacred Trinity ...

together with the Son, who was made man for our sakes,
according to the good pleasure of His will, was also present
the Father, who is inseparable from Him as to His divine
nature, and also the Spirit, who is of one and the same essence
with Him (emphasis added).

Even though the above examples are concise, they do provide an

objective and honest sketch of how the early church fathers, some of
whom were disciples of the original apostles, conceived God. Contrary
to Oneness teachers, as the record indicates, the early church fathers
184
envisaged a triune God. They strongly opposed the modalistic concept
of God that denied the unipersonality of Jesus Christ and thus, the deity
and preexistence of the Son.

5.7 SUMMARY

In view of the colossal amount of historical evidence attesting to the

early church’s Trinitarian belief, one wonders how Oneness teachers
can honestly affirm the converse. Bernard (1983: 176) admits that the
post-Nicene church fathers believed in the Trinity, however, he claims
that these early theologians made a great “blunder in their belief of the
Trinity. They failed to purge themselves of the pagan ideas of their own
past and culture.” Notwithstanding the historical revisionism put
forward by Oneness advocates, the records speak for themselves,
militating against the Oneness position.
The factual evidence demonstrating that the early church taught and
believed in the concept of the Trinity principally comes to us in two
forms: 1) the documentation of important ecumenical councils and 2)
the testimonies of the early church fathers (viz., the apostolic fathers,
the apologists, and the theologians). Many of the early church leaders
who attested to a triune God were disciples of the original apostles of
Christ. Thus, their testimony is valuable in establishing what the early
church believed. Although they lacked articulate language and modern
doctrinal words, they clearly envisaged a Trinitarian concept of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity from the fourth century onwards saw
considerable development in terms of the words and phrases that
adequately defined the biblical revelation of the triune God. The church
is ever indebted to men such as Athanasius of Alexandria and three great
Cappadocian fathers who contributed so greatly in stating and defending
the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
Although the church uncompromisingly held to the biblical teaching of
monotheism, they did not view monotheism as unipersonalism. So
Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10, in Roberts and Donaldson, 1994: vol.
5:227) can affirm in reference to God: Monos ōn polus ēn— “While
existing alone, [He] yet existed in plurality.”
Incontrovertibly, as the record shows, the early Christian church
embraced a multi-personal God—not a unitarian one. The apostolic
tradition and the popular faith held to a conception of a plurality of
divine Persons (Kelly, 1978: 88). As clearly shown, in substantiation of
185
the Trinity, the early church frequently utilized such passages as John
1:1 and the first person plural references in the Old Testament (“Let Us
make,” “[one] of Us” et al; Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). Some (e.g.,
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian) appealed to Genesis 19:24
to prove that the Father and Jesus were two distinct Persons both
referred to as Yahweh. Historically, it was the Trinitarians and not the
modalists who conducted all of the major ecumenical councils and
revivals worldwide. Furthermore, the great biblical scholars,
theologians and Greek grammarians past and contemporary have been
Trinitarian. Although there were modalists throughout the years
following the fourth century, they did not represent the Christian
church’s rule of faith, for the church roundly condemned Oneness
theology on all fronts. Bernard’s statement (1983: 43), “As far as we
can tell, the early church Christian leaders in the days immediately
following the apostolic age were Oneness,” cannot stand in the face of
the evidence. If Oneness unitarianism was the doctrine of the early
church, then why did early church fathers (some of who were disciples
of the apostles) and ecumenical councils condemn it universally?
The early church branded Oneness theology as heretical since the
days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Victor, the bishop of
Rome around A.D. 190 excommunicated Theodotus (the first known
dynamic monarchianist; Maier, 1999: 201).
Around the same time, Hippolytus and the presbyters condemned
Noetus (the first known modalistic monarchianist; Kelly, 1978: 120).
Tertullian marked Praxeas as a heretic (Kelly, 1978: 121-22). Paul of
Samosata was condemned at the Third Council in Antioch in A.D. 268.
Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius bishop of Rome along with
many important church fathers condemned Sabellius and regarded his
teachings as Christological heresy (Kelly, 1978: 133-35; Maier, 1999:
274).
After Modalism/Oneness theology reemerged in the twentieth
century, it was again rejected by the church (cf. Chapter 2, 2.3.1).
Advocates of Monarchianism, modalistic and dynamic, held to a
misunderstood view of monotheism resulting in a unitarian/unipersonal
view of God. Oneness theology was reactionary in that Oneness
proponents reacted to the Trinitarianism infused in the apostolic
tradition, namely, the church’s rule of faith. They sacrificed the plain
biblical teaching of a tri-personal God, at the expense of a heterodox
unipersonal concept of God. Appropriately, the early church resisted
this view with immense passion and commitment, gallantly contesting
186
it by way of ecumenical councils and detailed theological letters. The
early church saw Oneness theology as a radical departure from the
biblical teaching regarding the nature of God.
The historical records speak clearly: the early church envisaged a
tri-personal God. Hence, they assertively condemned any teaching that
controverted or rejected the essential distinctions among the divine
Persons of the Trinity. For “the catholic (universal) Faith is this: that we
worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding
the Persons; nor dividing the Essence”45 (Schaff, 2006: vol. 3: 9:690-
91).

45
The original Latin reads: Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate,
et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam
seperantes. This statement comes from the beginning portion of the Athanasian Creed
(also called, Quicunque vult, “Whosoever will [be saved]”). Although not penned by
Athanasius himself (it probably originated about the middle of the fifth century, in the
school of Augustine [Schaff, 2006: vol. 3: 9:696]), it nevertheless represents his views
and the views of the early church (esp. that of Nicaea). Hence, it is one of the most
defined and utilized creed of early and present-day Christendom.

187
 Chapter Six

CONCLUSION

In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says that all of Scripture is theopneustos—“God

breathed out.” Therefore, only if a doctrine is exegetically established
can it be “biblical.” Hence, doctrine has to be formulated under the
authority of Scripture, and be consistent with its teaching. The doctrine
of the Trinity is God’s highest revelation to people. As we have shown
in Chapter 5, the early church, important ecumenical councils, and
resulting creeds valiantly affirmed and defended the biblical revelation
of the triune nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity has been shown
exegetically and consistently to be truly biblical—“God breathed out.”
God has revealed Himself in three Persons, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit. To reject the triune God is to reject the God of biblical
revelation: “The LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him”
(Deut. 4:35; cf. John 17:3). This is how God has chosen to reveal
Himself to people. Bernard (1983: 299) states that Oneness theology
“magnifies Jesus Christ, exalts His name, recognizes who He really is,
and acknowledges His full deity.” However, denying the Trinity and the
deity of the Son and thus, the way God revealed Himself in the pages of
Scripture, does not magnify Christ, rather it renounces Him (cf. John
5:23).
We have shown that in Oneness theology, Jesus supposedly has two
natures, divine and human. Although orthodox Christianity also sees
Jesus as having both a divine and human nature, Oneness theology
fundamentally differs in that it asserts that the divine nature of Jesus
represents the “Father” and/or “Holy Spirit” mode, whereas the human
nature of Jesus represents merely the “Son” mode, thus denying the
biblical teaching that Jesus is unipersonal—that is, the two-natured
Person. Naturally, Oneness theology rejects the preexistence of the Son
since the “Son” signifies only the human nature of Jesus, not His divine
nature. Thus, it wipes away the biblical presentation of the incarnation
of the Son, asserting rather that the Father took flesh. Now attempting
to prove that this position is consistent with Scripture requires one to
accept the following propositions:

188
 1. God exists as a unipersonal Being, namely, the Father.

2. Monotheism means one Person (unipersonalism).

3. The New Testament teaches that the name of the unipersonal

God is “Jesus.”

4. The “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” cannot be Persons

(because of proposition #1), but modes or roles of Jesus.

5. Passages that appear to indicate personal distinction between the

Father, Son and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14)
merely denote a distinction of modes or functions, not Persons.

6. Passages that appear to indicate that the Son preexisted (e.g.,

John 17:5; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12) merely denote that the
Son was in view of or a future plan of the Father.

7. The early church was Oneness.

8. The concept of the Trinity is pagan (i.e., derived from pagan

sources) and thus false.

Beyond this, Oneness theology rejects justification through faith alone,

asserting that water baptism “in the name of Jesus” is a necessary means
of regeneration (esp. UPCI; cf. Chapter 3, 3.5). Therefore, Oneness
doctrine is heterodox on two accounts: theological and soteriological.
We have seen the exegetical affirmation of both the triune nature of God
and the unipersonality of Jesus Christ throughout Scripture. The biblical
evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is so clear that Oneness teachers
must disconnect their arguments from any meaningful exegetical
interaction, as observed. Especially seen in the Gospel of John is the
presentation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct,
coexistent relational Persons (cf. John 5:31-32; 8:17-18; 14:16-17;
15:26). Again, note these highlights from the Gospel of John, which
clearly support the doctrine of the Trinity:
➢ The differentiation between the Father and the Word
grammatically and contextually expressed in 1:1b (kai ho logos
ēn pros ton theon; cf. also 1:18)
189
 ➢ Passages that speak of the Father sending the Son (cf. 3:17; 6:38,
41, 50-51, 62)
➢ Passages that speak of the Son personally communicating with
the Father (17:1ff.)
➢ Passages that speak of the Father loving the Son (and the reverse;
cf. 3:35; 5:20; 10:17)
➢ Jesus utilizing first and third person pronouns and references to
differentiate Himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit (14:7,
10, 16, 26; 15:10; 16:13-14; 17:5)
➢ The Son commanding/requesting the Father to glorify Him with
the glory that He shared with (para) the Father before time (cf.
17:5)

Although John’s gospel contains a higher concentration of material on

the essential nature of Jesus Christ, we have also shown that the synoptic
gospels provide many refutations of the Oneness position and positive
endorsements for a triune concept of God. Again, there are three biblical
premises that factually exhibit the doctrine of the Trinity: 1) there is one
God, 2) there are three divine Persons (or self-aware subjects), and 3)
these three divine Persons are distinct from each other. Hence, the term
“Trinity” appropriately defines the biblical data from which these three
premises derive.

6.1 THE TRI-PERSONAL GOD REVEALED IN THE OLD

TESTAMENT

The New Testament provides the primary exegetical data for the
concept of the Trinity—one God revealed in three distinct Persons.
However, if the true God exists as a triune Being, we would certainly
expect to see this revelation stated implicitly or explicitly in the Old
Testament as well. Anti-Trinitarian groups categorically deny that the
Old Testament believers conceived God as multi-personal. The
unconcealed basis of this supposition is the a priori assumption that God
is unipersonal, thus, the Oneness/unitarian theological starting point:
monotheism equals unipersonalism. Nevertheless, this supposition
disintegrates when we scrupulously examine the Old Testament
190
writings. In saying that though, we are not suggesting that the Old
Testament authors clearly conceptualized or fully comprehended the
full revelation of the Trinity as revealed in the New Testament. The
nature of divine truth is progressive in that God has progressively
unfolded many of His truths in the history of redemption. As Hodge
(2003: 446) rightly points out:

The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized

in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible ... All that we
find unfolded in the fullness of the gospel lies in a rudimental
form in the earliest books of the Bible. What at first is only
obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts
of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fullness.

Hence, important biblical doctrines such as the incarnation and

substitutionary atonement exist principally in the shadows of the Old
Testament narrative, poetry and prophecy while the full revelation exists
in the New Testament: God’s salvific work in the Person of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God (cf. Rom. 5:6-10; Heb. 1:1-2).
The false notion that monotheism equals unipersonalism is the
theological starting point that precludes Oneness advocates from
considering the concept of the Trinity (which they see as three Gods).
In the face of this assumption, we established first that monotheism
denotes one God, not one Person. Second, the term used to denote that
the Lord God is “one” in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 6:4) was echad.
As we have shown, this term can carry the meaning of complex or
compound oneness or unity (e.g., Gen 2:24; 11:6; Exod. 26:6, 11).
Also, dissimilar to echad and other Hebrew terms meaning “one,”
the term that is in fact limited to a meaning of solitary “one” or “alone”
(Ps. 68:6) is yachiyd, but this word was never applied to God. This
certainly prompts the question: If the Old Testament authors held to a
unipersonal concept of God, thus seeing God existing as one sole
Person, then, why would they apply echad to God and not yachiyd?

6.1.1 Multi-Personal References

There is no passage in the Old Testament (or in the New) that expresses
or defines God as unitarian/unipersonal (cf. Henry, 1999: 153-55). The
Old Testament authors used various terms and phrases which actually
portrayed God as multi-personal. Earlier (Chapter 5, 5.6.2.1), we
191
showed that the early church utilized the first person plural verbs, nouns,
adjectives, and prepositions to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament to
emphasize His multi-personal nature (Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; Isa.
6:8).46 In the same way, Jesus made use of plural verbs to clearly
differentiate Himself from the Father (cf. John 14:23). The Old
Testament clearly describes Yahweh as a multi-personal Being. The
evidence is irrefutable. Passages such as Genesis 19:24 and Daniel 7:9-
14, for instance, clearly present two distinct divine Persons. And the
differentiation between the Memra (“Word”) of Yahweh and Yahweh
contained in the Targum is unquestionable (cf. Chapter 4, 4.5).
There are many explicit multi-personal descriptions of God in the
Old Testament (cf. Isa. 48:16; Hosea 1:6-7). At many places, the Old
Testament authors used plural nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions
to describe God. For example, Isaiah 45:9 reads, “Woe to him who
quarrels with his Maker.” “Maker” here is singular in Hebrew.
However, in Isaiah 54:5, “Maker” and “husband” are plural in Hebrew,
literally, “For your Makers is your husbands, the LORD Almighty is
His name” (emphasis added). Similarly with Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel
be glad in his Maker [lit., Makers].” In Ecclesiastes 12:1, “Creator” is
also plural in Hebrew, as accurately rendered in Young’s Literal
Translation: “Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth.”
Many other examples can be cited where the Old Testament authors
use plural references to describe the one true God (e.g., plural nouns
Gen. 1:26 [“our image, likeness”]; plural verbs: Gen. 1:26; 2:18 [LXX];
11:7; Job 35:10; plural prepositions: Gen. 3:22, etc.]). Again, only
within a Trinitarian context are these plural references consistent with
the strict monotheism of the Old Testament. For if indeed the Old
Testament authors were unitarian, thus holding to the notion that God is
unipersonal, we must ask: Why would these authors use plural words
(i.e., nouns, adjectives,47 verbs, and plural prepositions) in reference to
God? And why would these inspired authors, “carried along by the Holy
Spirit,” use echad, which can mean composite unity (e.g., Deut. 6:4) and
not the Hebrew word yachiyd denoting absolute solitary oneness (e.g.,
Judg. 11:34; Ps. 68:6) when referring to the oneness of God? (cf.
46
Again, of the early church Fathers cited, not one used a so-called “plural of majesty”
postulation to explain the first person plural terms used of God.
47
In Proverbs 30:3, Agur writes that he does not “have the knowledge of the Holy
One.” The adjective “Holy” here is in the masculine plural (Heb. qadoshim, lit., “Holy
Ones”; same as 9:10). Accordingly, the LXX renders qadoshim as hagiōn, which is
the genitive plural of hagios (lit., “Holy Ones”).
192
Chapter 2, 2.2). This is the Oneness/unitarian presupposition emerging
out of the false notion that monotheism equals unipersonalism. In
contrast, the textual evidence supports the premise that the Old
Testament presents Yahweh as a multi-personal Being referred to as
“Makers,” “Creators” and “Holy Ones,” and had personal interaction
and dialogue with “another” Person called Yahweh.48

6.2 GOD IN THREE PERSONS: A BIBLICAL CONCLUSION

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age”
(Matt. 28:19-20).

Going back to the three premises of the Trinity: Scripture presents that
1) there is one God, 2) there are three divine Persons (or self-aware
subjects), and 3) these three divine Persons are distinct from each other.
Said another way, Scripture presents three divine Persons, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit that share the nature of the one Being. The
three premises set forth above adequately and simply define the
“biblical data” for what we call the Trinity. Oneness believers reject the
doctrine of the Trinity and embrace a unitarian or unipersonal view of
God mainly because of their a priori assumption that monotheism
means unipersonalism.

6.2.1 Important Refutations Presented

Contextual Refutations: We have shown the biblical evidence for the

deity and unipersonality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and
their personal distinction. Scripture presents that the Persons exist in an
“I-You” continuous loving relationship with each other (esp. seen in
John 1:1 and 17:5). Contextually, Jesus is plainly presented as someone
“other” than the Father and Holy Spirit (esp. Matt. 28:19; Luke 1:35;
10:21; John 14-16; Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 4:4-6; 2 Thess.
2:13; Titus 3:5-7; Heb. 1:1-12; 1 Pet. 1:2-3; 1 John 1:1-3). Scripture
provides no allowance for a modalist understanding. In contrast, we
48
As pointed out (Chapter 4, 4.5), the “angel of the Lord” references are compelling
evidence that God is multi-personal (e.g., Gen. chaps. 18-19; 22:9-14; Exod. 3:6-14;
23:20-21; Num. 22:21-35; Judg. 2:1-5; 6:11-22; 13:9-25; Zech. 1:12; etc.).
193
have seen that Oneness theology denies any idea of personal distinction
between Jesus and the Father and/or the Holy Spirit. Further, Oneness
teachers restrict any terminology that may imply a distinction between
Jesus and the Father and/or the Holy Spirit to a distinction of mere
function, not Person. However, Scripture controverts this notion in the
clearest way. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever claimed that Jesus was
the Father or Holy Spirit. Nor was Jesus ever called “Father” or “Holy
Spirit” in Scripture.
For over two hundred times, Jesus is specifically referred to as
“Son” and over fifty times Jesus and the Father are rendered distinct in
the same verse.

Grammatical Refutations: The principal Oneness assertion is that God

is unipersonal (Jesus) and therefore, there are no distinctions between
Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However, we have shown
comprehensively that from a grammatical perspective the three Persons
of the Trinity are distinct.

(a) Grammatical constructions involving the repetition of both the

article ho and the conjunction kai. Passages such as Matthew 28:19;
2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 1:3; 2:22; and Revelation 5:13 confirm a
grammatical differentiation between two or all three Persons of the
Trinity. In each of the passages above, the Greek conjunction kai is
inserted between nouns of the same case and each of those nouns is
preceded by the article ho; each noun denotes “a different person, thing,
or quality from the preceding noun.” Within the particular limitations of
the rule, there exist no exceptions (cf. Chapter 3, 3.4.2.1). Note the literal
rendering of these passages:
• Matthew 28:19: “Baptizing them in the name of the [tou] Father,
and [kai] the [tou] Son, and [kai] the [tou] Holy Spirit”
(emphasis added).
• 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ
and [kai] the love of the [tou] God and [kai] the fellowship of
the [tou] Holy Spirit with all of you” (emphasis added).
• 1 John 1:3: “Indeed our fellowship is with the [tou] Father and
[kai] with the [tou] Son of Him Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).

194
 • Revelation 5:13: “The [tō] One sitting upon the throne and [kai]
to the [tō] Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and
the dominion into the ages of the ages” (emphasis added).49

(b) Grammatical constructions involving the lack of the article ho

and the repetition of the conjunction kai. In Paul’s salutations50 the
two personal nouns “God” (Father) and “Lord” (Jesus) are connected by
kai and the first noun (“God”) lacks the article. According to the rules
of Greek grammar, this means that each personal noun denotes a distinct
person: Charis humin kai eirēnē apo theou patros hēmōn kai kuriou
Iēsou Christou, literally, “Grace to you and peace from God Father of
us and Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Chapter 3, 3.3.3)

(c) Different prepositions. There are many places in Scripture where

different and/or a repetition of prepositions denotes a clear distinction
between Jesus and the Father (and the Holy Spirit). In 1 John 1:3, we
find that the preposition meta, “with” is repeated before each of the
personal nouns: “We proclaim to you also, so that you too may have
fellowship with [meta] us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta
tou] Father and with [meta] His Son Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).
Here, Christians (“us”), the Father, and His Son all are proceeded
by the preposition meta. Aside from this, as we just saw, the repetition
of both the article and conjunction here also differentiates the Father and
“His Son.” There are several passages where different prepositions
denote a distinction between all three Persons in the Trinity (also cf.
John 14:6, 12; 15:26; 16:28; Eph. 2:18).

(d) Specific prepositions that mark a distinction of Persons. John 1:1

and John 17:5 especially affirm the personal distinction between Jesus
and the Father. In John 1:1b the Apostle John uses the specific
preposition pros to make his case. We have shown in detail that pros in
1:1b signifies the personal distinction (and intimacy) between the Father
and the Person of the Word who became flesh. Although the grammar

49
Also, passages such as 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; and 1 John 2:22-
23 contain Sharp’s rule #6 constructions clearly differentiating two Persons—Jesus
and God the Father.
50
Paul’s salutations are found in Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2;
Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2 (partial); 1 Thessalonians
1:1 (inverted); 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; and
Philemon 1:3 (cf. Chapter 3, 3.3.3).
195
places tou theou (1:1b, the Father) and theos (1:1c, the Word) in the
same category (viz., “God”) in terms of essence/nature, it does not place
them in the same category of “Person” in terms of identity, for “the
Word was with God” (cf. Chapter 4, 4.5).
In John 17:5, we previously read (Chapter 4, 4.5) of the beautiful
and intimate High Priestley prayer of Jesus to His Father: “Now, Father,
glorify Me together with Yourself, [para seautō] with the glory which I
had [eichon] with You [para soi] before the world was” (emphasis
added). The passage strongly refutes the Oneness position mainly on
three counts. First, the Son claims that He had (echon,
“shared”/”possessed”) divine glory with the Father “before the world
was” proving that the Son absolutely preexisted—thus existing pro tou
ton kosmon einai—“before the world was.” Second, the Son claims that
He had this preexisting glory with (para) the Father—that is, a shared
glory. This critically opposes the Oneness position that maintains that
the Son is non-divine and non-eternal (cf. Bernard, 1983: 116-17).
And third, the fatal strike against the Oneness position is the fact
that the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case two
times in this passage (para seautō, lit., “together with Yourself”; para
soi, lit., “together with You”) grammatically indicating a “near,”
“beside,” or “in the presence of” meaning. As pointed out, para with the
dative is used ten times in John’s literature and at no place in John’s
literature does it mean “in the mind.” And, to say again, no standard
lexicon applies such a meaning as “in the mind” to the text of John 17:5.
To say otherwise is simply lexical abuse. Hence, the Son clearly
affirmed His preexistence “alongside of” “in association with,” God the
Father— before time. “This is not just ideal preexistence, but actual and
conscious existence at the Father's side” (Robertson (1932: 5:275-76).

(e) The significance of the preposition dia followed by the genitive

case showing that the preexistent Son was the Creator. We
previously examined several passages exegetically, confirming that the
Son was the Agent of creation—the Creator of all things. This point
alone disproves the Oneness claim of a non-eternal, non-divine Son. Just
as John 1:1, 18; and 17:5 indicate that the Son preexisted with the Father,
passages such as John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; and Hebrews 1:2 show
that the Son was the Creator of all things. We saw that in these passages,
the Greek preposition dia, followed by the genitive case positively
shows that the Son of man, Jesus Christ was the actual Creator. In

196
Greek, dia followed by the genitive denotes “agency” (cf. Chapter 4,
4.6).

Historical Refutations: In Chapter 5, we explored the historical record

of the early church, objectively examining the early ecumenical councils
and their resulting creeds, and the documentation of the many
unmodified statements of important early church fathers, mainly on the
issue of the nature of God. The evidence is indisputable: the early church
embraced a tri-personal God. We observed that 1) the most important
ecumenical councils and their resulting creeds were definitely
Trinitarian in nature, 2) many of these councils pointedly refuted and
condemned the philosophy of Sabellianism/Oneness and affirmed the
triune nature of God (esp. the deity of the Son) in a straightforward and
unambiguous fashion, and 3) the early pre-Nicene Fathers, although
lacking the definitive and articulate language to describe the Trinity, did
not envisage God as unipersonal, but rather as a tri-personal Being.
As the years went on, biblical research considerably expanded and
thus, the need to express doctrine in a more coherent manner was
essential, especially in the challenge to heresy. So, by the fourth century,
there was a marked increase in the utilization of formalized doctrinal
words and phrases to define adequately the Trinity. The historical
evidence proves verifiably that Bernard’s (1983: 43) assertion: “As far
as we can tell, the early church Christian leaders in the days immediately
following the apostolic age were Oneness,” is historically untrue.

The Preexistence of the Son: In Chapter 3, we exegetically debunked

the Oneness teaching that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.
However, we contend that the exegetical presentation of the
preexistence of the Son and His role as Creator is one of the strongest
points of refutation against Oneness theology. The Son is the Creator
and has been eternally existing with the Father (esp. seen in Dan. 7:9-
14; John 1:1-3; 18; Col. 1:16-17; Phil. 2:6-11; and the prologue of
Hebrews). This proves biblically beyond doubt that 1) the
unipersonality and deity of the Son, 2) the actual preexistence of the
Son, and 3) the Oneness fundamental teaching that the Son’s life
emerged in Bethlehem is patently false.

197
6.2.2 Personal Loving Fellowship between the Persons in the Trinity

The personal attributes and personal characteristics constitute

personhood. In Chapter 3 we presented biblical evidence highlighting
specific personal attributes, which the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit
possess—especially emotive expression (e.g., love). The Oneness
position of a unipersonal deity, which only manifested or projected its
modes/roles at different times, turns the eternal and intimate relationship
between the Father and the Son into a mere illusion. In contrast,
Scripture presents the three Persons of the Trinity intimately and
lovingly relating to each another. For example,
➢ “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into
His hand” (John 3:35; cf. 5:20; 10:17).

➢ The Son really does love the Father: “so that the world
may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the
Father commanded Me” (John 14:31).
➢ In the same way, the Holy Spirit really does love the
believer (cf. Rom. 15:30).

Oneness teachers maintain that it was merely Jesus’ divine nature (the
Father) loving the human nature (the Son). However, by way of
definition, two abstract natures cannot have intimate fellowship and
actual emotive love for each other, for natures cannot express emotion.
Only self-aware subjects that are cognizant of their own existence can
possess such emotion. In other words, only conscious persons can give
and receive love. The Son was the very object of the Father’s love.
Biblically we find either two of all three Persons engaging in expressed
love (e.g., John 1:1; 14:23; Rom, 15:30; 2 Cor. 13:14; 2 Thess. 2:16;
Jude 1:1).

6.2.3 Personal Loving Fellowship between the Persons of the Trinity

and Believers

What opposes further the Oneness unipersonal view is the way Scripture
expresses the love and continuous fellowship that all three Persons of
the Trinity have for believers.

198
Paul concludes his second letter to the Corinthians with this benediction:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
fellowship [koinōnia] of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14;
emphasis added). Love and fellowship are definitive characteristics of
personhood, not natures or modes. Again, the personal aspects of the
grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of the Father, and fellowship of the
Holy Spirit grammatically differentiate all three Persons of the Trinity
(cf. Chapter 3, 3.4.2.1). The Apostle John also expresses the unity and
fellowship that believers have with the distinct Persons of the Father and
the Son: “We proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship
[koinōnia] with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with
His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3; emphasis added).
The Holy Spirit likewise gives love to believers: “Now I urge you,
brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive
together with me in your prayers to God for me” (Rom. 15:30; emphasis
added). The biblical data is rich with examples where the three Persons
of the Trinity engage in loving intercourse, fellowship and
communicative dialogue between each other and with believers.

6.2.4 The Soteriological Trinity

Theologians have long noted three important aspects of the Trinity,

ontological, economic and soteriological. Scripture clearly
distinguishes these three aspects. The ontological Trinity focuses on the
essence or nature of the three Persons. Thus, all three Persons are in
nature God, being ontologically coequal. The economic Trinity,
however, focuses on the mutual operations or functionality of the three
Persons. The term “economic” comes from the Greek term,
oikonomikos (“arrangement/management of a household). Now the
soteriological51 Trinity focuses on the specific functions or specified
role each Person of the Trinity has in the redemptive or salvific work of
God’s elect. Notice the following biblical examples, which clearly
express the soteriological Trinity:

The Father elects and justifies His people: “Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ” (Eph. 1:3; emphasis added)

51
“Soteriological” is from the Greek word, soteria (“salvation”).
199
in which “He chose us” in Christ (Eph. 1:4; cf. 2 Thess. 2:13) and
justified us (cf. Rom. 8:33).

The sole ground of justification is the vicarious substitutionary

atoning work of the Son in His perfect life and cross-work52 (the sole
instrument being faith): “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1). “In Him
we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph.
1:7). The Son completed the work that the Father had given Him. In
John 6, the Son speaks of His preexistence with the Father and His
promise (covenant) of redemption for the elect of God:

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has
given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For
this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the
Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself
will raise him up on the last day ... No one can come to Me
unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him
up on the last day” (John 6:39-40, 44).

It was the Son who came from heaven (sent by the Father) and laid down
His life for His sheep (cf. John 1:29; 10:15, 29).

It is the Holy Spirit who effectually calls and regenerates (cf. Ezek.
36:26-27; Titus 3:5), and “is given as a pledge of our inheritance” (cf.
Eph. 1:14): We “are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (1 Pet. 1:2). Therefore,
from start to finish, salvation is the work of the triune God. It was
necessary that God the Son became flesh. If the Son was not God, as
Oneness theology teaches, then the redemption of “the many” (Mark
10:45) could not have been accomplished. For “no man can by any
means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him, for the
redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever” (Ps.
49:7-8). The biblical teaching of the soteriological Trinity challenges
the entire Oneness theological system.

52
The Son’s righteousness consists of His active or preceptive obedience (i.e., His
sinless obedient life) and His passive or penal obedience (i.e., His cross-work). It is
this perfect obedience of the Son that the Father imputes to the sinner at the time the
sinner places his or her faith in Christ Jesus, God the Son (cf. Rom. 4:4-8; 2 Cor. 5:20-
21).
200
The Oneness idea of a unipersonal God in which Jesus is the Father
prompts a few serious theological questions regarding the biblical view
of salvation. How is Jesus “mediator” if Jesus is the same Person as the
Father? Between whom would He mediate? By definition, a mediator
mediates on behalf of two parties. A mediator is not one of the parties
himself, but a third party or go-between. 1 Timothy 2:5 makes this point
clear: “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus” (cf. Gal. 3:20). Only because Jesus Christ is a
distinct Person other than the Person of the Father can He “mediate”
between God and men. On the same lines, Paul says that Jesus
“intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:34). However, if Jesus is the Father,
between whom does Jesus intercede?
Even more, if Jesus is not a distinct Person from the Father, whom
did He propitiate? (cf. 1 John 2:2). When Paul states that God “delivered
Him [Jesus] over for us all” (Rom. 8:32), did Paul really mean that Jesus
as the Father delivered Himself up as the Son for sacrifice? How does
one interpret all the sending of the Son passages—Jesus the Father
sending Jesus the Son? The Oneness understanding of salvation is
apparently flawed when a careful evaluation of these questions and
others are answered in light of the exegetical scrutiny of the biblical text.
The testimony of Scripture speaks of infallible salvation accomplished
by the triune God, not a unipersonal deity. The soteriological Trinity
teaches that God “saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have
done in righteousness, but according to His [the Father] mercy, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He
poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:5-
6; emphasis added).

6.3 SUMMARY

Oneness theology makes two significant doctrinal assertions, 1) there is

only one eternal God and 2) Jesus Christ is fully God. From these two
assertions, Oneness advocates conclude that the one God (i.e., one
Person) is “Jesus” manifesting as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One’s
particular theology can mold and shape the meaning of many doctrinal
words and phrases. In other words, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
Oneness Pentecostals pour decidedly different meanings into phrases
such as “Son of God” or terms such as “God” and “Father”. Unless

201
doctrinal words and phrases are “biblically” justifiable, they cannot be
“biblically” true.
Thus far, we have read the doctrinal definitions of many terms and
phrases asserted by Oneness advocates. Their two main affirmations,
“one God” and “Jesus is God” are defined through the lens of Modalism:
“one God” meaning “one Person” and “Jesus is God,” meaning that
Jesus is Father. From its theological origins in the second century,
Oneness theology assumes a prior theological conclusion: God is
unipersonal. Assuming that God exists as one Person, Oneness teachers
naturally see “Jesus” as the name of this unipersonal God who merely
manifests as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
A unipersonal God is entirely antithetical to a triune God, thus, this
is the basic reason why Oneness teachers categorically reject the
concept of the Trinity. Oneness theology must redefine monotheism in
order to maintain a unipersonal concept of God void of any pre-creation
relationships. In opposition, we have exegetically shown that God is tri-
personal in which each of the three Persons or Selves engage in loving
intercourse and intimate fellowship before time with each other.
Logically, unipersonalism and Trinitarianism (completely adversative
to each other), cannot represent the true God simultaneously. The
unitarian/unipersonal assumption is really the nucleus of Oneness
theology.
Thus, Oneness believers falsely equate three Persons (Trinity) with
three Gods (tritheism) and one God (monotheism) with one Person
(unipersonalism). This is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical
doctrine of the Trinity, which results, of course, in a tritheistic
understanding. We have comprehensively documented the
theological/Christological divergences of Oneness theology,
demonstrating that Oneness theology is a non-orthodox system:

1. Oneness theology denies the Person and unipersonality of the

Father by asserting that Jesus was the Father Himself, and by
claiming that the Father was merely a mode or manifestation
of the unipersonal deity named Jesus.
2. Oneness theology denies the Person and unipersonality of the
Holy Spirit by asserting that Jesus was the Holy Spirit Himself,
and by claiming that the Holy Spirit was merely a mode or
manifestation of the unipersonal deity named Jesus.

202
 3. Oneness theology denies the Person, unipersonality,
preexistence and deity of the Son by asserting that the Son’s
life had a beginning and will have an end.
4. It claims that the Son was merely a temporary mode or
manifestation of the unipersonal deity named Jesus.
5. Oneness theology denies the incarnation of the Son by
asserting that the Father came down and wrapped Himself in
human flesh (though, not actually becoming flesh).

Notwithstanding the indefatigable efforts of Oneness promoters to

present a unipersonal God, the exegetical evidence affirming the Trinity
is invincible and overwhelming. There are copious examples in the Old
Testament where multi-personal references are specifically used of
Yahweh. There is no passage or concept in the Old Testament or New
Testament that explicitly or implicitly states that God is one Person as
Oneness teachers presume. In dealing with the New Testament
revelation of the triune nature of God, there follows a summary of the
key exegetical affirmations that substantiate the Trinity and provide a
well-defined refutation to Oneness theology:

1. The context of specific passages denotes a personal distinction

between all three Persons of the Trinity.
2. The grammar of specific passages denotes a personal distinction
between Jesus and the Father, and/or the Holy Spirit.
3. Specific passages denote contextually and grammatically the
deity of the Son, contrary to the Oneness modalistic position that
sees the “Son” as merely the humanity and not the deity of Jesus.
4. Specific passages denote the Person of the Son as (a) the actual
Creator of all things and (b) preexisting with the Father.

The case for the Trinity, therefore, is biblically incontrovertible. There

exist three distinct self-conscious Persons (or self-aware subjects
cognizant of their own existence)—the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. All three distinct Persons share the nature of the one God, being
coequal, coeternal and coexistent. All three Persons are called theos, and
kurios, in a religious context, sharing in the works of God and
203
possessing the very attributes of God. We find the truth of the Trinity
contained in nearly every page of Scripture. The clear differentiation of
all three Persons of the Trinity is well exampled in the New Testament.
We contended that for something to be “biblically true” the exegesis of
the biblical text must substantiate it.
As we have demonstrated in careful detail, the doctrinal
conclusions of Modalism historically and presently were not the result
of an exegetical analysis of specific biblical texts, but rather a faulty
understanding of monotheism, and thus they are distortions of biblical
Trinitarianism. Monarchianism in both forms (modalistic and dynamic)
attacks the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ. Far from being the
“apostolic doctrine,” the early church roundly and universally
condemned Modalism as Christological heresy.
Although Oneness advocates claim allegiance to Jesus Christ as
their God and Savior, they embrace “another Jesus ... different spirit ...
different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). Eternal life is having knowledge in “the
only true God, and Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). The true God is triune.
Reformed theologian Jonathan Edwards (Helm, 1971: 118) rightly
stated that “the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist
both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are
properly distinct persons.” The biblical revelation of God speaks of a
triune God.
The Oneness rejection of the Trinity rejects the very nature of God
Himself. Jesus spoke clearly on the subject: “You will die in your sins;
unless you believe that I am” (John 8:24). To err on the biblical teaching
of the Son is a deadly error (John 3:36; 1 John 5:12). Embracing the
Trinity is a distinguishing characteristic of Christians; and that is to say
that the doctrine of the Trinity is, according to our Lord’s own
apprehension of it, the distinctive mark of the religion which He has
founded (Warfield, 1988: 155).
Scripture presents a clear and definitive Christology. In sharp
contrast to Oneness Christology, Scripture presents that the Person of
the Son 1) is fully God, 2) was Creator of all things, 3) coexisted with
the Father, 4) is personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit,
and 5) became fully man in order “to give His life a ransom for many”
(Mark 10:45). It was the Son’s sacrificial death on the cross that
redeemed sinners. The Son is the only mediator and intercessor between
God the Father and human beings. The Jesus Christ of biblical
revelation is the divine Son, the monogenēs theos, a personal self-aware
subject, distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. “He who has the
204
Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the
life” (1 John 5:12).
Only the true God of biblical revelation can remove the heart of
stone of a sinner, give that person a new heart of flesh, and thus declare
that person righteous in His sight. Jesus affirmed in John 17:3 that
eternal life is to know “the only true God and Jesus Christ.” The true
God of biblical revelation is triune—the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit. This is the historic Christian faith.

205
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, B. et al. ed. 1993. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.

27th. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Aland, B. et al. ed. 2012. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.

28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Ankerberg, J. & Weldon, J. 1999. Encyclopedia of Cults and Religions.

Eugene, OR: Harvest House.

Apostolic Constitutions. Book V11:3. In Donaldson, J. & Roberts, A.

(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

Athanasius. De Synodis. In Schaff, P. & Wace, H. (eds). 1994, Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd. series. Vol. 4. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

____________. Defense of Dionysius. In Schaff, P. & Wace, H. (eds).

1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd. series. Vol. 4.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

____________. Discourses Against the Arians. Discourse III. In Schaff,

P. & Wace, H. (eds). 1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd.
series. Vol. 4. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. In Richardson, CC. (ed.). 1970,

Early Christian Fathers. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Awake Magazine. 8 December. 1973. Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible

and Tract Society.

Basil the Great. To the Notables of Neocaesarea. Letter CCX. In Schaff,

P. & Wace, H. (eds) 1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd.
series. Vol. 8. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

206
Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd. ed. (rev. and ed. by Danker,
FW). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Beisner, CE. 1998. ‘Jesus Only’ Churches. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Berkhof, F. 2003. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker.

Bernard, DK. 1983. Oneness of God. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame.

____________. 1984. “The New Birth.” In Wallace, MH (ed.), Series

in Pentecostal Theology. Vol. 2. Antioch, TN: Pentecostal
Publication.

____________. 1985. Essentials in Oneness Theology. Hazelwood,

MO: Word Aflame.

____________. 1991. Oneness and the Trinity, A.D. 100-300: The

Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings. Hazelwood: Word
Aflame.

Bethel Ministerial Association. 2008. Homepage. [Online].

http://www.daveweb1.com/bma/Difference/articles.html
[Accessed 5 May 2008].

Bietenhard, H. 1976. “Onoma.” In Brown, C. (ed.), The New

International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Bowman, RM. 1989. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer
to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Bowman, RM. & Komoszewski, JE. 2007. Putting Jesus in His Place:
The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Boyd, GA. 1992. Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker.

207
____________. 1995. Jesus Under Siege. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

____________. 2000. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to

the Open View of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Brown, F, Driver, SR & Briggs, CA. 1979. The New Brown-Driver-

Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, with an Appendix
Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Brown, RE. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York,

NY: Doubleday.

Buzzard, AF & Hunting, CF. 1998. The Doctrine of the Trinity:

Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Lanham, MD: International
Scholars Publications.

Calvin, J. 1989. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. by

Beveridge, H. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

____________. 1994. “John.” In Alister, MA & Packer, JI (eds).

Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Carson, DA. 1996. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

____________. 2002. Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Chalfant, WB. Ancient Champions of Oneness. Hazelwood, MO: Word

Aflame, 1979.

Clanton, C, Croucher, D. & Dugas, P. 1984. Bible Doctrines:

Foundation of the Church. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame.

Clement of Alexandria. Fragments. In Donaldson, J. & Roberts, A.

(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

Clement of Rome. Letter to the Corinthians. In Holmes, MW (ed.).

1999, Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations.
Grand Rapids MI: Baker.
208
Countess, RH. 1982. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Crampton, WG. 1986. Biblical Hermeneutics. Lakeland, FL: Whitefield

Press.

Graves, RB. 1977. The God of Two Testaments. Antioch, TN:

Pentecostal Publication.

Cremer, H. 1878. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek.

Trans. by Urwick, W. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

Cunningham, DS. 1998. These Three Are One. Malden, MS: Blackwell.

Cyprian. To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. In Roberts,

A & Donaldson, J (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. Lecture XVI. In Schaff, P. &

Wace, H. (eds). 1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd
series. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Dana, HE & Mantey, JR. 1927. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Didache. In Richardson, CC (ed.). 1970, Early Christian Fathers. New

York, NY: Touchstone.

Dionysius of Alexandra. Epistle to the Bishop of Rome. In Roberts, A.

& Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Dionysius of Rome. Against the Sabellians. In Roberts, A. &

Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.

Donaldson, J & Roberts, A (eds). 1994. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 Vols.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
209
Edwards, J. 1971. “An Essay on the Trinity.” In Helm, P. (ed.), Treatise
on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings.
Cambridge, MA: James Clarke and Co.

Ellis, DJ. 1986. “The Gospel of John.” In Bruce, FF (ed.), The

International Bible Commentary with the New International
Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ellison, HL. 1986. “The Gospel of Matthew.” In Bruce, FF (ed.), The

International Bible Commentary with the New International
Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

English, AC & Olson, RE. 2005. Pocket History of Theology. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Epistle of Barnabas. In Holmes, MW (ed.). 1999, Apostolic Fathers:

Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

Eusebius of Caesarea. History of the Church. In Maier, P (ed.). 1999.

Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

____________. Proof of the Gospel [Demonstratio Evangelica]. In

Ferrarx, WJ (ed.). 1981. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

____________. The Life of Constantine, Book II. In Schaff, P. & Wace,

H. (eds). 1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd series. Vol.
1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Fales, RM. 2006. Koine Greek: A Practical Handbook for the Study of
the Greek New Testament. Northridge, CA: The Biblical
American Archaeologist.

Fee, GD. 1985. The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels.
Vancouver, BC: Regent College.

Funk, FX. 1910. A Manual of Church History. Vol. 1. Trans. by

Cappadelta, L. London, UK: Paul Kegan.

210
Geisler, NL & Nix, WE. 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible.
Chicago, IL: Moody.

González, JL. 1988. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1. Nashville,

TN: Abingdon.

Greenlee, HJ. 1986. A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament

Greek. 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Greenslade, SL. 1996. Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian,

Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press.

Gregory Thaumaturgus. A Declaration of Faith. In Roberts, A. &

Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.

____________. A Sectional Confession of Faith. In Roberts, A. &

Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.

Guinness, O. 1983. The Gravedigger File. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity.

Gunton, CE. 2003. Father, Son & Holy Spirit. New York, NY: T & T
Clark.

Hanegraaff, H. 1993. Christianity in Crisis. Eugene, OR: Harvest

House.

Harris, JG. 1999. Gnosticism: Beliefs and Practices. Eastbourne, East

Sussex, UK: Sussex Academic.

Harris, MJ. 1992. Jesus as God: The New Testament Usage of Theos in
Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Hawthorne, GF & Martin, RP (eds). 1993. Dictionary of Paul and his

Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

211
Hendriksen, W. 1980. First and Second Timothy and Titus. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker.

Henry, CFH. 1999. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. 5. Wheaton,

IL: Crossway.

Hermas. The Shepherd. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999, Apostolic Fathers:

Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

Heslam, J. 2006. “Rev-ved up over Joel; Country’s hottest preacher hits

Hub.” The Boston Herald. 3 September 2006.

Hippolytus. Against the Heresy of One Noetus. In Roberts, A. &

Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.

____________. The Extant Works and Fragments, Exegetical, On

Genesis. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene
Fathers. Vol. 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

____________. The Refutation of All Heresies. In Roberts, A. &

Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson.

Hodge, C. 2003. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson.

Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and
English Translations Grand Rapids MI: Baker.

Hutchinson, J. 1994. Out of the Cults and Into the Church:

Understanding and Encouraging Ex-Cultists. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel.

Ignatius. Letter to the Ephesians. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999,

Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand
Rapids MI: Baker.

212
____________. Letter to the Magnesians. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999,
Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand
Rapids MI: Baker.

____________. Letter to the Romans. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999,

Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand
Rapids MI: Baker.

Irenaeus. A Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called

[Against Heresies]. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994,
Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Jakes, TD. 2008. “Doctrinal Statement.” The Potter’s House Church

[Online]. www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-
Statement.aspx [Accessed 1 May 15 2008].

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J.

(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

____________. First Apology. In Richardson, CC. (ed.). 1970, Early

Christian Fathers. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Kelly, JD. 1978. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco, CA:

HarperCollins.

Kevern, P & Gooder, P. 2004. Exploring New Testament Greek. St.

Albans, London: SCM Press.

Kohlenberger, JR III, Goodrick, EW & Swanson, JA. 1997. The Greek-

English Concordance to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.

Kuschel, KJ. 1992. Born Before all Time?: The Dispute over Christ’s
Origin. Trans. by John Bowden. New York, NY: Crossroad.

Larry King Live. CNN. 20 June 2005, 21:00 ET. Television.

Lenski, RCH. 1943. The Interpretation of John’s Gospel. Minneapolis,

MN: Augsburg Fortress Press.
213
Liddell, HG, Scott, R & McKenzie, R. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon.
9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

MacArthur, JF. 1993. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

____________. 1995. “The Sufficiency of the Written Word.” In

Kistler, D (ed.) Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the
Bible. Orlando, Fl: Soli Deo Gloria.

McNamara, MS. 1972. Targum and Testament, Aramaic Paraphrases

of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

Magee, G. 1988. Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is The Godhead in Jesus?

Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame.

Martin, RP. 1983. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent

Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. 2nd
ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Martin, W. 1997. Kingdom of the Cults. (ed. and rev. by Hanegraaff,

H.). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany.

Mathetes. Letter to Diognetus. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999, Apostolic

Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids MI:
Baker.

Mayhue, R. 1986. How to Interpret the Bible for Yourself: Cutting it

Straight. Winona Lake, IN: Brethren Missionary Herald.

Methodius of Olympus. Oration concerning Simon and Anna on the

Day that they met in the Temple. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J.
(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

214
____________. Oration on the Psalms. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J.
(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

Metzger, BM. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New

Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart, DE: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Moloney, FJ. 1998. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 4.
Collegeville, PA: The Liturgical Press.

Moreland, JP. 1997. Love Your God with all Your Mind: The Role of
Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Morey, RA. 1996. The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. Iowa Falls, IA:
World Bible Publishers.

Morris, L. 1986. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Moule, HC. 1977. Philippians Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Moulton, J & Milligan, G. 1982 (reprint). Vocabulary of the Greek New

Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary
Sources. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Mounce, WD. 1993. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. 1984. Brooklyn, NY:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Niederwimmer, K. 1988. The Didache: A Commentary. Trans. Attridge,

HW. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Nolland, J. 2005. The Gospel Of Matthew: A Commentary On The

Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

215
Novatian. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity. In Roberts, A.
& Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Olson, RE & English, AC. 2005. Pocket History of Theology. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Paterson, J. 1953. The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus’ Name.

Hazelwood, MO: Pentecostal Publishing House.

____________. 1966. God in Christ Jesus. Hazelwood, MO: Word

Aflame.

Pelikan, J & Poellot, DE (eds). 1959. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John
Chapters 6-8. Luther’s Works, Vol. 23. St. Louis, MO:
Concordia.

Plummer, A. 1896. “The Gospel According to S. John.” In Perowne, JJS

(ed.), Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools. London, UK:
Cambridge Press.

Polhill, JB. 1992. “Acts.” In New American Commentary. Nashville,

TN: Holman Reference.

Polycarp. The Martyrdom of Polycarp. In Holmes, MW. (ed.). 1999,

Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand
Rapids MI: Baker.

Reeves, KV. 1962. The Godhead. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame.

Reymond, RL. 1998. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith.

Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Richards, LO. 1991. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Richardson, CC (ed.). 1970. Early Christian Fathers. New York, NY:

Touchstone.

216
Robertson, AT. 1930-33. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 Vols.
Nashville, TN: Broadman.

____________. 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research. Nashville, TN: Broadman.

Rogers, AJ. 2015. “Mark My Words.” In Puritan Reformed Journal.

Vol. 7. Num. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Puritan Reformed Theological
Seminary.

Rogers, CI & Rogers, CL. 1998. New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to
the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan .

Ryrie, CC. 1986. Basic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Schaff, P. 1887. Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical

Notes. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
____________. 2006. History of the Christian Church. 8 Vols. 3rd. ed.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Schaff, P & Wace, H (eds). 1994. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 1st.
series. 14 Vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

____________. 1994. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd. series. 14

Vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

____________. 1994. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 2nd. series.

Vol. 14. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Segraves, DL. 1996. Hebrews: Better Things. Hazelwood, MO: Word

Aflame.

Sharp, G. 1803. Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article in the Greek
Text of the New Testament. 3rd. ed. London, UK: Vernor & Hood.

Shedd, WGT. 1887. “Introductory Essay.” In Schaff, P. & Wace, H.

(eds). 1994, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 1st series. Vol. 3.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

217
Shepherd of the Hills. 2008. “What we believe.” [Online].
http://www.theshepherd.org/who-we-are/about-us/what-we-
believe [Accessed 2 May 2008].

Smith, JF (ed.). 1976. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake
City, UT: Deseret Book Company.

Smith, W. 1986. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. Rev. and ed. by Peloubet,

FN & Peloubet, MA. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. Book I. In Schaff, P & Wace, H (eds).

1994. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd. series. Vol. 2.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Spence, HM & Exell, JS. 1962. “Colossians.” In The Pulpit

Commentary. Vol. 20. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Sproul, RC. 1977. Knowing Scripture. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity.

Swanson, J. 1997. The Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic

Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament). Electronic ed. HGK285. Oak
Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Tenney, MC. 1984. “The Gospel of John.” In Expositor's Bible

Commentary. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Tertullian. Against Praxeas. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J. (eds). 1994,

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Thayer, JH. 1996. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2009. “Statistical

Report.” [Online]
http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-9,00.html
[Accessed 1 May 2008].

The Greek New Testament [UBS4]. 2001. Aland, K. et al. (ed.). 4th ed.
New York, NY: American Bible Society.

218
Theophilus. To Autolycus. Book II. In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J.
(eds). 1994, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson.

Torrance, TF. 1999. Trinitarian Perspectives: Towards Doctrinal

Agreement. Edinburgh: UK: T & T Clark.

Torrey, RA. 1923. The God of the Bible. New York, NY: George H.
Doran Company.

Tsoukalas, S. 1999. Knowing Christ in the Challenge of Heresy: A

Christology of the Cults, a Christology of the Bible. Lanham, MD:
University Press.

United Pentecostal Church International. 2016a. Homepage. [Online].

http://www.upci.org [Accessed 1 February 2016].

United Pentecostal Church International. 2008b. “The Apostles’

Doctrine.” [Online]. http://www.upci.org/doctrine/apostles.asp
[Accessed 1 May 2008].

United Pentecostal Church International. 2008c. “60 Questions on the

Godhead.” [Online].
http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp [Accessed 1 May
2008]. Now (2016) at
https://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/60-questions-on-the-
godhead-index/

Vine, WE. 1966. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

with Their Precise Meanings for English Readers. 17th ed. Old
Tappan, NJ: Revell.

Vincent, MR. 2004. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 2.

Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Vouga, O. 1967. Our Gospel Message, St. Louis, MO: Pentecostal

Publishing House.

Walker, W et al. 1997. A History of the Christian Church. Edinburgh,

UK: T & T Clark.
219
Wallace, DB. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical
Syntax of the New Testament, with Scripture, Subject, and Greek
Word Indexes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ware, BA. 2000. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open
Theism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Warfield, BB. 1950. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia, PA:
The Presbyterian and Reformed.

____________. 1988. Biblical Doctrines. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth

Trust.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. The Kingdom Interlinear

Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 1989a. Reasoning from the

Scriptures. 2nd. ed. Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1989b. Should you Believe in the
Trinity? Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 2009. Homepage. [Online].

http://www.watchtower.org [Accessed 9 May 2008].

Weisser, T. 1983. Three Persons from the Bible? or Babylon. Antioch,

TN: Pentecostal Publishing House.

Westcott, BF & Hort, FJA. 1895. The New Testament in the Original
Greek. New York, NY: Macmillan.

White, JR. 1988. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of

Christian Belief. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House.

____________. 1996. The Roman Catholic Controversy: What Draws

and Divides Evangelicals. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House.

220
____________. 2004. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible’s Accuracy,
Authority, and Authenticity. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House.

____________. 2007. The God who Justifies. Minneapolis, MN:

Bethany House.

William. S & Headlam, AC. 1904. A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York, NY:
Scribner..

Wuest, KS. 1955. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English
Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Young, EJ. 1972. Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans.

221
 About the Author

EDWARD L. DALCOUR is the President and Founder of the

Department of Christian Defense, a Christian apologetic ministry based
in Los Angeles, CA. He also serves as Tutor for Greenwich School of
Theology (London, England) and holds the appointment of Senior
Lecturer of the North-West University Faculty of Theology
(Potchefstroom, SA). Dr. Dalcour holds a Master in Apologetics from
Columbia Evangelical Seminary and a Doctorate of Philosophy in
Dogmatic Theology from North-West University. Dr. Dalcour is an
international speaker and has been featured on many Christian and
secular Radio and TV Networks. He is a theological author and
contributor to various Christian organizations, books, theological
journals, publications, and numerous counter-cult and apologetic tracts
and pamphlets. Dr. Dalcour currently resides with his wife and family
in Los Angeles, CA.

Dr. Dalcour can be contacted at:

Department of Christian Defense
P.O. Box 2128
Winnetka, CA 91396
[email protected]
www.christiandefense.org

222
“Too often apologetics is a subject uniquely avoided in many denominations
and evangelical circles. Edward Dalcour has not conveniently avoided the
calling of the apologist to defend the faith in his book A Definitive Look at
Oneness Theology. Because the Christian church, by and large, is greatly
deficient in providing a clear biblical affirmation and a scriptural defense of
the doctrine of the Trinity, those who champion Oneness theology (or
Modalism) have circled the wagons and with persistence and have continued
to make unfounded attacks on the core of biblical theology. Oneness theology
is a doctrinal attempt to destroy and undermine the simple truth of the holy
Trinity. Dalcour provides a refreshing affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity
and a cogent exegetical refutation of the ancient heresy known then as
Modalistic Monarchianism, known today as Oneness Pentecostalism. This
book is a much needed answer to the confusion that surrounds many
unsuspecting Christians.”
—Dr. Richard M. Fales, Director and editor for the Biblical and American
Archaeologist. Professor of Archaeology, Greek, and Apologetics for Cal
Pacific, Theological Department of Pacific International University

“Let me be blunt, without faith in the true God of Holy Scripture, one cannot
have salvation. Edward Dalcour has done the Christian church a great service
through his book A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology. With his exegetical
skills of the Holy Scriptures, vast knowledge of the topic, and immense passion
for the subject, Dalcour clearly demonstrates who the one true God of the Bible
is. Every apologetic group, pastor, and Bible teacher ought to have this book
and a working knowledge of this subject.”
—Timothy D. Oliver, Director, Christian Soldiers Ministries

“Oneness theology cuts through the very heart of biblical theology. It rejects
and distorts the biblical revelation of God. Regrettably, the Oneness view of
God has found its way into Christian communities and networks of all sorts.
In A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, Edward Dalcour plainly and
biblically shows the fundamental differences between the unipersonal God of
Oneness theology and the triune God of historic biblical Christianity. Finally,
a clear-cut presentation of Oneness theology, which examines the issues
carefully and objectively, has arrived. This book is a must read for all
Christians!”
—Tom Sirotnak, President, SEND Ministries, International and Regional
Director, Christian Men’s Network

223
224
225