The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/upc2.lzh/UPC2.TXT

Text File | 1991-07-13 | 39KB | 726 lines

CUL:Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity  by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

   A Biblical Critique by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

   From: Christian Research Institute magazine Forward, Fall 1985.

   An astonishing number of professing Christians today reject the
doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, there are obvious examples of this,
like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Then there are the
"Christian" liberals who reject the Trinity along with the Incarnation
as myths. Evangelicals generally have no trouble identifying such
movements as heretical, since in each case they deny the deity of
Christ.

   Recently, though, anti-trinitarianism has emerged in yet another
form, that of Oneness Pentecostalism. (1) The movement began in 1913
and has grown quickly since then to over four million worldwide, (2)
making it the second-largest anti-trinitarian movement. (Mormonism is
the largest with over five million.)

   What sets Oneness Pentecostalism apart from other anti-trinitarian
heresies is its seeming orthodoxy. Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's
Witnesses, for example, Oneness Pentecostals teach both that there is
one God and that Jesus is fully God. For this reason, many Christians
have difficulty seeing anything wrong with the Oneness position.
Moreover, unlike Mormonism and similar sects, Oneness Pentecostals make
no appeal whatsoever to extrabiblical literature or modern leaders for
authoritative interpretations of Scripture. Compared to many other
controversial sects, Oneness Pentecostalism appears quite orthodox in
many respects.

   If the Oneness doctrine is heretical, then, it must be admitted to
be a much subtler error than that of many current heresies. Subtlety
does not, however, make an error less dangerous, but more, since the
subtler the error the more people are likely to fall for it (people are
more apt to accept a criminal's conterfeit bills as real money than
they are Monopoly bills). This potential danger makes it all the more
important that the Oneness teaching be evaluated on the basis of
Scripture.

   DEFINITIONS

   The Oneness position is "the doctrine that God is absolutely one in
numerical value, that Jesus is the one God, and that God is not a
plurality of persons." (3)

   God is generally said to be neither one "person" nor three, on the
assumption that the term "person" is applicable only to individual
human beings; the incarnate Jesus, though, is agreed to be one person.
(4)

   The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three "manifestations" of the
one God, who is not, though, limited to these three manifestations. (5)

   Because almost all Oneness groups hold to the Pentecostal doctrine
that receiving the Holy Spirit is evidenced initially by speaking in
tongues, these groups are generally called "Oneness Pentecostals."

   Oneness believers usually reject the nick-name "Jesus Only," feeling
that it implies a rejection of belief in the Father. (6) However, the
name derives from their insistence that baptism is to be administered
"in the name of Jesus only."

   The doctrine of the Trinity was concisely stated by the Westminster
Confession of Faith (1647): "In the unity of the Godhead there be three
persons (personae), of one substance, power, and eternity: God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." (7)

   Thus, the Trinity is understood to be one God, yet three "persons."
The Athanasian Creed explicitly rejects tritheism (belief in three
Gods), stating that "they are not three Gods: but one God." (8)

   Despite this fact, Oneness believers, along with Jews, Muslims,
Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, condemn the Trinity as tritheism. (9)
The principal reason for this misinterpretation is a faulty
understanding of the term "person." Its long and fascinating history
cannot be traced here. (10)

   The first theologian to use it of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
was Tertullian (circa A.D.200), who borrowed the term in its legal
sense of "a party to a legal action" and used it in a relational
context, while insisting that the three 'personae' were one God. (11)

   To speak of three eternal persons in this sense is to recognize
relationships among the Three that transcend manifestations in history.
That is, each person is a self-aware subject who relates to each of the
other two as "another."

   In our finite world, we are used to encountering only finite beings,
and every person we meet is an entity separate from all other persons.
However, God is not finite, so it may be that as an infinite being He
exists as three distinguishable persons, while remaining one
indivisible essence. Neither can the term "person" be restricted to
human beings, since angels are self-aware subjects also. Whether God is
three persons cannot be determined by reasoning alone, but only by
examining God's revelation of Himself in Scripture.

   IS GOD ONE PERSON?

   The Bible repeatedly asserts that God is one. He is one God (James
2:19) and one Yahweh or Jehovah (Deut.6:4). The first plank in the
trinitarian platform is the indivisible oneness of God. However,
nowhere in Scripture are we ever told that God is one person.

   It is sometimes argued that the use of 'echad' ("one") in
Deuteronomy 6:4 indicates that God is a composite unity. That is not
quite accurate, since "composite" speaks of a uniting together of parts
into a whole, whereas the three Persons are not three "parts" or three
"thirds" of God. Nor is it true that 'echad' necessarily indicates some
sort of inner plurality. Like its Greek counterpart 'heis' in the

   New Testament, 'echad' is simply the common Hebrew word for "one."
However, like both 'heis' and "one," 'echad' does not necessarily imply
absolute, unqualified and undifferentiated unity. Rather, the word
"one" in any language can only indicate unity as unity, whether that
unity is in some sense differentiated or not must be determined by
other factors. For example, to say that a certain biological entity is
"one organism" says nothing about whether it is unicellular (e.g., an
amoeba) or multicellular (e.g., a man). It may be one organism in one
cell or one organism in many cells. In a logically analogous manner,
God might be one God in one person or one God in three persons.

   Of course, if God is three persons, these "three" cannot be three
parts (as cells are parts of an organism). Since God is an infinite
being, He cannot be composed of parts in any case. Yet it may be that
He exists as a kind of differentiated infinite unity that is 'triune'
(three in one) though not 'triplex' (three in parts). Since this is the
infinite God we are talking about, there will be no corresponding or
analogous instance of "triunity" or trinity in nature. We must be
careful, then, not to beg the question by assuming that the unity of
the Deity will be the same sort of unity as we find in the finite world.

   IS JESUS THE FATHER?

   According to Oneness theology, the term "Father" designates Christ's
deity, while "Son" designates either His humanity considered separately
or His deity as manifested in the flesh. Therefore, while Oneness
believers say that the Father is not the Son, they do hold that Jesus
is both the Father and the Son.

   The most common prooftext used to prove that Jesus is the Father is
Isaiah 9:6, which gives Christ the name "Everlasting Father," or
rather, "Father of eternity" (as Oneness writers admit. (12)

   The use of "Father" here supposedly identifies Jesus as the "God the
Father" of the New Testament. However, this is not the case. A number
of proper names in the Old testament use the term 'ab' "in accordance
with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a
thing is called the father of it." (13)

   Thus 'Abiethon' (2 Sam. 23:31), "father of strength," means
"strong"; 'Abiaseph' (Ex.6:24), "father of gathering," means
"gatherer"; 'Abigail' (1 Chron.2:16), "father of exultation," is a
woman's name meaning "exulting"; and so forth.(14) Evidently, then,
"Father of eternity" in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is eternal. This
would imply, of course, that He is the creator of the ages (cf.
Heb.1:2; 11:3), but not that He is "the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ" (2 Cor.1:3).

   In John 10:30, Jesus stated, "I and the Father are one." Oneness
believers erroneously understand this to mean that they are one
'person.' As is often pointed out, such an interpretation is guarded
against by the use of the neuter 'heri' rather than the masculine
'heis' for "one," thereby suggesting essential unity but not absolute
identity. (15)

   Also precluding a one-person interpretation is the first-person
plural "we are" ('esmen'). If Jesus were the Father, He could have
said, "I am the Father," or "the Son and the Father are one ('heis'),"
or some other equivalent; but as it stands, John 10:30 excludes
modalism and Oneness as surely as it excludes Arianism.

   Another such prooftext is John 5:43, where Jesus rebukes the Jews:
"I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another
comes in his own name, you will receive him." Oneness writers
consistently interpret "in My Father's name" as meaning that Jesus'
name is the Father's name (i.e., Jesus is the Father). (16)

   However, the expression "in the name of" here clearly means "in the
authority of"; thus the person whom Jesus warned would come "in his own
name" will come with "no credentials but his own claim." (17)

   To receive someone who comes "in his own name" is therefore,
according to Jesus, a foolish act. This contrast between "My Father's
name" and "his own name" proves beyond question that Jesus did not come
"in his own name." Therefore, "Jesus" is not the Father's name, and so
Jesus is not the Father. Ironically, then, this is one of the clear
prooftexts against the Oneness doctrine that Jesus is the Father.

   Also cited to prove that Jesus' name is the Father's name (and
therefore that Jesus is the Father) is John 17:6,11-12. Oneness writers
emphasize that Jesus "manifested" the Father's name, and that the
Father "gave" His name to Jesus, as evidence that Jesus is the Father.
This interpretation overlooks the fact that a human father can give his
name to his son, without the father and son being one person!

   Moreover, notice that Jesus said twice that His disciples were "in
Thy {the Father's} name." If we interpret this phrase in the sense that
the Oneness believers assign to it in John 5:43, we come to the
ridiculous conclusion that the disciples are the Father! The Oneness
interpretation simply does not work. Since, as even Oneness writers
acknowledge, God's "name" represents His character and His power,(18)
and since in the context Jesus is asking the Father to keep the
disciples holy and united (17:11-12,15-23), it is apparent that Jesus
is saying that He possessed and manifested the character and power of
the Father.

   A favorite passage of modalists in all centuries has been John
14:6-11, where Jesus says, among other things, "He who has seen Me has
seen the Father." Jesus begins by asserting, "No one comes to the
Father except through Me" (v.6). The natural sense of these words is
that Jesus is, not the Father, but a mediator between us and the
Father. Then He states, "If you had known Me, you would have known My

   Father also" (v.7a). This is true, not because Jesus is the Father,
but because those who know Jesus are led by Him to know the Father as
they see Him imaged perfectly in Jesus. Thus, says Jesus, "from now on
you know Him, and have seen Him" (v.7b). Existing with the Father as
the one indivisible Divine Being, Jesus can say, "He who has seen Me
has seen the Father" (v.9). Nevertheless, Jesus does not say, "I am the
Father," but rather, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me"
(v.10, repeated in v.11; cf.10:38).

   Oneness believers frequently cite the second part of this last
statement, "the Father is in Me," to mean that the deity ("Father")
dwells in the humanity ("Son") of Jesus. This view, however, fails to
explain the first part of the sentence, "I am in the Father," which in
Oneness terms would have to mean that the human nature of Jesus dwells
in the deity -- the opposite of what they believe. Moreover, it fails
to account for the fact that 'in this same context,' as well as
elsewhere, Jesus uses this sort of expression to denote His unity with
believers: "In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you
in Me, and I in you" (v.20; cf.17:21-23).

   JESUS IS GOD

   Trinitarians affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God. This does not
mean that Jesus is the only person who is God; rather, it means that
His nature is that of perfect, essential deity. Thus the many passages
which identify Jesus as God (John 1:1; Tit.2:13; etc.) do not teach
that Jesus is the Father. Only by isolating these verses from their
context, and in some cases by ignoring the precise wording used by the
biblical authors, can the Oneness position be maintained.

   Perhaps the Scripture most often cited by Oneness believers in favor
of their view of God is Colossians 2:9, "For in Him {Christ} dwells all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This verse is the basis for the
title of Oneness writer Gordon Magee's widely distributed booklet\Is
Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? (19)

   Since Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of "the Godhead" dwells
in Jesus, Oneness believers argue, the Godhead is in Jesus, not Jesus
in the Godhead. This either/or approach, however, would force
Colossians 2:9 to contradict John 10:38 where Jesus states, "the Father
is in Me, and I am in the Father." Since "the Father" in Oneness terms
is "the Godhead," John 10:38 in their terms means that the Godhead is
in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Godhead.

   When Oneness believers deny that "Jesus is in the Godhead," what
they mean to deny is that Jesus is one person in a triune Godhead.
Colossians 2:9, though, does not rule out that possibility. What it
affirms is that Jesus is no less than the full and complete revelation
of God's nature ('theotetos', "deity") in the flesh. While not all
three persons of God are incarnate in Jesus, all of God's essence is
incarnate in Jesus.

   THE NAME OF JESUS

   Central to the theology of Oneness Pentecostalism is an emphasis on
the name "Jesus" as the name of God since the Incarnation. The Oneness
movement began, in fact, with the "revelation" that the "name" of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken of in Matthew 28:19 was the name
"Jesus," based on Acts 2:38 in particular. (20)

   This is why Oneness Pentecostals are so adamant that baptism be
administered in the name of 'Jesus only.'

   This interpretation assumes that there can be only one correct
baptismal formula, which would not appear to be provable from the texts
themselves. It also makes much of the fact that Jesus said "name," not
"names." (21)

   While this is true, it does not absolutely rule out one name
applying to three persons, since a singular name can apply to two or
more persons (e.g., Gen.5:2; 11:4). Moreover, if one name is meant, it
need not be "Jesus"; it could be "Lord," the New Testament equivalent
of the name of Yahweh in the Old Testament.

   In order to reconcile Matthew 28:19 with Acts 2:38 and similar
passages it is helpful to see them as pertaining to two different
historical contexts. Those who were converted to Christ and baptized in
the name of Jesus were either Jews (Acts 2:5,38; 22:16), Samaritans
(Acts 8:5,12,16), God-fearing Gentiles (Acts 10:1-2,22,48), or
disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-5). (22)

   Already knowing of the God revealed in the Old Testament, the
critical issue for them was a confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior.
When pagan Gentiles who knew little or nothing of the God of Israel
were led to Christ, however, they would need to confess their faith,
not only in Jesus as Lord, but in the one God revealed in Scripture as
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (23)

   Jesus, ordaining that the gospel be taken "to all the nations," made
provision for this in His "great commission" (Matt.28:19). In order to
demonstrate that "Jesus" is the name for God in the New Testament,
Oneness Pentecostals cite passages such as Acts 4:12 ("no other name
under heaven...by which we must be saved") and Philippians 2:9-10 (God
"bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that in the name
of Jesus..."). The point of Acts 4:12 is identical to that of John 14:6
--salvation is through Jesus Christ alone; it does not mean that Jesus
alone is God. In Philippians 2:9-10 "the name which is above every
name" does not mean the name 'Jesus,' but rather, an additional name
which the Father has bestowed on Jesus because of His obedience to the
point of death (v.8). In context, that name is "Lord," since the
passage concludes, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord" (v.11). That "Lord" is the name given to Jesus can be
confirmed by a multitude of texts (see, for example, Acts 2:36;
Rom.10:9, I Cor.12:3; 2 Cor.4:5). This is consistent with the fact that
"Lord" (kurios) is the New Testament equivalent of "Yahweh" or
"Jehovah," the name of God in the Old Testament (e.g., Acts 2:21;
Rom.10:13).

   FATHER AND SON

   According to Oneness theology, the Father and Son are two natures in
the one person, Jesus Christ. If "person" is defined as "an individual
being," then without question God is only one "person" in that sense.
However, that is not the best definition of the term, which is, as we
have already explained, used to mean simply a "self- aware subject,"
that is, an "I" aware of its own existence and the existence of other
self-aware subjects. If, then, the Father and the Son are consistently
presented in Scripture as two self-aware subjects, then they are two
persons, even if they are one being. And the evidence for them being
two persons is overwhelming; only a few examples can be given here. (24)

   There are, first of all, two passages in John where Jesus states
that He and the Father serve as two witnesses authenticating His
ministry (John 5:31-32; 8:16-18). His statement, "there is another
('allos') who bears witness concerning Me (5:32), proves that Jesus is
not the Father. The term 'allos' is used here to mean someone
"different {from} the subject who is speaking." (25)

   In John 8:16-18, Jesus makes the same point, and clarifies it by
quoting the Old Testament principle that two witnesses, not just one,
are required for a judgment to be considered valid (Deut.17:6; 19:15;
also Num.35:30). According to Oneness theology, what Jesus must have
meant was that His divine Spirit and His human nature both testified.

   If Jesus is only one person, though, then only "one person"
testified, not two, as Jesus' words demand. It would make just as much
sense for a man to say in court, "I am two witnesses to the crime -- my
body testifies, and my soul testifies," as for Jesus alone to be two
witnesses. These passages, then, are fairly explicit statements to the
effect that Jesus and the Father are two persons.

   Further evidence is gained from the many passages that state that
the Father sent the Son (John 3:17; Gal.4:4; I John 4:10; etc.). The
point here is not that the Son existed prior to His birth (though that
is true enough), but that the Son is a person other than the Father. It
is therefore irrelevant to our point to cite John 1:6 (which says that
God sent John the Baptist), as Oneness writers often do. (26)

   In fact, John 1:6 lends weight to the trinitarian view, since God
and John the Baptist are, of course, two persons. Moreover, note that
Jesus told the Disciples that He was sending them just as the Father
had sent Him (John 17:18; 20:21). Necessarily implied here is that the
disciples were not Jesus; neither was Jesus the Father. Also relevant
is the fact that the Father loves the Son (John 3:25; 17:23-26; etc.),
and that Jesus loves the Father (John 14:31). This most naturally
implies two persons; it certainly demands relationship, which is
central to our definition of "person." The Oneness explanation, "The
Spirit of Jesus loved the humanity and vice versa," (27) amounts to
saying that Jesus loved Himself. The fact is that natures do not love,
persons do. My human nature cannot love -- only I can love, in and
through my human nature. If Oneness is correct, why is it that Jesus
clearly and consistently implied that He and the Father were two
persons, rather than saying the things which

   Oneness theologians think He meant?

   Devastating to the Oneness view are the passages where Jesus prays
to the Father. Of course, they are aware of the problem and have an
answer -- the human nature prayed to the divine nature. However, this
runs into the same problem as with the love of the two for one another:
natures do not talk, only persons do. In answer to this difficulty,
their response is, "What would be absurd or impossible for an ordinary
man is not so strange with Jesus." (28)

   But this response evades the point: when Jesus prayed He prayed as a
person talking to another person, not as one nature talking to another
nature. Jesus addressed God as "Father," which is a relational term,
not as "My divine nature," as the Oneness believers assume He meant.

   THE PRE-EXISTENT SON

   Since the "Son," in Oneness theology, is the incarnate Jesus Christ,
they cannot allow the doctrine that the Son preexisted His incarnation
to go unchallenged. The concept of "eternal Sonship," and especially
"eternal generation," is, they say, both unbiblical and unreasonable.
On this point, a number of respected trinitarian, evangelical scholars
can be found who agree. (29)

   A mediating position rejects "eternal generation" but retains the
concept of "eternal Sonship." (30)

   For our purpose in this article, it is not esential to settle this
question. What we wish to know is not whether it is proper to speak of
"the Son" as such prior to the Incarnation, but rather, whether the
person who is the Son existed as a person distinct from the Father
prior to the Incarnation. To this question, the biblical answer is a
clear yes.

   For example, Proverbs 30:4 asks concerning God, "What is His name or
His son's name?" This statement clearly implies that the Son existed at
the time the passage was written. To circumvent this conclusion,
Oneness writers argue that the passage is a "prophecy" (see 30:1, KJV,
where this word appears), and is therefore referring to the future time
when God would manifest Himself as the Son. (31)

   However, the word rendered "prophecy" here and at Proverbs 31:1,
'massa', is usually rendered "burden" (over 50 times in the KJV). A
simple reading of chapters 30 and 31 should demonstrate that neither
"burden" is a predictive prophecy. Thus the Son existed at least as far
back as Agur's day (30:1).

   Then there are the many passages which state that the Word or Son
created the universe (John 1:3; Col.1:16-17; Heb.1:2; Rev.3:14; etc.)
Hebrews 1:2 says that God made the ages through His "Son" -- to which
Oneness writers reply that "God used His foreknowledge of the Son when
He created the world. He predicated the entire creation on the future
arrival of Christ." (32)

   Whenever in Scripture the Son is said to have said or done
something, or even existed, prior to the Incarnation, it is explained
as only being true in God's fore- knowledge. This arbitrary handling of
Scripture is justified by appealing to Revelation 13:8, which speaks of
those "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world"(KJV). While this translation is
grammatically possible, the parallel passage in Revelation 17:8
suggests that the correct rendering is, "whose name has not been
written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the
Lamb who has been slain" (NASB).(33)

   Once it is understood that Revelation 13:8 cannot be used to
relegate anything said of the past to the foreknowledge of God, it
becomes clear that Jesus existed prior to creation\with\the Father.
Thus, John 1:1, "the Word was with God," means He was really there.

   The Oneness explanation that "with" ('pros') here should be rendered
"pertaining to," based on Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 (34) ignores the
grammatical difference between John 1:1 and the Hebrews texts.(35)
Jesus' request to the Father in John 17:5 is to be taken literally:
"And now, glorify Me, O Father, with yourself, with the glory which I
had with you before the world existed." The word 'para' ("with") is
"nearly always" used of a personal relationship,(36) and is without
question so used in this context, which uses the relational pronouns
"I" and "You" and the relational name "Father."

   OBJECTIONS

   Confronted with the biblical evidence for a plurality of persons in
the unity of the Deity, Oneness advocates are likely to turn away from
the biblical text itself to one or more stock objections to the
doctrine of the Trinity, all of which are used by anti-trinitarians of
all persuasions. We can only respond briefly to two of these.

   The most common objection to the Trinity is that the doctrine
employs nonbiblical terminology ("Trinity," "person," etc.). While this
is true, it proves nothing. The word "Oneness" is not in the Bible,
either; nor does the Bible ever call the Father or Holy Spirit
"manifestations" of God. On another subject, the words "Bible,"
"canon," and "inerrancy" cannot be found in Scripture, either: shall we
then throw out these words, too, and the doctrines they represent?
Christians use such nonbiblical terms as "Trinity" and "person" because
they express the biblical truth about God in such a way as to exclude
unbiblical perversions of that truth. As Calvin explained concerning
Arius: "Arius says that Christ is God, but mutters that he was made and
had a beginning. He says that Christ is one with the Father, but
secretly whispers in the ears of his own partisans that He is united to
the Father like other believers, although by a singular privilege. Say
"consubstantial" and you will tear off the mask of this turncoat, and
yet you add nothing to Scripture."(37)

   The other common objection to the Trinity is that it was not
formulated until the fourth century. It was supposedly imposed on the
people by the Roman Catholic church (by then quite apostate, we are
told) through the political agency of Constantine at the Council of
Nicea in A.D.325. This argument is a mix of historical truth and error.
First of all, there was no "Roman Catholic church," in the sense of a
hierarchical church structure encompassing churches over a wide area
with the Roman bishop as the head, until the end of the sixth century.
Indeed, the Roman bishop did not even attend the Council of Nicea,
which was almost completely a Council of bishops from the Eastern
churches. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity as such originated long
before Constantine; all of the essential terms (three persons, one
substance, Trinity) were used by Tertullian well over a century before
Nicea. Third, although it is true that Constantine originally supported
Athanasius (the champion of trinitarianism) and deposed Arius, in
A.D.332 he reversed himself and supported Arius; for the next fifty
years or so, Arianism was the ruling movement.

   Moreover, many doctrines which we now consider essential to
Christian faith came to us through an historical development similar to
that of the Trinity. The Bible does not list the books which belong in
the canon; such a list was not put together for the New Testament until
the fourth century, in response to heretics who were adding or
subtracting books from Scripture. The Bible never explicitly insists
that it is inerrant in historical and scientific matters. Inerrancy
'per se' was not explicitly formulated until the nineteenth century in
response to those who said the Bible was inspired but contained errors.

   Thus, doctrines that are taught or implied in Scripture become
'formulated' (given formal structure and definition) in response to
heresy.

   The same is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, which was
formulated to avoid the errors of Arianism and modalism. Thus, far from
being unbiblical, the Trinity is a faithful expression of the biblical
teaching concerning God, and it has guarded the church from heresy for
centuries. To throw out the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of a
modernized version of modalism betrays an ignorance of church history,
as well as a misunderstanding of Scripture.

   HERESY?

   We have seen that the Oneness doctrine of God is not faithful to the
biblical revelation of the Father and Son as two persons, and that the
Oneness rejection of the Trinity is in error. The question now must be
asked how serious an error this is, since theological errors vary in
their harmfulness.

   Evangelicals commonly suppose that a professed Christian movement
may be judged orthodox or heretical simply on the basis of whether or
not it affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. Consequently,
some Christians have concluded that the Oneness doctrine, despite its
denial of the Trinity, is essentially Christian.

   This is far too simplistic, however. While it is true that adherence
to the two natures of Christ is critical to orthodoxy, and while most
pseudo-Christian sects do deny that Jesus is both fully God and fully
man, simply affirming the two natures is not enough. Indeed, it is
possible to call Jesus "God" and still have "another Jesus" (2
Cor.11:4), if in calling Him "God" one means something significantly
different from what the Bible means.

   Such is the case with the Oneness understanding of the deity of
Christ. When Oneness believers say that Jesus is God, what they mean is
that He is the Father. That is not what the Bible means, as we have
seen. Rather, when the Bible says that Jesus is "God," it means that He
exists eternally as a divine person in relationship with the Father;
or, to use the church's theological shorthand, it means that He is the
second person of the triune God.

   The apostle John warns us, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the
Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John
2:23). Oneness Pentecostals will not admit to denying the Son, of
course; but that should come as no surprise. It is doubtful that any
heretic, including those about whom John specifically warned, has ever
admitted to denying the Son. Instead, heretics of all kinds have simply
redefined the meaning of the term "Son" (and along with it the meaning
of "Father"). Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses define "Son" as "direct
creation," while the Mormons claim that Jesus is the "Son" of God by
virtue of having been begotten through physical union between God and
Mary. The Oneness redefinition of "Son" as the human nature of Jesus
(and "Father" as His divine nature) may be less offensive than the
Mormon version, and less obvious than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
but it is a redefinition nonetheless. The fact is that the Son and the
Father are two persons, co-existing eternally in relationship with one
another. To deny this fact is to deny the biblical Son, and thus to
have a false view of Jesus.

   It turns out, then, that one's view of Christ cannot be separated
from one's view of the Trinity. Deny the Trinity, and you will lose the
biblical Christ; affirm the Christ of Scripture, the Christ who was
sent by the Father and who sent the Holy Spirit, and you will find that
your God is the Trinity. It is, in fact, the doctrine of the Trinity
that is the distinctive feature of the Christian revelation of the
nature of the true God. As Calvin expressed it: "For He so proclaims
Himself the sole God as to offer himself to be contemplated clearly in
three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and empty name of
God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God."(38)
Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the trinity
is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about
the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers
have said as much.(39) Therefore, while there may be individual Oneness
believers who are saved, the Christian community has no choice but to
regard the Oneness movement as a whole as having departed from the
Christian faith.

   We must conclude, then, that the Oneness teaching is a heresy, that
it denies a fundamental, basic belief of biblical Christianity, and
that those churches and denominations which teach this heresy are
actually pseudo- Christian sects. In popular Evangelical terminology,
such a heretical sect is known as a "cult," a term which simply means
that the group's beliefs are in some important respect non-Christian.

   In this sense, we regretfully conclude that the Oneness churches are
indeed cults, and we urge Christians to reach out to Oneness believers
in love and share with them the triune God revealed in the Scriptures.

   NOTES

   l. On the history of Oneness Pentecostalism, see David Arthur Reed,
"Origins and Development of the Theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in
the United States," Ph.D. diss. (Boston, MA: Boston University Graduate
School, 1978); and Oneness writer Frank J. Ewart, "The Phenomenon of
Pentecost" (Houston: Herald Publishing House, 1947; rev.ed., Hazelwood,
MO: Word Aflame Press, 1975). Word Aflame Press (hereafter WAP) and
Pentecostal Publishing House (hereafter PPH), both located in
Hazelwood, are the official publishing houses of the United Pentecostal
Church, the largest Oneness denomination in the world. Due to the
brevity of this article, our analysis of Oneness Pentecostalism is
largely restricted to the UPC.

   2. David B. Barrett (ed.), "World Christian Encyclopedia" (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1982), p.837.

   3. David K. Bernard, "The Oneness of God" (WAP, 1983), pp.321-322.
This book is probably the best and most complete defense of the Oneness
doctrine of God in print.

   4. Bernard, op.cit., pp.257-258,287; Kenneth V. Reeves, "The
Godhead" (Revised), 6th ed. (WAP, 1962), pp.26-28; John Paterson, "God
in Christ Jesus" (WAP. 1966), p.40.

   5. Bernard, op.cit., pp.142-143,288.

   6. Reeves, op.cit., pp.24-26.

   7. Philip Schaff, "The Creeds of Christendom" (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1983 reprint), Vol.III, pp.607-608.

   8. Schaff, op.cit., Vol.II, p.67. An excellent line-by-line
discussion of the creed is found in "Creeds, Councils and Christ," by
Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), pp.175-191.

   9. Bernard, op.cit., pp.257-260; Reeves, op.cit., p.9.

   10. See Bray, op.cit., pp.78-79,146-171.

   ll. Bray, op.cit., p.78.

   12. Paterson, op.cit., p.12.

   13. Albert Barnes, "Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and
Practical: Isaiah," Vol.I (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950
reprint), p.193.

   14. Benjamin Davidson, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon"
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981 reprint), pp.1-2.

   15. For example, see R.C.H. Lenski, "The Interpretation of St.
John's Gospel" (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961),
pp.759-761.

   16. David Campbell, "All the Fullness" (WAP, 1975), p.43; John
Paterson, "The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name" (PPH, 1953),
p.16; Bernard, op.cit., pp.126,137.

   17. F.F. Bruce, "The Gospel of John" (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), p.138.

   18. Bernard, op.cit., pp.42-44.

   19. (Pasadena, TX: Gordon Magee, n.d.).

   20. Reed, op.cit., pp.97-103; Ewart, op.cit., (WAP ed.), pp.105-109.

   21. Paterson, "The Real Truth," p.12.

   22. The Corinthian Christians were predominantly Jews and
God-fearing Greeks from the synagogue (Acts 18:1-8; cf. I Cor.1:13).

   23. F.F. Bruce, "The Spreading Flame" (Exeter, England: Paternoster
Press, 1958), pp.240-241.

   24. Space does not permit a discussion of the distinct personhood of
the Holy Spirit. However, it is safe to say that, once persuaded of the
fact that the Father and Son are two persons of an indivisible God,
most will concede the truth of the Trinity. This writer has never yet
encountered a "binarian."

   25. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, "A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature"
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p.39.

   26. Bernard, op.cit., p.184; Magee, op.cit., p.24.

   27. Bernard, op.cit., p.186. 28. Bernard, op.cit., p.177.

   29. Notably Adam Clarke; see David Campbell, "The Eternal Sonship"
("A Refutation According to Adam Clarke")(WAP, 1978). Walter Martin
also rejects the eternal Sonship doctrine, while insisting on the
eternal preexistence of the Word (Logos): see "The Kingdom of the
Cults" (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), pp.115-117.

   30. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., "A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Religion" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), Vol.I,
pp.111-112.

   31. Bernard, op.cit., pp.50,159-160; Magee, op.cit., p.23.

   32. Bernard, op.cit., p.116.

   33. Alan F. Johnson, "Revelation," in "The Expositors's Bible
Commentary," edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol.12 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p.528.

   34. Bernard, op.cit., pp.61,188.

   35. In John 1:1 we have 'pros ton theon', "with God," whereas in
Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1 we have 'ta pros ton theon', "the things {'ta'}
having to do with God." The use of the neuter plural article 'ta'
changes the meaning of 'pros.'

   36. Arndt and Gingrich, op.cit., p.615.

   37. "Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion," edited by John
T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles; Library of Christian
Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Vol.I, p.127
(I.xiii.5).

   38. Calvin, op.cit., p.122 (I.xiii.2).

   39. Bernard, op.cit., pp.17,19,244,299,319; Reeves, op.cit., p.23.