Trinitarianism vs. Oneness: Competing Christian Theologies
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.
1st Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Oneness vs. Trinitarianism
A first principle every reader of the Bible must work from if they are ever to understand the real debate between trinitarian Christianity and oneness Christianity: There are no ‘trinitarian scriptures’ and there are no ‘oneness scriptures’; there is only the scriptures. The scriptures speak for themselves and of themselves – they stand on their own, independent of (even if related to) our theology. As Bible teachers, we cannot fall into the trap of believing that there are some scriptures that ‘work on our behalf’ and others that ‘work against us.’ That is a schismatic trap that has created many denominations. The Bible must remain in its proper place in the mind of sincere believers: True, inerrant, and unconflicted. If there presents an issue or apparent discrepancy for the Christian throughout their reading of the Bible - oneness or trinitarian - the issue is with the reader and not the text. Working from that principle – that the Bible is not flawed, but my understanding could be, the reader may begin to be changed by the text.
Colossians 2:8-9
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of me, after the rudiments of the world of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Why is there tension between trinitarianism and oneness doctrines? I suspect that, to some degree, the issue for oneness believers begins here: Oneness doctrine does not just teach that there is one God. All Christians (as well as Muslims and Jews for that matter) agree on this fact: There is one God. But the question at hand for these competing theologies is not, “Is there one God or not?” The issue at hand is, “Do we all believe that God is one?” While this may seem like a subtle difference, I assure you it is not. Furthermore, this distinction has kept oneness believers diametrically opposed to a vast majority of Catholic and denominational Christianity for thousands of years. This first objection (that God is one) exists independent of the question of water baptism - a topic which will be discussed later in this lesson.
James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
If believing in one God were enough to make one categorically a believer, then the issue would be settled and thousands of years of debates surrounding the godhead would seem a non sequitur; however, in the above passage, James seemed to imply that belief in one God is the predicate for almost nothing in life. Even the devils believe there is only one God – will they be saved too? There is, then, a greater revelation that the redeemed must have: It is the revelation of who God really is, not just what He is.
The Trinitarian Perspective
Trinitarianism: God is three co-equal, consubstantial (sharing a substance), co-eternal persons. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father; The Spirit is not the Father, nor the Father the Spirit; and the Son is not the Spirit, nor the Spirit the Son.
Ironically, it is the presence of the ‘language of distinction’ between Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament that has facilitated much of the support for trinitarian doctrine throughout the years. Jesus prays to the Father (Matt. Ch. 26) The Father sends the Son into the world (John ch. 3) and the Son knows the Father who sent Him (John ch. 17). On the surface, this would seem to settle the argument for many trinitarian thinkers. There exists a rhetorical distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit throughout the New Testament. Even if these distinctions were only titular, it would seem to justify the trinitarian perspective. Nevertheless, it is often the frequently cited ‘language of distinction’ throughout the Bible which most immediately challenges the trinitarian perspective.
Below are some examples of certain passages of Scripture that – while including the language of distinction – reveal a conundrum for trinitarian thinkers.
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matthew 26:39
And he went a little futher, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 17:3-4
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
While on the surface these passages would appear to present problems for the oneness perspective, they are, in fact, a hurdle to trinitarian theology. The issue at hand is the question of co-equality and consubstantiality; if God the Father and God the Son are co-equal, what are readers of the New Testament to assume about the aforementioned passages?
A submitted Christ – as opposed to a co-equal second person – is the constant and consistent presentation of Jesus in the New Testament – therefore we have not a “God the Son” but a “Son of God.” And it is for this reason that “God the Son” is an unbiblical phrase.
The submission of Jesus Christ to God the Father throughout the New Testament is not a hurdle to Apostolic doctrine – far from it, in fact. For oneness believers, the divinity of Christ is indivisible from the Creator of the Old Testament. His submission, while certainly presenting and possessing a distinction from the Father, is the disclosure of the man, Jesus of Nazareth, in whom the fullness of God dwells (Col. 2:9) and nothing more. For the oneness believers, the submission of Jesus Christ simply upholds what Christians have believed for centuries – that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man.
For trinitarians, however, the language of distinction exists to disclose divine second personhood, not humanity. This creates problems for the structure of the theology itself. If the doctrine of the trinity states that God exists in three co-equal persons, but, in the Bible, the second person is often and necessarily submitted to the first person, then we have not three co-equal persons, but a greater person and a lesser. In other words, if the Father and Son are co-equal, then why, throughout the New Testament, are they so often not equal?
The language of distinction presents a problem for many Christian thinkers: It either means that Christ is not truly God, or it means that throughout the New Testament, the language of distinction is not the language of divine second-personhood but the language of submission. In both cases, trinitarian thought is challenged: Either Jesus is not God, or He is God. If He is God, then the role of the language of distinction within trinitarianism must necessarily take on a different shape altogether: The submission of a man – Jesus of Nazareth – to the only true and wise God – The God of Israel.
Philippians 2:10-11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
If there are three co-equal persons in heaven, will the two bow-down to the one? And if the Father won’t bow, why did the writer say, “Every knee of things in heaven”? Is the Father in heaven? And if not the Father, will the Spirit bow? And if the Spirit will bow how, then, are they “co-equal?”
God & The Father: Another Distinction
Another problem that arises from treating the language of distinction as the language which denotes equal persons of God is the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the only three subjects of divine distinction throughout the Scripture.
Ephesians 5:20
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Colossians 2:1-2
For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.
Colossians 3:17
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
1st Thessalonians 2:3
Remembering without ceasing your works of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Variously throughout the New Testament the writers saw fit to write of God descriptively – with the same language of distinction that exists between “Father & Son” – as “God & The Father.” For trinitarians, is this supposed to denote a fourth (less discernable?) person of God? Or does this language of distinction serve another purpose entirely? Of course, if it is rational to say that “God” and “Father” are not intended to be understood as separate persons in the godhead, why, then, is the same logic not applied to “Father” and “Son”? Here, another inconsistency is revealed: The lines of apparent distinction between the three persons of the godhead are much less clear than trinitarian thinkers have often supposed. This is, perhaps, never clearer than when examining Romans chapter eight. We will review this subject next.
What Spirit Dwells on the Inside of the Believer?
Romans 8:9-11
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have no the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he describes the Spirit which dwells within the believer variously as:
1. The Spirit of God
2. The Spirit of Christ
3. Christ in you
4. The Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from the dead
5. The Spirit of that Spirit which raised Jesus from the dead
From the trinitarian perspective, the question may rightly be asked – are there three Spirits dwelling inside of the believer? Perhaps four? Or is the Scripture saying something else? Once again it is clear – the various adjectives, descriptors, and even names that Paul uses to describe the Spirit of God in Romans are not meant to be understood as individual persons in the godhead – rather they are the various and manifold revelations of who lives in the believer.
Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
In Paul’s writing to the Ephesians, he makes two critical points about the Spirit of God:
1. It is omnipresent – (above, through, and in us all).
2. It is the Father who dwells inside the believer.
Once again, it must rightly be asked from a trinitarian perspective – who lives in me? Is it the third person of the trinity called God the Spirit? Or is it the Father? Paul said that the Father is above all, through all, and in all (omnipresence) which forces another question on the trinitarian perspective: How can an omnipresent Spirit be divided into persons? Where does the “Father” end, and the “Holy Spirit” begin? Are there two Spirits? If so, what are readers to make of Ephesians 4:6 mentioned above? These questions are not simple for trinitarian thinkers to answer.
The Question of Baptism
Here are included a few passages of scripture that, again, in light of trinitarian doctrine, present trouble for Christian thinkers who are beholden to it.
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:14-16
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Most often, trinitarian thinkers call upon Matthew 28:19 as a proof text for the neo-traditional baptismal formula: A three-fold invocation disclosing the three persons in the godhead. Nevertheless, the question of what constitutes proper water baptism is not so simple. If Matthew 28:19 was intended to disclose a trinity and/or three-fold invocation to be spoken over believers in the water, why, then, did the apostles not follow this formula? Either the apostles were obstinate, ignorant, or lacked revelation.
In every explicit and anecdotal example of water baptism in the New Testament, believers are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. This fact cannot be ignored by modern trinitarian theologians. The baptismal practices and procedures of most Christian denominations today do not reflect the practices and procedures of the first-century church. Readers are forced into another question: Did the apostles – the same apostles who:
1. Walked with Jesus for 3 and a half years.
2. Three of whom were with Him at the mount of transfiguration.
3. Witnessed the resurrection.
4. Had their understanding opened for 40 days with infallible proofs.
Misunderstand Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19? Did they, perhaps, disobey? Or is it possible that there is a third option left unconsidered by modern readers: The apostles knew exactly what Jesus was saying and of whom He spoke when He said, “Go and baptize them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Thus, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is, in fact, Jesus. This is the only way to reconcile the behavior of the apostles after the advent. Any other explanation lends itself too much to theological or canonical interpretations of the New Testament that do not square with the actions of the apostles. Even if one were unconvinced of the oneness of God and were a devout trinitarian thinker, they would still be forced to submit to the truth of the matter – that according to the New Testament, the only manner in which someone can be, ought to be, must be baptized is in the name of Jesus Christ. The reason for this is simple: In the New Testament, no room is made for the notion that ‘Father’ or ‘Son’ or ‘Spirit’ were every supposed to be understood as the name, record, or fame of God. Instead, all was disclosed in Jesus Christ.
FATHER
John 5:43
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
SON
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
SPIRIT
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
There is still only one name – no matter if you are oneness or trinitarian, water baptism in Jesus’ name is inescapable in the New Testament. This is a complicated subject for many trinitarians, as their attitude toward Jesus’ name baptism has historically been negative. It is often associated with a theology they disagree with – nevertheless, the question must be asked: If the apostles performed water baptism in Jesus’ name, why, then, should modern Christian denominations take issue with the formula? Who, then, are trinitarian believers really arguing with? Their issue is not with a theology, but with the text itself. In this way, trinitarianism errs most significantly.
Who is Jesus?
1st John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath no the Father. (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Philippians 2:6-7
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
John’s statement is important to oneness theology – ‘He that has the Son has the Father also – but he that denies the Son has neither one of them.’ Oneness believers are often accused of being ‘Jesus only’ in their approach to the godhead. In some ways, this is rightly so according to John. In acknowledging the supremacy of Jesus Christ, readers reach the revelation that they were supposed to reach. That in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). Philippians provide a brief look into the nature of Christ’s role in the earth. He is called (simultaneously) one who is in the ‘form of God’ and one who is in the ‘form of a servant.’ These two descriptors together adequately sum up the oneness perspective.
What is the Purpose of Father & Son Language in the NT?
Romans 5:12 – 19
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all me, for that all have sinned. For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Jesus did not just come to die a particular death – He came to live a very particular life. In many ways, this is the first step to understanding the purpose of Father and Son language in the New Testament. Obedience was the problem since Adam, therefore obedience was the solution in Christ. Authentic obedience requires submission, not just the appearance of it. This will be the subject of our next lesson.
