Serious Problems of the “Jesus Only”
Doctrine of “Oneness
Pentecostalism”
By Derrick Gillespie
INTRODUCTION:
“Christianity 101” teaches the following three basic truths, which almost all
Christians are universally united in accepting:
1. That God the Father is a spirit person (Heb. 1:2, 3)
2. That Jesus is the “express image” or “exact copy” of the Father’s person (since
sons are copies of their fathers), hence Jesus is his literal Son whom he gave
up for us (John 3:16)
3. That the Father not only created the universe with and through his Son
(John 1:1-3), but that he loved Jesus from the foundation of the world (John
17:24, 26/15:9), and hence they must have been separate beings from before
creation itself, since love is a group principle (not one person “loving”
himself), and thus Jesus must have existed separately before creation in order
to “love” His Father (John 14:31) and be “loved” by Him, also to be the Agent of
the Father’s creation, and to be given up to and for us humans.
Now the proponents of the doctrine that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son,
and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, or that Jesus is all three, as the one being of God,
are in a serious dilemma!! They shockingly betray their first heresy (‘a denial
of fundamental teaching’ of the Scriptures) in their almost outright refusal to
call God, the Father, whom is “a spirit” (John 4:24), exactly what the Bible (as
seen below) is clear in calling Him, i.e. the Father is a singular spirit
“PERSON”!! Yet the Scriptures cannot be broken, and it clearly declares:
“Heb 1:2 [God the Father] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by [through] whom [not ‘what’] also
he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
PERSON…”
The natural result of their first denial is their additional refusal to also accept
that if Jesus is the “express image” or “exact COPY” of the Father’s “PERSON”
and Jesus himself is inescapably a person, then it is painfully obvious that
immediately you already have two (2) persons (!!), both called “God”, who are
in direct relation to each other as Father and Son. And nowhere in the entire
universe is a “son” not ANOTHER separate entity from his father, or who is not
related to him by way of exhibiting similar qualities to THAT father (whether
filially or otherwise). God the Father, whom is a person, could not “beget” a
fish, but another person. Period!! And of course, as all “oneness Pentecostals”
freely admit, Jesus on earth did not vaporize at his resurrection!! He
resurrected as the same person with a glorified human body, and, as a
glorified human person, he now sits on the “right hand” of the Father (who is
himself a spirit “person”), and he now appears in His presence for us (Heb.
9:24)!! Hence they are forever handicapped by the reality that there are at
least two discrete or separate beings in heaven today whom they see as “God”
(1 Cor. 8:6; John 20:28;). This they cannot escape, and they also cannot escape
that everywhere you turn throughout Church history this was the teaching of
almost all Christians from apostolic times in the Bible itself, as well as
continuing to be taught after the New Testament was written, throughout the
first and second centuries, up to this day . This is a powerful indicator of what
teaching the earliest Christians universally inherited from the apostles of the
New Testament. It was Sabellius (the founder of “Jesus only” type doctrine, in
the second century) who ‘bastardized’ or corrupted this truth!! This historical
fact will be proven later.
Their next blatant heresy is the “oneness” Pentecostals’ refusal to accept that
the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus pre-existed as not only the Father’s
“beloved” Son “from the foundation of the world”, whom the Father then
subsequently “gave” to us forever (John 3:16), but also that Jesus acted as the
Father’s Agent in creation, as well as His visible Representative, symbolic
“Angel” (Spokesperson), or his Representative “Rock” which followed and
protected the children of Israel of old. See Micah 5:2 (in part) below:
“… [Jesus’] origin is from of old, from ancient days” (English Standard
Version). “… [Jesus’] goings forth [descent] have been from of old, from
everlasting (KJV).
Jesus’ “goings forth” or “motsa ah” (literally His “origin” or “family descent” in
Hebrew) or *when he was “brought forth” was “from everlasting” or “from
ETERNITY”; he was NOT “begotten” in Bethlehem for the first time. Compare
Ezekiel 14:22 (where the word also appears) to see that “motsa ah” or “goings
forth” literally means to be “brought forth” or exist as a son!! To deny this is a
shocking denial of reality, and an insult to God’s Word.
John 17:24, 26/15:9 also show that the Father "loved" Jesus before
creation (as spoken by Jesus himself in the past tense when he spoke), and
John 14:31 shows Jesus requiting or returning that love. Since love is a group
and fellowship principle then the personal distinction between Father and Son
“from the foundation of the world” is painfully evident. Natures existing in one
being cannot love each other, but *ONLY personal and separate beings love
each other. In addition, John 1:17 presents Jesus as presently "in the bosom"
of the Father; another clear way of showing fellowship of distinct beings.
Notice the Father is no longer presented as dwelling in Christ (as when he was
on earth), since Jesus is now appearing in the Father’s very enthroned
presence in Heaven (Heb. 9:24), but Jesus is NOW represented as being in his
“bosom” (a symbol for two beings fellowshipping intimately; as Jews know to
be the custom of friends in the Middle East, i.e. lying on each other’s bosom to
show fellowship). Denial of this is pointless.
Now, see for yourself Heb. 1:1-3 with Col.1:13-19 and THINK (!!) how could
Jesus as God’s “Son” create all things on behalf of the Father, i.e. the Son “by
[through] whom he [the Father] made the worlds”, if Jesus did not separately
pre-exist as a “Son” to be able to do so? Jesus himself made it plain that he preexisted as a personal being in the following:
John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast
thou seen Abraham?
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I
am.
And if one looks closely at what Jesus is called in John 1:1, we see that Jesus
was, from BEFORE the beginning, God’s “Word” or “Logos” (in Greek). Notice
he was not at the beginning called God’s ‘thought’, but rather his already
expressed “Word” (or his thought made audible or concrete, as it were)!!
“Words” are discrete and separate entities after being “begotten” or expressed
by their source, and notice it was from before the creation of the universe that
Jesus was called the “Word” of God (obviously as a spirit being then). 1 Cor.
1:24 compared with Proverbs 8:22-31 shows that Jesus’ “begetting” or being
“BROUGHT FORTH” as God’s “Word” or Begotten “Wisdom” (“Logos”) in
imagery was not just on earth, but “from everlasting” or eternity (past), so
much so he existed as the Father’s Companion in creation as one “with”, “by
[beside] him” and “before him” (see Prov. 8:30). Here again the Father couldn’t
be any clearer about Jesus separateness, pictured as His expressed “Word” or
active “Wisdom” that was already “begotten” as the “Word” before His
incarnation. Remember that words that are “begotten”, “brought forth” or
expressed always becomes SEPARATE entities from the ‘expresser’ after being
expressed, and so was Jesus as the expressed “Wisdom” or “Word” before the
creation of the universe. That’s why the Father communed with Him in
creation in Gen. 1:26. The Father would be mad indeed to speak to Himself as
the only divine being and logically say “like one of us” (Gen 3:22-24), or speak
in the past with a future Son in His “foreknowledge” only, as “oneness
Pentecostals” shockingly declare, and wish the rest of us to reasonably
believe!!
At the incarnation Jesus simply put on human flesh by being “begotten in
another sense and in another form; he did not then originate for the first time,
else he could not have PREVIOUSLY been the Agent of creation on the Father’s
behalf!! That is so simple, even a little child would understand! And
remember that the truth is usually simple!!
Finally, to “give” something or someone you must have had a prior possession
of that someone to “give”. “Christianity 101” is united in accepting that in John
3:16 Jesus must have been a prior Son to be “given” to us as such by the Father,
i.e. to forever become our Elder Brother. And this is clearly what Proverbs
30:4 teaches in the present tense when it was written (and remember the
Proverbs are sayings and utterances of realities then present; not predictions
being made):
“Pro. 30:4 Who [but God] hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath
gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who
[but God] hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his [i.e. God’s] name,
and what *is [not what ‘will’ be] his son's name, if thou canst tell?”
Since this God (Yahweh) from the beginning spoke in plurality by paralleling
Himself with more than one person EVERYTIME he used the “let us”
expressions (e.g. Gen 1:26, 27; Gen. 5:2; Gen. 3:22-24; Gen. 11:1-8) then it is
inescapable that God was using the natural meaning of the word “us”, which is
synonymous with “we” (see John 14:23 with Jesus clearly proving this).
“Oneness Pentecostals” use “eisogesis” (not exegesis) to force a “majestic
plural” (pluralis majestatis) upon the “let us” texts of Genesis, yet that is
neither demonstrable from any other Scripture in the entire Bible, nor is it
shown in the context of the passages in which the expressions appear. In
effect, what they accuse God of doing is making it impossible for us to
understand what the word “us” really means, since in every case God initially
used it, He used it in comparison to more than one human person being
considered as “one”. Also they propose that God made man in the “image” of
literal angels, since, as they argue, it might have been literal angels God spoke
to about making man in “our own image”, as recorded in Gen. 1:26; a rather
ridiculous, if not more so a blasphemous proposal indeed.
In addition, see also 1 Cor. 10:1-4 compared with Ex. 23:20-23, and Ex. 14:19
and THINK (!!), if Jesus did not separately pre-exist how could he be presented
as the Fathers’ “Angel” or “Messenger” (“Spokesperson”) or Representative in
the Old Testament? And why would early Christians who actually spoke and
could read the languages the Bible was originally written in commonly saw
the following truth in the Bible? Notice carefully this quote:
"And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an
Angel to Moses… And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I AM THAT I
AM, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and the God
of your fathers’ this signified that even though dead [i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]…
they are men belonging to Christ Himself [who Himself said “I AM”
“Jehovah”]…the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them [Jews], and says, "Israel doth not
know Me, my people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have
already shown, while He was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but
the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him."
The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the
universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of
God [hence he pre-existed], who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly
charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing
neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son [i.e. Jesus] 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 firstbegotten Word of God, is even God [as natural sons are what their father is in
nature]. And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of
an angel to Moses and to the other prophets…”
- Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 63 (*written A.D. 150)
The Jews did understand God the Father to be one person (!!), but never fully
understood the fact that God has a distinctly *divine Son who always
Represented Him, despite the clear hints given to it in Proverbs 30:4 and Gen.
1:26. Remember that whenever someone introduces themselves they usually
also introduce their direct family relations!! But God’s revelation was
progressive (thus the need for the New Testament part of the Bible), and so
the revelation of Jesus to them in the New Testament (Heb. 1:1-3) should not
have but sadly it did become a "STUMBLIMG STONE" to many! And until they
come to accept the second step in the revelation of the Godhead they would
henceforth forever have a problem with the Father of the Son they faithfully
served as monotheists in the Old Testament (2John 2:23; John 17:3).This new
revelation does not in any way destroy what monotheism is, since to be the
Son of God does not make Jesus the person of the Father Himself, or make Him
another or second "God the Father"; Jesus simply represents the Father
*FULLY to us, and (according to the Father’s will) deserves equal honor as the
Father’s royal Son (a true Son who bears his Father’ divine nature, as all true
sons naturally do in relation to their fathers)!!
Today, “oneness Pentecostals” seem to be stuck in the same ‘time warp’ that
the unconverted Jews also find themselves, since the Jews too rejected the
notion that God could have had a separate Son all along; even while the Father
still remained the one true God of the Bible!! No wonder Jews were rejected in
favor of the church!! BUT THE TIME HAS COME TO CLEAR THE AIR!! And here
is the most profound truth of God’s Word:
The One “true God” the Father (YAHWEH) is, by His very nature, revealed in
and worshipped through His Eternal Son, and is present everywhere by His
personal Holy Spirit. Think it through carefully. There is only one (1) God, THE
FATHER (a singular "Him"), not two or three of Him, but He has told us that he
is known through and approached through His separate Son (who bears his
name and nature, as sons naturally do), and He (united with His Son) is
manifested everywhere invisibly by His distinct and personal Spirit. That’s
why God spoke as "us" from the very beginning, since He could not deny whom
he is united with. That’s what the Biblical “trinity” is all about!! “Trinity”
simply means “three of the same kind united”. That's all!!
This was the teaching of the earliest Christians *long before the Papacy or
Roman Catholicism was born after the fourth century, after Constantine
became “Christian” (signaling the early conception of Roman Catholicism).
The historical evidence is undeniable, at least to one who is honest with
himself after reading this presentation!! The Christians nearest the Bible
apostles taught a triad, or “trinity”, but denied a plurality of Gods. *SEE THE
HISTORICAL QUOTES AT THE END OF THIS DISCOURSE (Appendix) TO PROVE
THIS REALITY FOR YOURSELF!!
BIBLICAL PROOFS OF JESUS' INESCAPABLE DISTINCTION:
(a) It is unnatural and absurd to think that a father and a son would not be
separate beings from the very time there was an actual 'descent' or 'family
lineage' in existence
(b) it is unnatural and absurd to think that God the Father was his own
'descent' or had himself as his own 'family lineage' from eternity past (see
'motsaah' in Micah 5:2), and hence was speaking to himself at creation; and
not to whom was his 'descendant' from all eternity past, that is, Jesus his Son,
united with Him (as 'Head') in family terms, just like the Church unity (i.e.
united as if only one being is involved, but simply so only in imagery)
(c) It is unnatural and absurd to think that 'us' and 'we' mean one person
acting with different 'masks' on, when a family scenario is CLEARLY painted in
the atmosphere of divine love being requited between rational beings (John
17:24, 26 and John 14:31), but just that this earlier 'hidden' truth of the reality
from eternity past was only made fully manifest to the Christian Church.
Oneness theology, as it exists in Pentecostalism (fine tuned and tweaked over
time), is just as much a gradually developed doctrine as Binitarianism and
Trinitarianism is, and simply shows how Christians have grappled over time
with the revealed New Testament truths about the Godhead revealed in family
terms!! It is just that a greater majority of Christians felt a tugging in their
spirit, and in their faculties related to common sense, that Father, Son and
Spirit are more a reflection of the family relations in principle, and that the
related Biblical truths are not best understood in the terms that early heretics
like Praxeas, Callistus, and Sabellius forced upon the issues, but best
understood in the same general terms as 'spiritually' discerned when looking
at the Church unity for instance.
Where in the entire Bible does it ever say that the Father is a "manifestation"
of God, as modalists say, since a “manifestation” means an expression or
reflection of something or someone? Where does the bible ever say the Father
is a "manifestation" of the Godhead, and Jesus is another manifestation of that
Godhead? Also, where in the Bible does it ever say Jesus is the person of God
the Father, but only in another manifested way prior to being the Son? I find
that taught nowhere (not even in Is. 9:6), but what the Bible does teach is that
God *IS the Father (1 Cor. 8:6;John 17:3), and Jesus is the exact representation
of his person or being (Greek, "hupostasis"- Heb. 1:3), and thus as God's *Son
Jesus must be another person who is exactly like the person of God the Father,
and it was this Jesus who became a man and "manifested" or revealed in flesh
the nature of God the Father on earth. (See 1 Tim. 3:16; Phill. 2:5-8 for
confirmation).
Thus, "like father like son" is an apt expression in this regard, and explains
why Jesus made it plain that to see Him is similar to seeing the Father (John
14:6-10), since it is he who reflects or “manifests” the person and character of
His own Father (not just as a human on earth, but even before as the Father’s
spirit Son since creation). Notice, the disciples did not ask, "Are you the
Father?", but rather they wanted a supernatural revelation of the Father's
nature. Jesus in response did not say, "I am the Father" (which would have
been easy to do if He really was), but he simply confirmed that, as “God” in
nature, he had already been revealing His Father who sent Him!! And again to
be “sent” indicate clearly a distinction in personage between the ‘Sent’ and
‘Sender’, and he must have pre-existed to be “sent”!!
The fact that Jesus is "God" does not require that he be the person of the
Father, despite he is one with that being, in just the same way that Eve was
also called "Adam" or "man" (Gen. 5:2) yet that did not require that she be the
person of her husband, despite she was one with her husband, in that they
were "one flesh"!! Just as there was only one (1) humanity and one (1) male
Adam, yet both the specie and name covers more than one person (Genesis
2:24; Gen. 5:2), so too is divinity, which spoke in plurality at the outset (as a
divine family)!!
The Bible makes it VERY plain that Jesus is a distinct/separate PERSON from
His Father, who is our Father too (Eph. 1:2, 3; Eph. 4:6). Here are 7 solid
proofs, which effectively destroy the “oneness” doctrine of Pentecostals!!
1. Phillipians 2 proves that Jesus, before his incarnation, felt that a
comparison between himself and His Father in "equal" terms (Greek, "isos")
was justified. This must indicate two distinct/separate entities for the
comparison to be valid. Note the text did not say he was the person of His
Father but he felt it justified to be "equal" with that person!!
THE WEBSTER'S AND LATEST ENCARTA ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARIES BOTH STATE:
E'QUAL, (noun).
One not inferior or superior to *another; having the same or a similar age, rank,
station, office, talents, strength, etc. (A person who is of equal standing with
*another in a group is thus either a companion, fellow, mate, peer, double, twin,
or just is similar).
E'QUAL, (verb)
To make equal; to make one/person thing of the same quantity, dimensions or
quality as *another.
`
E'QUAL, (adjective)
Well matched; having the same quantity, value, or measure as *another
Thus "equality" NEVER means same in person, and the very word "isos", from
which we get "iso" in English (as in "iso image" or "copy" in Computer
technology) occurs only 8 times in the Bible and always means exactly as the
dictionary defines it---TWO SEPARATE BEINGS or TWO co-existent things
compared with each other; never the original being compared with itself!! But
more importantly, if Jesus was not a separate person who was it that emptied
himself of being equal with the Father and became a servant to him?
“Oneness Pentecostalists” have an impossible situation here, since they
deny Jesus condescended and came in the flesh; what they do teach is that
God, the Father begot a human Son ONLY, or took on a body (a “tabernacle”)
upon himself and called that body “Jesus”; not that Someone who pre-existed
separately with Him gave up his divine” form” and status of “equality” with the
Father and became His servant as a full human being; a human in whom His
personal Spirit dwelt while he was on earth. This is one of their most serious
heresy, and is the spirit of “anti-Christ”, since God did not show his love by
giving a person he loved BEFORE, but he simply gave us a manufactured body,
which was simply a created *thing (a ‘costume’) being paraded as a "beloved
Son"; a pretended Son, since to be a true Son it was necessary that Jesus,
BEFORE coming to earth, must have been in substance what the Father
Himself is (i.e. pure spirit)!! What a slap in the face of God, and what an awful
insult to God's love and to His honesty in declaring the nature of His PREVIOUS
love for Jesus His own spirit Son “from the foundation of the world”! Dear God,
open the eyes of the blind!!
2. God spoke in plural terms from Genesis when the "us" and "our" references
were made. Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22; Gen. 11:6, 7. Notice carefully though that in
Gen. 3:22 God introduced the enumeration principle when he said "like one of
us", thus destroying the faulty argument that the “let us” expression was just
one employing the so-called "majestic plural" employed by kings and royalty,
as when they may say "touch not our person" or "we are hungry". Yet that
form of speech would never say, "Touch not one of us" when it meant "touch
me not the king", or "one of us is hungry", when it meant "the king is hungry"!!
And of course there is no supportive proof text of a “majestic plural” being
used anywhere by literal kings of Israel in the entire Bible!! So why would
God, as King, be using it? But more importantly, God speaking as an "us" and
about making man in “our own image” made man in His image to be more than
one being/person united as "one flesh", and yet even while the expression
"him" was used of “man” (Gen. 6:3, 5) it meant more than one person
represented by the "head" of the unit, as in Gen. 3:22-24 or as in Psalm 8:3-8.
3. In Proverbs 30:4 it intimates that the Old Testament Bible writers already
knew of God having a Son. Clear distinction again made. So why is it that not
all Jews accepted or understood this? For the same reason the Sadducees
(Jewish leaders), for instance, did not believe in angels, or in resurrection…
despite the Old Testament taught otherwise!! Being a Jew did not mean Jews
had all truths fully understood!! Up to this day the vast majority of Jews have
rejected the true Messiahship of Jesus, and most do not believe in a virgin
birth, or even in the redemptive mission of the Messiah who had to die, or that
God can have a “begotten” Son whom he had created the universe through,
whom he saves through, and whom he judges and rules through (despite the
Old Testament had all these truths documented). When Jesus came to earth
‘all hell broke loose’ with the leaders of Judaism, who dare believes that the
Jews had it all correct about the things of God?. In the view of the Jews, the
name "Son of God", or that calling God his Father (in the special sense Jesus
used it), “blasphemously” implied comparative equality *with God; not that he
and the Father were the same person. See John 5:18. The Jews were the best
interpreters of their own Hebrew language, and as Jesus did not deny the
correctness of their interpretations, it follows that he meant to be so
understood, i.e. he is equal with the Father, but they are not the same person.
Note that Proverbs 30:4 was not a "prophecy" in terms of a prediction, as
"Jesus only" doctrine teaches from verse 1, but "massa" was a pronouncement
of the speaker, since the word rendered "prophecy" in Proverbs 30:1 in the
K.J.V. does not mean a prediction, but rather an "utterance" or "saying", or
even the "burden" of the speaker, which is a declaration or oracle which
sometimes can even be uttered by singing!! Look at several other Bible
translations of this verse and the truth becomes abundantly clear. And of
course it could never be logically proven that all of Proverbs 30 was
prophetic/predictive in nature, including what came before verse 4 and after
in that chapter!! This is what would have to be proven if it be ever said that
verse 4 was simply predictive in nature. However accepting the verse as it
naturally reads, just like the other verses, shows a clear "utterance" of what
was the reality about the Father and Son already revealed from Gen. 1:26, 27.
And remember Genesis is a book of “beginnings”; not one of prophecy!!
4. Jesus is called "Counsellor" (ya'ats) in Isaiah 9:6 which means he must have
another divine being to "counsel" with. The Jews, who were the best
interpreters of their own Hebrew language, understood "ya'ats" as simply one
who stands by a King as an Adviser!! One cannot do that alone by himself, or to
himself. So it naturally means that Jesus is not the person of the Father,
meaning being His own Father who sent Him, but rather he is the "Ab ad" or is
the "Father of Eternity" or the originator of time itself which stretches into
eternity. And if Jesus is our “father” in the religious sense he himself clarified
it by distinctly saying we are his children "given" to him by God, His Father
(see Heb. 2:11-14); not that he is the person of His own Father!! Also, the fact
he is called the "Prince" in the same passage that he is the "Counsellor" shows
clearly he is the Son of His Father the King that he counsels with, as Zech. 6:12,
13 shows the "counsel of peace between them *BOTH"!!
In Zech. 13:7 the same person who was identified as the "Branch" that God
"counsels" with is described as God's "fellow" when he came as a man, and this
word "fellow" (Hebrew, "amiyth") clearly means he is an "Associate" or
"Comrade", or "Consort" of Yahweh. The distinction in individuality is again
made plain, and destroys the pretentions of the Muslims who declare God has
no Consort, and yet Muslims say they believe in the prophets like Isaiah and
Zechariah! Interesting indeed!!
Furthermore, Satan aspired to be like the Most High in Is.14:12-14, and tried
to intrude upon the assembly of the Godhead by seating himself in the divine
"congregation". This again shows clearly that the divine “congregation” must
have had more than one person “counseling” together as an exclusive group!!
One single divine being cannot “congregate”!! And of course, since
Satan/Lucifer was already the “covering cherub” (as Ezekiel 28 shows) the
only place he could further aspire to would be the “congregation” of the divine
beings, as an exclusive group.
So far every major point presented converge on the inescapable truth that
God is united with “another of the same kind”. But let’s go even further.
5. John 1:1 made it plain that Jesus was “pros”, literally “face to face” (in
Greek) or "with" another called "ho theos", or "the God". And of course Jesus
plainly calls His Father “another” (allos) who “testifies of him” (more on that
later). The distinction is again made painfully plain. See also 1 John 1:1-3. As
said before, "words" are distinct and separate from the Speaker (source), and
a Spokesperson, who speaks for another, is personally separate from who
sends him to speak. So too, Jesus as God's "Logos" or "Word" or
"Spokesperson" (whichever interpretation you prefer) has to be personally
distinct or separate. Notice carefully that Jesus was NOT called “ho theos” or
“the God” he was “with” in John 1:1, but was just simply described as “theos”
(without the definite article), thus meaning he has the qualities of being
exactly what the Father is in nature, i.e. he was divine!! If the definite article
“ho” (‘the’)was used both times before the word “God” in John 1:1 it would be a
SOLID proof text that Jesus was the same person he was with before the
incarnation (i.e. God the Father), and I would certainly not be presently
opposing “oneness Pentecostals”. But alas, this text offers no such consolation
to the “Jesus only” believers; except for those who “pretend away” the rules of
Greek grammar.
6. Heb. 1:3 makes it plain that Jesus, before his incarnation, was the “exact
representation” or "express image" or “exact copy” of God's person!! An
"image" or “copy” of a person must have a separate personal entity to be a
representation of. This was already demonstrated, in principle, under my
discourse on Philippians 2 and comparative “equality”. Why labor the point? A
child with elementary education would have no difficulty in understanding
this simple matter, yet, as someone inspired said, many are “forever learning,
but never coming to a knowledge of the truth”. Sad!
Here now is God’s final “bombshell” against all heresies against him and his
Son:
7. Jesus and His Father are "witnesses" (PLURAL) to Jesus' earthly mission and
identity- compare John 5:31-32 with John 8:16-17. Thus:
(a) Jesus is not "alone" in divine testimony of who he is
(b) Jesus' Father is "Another" (Gr. "allos") who bears witness. “Allos”, when
used of persons, in every case used ALWAYS indicate separateness of
individuals. Period!!
(c) This "Other" sent Jesus and testifies in unison with him. The ‘Sent’ and
‘Sender’ are separate, and again we see why Jesus spoke of himself and the
Father as “we” in John 14:23
(d) Jesus' testimony is true since "Another" divine personal entity satisfies
the rule of true testimony in Jewish law- i.e. two or more persons testifying!!
(e) Even the Spirit is considered as bearing witness of whom Jesus is, and
does so as "another" Comforter (i.e. “another of the same kind”; and
remember “kind” does not mean same in person), hence the Spirit is separate
from Jesus, just as the Father is separate as "another" witness. See John
15:26, 27 comparing the Spirit bearing witness as the disciples "also" would
do!!
And of course it must be remembered that the fact that Paul made the
point in Hebrews 1 that to none of the *PRE-EXISTING angels did God say “this
day have I begotten you” when he brought his “first begotten into the world” at
Jesus’ incarnation, thus it was naturally to a PRE-EXISTING Jesus that the
Father said those words to in the context of making him his human Son in a
special sense. Thus it is impossible to see the Bible saying anything else than
the fact that Jesus pre-existed as a separate person from the Father, and when
he came the Father could thus be a separate “witness” to whom he really is!!
Much more could still be said, but no need to, and all I will say is simply
“Amen” to all the foregoing truths straight from the Scriptures themselves.
CONCLUSION:
Any who deny that Jesus was not always a separate person as God’s divine Son
is woefully misguided, and until they abandon this error they may never even
experience the real indwelling of God Himself through the Agency of His
personal Holy Spirit; a Holy Spirit who Himself testifies of the truth about God
and His eternally existing Son. Sabellius (the ancient founder of “Jesus only”
type teaching) has been long recognized by orthodox Christians as a heretic,
and so his teachings (the basis for the modern “Jesus-only” doctrine) have
been systematically and thoroughly refuted by the greatest minds in
Christology throughout the centuries, and are biblically proven from Genesis
to Revelation to be aberrant thinking at best. The apostolic Christians in Acts,
admittedly, on occasion, baptized in the name or AUTHORITY of Jesus, not
because they saw Him only as “God” (the Bible and the writings of the majority
of the earliest Christian writers or apologists prove otherwise), but because
the spiritual unity between him and his Father was such that being baptized in
the AUTHORITY of the Son ONLY was effectively just as much as being baptized
in the “name” of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]. Why? Fathers
and sons naturally bear the same family name, and the same is true on the
divine level. That’s why Jesus is called “the Lord” or “Lord”, since that is
translated from Greek “Kurious”, the translation from the Hebrew name
“Yahweh”. And of course it was Jesus (known as a man to the then Roman
world) that was the greatest proselytizing issue at stake when Gentiles and
Jews became Christians, and thus the emphasis on Jesus’ name (“Lord”) in
baptism. And never forget that in every place where people were baptized in
the book of Acts in Jesus’ “name”, or AUTHORITY, the candidates were already
acquainted with God the Father (as Samaritans, John’s disciples, or Gentile
converts to Judaism), yet they needed the NEW revelation of Jesus His Son (as
even Jews themselves needed too), and hence the focus on Jesus. THAT IS ALL;
NOTHING MORE!! Thus the “Jesus only” proponents are sadly deficient in the
doctrine they espouse, and it is time they wake up to that reality, and come
clean and honest with themselves.
See appendix following regarding what almost all Christians have universally
testified to about Jesus since the first century, and (2) in whose name should
we baptize new converts?
Appendix:
WHAT DID PRE-ROMAN CATHOLIC (PRE-PAPAL) CHRISTIAN WRITERS
COMMONLY TEACH ABOUT GOD, JESUS, AND A TRINITY?
The vast majority of the earliest Christian writers from the first and second centuries
revealed their Bible-based faith in accepting that Jesus was not only distinct from His
Father as a person, or as His only begotten Son before the incarnation, but that He is
also our God in highest nature just like His Father and the Holy Spirit, who all together
deserve equal honor in the sense of highest
worship!
In addition they fiercely rejected any viewpoint that
sought to make Jesus and His Father the same person as Sabellius did in second century.
In addition they showed that the word "trinity" was not coined by the Papacy that
came long after, but was known and accepted by the Christian writers long *BEFORE
the Papacy was even conceived. Here are just some examples written long before any
Roman Catholic existed [emphases supplied]:
100
A.D.
“We have also a physician, the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, the only begotten
Son and Word, before time began…”
– Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians
100 A.D.
“Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all
nations, commanded them to ‘baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost,’ not unto one [one person, as in Sabellian ‘modalism’] having three
names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three [persons]
possessed of *EQUAL HONOR”.
- Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2
“I…entreat you to use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a
different kind; I mean heresy... For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not
Christians…some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are but the same person…”
-Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 6
150 A.D.
“…with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and
the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him [the Father], and the Son
…and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing *them in reason and truth,
and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been
taught.”
- Justin Martyr- First Apology, Chapter 6
“We will prove that we worship him [Jesus] reasonably; for we have learned that that
he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of
prophecy a third [place] …”
-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 13
“God begot before all creatures …a certain rational [self willed] power from himself, and
whom the Spirit calls…sometimes the Son, sometimes Lord and Word… [the Father in
Creation] conversed with Someone [the pre-incarnate Jesus] *numerically distinct from
Himself, and also a rational being… But this offspring who was truly brought forth from
the Father, was with the Father before all creatures, and the Father communed with
Him”
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 61 and 62
"And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an Angel to
Moses… And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I AM THAT I AM, the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers’ this
signified that even though dead [i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]… they are men belonging to
Christ Himself [who Himself said “I AM” “Jehovah” their God]”
“…the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them [Jews], and says, "Israel doth not know Me, my
people have not understood Me." And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He
was with them, said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the
Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly, being
throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses,
though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God [hence he pre-existed], who is
called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by
Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. 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 firstbegotten Word of God, is even God [as natural sons are what their father is in nature].
And of old He [Jesus] appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to
Moses and to the other prophets…”
- Justin Martyr, First
Apology, Chapter 63
150 A.D.
“I praise you [the Father] for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you AND the
Holy Spirit be glory both now, and to all coming ages. Amen!”
–Polycarp of Smyrna, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 14
177 A.D.
“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who 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, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the
divine nature confined to these points…”
-Athenagoras –
A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 10, [entitled] *“Christians Worship the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
180 A.D.
“The THREE days [separate entities], which were before the luminaries [i.e. the fourth
day Creation of sun, moon, etc.], are types [symbols] of the *Trinity [‘triavdo’- Greek],
of God [the Father], and His Word [Jesus], and His Wisdom [Spirit]. And the fourth [day]
is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light…”
- Theophilus of Antioch, Chapter 15,Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15
N.B. Here the word “trinity” is being used by a Christian writer long before the Papacy arrived after
Constantine. Hence it is a blatant falsehood the Papacy ‘coined’ the word as it relates to the Godhead
doctrine after the fourth century. “Triavdo" (Greek for trinity) is the earliest recorded Christian use of
this word. The use Theophilus makes of it is familiar. He does not lug it in as something novel: "types of
the Trinity," he says, illustrating an accepted word, not introducing a new one.
180 A.D.
“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who
spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers [thus he pre-existed]”
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 2
180 A.D.
“No one of the sons of Adam is…*absolutely [in the highest sense] called God, or named
Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and
Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all prophets, the
apostles, and by the [personal] Spirit Himself…”
- Irenaeus“ Irenaeus Against Heresies”, Chapter 19
“The Father is truly Lord [despite there is ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’], and the Son truly Lord.
The Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord… Referring to the
destruction of the Sodomites, Scripture says, ‘then the LORD [Jehovah] rained upon
Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD [another Person also
called LORD, or Jehovah] out of Heaven’. For it here points out that the Son, who had
also talking with Abraham [Gen 18:1] had received power to judge the Sodomites… And
this [next text also] does declare the same truth: ‘thy throne O God is forever [Heb. 1:8,
10]… For the Spirit designates both [of them, Father and Son] by the name of God [i.e.
Jehovah]”
– Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 6
190 A.D.
“The Divine Word… is truly manifest *DEITY [supreme God]. He is… EQUAL to [with] the
Lord of the universe, because He was His Son.”
–Clement of Alexandria,
Fragments, Part 1, section 3
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself,
that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is
eternal and uncreated."
-Clement of Alexandria, Fragments, Part I, section III
"His Son Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor…. He is God and Creator."
-Clement of Alexandria, Instructor,
Book I, ch. 11
“[regarding Matt. 28:19] I understand nothing else than the Holy *TRINITY [‘triavdo’] to
be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things
were made according to the will of the Father [the first Person]”.
-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 14
200 A.D.
“See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they [Sabellian ‘modalists’] have
introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son,
Himself was born… But this is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus [a
‘modalist’ heretic] is of a different mind from them [the Scriptures]… For who will not
say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e. the
number and disposition of [three] persons in the *TRINITY [Greek, ‘triavdo’, or Godhead
of three]”
- Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus
200 A.D.
“That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never
allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the
Spirit, God… [but] when Christ would come, He might be acknowledged as God, and be
called Lord, because He is the Son of Him who is both God and Lord”
- Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13:6
“All Scriptures give clear proof of the *Trinity [‘trinitas’- Latin], and it is from these that
our principle is deduced… the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed”
- Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 11
N.B. Here for the first time the word “trinity” is expressed in Latin (as “trinitas”), since it was commonly
used before in Greek as “triavdo”. Thus Tertullian is credited with first using the Latin form of the word.
He did not coin the word at all, as is often falsely reported. Big difference!!
DID THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE JESUS PRE-EXISTED
ETERNALLY?
180 AD
"But the Son, eternally *co-existing with the Father, [thus co-eternal] from of old, even
from everlasting, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels,
Archangels, Powers, Virtues..."
-Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9
*190 A.D.
“When he [John] says: ‘what was in the
beginning’ [1 John 1:1], he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son,
who is co-equal with the Father. [The word] ‘Was’ therefore is indicative of an eternity
without a beginning, just as the Word Himself, that is, the Son, being one with the
Father, in regard to equality of substance, is eternal and uncreated. That the Word
always existed is signified by the saying: ‘In the beginning was the Word’ [John 1:1]”
-Clement of Alexandria (*190 A.D.), Fragment in Eusebius History, Book 6,
Chapter 140
N.B.*Thus Origen, 185-254 A.D., who would be just five years old in 190 A.D. when the above quoted
was written, is not properly credited by some theologians for first teaching the truth of the co-eternality
(“same age”) of Jesus Christ with His Father. It was a Bible truth (*Micah 5:2; 1 Jon 1:1,2) being taught
by Christians long before him:
100 AD
"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was
revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to
one [Father] . . . God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his
eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, [thus having no beginning as when a
speaker begins a speech from the point of getting up from his silence] and who in all
things pleased him that sent him"
-Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, 6-8.
Must baptism be "in Jesus' name"?
Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion
using the formula "in Jesus name" and not the formula "in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian
formula because they reject the Trinity. To support their method they cite various
Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus' name and claim that this is proof for
their doctrine. Following are some of the Bible references they quote.

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 ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost."

Acts 8:16, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus."

Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
your sins, calling on His name.’
Let's take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, "in the name of
the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It
is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand
that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with
baptism "in Jesus' name." To baptise in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of
Jesus. Consider the following:

"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what
power, or in what name, have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy
Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a
benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be
known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus
Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by
this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:7-10). See also
the following verses:
 Acts 4:17-18, "But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let
us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18 And when they had
summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name
of Jesus."
 Acts 5:28, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and
behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s
blood upon us."
 Acts 5:40, "And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged
them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then
released them."
 Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom
of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women
alike."
 Acts 9:27-28, "But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and
described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to
him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28
And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in
the name of the Lord."
 Acts 16:18, "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to
the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he
came out the same hour."
We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority.
This is particularly clarified Acts 16:18 above. Let's look at it again. "And this did
she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command
thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same
hour." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on
Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority
in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to "call upon the name
of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we
Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children
(Rom. 8:15).
Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding
that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name." Instead, it should be done
as Jesus commanded:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19).
The proper way to baptize in Jesus' name is to say, "I baptize you in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."