Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology: Reinvestigating the Incarnation Beyond Spirit and Flesh

By Andrew M. Denny

In his book The ONENESS Of GOD, David Bernard pinpoints the observable distinction between God the Father and the Son of God. Father refers to Deity alone while Son of God refers to Deity as incarnated into humanity. Among the Oneness movement, there is a network of individuals who have spent many hours revisiting the core fundaments of Modalism in order to expound on the Sons identity, nature, and corporeal existence. More than a simple formula of Spirit versus flesh, Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology pinpoints the observable distinction between Father and Son in the most descriptive terms necessary to further understand the humanity of the Son of God as described by His witnesses. While some aspects may not entirely agree with traditional Modalism (as defined historically), our focus will be to evaluate the vocabulary of the early church in comparison with our modern dialect.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Feb 14, 2018
• ISBN: 9781973608219

Andrew M. Denny

ANDREW DENNY has spent exhaustive hours researching the foundations of the early church, in efforts to reaffirm the identity of Christ as described by His witnesses. Previously a self-published author, Andys first book What Itching Ears Dont Want to Hear discussed many elements of the gospel that have been overlooked by the mainstream church as a whole. From the early development of the true apostolic church to the historical phases throughout history, his unique approach to these topics have impacted many individuals associated with him. Now releasing his second title, Andy feels a burden to reach many more inquisitive minds on a broader scale through the publication of Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology.

Book preview

Copyright © 2018 Andrew M. Denny.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-9736-0820-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-9736-0819-6 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-9736-0821-9 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017917973

WestBow Press rev. date: 02/09/2018

Contents

Preface

Introduction

a) The Knowledge of the Son of God

b) Test All Things

1 Methodology

a) Extra-Biblical Terminology

b) The Word Study

c) Contextual Comparison

d) According to Trinitarianism

e) According to Modalism

f) The Sonship

g) The Capital S

2 Phraseology

a) The Common Pattern

b) Speaking Against the Son of Man

c) Only God is Good

d) A Prophet Like Thee

e) The Revelation of the Son

3 The Name of God

a) JAH

b) YHWH vs. Jehovah

c) Yah’shua

d) Progressive Revelation

4 What It Means To Be God

a) One God

b) Jesus Is God

c) Jesus Has a God

d) Coequality

e) I and My Father are One

f) The Only True God

5 The Mediator: God or Man?

a) On Behalf of God

b) Anointed One

c) God is Not a Man

d) God is a Spirit

e) The Man of War

f) Theophany vs. Human Life

6 Hybrid or Human?

a) Body

b) Soul

c) Spirit

7 God is Invisible

a) The Image of God

b) Perceiving the Father

8 God is Eternal

a) Trinitarian Renditions

b) The Bread from Heaven

c) The Lord from Heaven

d) From Everlasting

e) Before the World Began

9 God is Immortal

a) Destroy this Temple

b) Ascended or Resurrected?

c) God’s Own Blood

10 Exploring the Mystery

a) The Codex Sinaiticus & I Timothy 3:16

b) Dividing the Mystery

c) Manifest

d) The Phrase Manifestation of the Son

e) The Fullness of the Godhead

11 Adopted Doctrines Redefined

a) Divinity vs. Deity

b) Hypostasis

c) Hypostatic History

d) Available Terminology

12 The Throne of God

a) The Book

b) The Daniel Vision

c) The Right Hand of God

13 The Titles of God and Men

a) Savior

b) Holy One

c) King of Kings & Lord of Lords

d) The First & The Last

e) Alpha & Omega

f) The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father

14 Father or Brother?

a) Heirs of God

b) The Firstborn of Creation

c) The Lógos

d) Made Flesh

15 I AM the Son of God

a) Immanuel

b) The Confession

c) If Ye Believe Not

d) The Great I AM

16 If Jesus Isn’t God

a) Suffering

b) Miracles, Signs, and Wonders

c) Only God can Forgive Sins?

d) Worship

e) Prayer: Discussion 1

f) Prayer: Discussion 2

Conclusion

For questions or comments about the content of this book, please contact the author via email. [e-mail]

Scripture taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotes are from the King James Version of the Bible. All Scripture will appear in italics. Any further emphasis that does not appear in standard publications of the KJV is the authors.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the New Living Translation of the Bible, copyright (c) 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible, The ESV Global Study Bible®, ESV® Bible, Copyright, © 2001, © 2012 by Crossway. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the New International Version of the Bible, Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked NCV are taken from the New Century Version of the Bible, Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked NET are taken from the New English Translation of the Bible. Scripture quoted by permission, copyright ©1996-2016 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked CEV are taken from the Contemporary English Version, Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission.

Editorial:

Sierra Trowbridge, editorial direction. Not all suggested changes were applied to the text. Nature and format of the following composition reflects the author’s style and may not adhere to the Chicago Manual of Style in every case. We apologize for any spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors that may have been overlooked.

Citations and References:

All references are listed in the footnotes. Some may not appear in traditional format but as the author prefers. Some sources were drawn from the author’s iBook library. Page numbers in iBook format is dependent upon font size and is not consistent with a standard hard copy. Therefore, some notes refer to the chapter and section title from which the quote was pulled. Not all sources reflect the author’s core beliefs and are not meant to act as the basis of his position. Some references are to demonstrate common lines of thinking. Sources such as www.theopedia.com and www.wikipedia.org are for general knowledge purposes in the theological community. Greek and Hebrew word searches were sourced from lexicons such as Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon and Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. These sources are listed in weblink format of the Bible websites in which they were sourced. Greek and Hebrew words will appear in phonetic form as they were copied and pasted from the website. All appearances of the Hebrew and Greek derivative will remain in phonetic form for emphasis purposes.

Scripture:

All Scripture will appear in italics. It will be underlined occasionally for emphasis purposes. Some words may appear in all caps for emphasis purposes. Occasionally the Hebrew or Greek derivative may be added and will appear in brackets. Passages that contain LORD in all caps may appear as YHWH to remain true to the transliterated form of the Hebrew language. Depending on the application and/or topic of discussion, acknowledgements to God may appear as God Almighty, Supreme God, Creator, Father, YHWH, Yahuah, or Yahweh, when quoted within the author’s text. The name Jesus may appear as Yah’shuah or Yeshua. Other Scripture and quotes within the author’s text will appear in quotation marks and italics. Some words may appear in all caps occasionally for emphasis purposes. References to the King James Version of the Bible will appear mostly as KJV.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the author, except in accordance with USA copyright law. For permission requests, please contact the author via email. For questions or comments about the content of this book, please contact the author via email. [e-mail]

Dedication

To those who have sensed a teaching ministry within me.

Those who have invested in me and spoken anointing into my life.

Those who have prophesied over me.

And those who have interceded for me.

We walk by faith, not by sight.

II Corinthians 5:7

Testimonials

Prior to the publication of Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology, there were few who had the opportunity of receiving an original copy. Some read the book in its entirety, and others were more interested in specific topics and may have only covered certain sections or chapters. Among those individuals, the voices below had this to say.

Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology is very informative and answered many questions that I’ve had on this subject. Andy couldn’t have done a better job wrapping it all up in the conclusion. Perfectly written. I literally couldn’t put it down.

Loretta Perry

New Castle, IN

ALJC

Definitely a thought provoking book. It presents quite a few challenges, but Andy backs his position very well.

Brandon Bowers

Sparksville, IN

ALJC

I recommend Decoding Precepts of Oneness Theology for any sincere reader seeking to better understand the relationship between God and Christ from an early church perspective. It proved to be instrumental as the Lord was leading me into a deeper understanding of the Father and His Son Jesus Christ (Eph 1:17-23)

David N. Loeser

Birmingham, AL

UPC

Andy and I have very different church upbringings. I was raised Methodist, and he is Pentecostal. But I found his arguments to be legitimate, and I was impressed that he could tie his points together so strongly. I must say, his exposition as a whole is written on an academic level.

D. Ian Cart

Historical Preservationist

B.A. Theology

Preface

Since Father refers to deity alone, while Son of God refers to deity as incarnated into humanity, we do not believe that the Father is the Son. The distinction is pivotal. We can say the Son died, but we cannot say the Father died. The deity in the Son is the Father. Although we do not believe that the Father is the Son, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10).¹

If any common ground could be seen between the Trinity and Oneness, what would it be? If any further clarification became available to both parties, would we embrace the information if given the opportunity? By expounding on the excerpt above, I believe we can answer these questions. Over the past few decades, there have occurred multiple Trinity-versus-Oneness debates, which have produced both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, we have been able to share our insight and challenge one another’s theology. On the negative side, we emphasize these differences insomuch that we neglect our instructions to be unified as a people of the Christian name (I Cor 1:10).

Even though I have written this book from a Oneness position, the upcoming challenges will be equally tantalizing for both doctrinal stances. Just because I profess the Oneness of God does not mean my objective is to aggressively refute Trinitarianism. On the contrary, unlike any other Oneness book available to the public, the following pages will address the stronger points of the Trinity Doctrine to better understand why this view has become the most widely accepted among Christendom. At the same time, I will do my best to avoid turning this into a theological debate between Oneness and Trinity. By focusing on our differences more than our commonalities, I believe we have missed out on many opportunities to come together in unity as believers.

This is not to say that our disagreements have inhibited us altogether. The various phases of Protestantism attest that many groups have collectively endeavored to reestablish and affirm essential truths of the gospel. Over the course of the past century, the Oneness Pentecostal movement has aspired to restore what many visible churches have overlooked, disregarded, and attempted to refute. We have emphasized doctrines such as water baptism in Jesus’ name, as well as the infilling of the Holy Ghost, followed by the evidence of speaking in tongues. Yet the most renowned doctrine associated with our movement is the Oneness of God, a most challenging traversal for Trinitarian thought.

It is apparent that we have maintained a stronger position, simply because of our understanding of God’s numerical status. More pragmatic in our approach, many facets of Oneness have disaffirmed the triune depiction of God. But is it possible that, when the Oneness movement began to surface in the early-to-mid 1900’s, we reserved some of the very concepts upon which the Trinity Doctrine was founded? While the terminology employed among Oneness may be resourceful for contending against the Trinity, ironically, the place at which we have arrived today in our dialect reflects our former Trinitarian influence. By falling accustomed to select terminology, it appears that we have overlooked some of the more expressive vocabulary in the Bible and have retained a degree of Nicene influence.²

One statement that both Oneness and Trinitarians might agree upon can be seen in the opening excerpt. Above, author David K. Bernard identifies the Father as the Deity in the Son. Although we do not believe that the Father is the Son, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). During His earthly ministry, Jesus elaborated on the Deity that dwelt in Him by first establishing that God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24). He later revealed, The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works (Jn 14:10). This precept is the foundation of this book; that God the Father is Deity, while the Son of God was His chosen vessel. A man in whom the Spirit dwelt without measure. To some, this concept may not sound alarming. However, some portions of Scripture may shake your theology when considering what this book brings to the table.

As it is said, there is a difference between being incorrect versus incomplete. In this day, I believe God is allowing a wave of clarification to sweep across our movement by raising up those who will reexamine the doctrines of the Incarnation and Dual Nature of Jesus Christ. Ultimately my intention is to investigate the concepts that leave us with the most questions. The focus is to reexamine contemporary Oneness terminology and determine whether it is the most complementary when compared to the biblical description of Christ. More than just another attempt to refute the Trinitarian view, this book will first cover some areas we have in common, and then we will address certain information that has been overlooked by both sides.

Introduction

The Knowledge of the Son of God

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

—Ephesians 4:11-13

I have always believed that if there were any areas where the devil would deceive the church, it would relate to knowing who God is, comprehending the nature of Jesus, and having a biblical understanding of salvation. This book falls under each category. The purpose is to broaden our understanding of God by clarifying certain details about His Son. Indeed, one of the first steps of salvation is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.                  —John 17:3

Throughout the following pages of this book, we will evaluate the terminology that appears pervasively throughout Scripture. To remain consistent with the vocabulary of the early church, we will refer to Jesus as the Son of God rather than the incarnation or flesh of God.

As a current member of the Oneness Pentecostal church, I hold to the understanding that God Almighty, the Supreme Ruler and Father of Creation, is absolutely one in number (Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29). But rather than focusing on the unity between God and Christ as discussed in most modern Oneness literature, we will be focusing more on the distinction seen in Scripture. In agreement with many others among our movement, I feel there needs to be clarification in some of the gray areas. For beginners, why does this remarkable distinction between God the Father and the Son of God appear so expressly in Scripture?

Paul writes, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him (I Cor 8:6). Yet he continues to say, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. The early church emphasized the distinction between God and Christ, and they did so for a purpose. Most often, the N.T. writers³ referred to the Father as God and the Son as Lord. Yet this is only one example. The following chapters cover a much wider range of topics, each relating to the distinction between God and Christ. Because of this distinction, we will seek to understand the purpose behind the method in their writings. Ultimately, it is not the Oneness of God but the Oneness view of His Son that will be more of the focal point.

From our perspective, Oneness contends that Jesus the man is the incarnation of God the Father. On the other end of the spectrum, Trinitarians maintain that it was the Eternal Son who appeared as a man, a second deity who existed eternally alongside the Father. Though raised under the mainstream view of the Trinity, I was first introduced to the Oneness view in my teen years. In effect, this required me to institute Modalism⁴ to my thought process to explain the more confusing scriptures. I would explain that Scripture speaks of God’s Spirit in some cases while it speaks of His flesh in other cases. It was a simple formula: Father=Spirit, Son=flesh.

In view of the more obvious examples, such as those depicting Christ’s prayers (John 17), this did not satisfy my reasoning. How in good conscience could I say that God’s flesh prayed to His Spirit, when scripturally Jesus is depicted as a distinct individual who prayed to God the Father? In the passage above, Jesus referred to His Father as the only true God, while considering Himself to be someone sent by His Father (Jn 17:3). Overall, based on His vocabulary, the distinction between the Father and Son appears to exceed far beyond the boundary of Spirit and flesh.

Understand that not all minds are created to process information the same. To think every individual among the Oneness movement agrees with all aspects of our theology is a misconception. I have found this to be true, simply by discussing the finer points of our doctrine with others. In fact, one person’s idea of Oneness may be entirely different from another’s when it comes to the details. Essentially every person holds a personal view about how God was manifest in the flesh.⁵ Because we operate on an individual basis, our thought processes are unique. Nobody is programmed exactly alike. Therefore, variations in certain details will always be seen, even when a group shares a core doctrine.

The same variations can be seen in what we believe about subjects such as creation and end times. Even among the Oneness movement, therein lacks a total agreement on these topics. Some hold to the literal reading of creation in six days, while others believe each day is symbolic for thousands of years. In view of Genesis 1:1-2, some believe this describes the beginning stage of God’s creation, and others see millions of years between verses 1 and 2, also known as the Gap Theory.⁶

When it comes to end time events, many hold to the teaching of a Pre-Trib Rapture,⁷ while others believe the church will endure the full extent of tribulation before we reunite with Christ in the air. These variations demonstrate that we have been given individuality in the way our minds process and register information. At the same time, it also reaffirms that anyone can be misinformed. Although some differences in opinion may seem inconsequential, the following areas of discussion will become far more sizable. Because we believe in giving honor where honor is due, this book seeks to recognize and glorify Jesus as He instructed us how.

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.                  —John 5:23

God receives glory through Jesus, and Jesus receives glory from God (see also Jn 13:31-32). The apostle Paul advised that when we confess Jesus Christ as Lord, we give glory to the Father (Phil 2:11). Throughout this book, it will become even more apparent what this means. If read under the proper motive of examination—an earnest consideration of the unfamiliar—I believe the contents of this book will help each reader uncover a new-found respect for Jesus. Although it may sound strange to hear from a Oneness position, our salvation is not dependent upon recognizing Jesus as the Father. Biblically speaking, it is based upon acknowledging Him to be the Son of God.

Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.                  —I John 4:15

Without question, most (if not all) Christian groups confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whether Trinitarian or Oneness in background. Yet our definitions of what it means to be God’s Son seem to fall short. When it comes to the more critical points of Christ’s human nature, it could be said that mainstream Christianity has only scratched the surface. After all, what specifically qualifies Jesus as a God-man? Was He a hybrid? Was He 100% God and 100% man, as many individuals explain? What does it mean that He was made like unto His brethren (Heb 2:17)? Though some points may seem highly analytical, certainly a topic of such gravity deserves this attention.

As previously mentioned, I consider this book to be under the Oneness category. As the author, I am writing from a Oneness position, and my target audience is primarily those among our movement. Not that anyone unaffiliated with Oneness is unwelcome. On the contrary, this is an open discussion for all who may be interested. Practically anyone could benefit from this work. Yet because many aspects of Oneness are foreign to the Trinitarian mainstream, the method of articulation in the text may leave some individuals with questions. Perhaps along the way you will find that labels such as Oneness or Trinitarian cannot legitimately define a true seeker in the continual pursuit of our Creator. Despite any diversity, I would encourage each reader to absorb the ideas in this book to see where the information may lead.

Realistically, if the reader can understand that the Son of God is a human in whom the Spirit of God dwelt (Jn 14:10; Col 2:9), then he or she will be able to comprehend what this book offers. To satisfy any remaining curiosity, the major themes of this book can be summarized by the following points.

• Jesus was the Second Adam, meaning He was the second man fathered by God

• Jesus was a man in whom the Spirit of God dwelt, without measure

• Scripture depicts Jesus as someone who possessed His own identity apart from the Father

• Scripture depicts Jesus as someone who possessed His own thought process apart from the Father

• Jesus is the Mediator between God and humanity

• Jesus is not the only son of God; He is the only begotten Son of God

While this book falls under the category of Oneness, not every concept that I submit is in favor of historical Modalism; at least not as we define it in modern terms. In fact, the main reason I chose to revisit the Oneness view of Jesus is because there are details about the incarnation and dual nature that seem to conflict with the authenticity of Christ’s humanity. Author David K. Bernard⁸ suggests that Scripture does not touch on this aspect enough to make a definitive conclusion.

While the Bible is clear in emphasizing both the full deity and full humanity of Jesus, it does not describe in detail how these two natures are united in the one person of Jesus Christ. This, too, has been the subject of much speculation and debate. Perhaps there is room for divergent views on this issue since the Bible does not treat it directly.⁹

In essence, the Bible does not specifically describe the incarnation or dual nature of Christ. Therefore, it is difficult for both Oneness and Trinity advocates to employ appropriate terminology without importing some degree of philosophy into the text. At the very least, we must be willing to admit that, when Scripture is unclear on a particular angle, we tend to fill in the blanks with strategic terminology. Whether stated from a Oneness perspective or a Trinitarian point of view, the tendency is to employ whatever vocabulary best suits our theological position.

Though some concepts may sound unusual at first, my focus is to remain transparent by offering what many genuine saints have questioned about Oneness ideology. For instance, if we are to believe Jesus was 100% human, then we must first realize that anything more (or less) in His subsistence—more than any other human—would compromise the bona fide humanity of His person altogether.

As some have recognized, the concept of the incarnation fails to complement the idea that Jesus was given His own human soul with His own identity. Scripturally, Jesus displayed His own thought process and possessed His own center of awareness. In other words, Scripture depicts Jesus as a self-conscious human apart from God. He demonstrated communication and a relationship with God through His prayers (Luke 6:12; John 17). Furthermore, He admitted that He did not know certain information that only God knows (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32). Therefore, we will do our best to reconcile why scripturally God and Christ are depicted interactively with one another.

Because Jesus is viewed as the incarnation of God, some would speculate whether His nature was divine or human. Most resort to the Dual Nature Doctrine, suggesting that He possessed two natures. To many inquisitive minds, this too raises a predicament of which there are only two possible options. Was Jesus an authentic human, or was He Deity and humanity combined? Realistically, if He was a God-man, then at the very least we can only say He was half God, half man. Yet in attempts to remain reverent, we insist that Jesus is 100% God, and 100% man; a concept that defies the laws of mathematics.

Though it is the common tendency to try to fit God in our feeble minds, such laws attest that a square cannot be round, and neither does 1+1+1=1, as the mathematics of the Trinity demonstrates. Of course, this is not how Trinitarians look at it. The common explanation is 1x1x1=1.¹⁰ Nevertheless, we should expect that God would reveal Himself in ways that we can comprehend, especially since He designed these laws of reason.¹¹ To be 100% God leaves absolutely no room for Him to exist as man, according to the logic that God designed in us. I can appreciate what brother Bernard has to say about using logic while interpreting Scripture.

We should use sound rules of logic. Logic means the science of correct reasoning. God created our minds to recognize and think in logical categories. And this ability to reason is part of the divine image and likeness in which we were created (Genesis 1:26-27).¹²

Of course, it would be naive to place any limitations on the God of the universe. God is omnipotent (Rev 19:6), and His capabilities are endless. Certainly He is capable of manifesting Himself in whatever form He desires. I believe we could all agree that God could defy the laws of logic if it were His prerogative, simply because He is God. Still, the question remains: would He? In consideration of God’s moral character, the most likely answer is that He would not. After all, God supplied humanity with logic for the very purpose of knowing and understanding Him fully. It only seems counterintuitive that He would reveal Himself in ways beyond our understanding. If God desires us to know Him more intimately, then why would He expect us to believe concepts that are impossible to comprehend? Thus, it becomes perplexing to think Jesus is 100% God, 100% man, and that He possesses a dual nature.

From the feedback that I often receive, these are the genuine thoughts that many individuals have contemplated throughout Christianity. Naturally, most of us believe in the dual nature of Christ only by default, because we were raised under this theology. It requires great faith to embrace such a concept. In every respect, a dual nature is not a human trait. If Jesus’ nature were twofold, then how could He be an authentic human? Indeed, one of the very characteristics that classifies a human as authentic is his given nature. Realistically, if Jesus possessed supervenient qualities under the non-human category—that no other person possesses—it would compromise the genuine aspect of humanity as it is defined.

Ultimately, upon the basis that God can become human, we should expect Him to forfeit His existence as Deity altogether; that is, to legitimately meet the criteria of an authentic human. (Philippians 2:5-8 will be discussed in Chapter 4.) While it is appropriate to speak in terms of divine attributes, it seems to compromise the legitimacy of one’s humanity to be placed under the dual nature category. Thus, a dual nature is just as perplexing as the incarnation. (For further clarification on divine nature, see Ch. 11.)

Even though many individuals tend to have alarmed reactions when hearing these ideas for the first time, perhaps the overall concept is misunderstood. Most consider these issues to be nothing more than overanalyzing the mystery of the Godhead. It may be said that this line of reasoning is too logical and that we must allow room for faith to fill in the gaps. But that is exactly the point. Frankly, the concept of the incarnation leaves us with gaps. It seems to defy the laws of logic. Thus, it is a mystery. Predominantly, this is the purpose behind our examination.

Now, this is not to say that logic should be our primary study tool. On the contrary, our methods of study will be discussed in the following chapter. Yet in agreement with brother Bernard, our ability to reason is part of God’s design and should be used appropriately. Since God is the One who supplied humanity with logic (the ability for us to analyze), it is difficult to understand why He would leave any room for confusion when His sole desire is for us to know and understand Him and His Son (John 17:3).

Having established these questions, I concede that it does not have to be questionable. Acquiring an understanding of the Godhead can be simple. Comprehending the nature of the Son is attainable. We can have a concise understanding of the Mighty God in Christ, as well as a practical means of explaining this phenomenon. Ultimately, there is a difference between God revealing Himself as a person via incarnation versus through or in a person, as described by the writers of Scripture. What I submit in this book can be summed up from what Jesus shared when revealing His Father to the world.

The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.—John 14:10

During His earthly ministry, Jesus described a unique indwelling as opposed to a literal incarnation. This point of clarification is confirmed in numerous places throughout the New Testament. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (Col 2:9). God was in Christ (II Cor 5:19). That God dwelt within the man Jesus is declared emphatically in Scripture. Underneath the surface, however, we find that many verses used to teach about a literal incarnation are less complementary and are more favorable to the idea of an extraordinary indwelling. When it comes to the more celebrated scriptures among our movement, it will come as a surprise to learn that many key passages have been 1) selectively emphasized, 2) taken out of context, 3) vague in writing, or 4) they were mistranslated when the Bible was converted to the English language, all of which we will analyze.

If nothing else, it should raise questions why we have seen so many formal debates centered upon Oneness and Trinity over the years. Even discussion groups can be found on social media revolving around this subject. Regardless of the format in a debate, each contender is expected to be equipped with Scripture to sustain their position. Sadly, of all the information shared in these debates, we never seem to accomplish anything. Neither party seems to be able to convince the other of something they may be overlooking. Mostly because we have made up our minds what we want to believe, and we are convinced there is nothing more to learn from anyone else. In other words, most of us do not really listen or consider any additional information because we are convinced we already have the answer.

From our position, Oneness understands there is but one indivisible God. We hammer out this fundamental rule of theology in attempts to convince Trinitarians of God’s numerical position. At the same time, we have the tendency to neglect the distinction between the Father and the Son, even though it is seen in Scripture; a detail that Trinitarians refuse to ignore. While their views of this distinction are far from the biblical portrayal, Trinitarians are at least willing to acknowledge that our Bibles depict Jesus as an individual soul distinct from the Father, a concept from which we tend to evade.

Though we should never succumb to the fallacies of Trinitarianism, Binitarianism¹³ or Dualism,¹⁴ it might benefit those among our movement to at least acknowledge the distinction between the Father and Son as it appears in Scripture. At the same time, this is not to say that we should question the Oneness of God, because we should not. Indeed, He is absolutely and indivisibly one (Deut 6:4). To acknowledge the distinction between God and Christ does not compromise the Oneness of God. And it does not mean that we are embracing false doctrine. It just demonstrates that we are willing to gain a clearer picture of what we often neglect.

The fact that Trinitarians are able to bring multiple passages to the table demonstrates why formal debates even exist. Frankly, if there is no distinguishing factor between God and Christ in Scripture, then how did this topic become the subject of debate in the first place? Without question, the distinction is present in Scripture. Otherwise there would be no need for debate if there was nothing to argue.

Because of these areas that have been neglected, we will be addressing the biblical distinction between Father and Son by learning about the human aspect of Jesus; how He was an authentic man, foreordained (I Pet 1:20), approved (Acts 2:22), appointed and anointed by God (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38, 10:42; Heb 1:2, 3:2), and that He was given all authority in Heaven and Earth to rule as our King for the final dispensation of time (Matt 28:18; I Cor 15:24-28).

Test All Things

Naturally, after reading something as alarming as the previous section, one should expect the following commentary to be centered upon trying the spirits. For a moment, consider what we expect from Trinitarians when converting them to Oneness. In attempts to correct a Trinitarian of his thought process, we generally advise to search everything out before jumping to conclusions. We understand principles such as test all things (I Thess 5:21) and try the spirits whether they are of God (I John 4:1). We should never brush something off or ignore whatever sounds strange at first (though most tend to do just that). When introduced to something unfamiliar, it is most beneficial to do everything within our ability to understand it before making any determinations.

In the book of Acts, we find a noble group of converts who received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). Despite the unfamiliar, this group sought to confirm whether the information was true. Likewise, this is how we can discern whether something is of God or not, because we have tried or tested it.

I believe everyone under the Christian name experiences moments of questioning, perhaps when hearing or reading something that fails to line up with his or her doctrinal profession. Most of the time, we tend to ignore those thoughts and convince ourselves that we cannot fully understand the depths of God’s Word. On the other hand, when we are bold enough to acknowledge those inconsistencies, our conscience bears witness that we may be overlooking something doctrinally.

In a discussion group, someone brought up a subject that will now serve as my first example (and will be further examined in Chapter 3). The focus was the name of God versus the name of His Son. From our position, Oneness maintains that the Father’s name is Jesus. The common explanation is that God did not reveal His name fully until the New Testament, when He became the man Jesus.¹⁵ As it is often quoted, The God of the Old Testament became the Savior of the New Testament. However, under this premise we should therefore be able to apply the name Jesus in every passage that speaks of the Father, whether it be Old Testament or New Testament. Let us see what happens when doing so.

In the beginning [Jesus] created the heaven and the earth.

—Genesis 1:1

For [Jesus] so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.                  —John 3:16

We will be addressing this topic specifically in later chapters. Nevertheless, these passages sound strange to hear, whether the Father’s name is Jesus or not. The fundamental purpose of this example is that our conscience alerts