Is Jesus His Father? Trinitarianism vs. Oneness Pentecostalism

By Dr. Patrick Johnston

Introduction

The reader of this debate most likely fits into one of two categories:

• the “Apostolic” believer who thinks the “Trinitarians” are not saved because they haven’t been baptized in Jesus’ name only, and
• the “Trinitarians” think the “Apostolics” are not saved for denying the existence of Jesus’ Father.

I’m convinced that the vast majority of these do not understand the opposing view well. To better understand this great schism, this debate gives what I believe are the best arguments for and against each view.

This is the primary point of contention in the debate: “Is Jesus His Father?” That is the chief disagreement and the foundation of most of the differences in doctrine between the United Pentecostal or Apostolic churches and other Christian denominations. In this debate, the Oneness proponent will answer the debate question in the affirmative, whereas the Trinitarian will answer in the negative.

Following traditional debate format, the affirmative defense (the Oneness proponent) will begin with an opening statement, and the Trinitarian will follow with an opening statement. Then the Oneness proponent will give a rebuttal, followed by the Trinitarian. Then there will be cross-examination, with each asking the other questions and the response limited to brief answers. The cross-examination is very helpful to improve our understanding of the subject because it gives each side an opportunity to point out any insincere arguments, inconsistencies and logical fallacies, or the smoke and mirrors arguments of the opposing view. The Trinitarian will go first with cross-examination, followed by the Oneness proponent.

Lastly, there will be brief conclusions, beginning with the Trinitarian and followed by the Oneness proponent.

Opening Statements

Oneness proponent:
“Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” So says Paul the Apostle in I Timothy 3:16. The one true God manifesting Himself in the flesh is the principle truth of the Christian faith that distinguishes it from the pagan polytheistic religions. Jesus was not just a prophet or a great teacher, not just a great man with supernatural power, not “Jehovah Junior” or second-in-command, but the one, true God Almighty enveloped in human flesh. Not one of the gods, but the only true God manifest in the flesh.

No man ever saw God because God is a Spirit. He’s omnipresent and eternal. To be our atonement and make a bridge between man and God, God had to take on human flesh. Then the angels could see Him. Then man could for the first time see God and live. Jesus is the express image of the one God, the brightness of God’s glory, in visible, tangible form (Hebrews 1:3). Looking at Jesus is the only way to see the Father, because Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

Isaiah declares the word of the Lord in chapter 43, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside Me there is no Saviour.” The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God and the only Savior. There is no other. Jesus is the one true God and only Savior because He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in human form.

The Jews took up stones to stone Jesus because they understand the truth of what He was saying when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” He is the Great I AM.

Colossians 1:16 says, “By Him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth.” Jesus is the Creator of all things.

Prophesying of the Messiah, Isaiah declares in chapter 9 verse 6: “Unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” According to the plainest reading of Scripture, the Son that was given is “The mighty God, The everlasting Father.” Not “a mighty God” but “the mighty God!” Not “a Father” but “The everlasting Father.” If Jesus was not “the everlasting Father” then He could not fulfill this prophecy and could not be the Messiah.

Phillip asked Jesus, “Show us the Father” and Jesus responded, “Have I been [such a] long time with you, and yet hast thou not know Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (John 14). Can it be any clearer? Jesus said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”

In John 8:19, Jesus told the unbelievers, “Ye neither know Me, nor My Father: if ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also.” Jesus could only say this if He were the Father.

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19). The God of the Bible is not three Gods but one God – even the devil knows that!

Most Trinitarians believe that Jesus has always been the Son of God. But there is no evidence that Jesus was the Son of God before His conception in Mary’s womb. Hebrews 1:5 asks, “Unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee?” The words “This day” prove that He has not always been a Son. The Son was begotten. He was the I AM who became a Son when He took on human flesh to make atonement for our sins.

This is a critical truth for the salvation of our souls. In the Great Commission as recorded by Mark, chapter 16, Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” and “These signs shall follow them that believe; In My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues…” That baptism in water in Jesus’ name is necessary for salvation does not mean that salvation is somehow earned or merited. Salvation is still a gift of undeserved grace, but it is given to those that meet the conditions. To illustrate this truth further, consider: faith, we all would agree, does not earn salvation. If you believe in Jesus you still deserve to go to hell. Yet we all would agree that it is a condition for salvation. Well, according to Scriptures, it is not the only condition for salvation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Baptism in water is absolutely necessary for salvation according to Mark’s version of the Great Commission. Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9). Acts 5:32 says that God gives the Holy Spirit “to them that obey Him.” Obedience to God doesn’t earn salvation, but it is a condition without which we cannot be saved. Furthermore, the initial evidence of getting filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking in unknown tongues. Mark’s version of the Great Commission proves that speaking in unknown tongues is a sign that follows them that believe.

In the Great Commission as preached by Matthew, in chapter 28, Jesus tells His disciples to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In Luke’s version of the Great Commission, He tells them to tarry at Jerusalem “until ye be endued with power from on high” and “repentance and remission of sins should be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Beginning at Jerusalem. Let’s go to Jerusalem to see how it began.

In the first sermon after the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost was given to the 120 disciples, Peter said to the multitudes, “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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” Acts 2:38-39. All water baptisms recorded after the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost were done “in the name of Jesus.” Is there a contradiction with the words of Matthew 28’s Great Commission? Notice, it says “name,” singular – not “names,” plural. Jesus is the “name” of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus have their sins remitted and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues.

This promise is not just to the believers in the book of Acts: “This promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as our Lord shall call.” The promise of God’s unmerited gift of grace and salvation is given to those who meet the conditions; namely, repentance and water baptism in Jesus’ name only, and the evidence of the gift of the Holy Ghost by speaking in unknown tongues. It is for you today!

Trinitarian:
From the first chapter of the Bible to the last, we see the overwhelming testimony of both the oneness of God and the plurality of God. “The Lord our God is one Lord,” says Deuteronomy 6, and “There is no God besides Me” the prophet Isaiah insisted. Simultaneously, God said, “Let us make man in our image.” Twenty-seven hundred times in Scripture, the word for “God” is “Elohim” which is plural. It is the plural form of “Elohah.” In the King James Version, two hundred and thirty-nine times “Elohim” is even translated “gods.” The doctrine of the Trinity has engendered confusion because of this apparent contradiction, and to avoid the errors of oneness on one hand and tri-theism on the other, we must be careful to consult everything the Bible says on this subject instead of picking and choosing verses that fit what we believe and ignoring or perverting the passages that appear to contradict our tradition. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by – what? – by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

I believe that there is one God, but only in the sense that God says they are one. No one can describe the relationship between Jesus’ Father and Jesus better than the Jesus Himself, so we would do well to consult Him on this subject. He prayed for His disciples in John 17, “That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us … that they may be one, even as We are one.” Can you and I – believers in Jesus – ever become one another? No. Can we ever become one person? No. But we can be one just like Jesus and His Father are one. We can become one in unity. This is seen throughout the Old and New Testament. “Let us make man in our image,” God said in Genesis 1:26. We see it all throughout the teachings of Christ: “If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make Our abode with Him.” (John 14:23). Also in John 15:24, “Now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father.”

According to Jesus, the Father “is in heaven” while Jesus is on earth (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 7:21, and many other places.) In John 16:28, Jesus says, “I leave the world and go to the Father.” Even after His resurrection in His glorified body, Jesus declares in John 20:17, “Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and Your Father, and to My God and your God.” They were not with each other yet. Jesus was on earth and His Father in heaven, even after His resurrection and before His ascension. Thus, Jesus cannot be His Father. He calls the disciples His “brethren.” How do oneness proponents respond to this passage? For the most part, they don’t. They ignore it. If it doesn’t fit their traditional grid, they put it out of their minds.

The Father had duties that Jesus said He did not have, proving that Jesus cannot be His own Father. In Matthew 20:23, Jesus said, “To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” In Mark 13:32, Jesus said, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The Father knows something that His Son doesn’t; thus, Jesus cannot be the Father. Jesus said in John 14:24, “The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s which sent Me.” If it was not His word but the Father’s, then Jesus cannot be that Father. John 5:22 says, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.” If the Father’s not judging any man, but is appointing that duty to the Son, then they can’t be one another.

Jesus said He was dependent on the Father’s strength, not His own, proving He cannot be His own Father. John 5:19 says, “The Son of man can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do.” Similarly in John 8:28: “I can do nothing of myself, but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things.” In John 5:31, Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of Me… The Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of me.” If Jesus bore witness of Himself, He confesses that His witness would be false; thus, there must be someone else bearing witness of Him – the Father. Jesus said in John 8:54, “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is My Father that honoureth Me.” Is Jesus’ honor nothing? Then He must not be honoring Himself. His Father bears witness and honors Him.

Jesus plainly said that the Father was greater than Him, and that Jesus wasn’t seeking His own will, but the Father’s will. This proves He cannot be His own Father. In John 5:30, Jesus said, “I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me.” Matthew 26:39 says that Jesus wanted to avoid the cross, and had to submit His will to the Father’s will: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” In John 14:28, Jesus says, “My Father is greater than I.” 1 Corinthians 11:3 says “the head of Christ is God.” Jesus is subject to the Father and submits His will to the Father’s will, therefore they cannot be the same being.

Jesus plainly said that He was not alone, but the Father was with Him, proving that He cannot be His own Father. In John 8:16, Jesus said, “I am not alone, but I and the Father than sent Me. In John 8:29, Jesus says, “He that sent Me is with Me: the Father hath not left me alone.” He speaks similarly in John 16:32. If He is not alone but the Father is with Him, then He cannot be His own Father. The Oneness doctrine teaches that Jesus is alone. They teach that He is all the Father. But Jesus clearly teaches that He is not alone.

In John 8:17-18, Jesus said, “It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bears witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.” Jesus said that the Father and He comprise two witnesses, not one. It they were just one witness with two different titles, it would not meet the qualifications set up in God’s law for a testimony to be reliable. My debate opponent may be a father and a son, but the law of Moses forbids him to be two witnesses in a case. Likewise, Jesus’ appeal to the law of Moses proves that the Father and Jesus are two witnesses, not one. In First John 5:7, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are cited as three witnesses in heaven. Three different witnesses, yet one God. We must have a doctrine of the Godhead that reconciles both truths.

On the cross, Jesus prayed, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” He speaks to the Father as if He is someone else, and He asks the Father why He forsook Him. Did Jesus forsake Himself? If Jesus’ spirit forsook His flesh, He would have died then because the flesh can’t live without the spirit that gives the flesh life. But He did not die when He said this. It was later when He said, “Into Thy hands I commend My spirit” and then died. Into whose hands did Jesus commend His Spirit? These passages prove that Jesus was not the Father. Jesus could not die the God-man if the only thing divine about Jesus was the Father and the Father had forsaken Jesus before He died.

My opponent cites John 14 to prove that the Father is “in” Jesus, and he interprets this to mean that God the Father is the Spirit of Jesus Christ. But Jesus said, “I am in theFather, and the Father in Me.” They are “in” each other. This proves that the Father is “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” the Father in the same way that we are “in Christ”. We are one with them in unity, not numerically.

If you were to be told that a young girl that was serving you at a restaurant was really three identically dressed triplets taking turns serving you, you may disbelieve it until you were to witness all three of them at the same time. Well, there are at several other places in the Bible where Jesus, His Father, and the Holy Spirit are interacting or relating to one another, and these are powerful evidences that they are not one another. I shall mention three: When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist as recorded in Luke 3:22, “The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Here you have a picture of the Spirit, the Son, and the Father simultaneously relating to one another in different ways and forms, proving that they cannot be each other.

After His resurrection, Mark 16:19 says, “After the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” Acts 2:33-34 says, “Therefore being at the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens, but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.” The Lord invites the Lord to sit at His right hand after the resurrection “until” Jesus’ enemies are made subject to Him. This proves that Jesus cannot be the Father.

Lastly, in Acts 7, Stephen, “being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Here you have another picture of all three witnesses at the same time: Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, looks up to heaven and sees the Father and the Son at the Father’s right hand. This proves that they cannot be one another.

Rebuttals

Oneness proponent:
My debate opponent wants to say there are three Gods and one God all at the same time. He mentions the plural words and pronouns for God, but will my debate opponent come right out and say that there are three Gods? Why hold back from the inevitable conclusion to which his doctrine leads? If there’s more than one being who are both God and who are not each other, then just admit that there are two or three Gods! Let him bravely step forth and declare polytheism true, and we shall know how far this Trinitarian doctrine will take us into error. Or, else let him appeal to three gods only to try to prove Oneness false, but let Him hold back from consistency and insist that there is one God nonetheless, and he will reveal that his conscience objects to the polytheistic conclusions of the doctrine he professes. What Trinitarian will come right out and admit that there are three Gods? Their consciences object! They cannot be consistent. Is not this inconsistency, this inability to follow the doctrine to what we both would consider a heretical conclusion one more weighty piece of evidence that Oneness is true and the Trinitarian view false? This is powerful evidence for the truth that I am defending today.

How then do we explain the plural pronouns of God? Royalty will use plural pronouns when announcing edicts. The plural pronouns could refer to the omnipresent God in heaven and Jesus in the flesh. When God said, “Let us make man in our image,” he could be looking into the future and seeing Jesus in the flesh, and He could be referring to the formless Father in heaven and the Father enveloped in flesh on earth as “we.” It could also refer to the various attributes of God – his holiness, his justice, his mercy, etc. The most unlikely of all interpretations is a polytheist’s rendition.

John 3:13 says, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Even though Jesus was on earth, His Spirit was in heaven because His Spirit was the eternal God. As the Son, He shed the divine qualities of omnipresence and omniscience so He could be one of us, but as God, His Spirit was still omnipresent.

Understanding the relation between Jesus’ flesh and Jesus’ spirit explains many of the references that my debate opponent mentioned. In Jesus’ comments about His Father having different duties than him, we have the Son of God referring to the eternal Father, or, in other words, the flesh of Jesus referring to His Spirit. He had to be our example to show us how to depend on God’s Spirit for strength. In a sense, the Father was greater than Him, because the eternal God was greater than Jesus’ flesh. In a sense, the Father was in heaven while Jesus was on earth, because the eternal God is omnipresent while the flesh of Jesus is limited. In a sense, Jesus did not do the miracles through His own power but the Father did the miracles through Jesus, because Jesus was not reliant upon His flesh to do miracles, but on the strength of the eternal God, which is Jesus’ Spirit.

In the Garden of Gethesemane, we have Jesus’ flesh struggling with the knowledge of the pain He was about to endure when He prayed, “Not my will, but Thine be done.” Jesus’ flesh had to be made to submit to the will of the Father. The Bible says in Hebrews 5:9, “Though He were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” Jesus’ flesh had to learn obedience through His suffering. Did His Spirit have to learn obedience? No – He was sinless. But His flesh had to learn to submit.

At the baptism of Jesus, the Father spoke from heaven because the Father is in heaven – He’s omnipresent. Nevertheless, Jesus is the eternal God. Both are equally true. But it is no contradiction to the doctrine of “Oneness” that the Father would speak from heaven to His Son on earth. If God can hear a million prayers at the same time, God can speak from two different places at one time.

Jesus’ seat at the right hand of the Father is figurative metaphor, and not literal. God, first of all, does not literally have a hand. God is a Spirit and doesn’t have a human body with human body parts. That Jesus is at the right hand of God refers to His position of authority and strength. The psalmist wrote, “[Thou] savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in Thee!” Psalm 80:17 speaks of the Messiah when it says, “Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, upon the son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself.” After His resurrection, Jesus declared, “All power has been given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” All power! The Father has no power that Jesus does not have. That is what it means that He is at the Father’s right hand. He has all of the strength and authority of the eternal God.

“Father” is a title, not a name. “Son” is a title, not a name. When the Scripture says we should baptize them “in the name” – singular – “of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” we should baptize them in that name, not in the titles. There is only one name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. What is that name? The name of Jesus! It is the name in which they baptized people in the book of Acts. We must have faith in order to be saved, but we must have faith in the truth. Faith in a lie is not redeeming. The truth is that the plan of salvation, as demonstrated by the Apostles in the book of Acts, is to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remision of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

My debate opponent insists on three distinct beings called “God” but Paul declared “There is one body, and one Spirit… One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6). Notice that the “one Spirit,” “one Lord,” and “one Father” is “in you all.” There’s only one God, and it’s the One that dwells in believers. The Holy Ghost is not a part of God, or an underling of the Godhead, or a third perso of the Trinity, but He is the Lord Jesus, He is God the Father.

When Jesus foretold the baptism of the Holy Spirit that would happen in Acts chapter 2, He said that the Holy Spirit “dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:16-17).

Who is the Spirit that dwelled “with them” and who “shall be in them”? Who was the Spirit that came upon the 120 with cloven tongues of fire, giving them the gift of the Holy Ghost? Jesus was that Spirit! He dwelled with them during his three years of ministry, and on the Day of Pentecost He was going to indwell them. “I will come to you,” Jesus says, foretelling that day in which the New Testament church was birthed. Romans 8:9 says that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. They are one and the same. There is only one God.

“In Him [Jesus],” Paul says in Colossians 2, “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” All the fullness of God dwells in Jesus in bodily form. There is no divinity outside of Him. He is the Father, He is the Son, and He is the Spirit. “If you have seen Me,” says Christ, “ye have seen the Father.”

Don’t let my debate opponent deceive you into thinking 1+ 1 + 1 = 1. You don’t have to be a Bible scholar or get a math degree to see the error in that equation. If my opponent is right and Jesus is not the everlasting Father, then there’s two beings fully God who are not one another. Add the Holy Ghost being fully God and not Jesus or the Father, and you have a tri-theistic religion that is as foreign to Scripture as it is to conscience. The Apostolic faith is restoring the biblical truth that there is only one God and His name is Jesus, and that the only way to be saved is found in Acts 2:38 and 39: repent, be baptized in His name, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Trinitarian:
We must not impose our own definitions upon God’s Word, but we must let God define His own terms. The Bible clearly tells us the sense in which Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus prayed that you and I – believers in Jesus – could be one in the same sense that He and the Father are one. That was His prayer. All Christians should one just like Jesus and the Father are one.

The Bible also proves that “Father” is a name. In Isaiah 9:6 – a Scripture that my debate opponent cites – “the everlasting Father” is called a “name”. A name is defined as what you call somebody, and “Father” is what Jesus calls His Father and taught us to call His Father. You cannot prove from Scripture that the name that Jesus calls his Father is just a title – you have to impose that upon Scripture contrary to Scripture. Does the Bible prove that the Father is a title? No. But the Bible does call “the Father” a name.

My debate opponent brings up John 1:1 to try and prove that Jesus is the Father, but the passage, carefully read, refutes the Oneness view. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” How can my debate opponent explain how the Word can be “with God”? How can that be reconciled with Oneness? Trinitarians can easily explain how the Word can be God and “with God” simultaneously. But the doctrine of Oneness denies that Jesus was “with God” in the beginning.

Some of our different interpretations of Scriptures are the result of our traditional, preconceived notions, or our grid, or our eyeglasses, so to speak, through which we read and interpret Scripture. What we need to do is take off the eyeglasses and prayerfully ask ourselves if that grid is biblical in the first place. My debate opponent explains many of the passages that appear to contradict their Oneness doctrine by appealing to a dichotomy between flesh an spirit. But is this dichotomy biblical at all? Setting aside the obvious doctrinal problem it is for Jesus to be praying to Himself (to His own Spirit), consider the impossibility of their assertion: can the flesh even pray at all? Does the flesh even have a will? Can the flesh speak? The Bible teaches that the flesh is dead without the human spirit. God created Adam, but he had no life in Him until God breathed into Adam. Only then he became a living soul. You are a spirit and you live in the flesh. Your flesh is the car, so to speak, and your spirit is the driver. Just as your car can’t go anywhere without you to drive it, the flesh cannot pray or do anything morally virtuous or blameworthy without the human spirit to choose. Jesus resolves His internal conflict in the Garden of Gethsemane by choosing to submit His will to the will of the Father. His flesh is certainly an influence to try to pull Him away from His Father’s will, but his flesh cannot pray. In instructing His disciples to stay awake and pray in Gethsemane, Jesus said, “The Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The flesh cannot pray, but it can hinder prayer. The “eyeglasses” through my opponent interprets his problem Scriptures is faulty.

Another unbiblical assertion that Oneness proponents make about Jesus’ flesh and spirit is that Jesus’ spirit is the eternal Spirit of the Father. Jesus had a human spirit before the Holy Spirit descended “in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him” at His water baptism, and before He, “being full of the Holy Ghost… was led by the Spirit into the wilderness” (Luke 3:22 and 4:1). The Bible says that when Jesus was young, “the child grew, and waxed strong in the spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him” and “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:40 and 52). As a child, Jesus’ spirit grew strong and wise and He grew in favor with God. The eternal spirit of God could never “wax [or grow] strong” because God’s omnipotent. Furthermore, how can the Spirit of God grow in favor with the Spirit of God? If what grew in favor with God was Jesus’ flesh, how can “the likeness of sinful flesh” grow in favor of God (Romans 8:3)? All the flesh can do to help us get closer to God is die. The Bible says that flesh will never glory in His presence. Human flesh will never gain God’s favor. Oh, what a tangled web the Oneness proponents weave! Jesus’ human spirit, which gave His flesh life, is not the eternal Holy Spirit, which visibly came upon him and filled Him at His water baptism.

John 14 and Isaiah 9 are two of the strongest passages upon which the Oneness doctrines are built. Since Jesus is one with the Father and the perfect reflection of the Father’s character, we’d expect incidences where Jesus would say, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.” We’d expect Him to even be called Father, as Isaiah 9:6 prophesies, because of His perfect reflection of the Father’s fatherly love and holy attributes. But if Jesus were not literally His own Father, we’d expect Him to be clear on that in His recorded words and in the words of Scripture, lest there be any confusion. In the passages mentioned above where Jesus describes His relationship with the Father, how could it be any clearer? The Son says He is not alone, but the Father is with Him as a second witness. The Father knows things that Jesus doesn’t. The Father has duties and obligations that the Son doesn’t. The Father is greater than the Son and the Son is submitted unto the Father now and will be at the end of the age. The Father gives authority and gives commands and the Son obeys. The Father does not judge, but commits all judgment to the Son. Appealing to the law of Moses’ requirement that two or three witnesses are necessary to confirm a truth in court, Jesus said that He and His Father are two witnesses. Which view – the oneness or Trinitarian view - best comports with everything Jesus says about His relationship with the Father?

One of the strongest arguments against the Oneness doctrine is what the Bible says about the relationship between Jesus and the Father after His resurrection, when He is in His glorified condition. After Jesus’ resurrection, He told Mary, “Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to My Father, and your Father, to my God and your God.” Even after Jesus shed the frail shell of humanity in which He was enveloped, He still has a Father and a God. Hebrews 4:14, written after the resurrection, says, “Seeing then that we have a great High priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.” The oneness proponents insist that the sonship of God refers to Jesus’ flesh, but the Scriptures teach that Jesus is still God’s Son. Jesus “ever liveth to make intercession for us” (Hebrews 7:25). He intercedes to the Father for us at His right hand. He’s our “Advocate with the Father” (I John 2:1). “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you,” Jesus will say on Judgment Day to His sheep (Matthew 25:24). He also will confess men “before the Father” (Matthew 10:32 and Revelation 3:5). “Our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” according to I John 1:3; we fellowship with both of them, and they both make their abode in those who keep Christ’s commandments (John 14:23). There are dozens of post-resurrection Scriptures that refer to “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” as if they are two different beings (Ephesians 6:23, II Corin.1:3, Galatians 1:3, II Corin.1:2-3 and 13:14, etc.). Oneness proponents respond to each of these passages by simply changing the words of the verse to fit their doctrine, another prime example of imposing their views on Scripture instead of deriving their views from Scripture.

My debate opponent insists that Jesus being exalted at God’s right hand is figurative, but is there any evidence that it is anything but literal? Jesus will always have the Father’s strength and authority – my debate opponent and I both agree on this. But will Jesus always be at Father’s right hand? Not according to Scripture. The Father said to Jesus, “Sit thou on My right hand until I make Thy foes Thy footstool” and “until the times of restitution of all things” (Acts 2:34 and 3:31). “Until” - that word proves that it cannot be a figurative metaphor. Jesus is literally at the Father’s right hand, proving that He cannot be His own Father.

At the end of the age, when “all things are put under [Jesus], it is manifest that He [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto [Jesus], then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (I Corinthians 15:24-28). When the Father has finally made Jesus’ enemies His footstool, “the Son also Himself” shall “be subject unto Him that put all things under Him.” Even when Jesus is no longer in human flesh, He is still a Son and He still speaks to the Father as if He’s someone else. In eternity future, they still they have different roles, and the Father is still greater than the Son and the Son is subject to the Father. My debate opponent can bring up very few verses to try and prove that we must repent and be baptized in Jesus’ name only in order to be saved. For every single verse he could mention, there are literally fifty verses like Acts 16:31 which only mention faith as the condition for salvation. This is another example of emphasizing one Scripture – Acts 2:38 - at the expense of everything else the Bible says on that subject, even within the book of Acts. But “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” The Bible says that there is no Scripture of any private interpretation. To elevate Acts 2:38 above every other Scripture that speaks on the subject is unscriptural, and when that doctrine condemns 99% of Christians throughout history to hell, even the movement’s founders like Charles Parham and William Seymour, even martyrs of the faith throughout the ages, the doctrine sows discord and division and grieves the heart of God as one of the most sectarian doctrines ever invented.

Trinitarian Cross-examines Oneness Proponent

Trinitarian: Is Jesus all the Father?
Oneness proponent: Yes. He is God.

Trinitarian: Can you keep a secret from yourself?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian:  Can Jesus keep a secret from Himself?
Oneness proponent: No. That’s an absurd notion.

Trinitarian: Precisely. How then can the Father know the hour of the Jesus’s coming and Jesus does not know, as Mark 13:32 says, if indeed Jesus is the Father?
Oneness proponent: Because Jesus is limited by human flesh.

Trinitarian: Is the Father limited by human flesh now?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: Is Jesus the Father?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Then how can Jesus’ knowledge of the Father be limited by human flesh? Doesn’t He know Himself?
Oneness proponent: The Father’s divine attributes such as His omniscience and His omnipresence are limited by Jesus’ human flesh. It’s a self-imposed limitation so He could be our atonement and our example.

Trinitarian: If Jesus is the Father, He only needs to know what He knows in order to know what the Bible says the Father knows. If Jesus is all the Father, how can the Father know something that Jesus doesn’t?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ flesh limits the Father. Jesus’ flesh limits His Spirit.

Trinitarian: How can Jesus’ knowledge of what Jesus knows is limited by His flesh?
Oneness proponent: The same way that God is omnipresent, Jesus is God, and yet Jesus is not omnipresent. God willingly became a man.

Trinitarian: Is it true that you consider Jesus’ Spirit to be the Father, and His flesh to be the Son of God?
Oneness proponent: Yes. It was the Son of God who died, not the Father. After all, how can God die? The Son of God died, so the Son refers to the flesh of Jesus.

Trinitarian: In your opening statement, you appealed to John 3:13 to try to prove that Jesus’ Spirit was omnipresent when He was on earth, yet the passage says that “the son of man” was in heaven. But you have said that the Son refers to Jesus’ flesh. Do you believe that Jesus’ flesh was in heaven in John 3:13, or was it His spirit that was in heaven?
Oneness proponent: His Spirit. His flesh was not omnipresent.

Trinitarian: So does the term “the Son of God” refer to Jesus’ human flesh or not?
Oneness proponent: Sometimes the term refers to His human flesh, which limits His divine attributes, and post-resurrection the term refers to Jesus in a glorified state, unlimited by physical human frailty.

Trinitarian: How do you respond to all of the passages that call Jesus “the Son” after the resurrection?
Oneness proponent: Jesus has a glorified human body.

Trinitarian: Is the Son of God divine?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: If you believe that the Son refers to Jesus’ human flesh, then how can the Son of God be divine? If you believe that the term “the Son” during His time on earth refers to Jesus’ flesh and is divine, and the flesh is different than His Spirit, which is the Father, then you have two different divinities, don’t you?
Oneness proponent: Jesus is divine because His Spirit is God the Father. The Son is only divine in the sense that He is the human shell of the Almighty God. The Son has no divinity apart from the one true God.

Trinitarian: Does the Son of God have a spirit? Or is the Son of God just spiritless flesh?
Oneness proponent: Jesus has one Spirit, which is the Father.

Trinitarian: You didn’t answer my question. You have said that the Son of God refers to Jesus’ flesh and His Spirit refers to the Father. Does the Son of God have a spirit, or is the Son just spiritless flesh? Or does Jesus have two Spirits, one human spirit and one that is divine?
Oneness proponent: Ephesians 4 says that there one Spirit.

Trinitarian: Actually Ephesians 4 says that there’s one Spirit, and one Lord, and one Father, which proves my position, but that’s beside the point I’m trying to make here. Did Jesus have a human spirit?
Oneness proponent: That’s debatable. Some Apostolic theologians would argue that He had a human spirit as well, but then you get into the difficulty of Jesus having a spirit that is not God and a spirit that is God, or else you get into the difficulty of two divine spirits, a human one and eternal one, that are both God. I’m convinced, therefore, that Jesus’ had one spirit, the eternal Spirit of the one true God.

Trinitarian: Either theory has severe problems. If what makes Jesus divine is His Spirit, which is the Father, and what limits his divine attributes is His spiritless flesh, which is “the Son”, then how can the spiritless “likeness of sinful flesh” be divine? Don’t you see how this denies the divinity of the Son of God?
Oneness proponent: No. Why can’t the Son be divine because the Spirit of God dwells in Him?

Trinitarian: Does the Spirit of God dwell in you?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: If the Spirit of God in Jesus is what makes Jesus divine, then does the Spirit of God in you make you divine?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ Spirit is the eternal Spirit of God, unlike me. I have a human spirit that is not divine, though the divine dwells in me.

Trinitarian: If the Spirit that dwells in you does not make you divine, then the Spirit that dwells in Jesus cannot make Him divine either. If your human spirit makes you a living, genuine human being, then Jesus’ lack of a human spirit prevents him from being genuinely human. Can’t you see that your theories on the Sonship of Jesus undermine either the divinity of the Son or the humanity of the Son?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: Can you reconcile your theory on Jesus’ Sonship with passages where the Father addresses Jesus as “the Son” and calls Him “God”, such as in Hebrews 1: “Unto the Son, He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever”?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ flesh made Him human, whereas His Spirit makes Him God. God in His role as Father acknowledges the divinity of God in His role as Son. Even so, there is only one God.

Trinitarian: Trinitarians agree; however, which view of God’s oneness is more compatible with Scripture? In Luke 3 and 4, Jesus is filled with the Holy Ghost? He said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me.” Acts 10:38 says that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” and that “God was with Him.” When He was baptized by John, the Spirit of God descended upon Him as a dove. How could that be possible if Jesus was the Holy Ghost? Was He filled with more of Himself? Oneness proponent: Yes, in a sense, He was.

Trinitarian: Earlier, you admitted that Jesus is all of the Father. How can you get more of something you already have all of? If the Holy Spirit is the Father – the one true God - then how can Jesus get more of the Father?
Oneness proponent: Jesus doesn’t get more of the Father, but rather receives the manifestation of the Holy Ghost to do ministry, so He can serve as our example. He did no miracle before the Spirit of God came upon Him, so He could serve as our example.

Trinitarian: You have called the “Father,” the “Son,” and the “Holy Spirit” titles, specifically in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, and said that Jesus is the name of each of these. Yet now you are saying that the Father is Jesus’ Spirit and the Son is Jesus’ flesh. Are the Father and the Son different titles of the same being (Jesus) or are they different and distinct parts of Jesus’ being?
Oneness proponent: Both.

Trinitarian: How can they be different titles for Jesus if they are different and distinct parts of Jesus? If these titles are different parts of Jesus – the Father being His Spirit and the Son being His flesh – can you see how they are not one and are distinct and different? Can’t you see that if your doctrine of God’s oneness is true, then the Son and the Father are not one?
Oneness proponent: Jesus is one being. We’re splitting hairs for the sake of doctrinal accuracy to explain how He can be fully man and fully God, but Jesus is unified. Even Trinitarians have a problem explaining how Jesus is fully man and fully God. There are limits to the human language.

Trinitarian: Even so, God’s Word is sufficiently clear on the subject of Jesus’ relationship to His Father to settle this matter. Can’t you see that your theory on Jesus’ Sonship has disunified the Father and the Son? They are not one, but different and distinct parts of Jesus’ being.
Oneness proponent: No. They are one another. Jesus is the Father.

Trinitarian: Is the Son of God the Father?
Oneness proponent: The Son of God refers to Jesus’ flesh, and the Father is not Jesus’ flesh, but Jesus’ spirit.

Trinitarian: If the Son is Jesus’ flesh and His flesh is not divine, and the Father is Jesus’ Spirit and is divine, and if Jesus’ flesh and Spirit are distinct and different from one another and occasionally in conflict with one another as in Gethsemane, then don’t you have the Son and the Father distinct and different from one another?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: If Jesus was limited by human flesh, then it would stand to reason that when Jesus was resurrected He would not be limited by human flesh anymore. Correct?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Are all the self-imposed limitations of Jesus’ flesh cast off once Jesus has received His perfect, resurrected body?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Jesus claimed to be subject to the Father and inferior to the Father when He was on earth. Is that a limitation that has been cast off now that He is resurrected and no longer has the restraints of human flesh?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: If Jesus is now the Father without any of the limitations He had when He was in human flesh, how then can the Son of God still be subject to and submit to the Father at the end of the New Testament age, as it says in I Corinthians 15:24-28?
Oneness proponent: At the end of the age, God, in His role as Son, submits to God in His role as Father. Passages such as I Corinthians 15 must never undermine the fundamental doctrine that God is “1.”

Trinitarian: The passage says that Jesus will deliver the Kingdom up to His Father when all His enemies have been made subject to Him, and then Jesus will be subject unto the Father. Where does it say anything about roles?
Oneness proponent: The Son of God is a role of God, a part God plays in the redemption of man. God in His role as the Son submits to God in His role as Father at the conclusion of the plan of redemption.

Trinitarian: Stating your belief doesn’t prove it. Stating that the Son of God is a temporary role of God doesn’t not prove it. Will you please prove that assertion from Scripture?
Oneness proponent: The First Corinthians 15 passage proves it: at the end of the New Testament age, God in His role as Son submits unto God in His role as Father, and the Son, in essence, ceases to exist, and will exist only as Father, “that God may be all in all.”

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that you have imposed your beliefs upon this I Corinthians passage, and have not derived your beliefs from the sacred text?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: Ephesians 1:3 and I Peter 1:3 both say, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In Ephesians 3:17, Paul speaks of “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of glory.” John 20:17 says that Jesus, post-resurrection, still has a God and Father, and that His God and Father is our God and Father. Do you believe that Jesus still have a Father and that His Father is our Father?
Oneness proponent: No – He is the Father. Those verses are best interpreted to mean that God has certain roles, one as a Father and one as a Son. But there is still only one God and His name is Jesus.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that you have imposed your beliefs on the passage, as opposed to getting your beliefs from Scripture?
Oneness proponent: Scripturally, there is only one God. To cite those verses to try to prove that there are two that aren’t one another and yet are equally divine, is to forsake one of the central, foundational themes of the entire Bible.

Trinitarian: Trinitarians concur that there is one God; the question is, which belief best comports with everything God’s Word says on the subject? You must twist Scriptures to fit your unbiblical doctrine. God’s Word says that Jesus has a God and a Father, and that Jesus’ God and Father is our God and Father. Do you believe that Jesus is always going to be the Son of God or will the Son cease to exist?
Oneness proponent: God’s role as Son will cease to exist at the end of the age according to I Corinthians 15. His Sonship is for a span for the redemption of mankind.

Trinitarian: How then do you respond to the Scriptures such as “I am the Lord, and I change not” and “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever”?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ Spirit is the same, but His flesh has changed. Even Trinitarians would admit that Jesus doesn’t have the same likeness of sinful flesh that He had when He walked this earth. He has changed in some ways.

Trinitarian: In ways not so drastic as to completely do away with the Sonship of Jesus at the conclusion of His plan of redemption. Question: Does Jesus have all of the Father’s authority now?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Is Jesus always going to have the Father’s authority? Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Is Jesus always going to sit at the Father’s right hand?
Oneness proponent: As I said, that metaphor is best interpreted to mean that He has the Father’s authority and strength, so yes, He will always have the Father’s authority.

Trinitarian: How can you explain the Scriptures which I have mentioned which teach that Jesus will only be at the Father’s right hand “until” the earth be made His footstool, or “until” His foes be made subject unto Him?
Oneness proponent: The Scripture says that He will sit at the Father’s right hand until a certain time. The word “until” in those verses designates the time at the conclusion of the redemption of mankind and the end of God’s role as Son.

Trinitarian: Once again, I ask you, can you prove from Scripture that the Son of God ceases to exist, without imposing your views upon a passage when that passage plainly teaches no such thing?
Oneness proponent: The Son doesn’t cease to exist; God’s role as Son ceases to exist. The I Corinthians 15 passage makes the case that at the end of the age, God in His role as Son submits to God in His role as Father, so that the Father will be all in all.

Trinitarian: And from this you conclude that the Son ceases to exist?
Oneness proponent: As a Son, yes. When the plan of redemption concludes, Jesus thereafter exists only in His role as Father.

Trinitarian: If Jesus is all the Father and there is no Father outside of Jesus, then how can Jesus in His resurrected body, which is without the limitations of the flesh, still pray to the Father (Hebrews 7), be an Advocate with the Father (I John 2), confess men before His Father, and be subject to the Father?
Oneness proponent: God in His role as Son intercedes for man to God in His role as Father, is an Advocate between man and God the Father, and is subject to God the Father. God plays three roles in the redemption of man: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But there is still only one God.

Trinitarian: How can these three be three witnesses in heaven, as I John 5:7 proposes?
Oneness proponent: God in three roles makes three witnesses.

Trinitarian: Do you have three roles? Are you not a son, a husband, and a father?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: In light of God’s law, would you qualify to be three witnesses in a court case? Or would you just be one witness.
Oneness proponent: I would be one witness.

Trinitarian: In John 5:31 and John 8:16-18, Jesus appeals to the principle found in the law of God of requiring two witnesses to verify a truth; He says He is one witness and His Father another. Would Jesus violate His own law in declaring Himself to be one witness, and Himself in another role to be a second?
Oneness proponent: Jesus would never violate His law.

Trinitarian: Don’t you see that if Jesus in two roles claims to be two witnesses, and in I John 5:7 God in three roles claims to be three witnesses, then if oneness is true, He is violating His own law’s standard for verifying truth?
Oneness proponent: No. God is special in that He as one being can meet the qualifications of Moses’ law in being two witnesses.

Trinitarian: Stating something doesn’t prove it. Can you prove from Scripture that one being can be two witnesses because of two different roles he plays?
Oneness proponent: The passages you cite about two or three witnesses prove it. God is three witnesses, and is one Being.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that you have to impose your views upon those Scriptures, as opposed to getting your views from Scripture?
Oneness proponent: No. The doctrine of God’s oneness is central, and any apparent contradiction in Scripture must be interpreted to be compatible with the oneness of God.

Trinitarian: Is Jesus’ prayer of submission in the Garden of Gethsemane compatible with walking after the flesh, or walking after the Spirit?
Oneness proponent: Walking after the Spirit. Although Jesus lived in human flesh, He always walked after the Spirit.

Trinitarian: How do you define walking after the flesh, or walking in the flesh?
Oneness proponent: Obeying the desires of the flesh or the carnal nature.

Trinitarian: Paul said that in his flesh dwelt no good thing. Can anything good come out of sinful flesh?
Oneness proponent: No. We must mortify the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit to live forever.

Trinitarian: If Jesus was walking in the Spirit in the Garden, how then could it be His flesh that prayed “Not my will but Thine be done”?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ flesh was submitting unto His Spirit.

Trinitarian: Jesus’ prayer - “Not my will but Thine be done” - assumes two wills. How could Jesus say that His will was different from the Spirit’s will when He was that Spirit? Oneness proponent: Jesus’ flesh had a will, and in His prayer His flesh submitted to His Spirit’s will.

Trinitarian: If His flesh prayed that prayer in Gethsemane, then wasn’t it walking in the flesh that brought forth submission to God?
Oneness proponent: His flesh walked in the Spirit in the sense that it got out of the way and became subject to His Spirit. Walking in the flesh would have been catering to the flesh.

Trinitarian: You have contradicted yourself. You have said that Jesus’ flesh prayed the Gethsemane prayer of submission to God, and yet that walking in the flesh is sin. You have said that Jesus walked in the Spirit by praying a flesh-originated and not a Spirit-originated prayer. Which is it? Does walking after the flesh please God or not?
Oneness proponent: I believe I answered the question.

Trinitarian: How can the Word, mentioned in John 1:1, be God, and yet be “with God”? How could Jesus be with the Father in eternity past if He was the Father in eternity past?
Oneness proponent: Only in the sense that the timeless, omnipresent Father looked forward into time and was “with” His begotten Son.

Trinitarian: Do you use plural pronouns when you refer to yourself? For example, God said, “Let us make man in our image?” Would you ever refer to yourself and only yourself with plural pronouns “us” and “our”?
Oneness proponent: No. But then again, I’m not God.

Trinitarian: In your opening statement, you said royalty referred to itself in plural terms. Can you cite one place in Scripture where a king or queen ever referred to themselves with plural pronouns?
Oneness proponent: No. It’s an argument from the use of plural pronouns throughout antiquity.

Trinitarian: You have an argument from antiquity through which you interpret Scripture?
Oneness proponent: Yes, that provides an adequate explanation for the plural pronouns of God.

Trinitarian: Couldn’t it be because a king or queen consults other people in their cabinet before they come to a decision? So when plural pronouns are used by royality, they really are referring to more than one being. Isn’t that correct?
Oneness proponent: I suppose.

Trinitarian: You said that plural pronouns and plural names for God could refer to God in His role as Father and God in his role as Son. Could you ever reasonably assert that you in your role as father and you in your role as son could be referred to as “we”?
Oneness proponent: No, but I’m not God.

Trinitarian: Can you make a Scriptural case or a case from the dictionary that would justify your claim that plural pronouns for God and plural names for God refer to a single being in two different roles or in two different periods of time?
Oneness proponent: All the evidence for God being one being is evidence that the plural pronouns for God refers to one being.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that this begs the question? It’s a logical fallacy to appeal to a conclusion of an argument as a defense of the conclusion. It’s circular reasoning. Can’t you see that it is imposing your beliefs upon the thousands of incidents in Scripture where the Godhead is plural, rather than deriving your beliefs from Scripture?
Oneness proponent: The oneness of God is a central doctrine of Scripture. We should not waver on it.

Trinitarian: If the oneness of God were so critical to salvation as you say, then why would God use over 2700 plural words for God in Scripture, plus hundreds of plural pronouns when he referred to Himself? Was he trying to confuse us?
Oneness proponent: No. Study to show yourself approved. You must rightly divine the Word of truth.

Trinitarian: When Jesus, post-resurrection, told Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father and her Father, His God and her God, was He trying to trick her?
Oneness proponent: No. I believe that God gives the oneness revelation to all who are open to the truth.

Trinitarian: Ah, I think you for bringing that up. That’s the default argument whenever the Oneness proponent cannot defend his beliefs from Scripture or reason: “You just need to get the revelation.” Tell me, my friend, what is the basis for divine truth: is it divine personal revelation, or is it the Word of God?
Oneness proponent: Both.

Trinitarian: If divine personal revelation ever contradicts the Word of God, which is right?
Oneness proponent: The Word of God.

Trinitarian: Then why do you appeal to personal revelation in response to a refutation of your oneness position?
Oneness proponent: The Spirit of God can open our eyes to the scriptural truth of oneness.

Trinitarian: Is it true that you believe that baptism in Jesus’ name is the born again experience?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: If someone is repentant and filled with the Spirit, and yet has not been baptized in Jesus’ name only, are they born again?
Oneness proponent: No. One must be born of the Spirit and born of water to be saved, according to John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.

Trinitarian: Was the Apostle Peter born again?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: Where does it mention that Peter was baptized in Jesus’ name in Acts 2? Where does it mention the 120 were baptized in Jesus’ name?
Oneness proponent: They must have been among the 3,000 converts that were baptized that day?

Trinitarian: You really believe that Peter, after preaching Acts 2:38 and 39, actually re-baptized himself in Jesus name?
Oneness proponent: Either before or after he preached the sermon in Acts 2, he had to be baptized in Jesus’ name in order to be born again.

Trinitarian: The Bible says, “Do all in the name of Jesus.” Is it possible to do something in Jesus’ name, that is, in his authority, without literally invoking His name in the act?
Oneness proponent: I suppose.

Trinitarian: Why then can’t someone be baptized in Jesus’ name without literally invoking the name during the dunking?
Oneness proponent: That’s not the way it was done in Acts. Why wouldn’t you want to be baptized in Jesus’ name?

Trinitarian: Of all of the water baptisms in the book of Acts, how many of them were done “in the name of Jesus”?
Oneness proponent: All.

Trinitarian: Did you know that of the nine water baptisms mentioned in the book of Acts, only twice is it mentioned to have been done specifically in the name of Jesus? Even your favorite, Acts 2:38, was part of a sermon. Is there any evidence at all that they used those exact words while baptizing their 3,000 converts that day?
Oneness proponent: Other baptisms in Acts were done “in the name of the Lord,” but what is the name of the Lord?

Trinitarian: When the Scripture says that when they were baptized “in the name of the Lord”, do you mean to imply that they were really baptized while literally saying the words “in the name of Jesus”?
Oneness proponent: Of course. Jesus is the name of the Lord.

Trinitarian: How can you be dogmatic in asserting the two times Acts says that they were baptized “in the name of Jesus” that those precise words were pronounced over them during the dunking, and yet when the Bible says that they were baptized “in the name of the Lord” you assert that those words were not literally used. Can you see that you have begged the question in your interpretation of those passages? You’re like a man who cuts the puzzle pieces with scissors to make the puzzle pieces fit unnaturally. Why do you force the Scriptures to conform to your view instead of getting your view from the Scriptures?
Oneness proponent: I believe my explanation is the best explanation of all passages. In Luke, Jesus told them to tarry at Jerusalem for the Spirit, and that repentance and remission of sins would be preached at all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. How did it begin at Jerusalm? Acts 2:38 and 39 is the standard.

Trinitarian: In I Timothy 6:3, Hebrews 1:2, and Matthew 2820, Jesus’ words are set forth as the standard for Christian doctrine. It just so happens that the one place Jesus’ followers are instructed to baptize converts, and how to do it, is found in Matthew 28’s Great Commission. How are they instructed to do it?
Oneness proponent: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But what is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Trinitarian: Following Jesus’ precise instructions for baptism in Matthew 28 has been the orthodox view of church leadership well before the Nicean Council. Can someone be forgiven and regenerate if they are baptized following the precise wording of Jesus in Matthew 28, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”?
Oneness proponent: The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. Unless they are baptized in that name, as it was done in Acts 2:38, then they cannot be saved.

Trinitarian: How then do you respond to Acts 16, where a jailer asks Paul what he must do to be saved, and Paul answers, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”?
Oneness proponent: The passage says that they were baptized “straightway.”

Trinitarian: On that we agree. Now back to my question: Do you concur with Paul’s answer to the question, that those who believe are saved? Or does your interpretation of Peter in Acts 2:38 contradict Paul’s words in Acts 16?
Oneness proponent: No. If they believed, they were on the path to remission of sins, but they weren’t born again until they were born of water and of the Spirit, according to John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.

Trinitarian: What does the Spirit of God beget if not children of God?
Oneness proponent: He begets children of God, but they must be baptized in Jesus’ name only in order to be born again.

Trinitarian: Children of God who are hellbound or heavenbound?
Oneness proponent: Until they are baptized in Jesus’ name, their sins are not forgiven.

Trinitarian: According to your interpretation of John 3:5, you believe someone can be a repentant child of God, born of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues, and simultaneously still be hellbound, unforgiven, not washed in Jesus’ blood, and not born again?
Oneness proponent: Until they are born of Spirit and born of water – baptized in Jesus’ name – they are not born again and cannot see the kingdom of God.

Trinitarian: So if someone who was born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit were to die before water baptism in Jesus’ name only, or if they were baptized using the words “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – and the name of Jesus” – as Charles Parham baptized - would they go to heaven or hell? Or is there a purgatory for repentant, Holy-Ghost-filled believers who aren’t born again?
Oneness proponent: Except a man be born of the Spirit and born of water, they cannot see the Kingdom of God. They go to hell.

Trinitarian: Peter preached in Acts 10 to Cornelius and his house, “whosoever believeth in [Jesus] shall receive remission of sins” with no mention of baptism as a condition. Do you believe that?
Oneness proponent: The Bible says that they were baptized right away.

Trinitarian: On that we agree. But do you concur with Peter that their sins were remitted with faith in Christ, before their obedience to any commandment to baptize.
Oneness proponent: Acts 2:38 says you must repent and be baptized in order to receive remission of sins. The Bible says that we “purify” our souls in “obeying the truth through the Spirit.” They were born of the Spirit when they spoke with tongues, but until they obeyed God in baptism to be born of water, they were not yet born again.

Trinitarian: How do you reconcile that remission of sins is given those who “believe on the Lord Jesus” in Acts 10, without mention of water baptism, and to those who repent and are baptized in Acts 2? Is your belief on remission of sins compatible with everything Acts says on the subject, or have you elevated one Scripture at the expense of others that speak on the same subject?
Oneness proponent: If you believe you will get baptized. Faith is only genuine if it leads to obedience. Obedience to what? Acts 2:38 and 39, the Pentecost Gospel, is the standard: repent and be baptized in Jesus’ name. This promise is to you and your children, and to as many as our God shall call.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that your interpretation of Peter’s comments on remission in Acts 2:38 is a contradiction of Peter’s comments on remission in Acts 10:43?
Oneness proponent: Acts 2:38 and 39 is the standard for the church. All other apostolic sermons must be interpreted in light of this standard.

Trinitarian: Why must we force some Scriptures, indeed, the majority of the Scriptures that speak on salvation, and force them into compliance with Acts 2:38? Doesn’t the Bible say that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God?
Oneness proponent: As I said earlier, Luke’s version of the Great Commission says that repentance and remission of sins would first be preached in Jerusalem. How was it first preached at Jerusalem?

Trinitarian: Why do you assume that the way something first began is the standard for the future? Aren’t you glad that the way you first learned to write in kindergarten isn’t replicated today? Aren’t you glad that the way you drove as a teenager isn’t the way you drive today – I’ll be your passengers are, if you drove anything like the way I did as a teen. Oneness proponent:

Trinitarian: Why would Peter preach that water baptism was essential in Acts 2:38 and that only repentance was necessary in Acts 3, and that only faith was essential in Acts 10 in the vast majority of passages that speak on the subject?
Oneness proponent: Belief implies obedience.

Trinitarian: If you look at Jesus’ words in Matthew 10, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved” and interpret that to be an act of obedience that is evidence of salvation, then why can’t you look at the water baptism of Acts 2:38 and see that water baptism is evidence of an authentic conversion experience?
Oneness proponent: He that repents and is baptized shall be saved. All conditions need not be mentioned every single time.

Trinitarian: What if the vast majority of the time, let’s say, 99% of the time that the conditions of salvation are given in the New Testament, water baptism is not mentioned, would you consider that evidence that you may be in error?
Oneness proponent: No, because water baptism is implied in every passage that says “believe and be saved” or the like, because true faith implies obedience.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that you have imposed your beliefs upon Scripture rather than deriving your beliefs from Scripture? If belief or repentance is mentioned as the only conditions for remission of sins in 99% of Scriptures that give conditions for pardon, why do you add to it? Oneness proponent: Faith must be accompanied by obedience in order to be saving faith.

Trinitarian: On that we agree, but faith is saving before the obedience. That’s the point of Romans 4:1-12, which says that Abraham was imputed righteous by faith before any acts of obedience. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” How do you respond to that passage?
Oneness proponent: Faith leads to righteousness, or it is not faith.

Trinitarian: On that we agree. But were the believers righteous without the deeds of the law, before they obeyed the command to be baptized, or were they righteous through the deeds of the law?
Oneness proponent: They were righteous through faith only after they obeyed God through repentance and water baptism. They did not earn their pardon, but obedience in water baptism was a condition without which they could not receive God’s gift of salvation.

Trinitarian: In Acts 10, Peter commented on Cornelius’ conversion and said that God granted the Gentiles “repentance unto life” with no mention of water baptism. In Acts 15:9, Peter comments again on the conversion of Cornelius, said that their hearts were “purified by faith” not water baptism. Why is your interpretation of the salvation of Cornelius contrary to Peter’s testimony?
Oneness proponent: Until Cornelius was born of water, he wasn’t born again. When Peter mentioned in Acts 10 that Cornelius was granted “repentance unto life” water baptism is implied. When Peter commented in Acts 15 that Cornelius was “purified by faith” water baptism is implied.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that you have imposed your views upon Scripture rather than derived your views from Scripture? You have taken your view of Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 and imposed them on the vast majority of the Scriptures that speak on the same subject, rather than submitted to the whole truth of God on the subject.
Oneness proponent: Acts 2:38 is the standard Gospel message after the resurrection of Jesus.

Trinitarian: Can new wine enter old wineskins? Can the Holy Spirit fill unregenerate hearts?
Oneness proponent: Yes. The Bible says that a man is not born again until he is baptized in Jesus’ name. We are buried with Jesus in baptism and we are risen to walk in newness of life.

Trinitarian: You interpreted Mark’s version of the Great Commission to assert that speaking in tongues is evidence of conversion – “And these signs shall follow them that believe. But other conditions are also mentioned in Mark 16. Do you believe that only those who cast out devils and take up serpents are saved? Do you believe that only those who lay hands on the sick are saved? Why do you assert that only one of those five signs are necessary for salvation, and the other four are not necessary for salvation?
Oneness proponent: Because everyone thus saved in Acts 2 spoke in tongues.

Trinitarian: Actually, the Scripture only teaches that the 120 in the upper room spoke in tongues. There’s no evidence that the 3,000 converts in Acts 2 spoke in tongues. Doesn’t the Scripture in I Corinthians 12 teach that not all Christians have the gift of tongues?
Oneness proponent: There’s a difference between the gift of tongues to edify the body of Christ, mentioned in I Corinthians 12 and 14, and the gift of tongues we get when we are filled with the Spirit.

Trinitarian: The gifts of the Spirit are just that – gifts. All Christians have the Spirit, but, according to I Corinthians 12, not all Christians have the gift of tongues. Can’t you see that you have imposed your beliefs upon the Scripture instead of derived your beliefs from all the passages that speak on the subject?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: Who forsook Jesus when He was on the cross?
Oneness proponent: When Jesus was bearing the sin of the world, Jesus prayed, “Father, why have you forsaken Me?”

Trinitarian: I thought Jesus’ Spirit was the Father, and the Father is what was divine in Jesus. Without the Father, Jesus is only the Son of God, which you believe is just spiritless human flesh and is not divine of itself. How could Jesus’ Spirit forsake Jesus and He still be divine?
Oneness proponent: The Father could forsake Jesus while He still abided in Jesus.

Trinitarian: How could Jesus’ Spirit forsake Jesus and He still be alive? Can the flesh live without our spirit?
Oneness proponent: The Father could have forsaken Jesus while He still sustained His life.

Trinitarian: When Jesus died, He said, “Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit” and then He “yielded up the ghost.” Who was He talking to?
Oneness proponent: His Father, who was His Spirit.

Trinitarian: He was commending His Spirit to His Spirit?
Oneness proponent: Yes.

Trinitarian: If oneness is true and the only thing divine about Jesus was the Father that dwelt in Him, then pray tell, how was Jesus more divine than you?
Oneness proponent: Jesus was the sinless Son of God.

Trinitarian: Two-thirds of the angels are sinless, and in Job 1, the angels are called sons of God. Adam and Even were sinless in the Garden. Were they divine?
Oneness proponent: Jesus’ spirit was divine, unlike our spirit, unlike the angels. He was God in His person, not just because God dwelled in Him.

Trinitarian: Can’t you see that if the only thing divine about Jesus is the Father that dwelled in Him, then Jesus is no more divine than you, for you also have the Father in you?
Oneness proponent: No.

Trinitarian: In John 16, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit “would not speak of Himself” but “would glorify Me.” If He’s not going to speak of Himself, of whom will He speak?
Oneness proponent: Jesus.

Trinitarian: If the Holy Spirit is not speaking of Himself, but is speaking of Jesus, then isn’t that proof that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus?
Oneness proponent: The mode of the Holy Spirit does not speak of the mode of the mode of the Holy Spirit, but speaks of the mode of Jesus. Both are manifestations of the same God. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8.

Oneness Proponent Cross-Examines Trinitarian

Oneness proponent: Are there three Gods or one?
Trinitarian: In a sense there are three beings that are each called God and are not each other, and in a sense there is one.

Oneness proponent: In what sense are there three gods?
Trinitarian: As I mentioned, many times in Scripture the word for God is plural, and God refers to Himself with plural pronouns in the Old and New Testament. Jesus said He’s not alone, but the Father’s with Him. Jesus said that the Father was greater than He. Jesus said His Father was in heaven and He on earth. The Father does things that the Son does not, and the Son does things that the Father does not. They send their Spirit to earth while the Son sits on the Father’s right hand in heaven.

Oneness proponent: Do you view Christianity as a monotheistic religion or a polytheistic religion?
Trinitarian: Monotheistic.

Oneness proponent: But you say that there are three gods, not one. How can you say that’s monotheistic?
Trinitarian: I said that there is a sense in which there are three and in a sense there are one. The Bible teaches that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Bible proves that they are not one another. However, they delight to be called one, unlike the polytheistic religions where the gods are believed to always be in conflict.

Oneness proponent: Do you believe the Son of God is fully God? Or is he half-god, quasi-god? Trinitiarian: Fully God. It is the Oneness position that denies the Deity of the Son of God, because you say that the Son is the spiritless human flesh and the Father is Jesus’ Spirit.

Oneness proponent: How do you explain how Jesus can be fully God and fully man?
Trinitarian: I don’t. Where God speaks, I will speak, and where God is silent, I will be silent. Oneness Pentecostalism is a perfect example of how theories that attempt to show how God can simultaneously be fully man and fully God beget error. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with theories, but our theories must be made subject to the word of God.

Oneness proponent: Do you believe that the Son of God is eternally existent, or did He have a beginning?
Trinitarian: Trinitarians disagree on this. Some believe that Jesus was always the Son, but there are few Scriptures to support this. The Father said, “This day have I begotten Thee” – I’m convinced that this refers to Jesus’ incarnation in the womb of Mary. The Son was begotten on a day, yet was pre-existent. “Before Abraham was,” said Jesus, “I am.” The Word, which was with God in the beginning, became the only begotten Son of God when He became flesh. However, “the angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament was worshiped as God and accepted the worship, unlike ordinary angels who refused to be worshiped, and the angels in Job 1 were called “sons of God”. I believe this divine being was “the Word.” Being co-creator, and being subordinate only to the Father and superior to all the other angels, there is a sense the Word that was “with God, and was God” was a special Son of God in the Old Testament, but did not become the only begotten Son of God until He was begotten, and this happened on a particular day. Oneness proponent: Do you believe that the Son is equal to the Father?
Trinitarian: Jesus said that the Father was greater than Him and He was subject to the Father, and in I Corinthians 15, He will be subject to the Father at the end of the age.

Oneness proponent: How can Jesus be God and yet be subject to someone else? If someone is superior to Him, then He is not God.
Trinitarian: Can you cite Scripture to prove that? That is not a biblical assertion, but rather an assertion of tradition. The Bible teaches that Jesus is subject to the Father, and yet is simultaneously God manifest in the flesh.

Oneness proponent: When you imagine heaven, do you imagine two beings both being called God? Do you imagine three thrones with three Deities ruling? Or do you imagine just seeing Jesus?
Trinitarian: I imagine what Stephen saw: the Son sitting at the Father’s right hand. I imagine what John the Revelator saw when He described His vision in Revelation 4 and 5: the Father was worshiped as God with a sealed book in His hand, and the Son took the book out of His hand and was worshiped as God.

Oneness proponent: How do you respond to the Isaiah 9 passage I quoted proving that beside God there are no other gods and no other saviors?
Trinitarian: Beside Elohim, there are no other gods. Elohim is plural for god. Oneness proponent: There are thousands of passages where God – singular in the original – is accompanied with singular pronouns. God claims that He knows of no other god. Where in Scripture does it claim that there are three gods? Show us one verse.
Trinitarian: Have you ever heard a Trinitarian claim that there are three gods? No. Those are words that you put into our mouths. It’s a logical fallacy called a straw man fallacy. There is strong evidence that God is one God; simultaneously, there is strong evidence that Jesus is not His Father, sufficient to forever settle the matter.

Oneness proponent: Isaiah prophesies that the Messiah will be called “The everlasting Father,” not “a everlasting Father.” Do you call Him the everlasting Father?
Trinitarian: I call Jesus’ Father my Father because that is who Jesus taught us to call “our Father which art in heaven.” Jesus is the Father only in the sense that He is a perfect reflection of the Father’s character and is one with the Father. The Isaiah 9 passage must be cross-referenced with Jesus’ repeated instruction to call His Father and God our Father and God.

Oneness proponent: Does the passage in Isaiah call Jesus “the everlasting Father” or does it call Him a reflection of the everlasting Father?
Trinitarian: Are you a father? I assume you are. Are you your own father? I assume you would agree that you are not. This proves that one can be a father and not His own father. Jesus’ commentary on His relationship with His Father should clear up any confusion you have on this verse. You should consider everything the Bible says on a subject before you build a divisive doctrine over two verses.

Oneness proponent: Jesus told Thomas in John 14 that if they had seen Jesus, then they had seen the Father. Do you agree?
Trinitarian: Have you ever seen my dad?

Oneness proponent: No.
Trinitarian: If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my father.

Oneness proponent: What’s your point?
Trinitarian: In a sense, if you’ve seen me you’ve seen my Father, in the sense that we look and act and preach alike. But in another sense, my father is someone else. We are one in a sense, in that we are one in Christ, unified in the Spirit, but in another sense we are two. Jesus is the express image of the Father, but is not His Father. He is a reflection of the Father in character. He is one with the Father as He defines it. But the Bible says that His Father is someone else.

Oneness proponent: In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Name - not names. What is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?
Trinitarian: That argument is based upon ignorance of the rules of English grammar. It is an acceptable rule of grammar to use the singular word in front of prepositional clauses when that singular word apples to each prepositional clause. For example, “I’m depositing this check in the name of my uncle and of my wife” has identical meaning as “I’m depositing this check in the names of my uncle and of my wife.” Each sentence is acceptable and has identical meaning in the English language.

Oneness proponent: For someone who makes such a big deal of plural pronouns and plural words for God, don’t you think that’s a careless brushing aside of a singular word that may be teaching an important doctrinal principle?
Trinitarian: I find it inconsistent to emphasize the singular nature of a single word in the Bible, and build a whole divisive doctrine upon that, when you carelessly brush aside the plural nature of thousands of words in the Bible. If the singular nature of “name” in Matthew 28 is so critical, how much more critical is the plural nature of thousands of words for God in the Bible?

Oneness proponent: Most of the baptisms in Acts were done “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Lord” – the name of the Lord being Jesus. Why do you object to baptizing in the manner that the apostles baptized in Acts?
Trinitarian: I do not. I have baptized my wife and all of my children and my converts while pronouncing Jesus’ name. What I object to is condemning most of Christendom to hell when they follow the precise word-for-word instruction of Jesus in how to baptize. The Father’s not like that.

Oneness proponent: What do you mean by “The Father’s not like that”? If God’s not like He’s revealed in Scripture, the Scripture is useless.
Trinitarian: If you were a father on the edge of a dock, and your son was drowning just off shore, sinking into the water, coming up and crying out to you, “Dad, save me!” You wouldn’t sit there with your arms crossed, saying, “Nope – what’s my name? You’ve got to call me by my name or I’m not saving you!” God’s not like that. If someone repents and trusts Christ for salvation, God’ll save them even if they just cry out “Dad, save me!” or “Christ, save me!” To do something in someone’s name means to do it in their authority with their blessing. Every Christian baptism is done in the name of Jesus.

Oneness proponent: Every baptism is not done in the name of Jesus – that’s the point. Those who baptize using the words “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” do not baptize the way that the apostles did in Acts.
Trinitarian: When a Baptist church service begins, for example, they begin it in Jesus’ name. When they conclude it, they conclude it in Jesus’ name. They do everything in the service in the name of Jesus. In whose other name do they do it? The Bible says, “Do all in the name of Jesus” and yet its impossible to use Jesus’ name with every single act. You can do something in someone’s name without using their name every single minute. To do something in someone’s name is to do it in their authority and blessing.

Oneness proponent: Who created the world?
Trinitarian: The Trinity.

Oneness proponent: How can you say that? Where is that in the Bible?
Trinitarian: God spoke the word, “Let there be…” and “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” They cooperated. Ephesians 3:19 says that God created the world “by Jesus Christ.” How can oneness Pentecostalism, which denies that Jesus existed with the Father at the beginning of the world, make sense of that?

Oneness proponent: John 3:13 says that the son of man was in heaven at the same time He was on earth. This explains the kind of phenomenon we see at Jesus’ baptism, where God speaks from heaven at the same time that Jesus is plunged beneath the water. Jesus’ spirit, the Father, is in heaven, at the same time that God is encased in human flesh as the Son. How do you interpret John 3:13?
Trinitarian: John 3:13 was John’s commentary inserted at the time the book was written after Jesus had resurrected and ascended to the Father. When John wrote it, Jesus was literally with the Father, at His right hand to be exact. After all, even after Jesus’ resurrection He told Mary to not touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father and God.

Oneness proponent: Do you believe Jesus is Jehovah?
Trinitarian: Yes.

Oneness proponent: So there are two Jehovahs? Do you believe Jesus is “Jehovah Junior?”
Trinitarian: Psalm 110 says, “The Lord says unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” In the Hebrew, it reads, “Jehovah says unto Adonai, Sit at my right hand.” However, in verse 5, it reads, “The Jehovah at Thy right hand shall strike through the kings in the day of His wrath.” So Jehovah sits at Jehovah’s right hand, according to Psalm 110. Also, in Genesis 19, when the angel of the Lord led Lot and his family out of Sodom, it says “Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven.” This was one of those instances in which “the angel of the Lord” was worshiped as the Lord and did not protest, and here he is called Jehovah on earth while another Jehovah is in heaven. This is also one of those instances in which men saw God and lived.

Oneness proponent: In John 14:16-18, when Jesus foretold the coming of the Comforter that would come on Pentecost, He told them, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” Is Jesus the Comforter?
Trinitarian: He is a Comforter, but not the Comforter that came in Acts 2. Jesus came to comfort the disciples after His resurrection until Pentecost, but then He ascended and the Holy Spirit was given. This interpretation is more compatible with verse 16, where Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “another Comforter.”

Oneness proponent: When Jesus resurrected, He said, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” Is there any power or authority that transcends Him?
Trinitarian: Yes. After all, Jesus said, “All power is given unto Me.” By whom? The Father. Which is greater, the giver or the receiver of the gift? “When He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him [Jesus], then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him.” That’s from I Corinthians 15.

Oneness proponent: Do you think that God the Father has literal body parts – hands, feet, face, nose, and eyes?
Trinitarian: The Bible says that He does. When men see God, they see his body parts. The Bible says that Moses was covered in the cleft of the rock by the hand of God, and Moses saw God’s backside and spoke to God face to face. Angels “always behold the face of the Father which is in heaven.” Steven saw Jesus standing at the Father’s right hand.

Oneness proponent: How do you reconcile that with the teaching that God is a Spirit, and that no man can see God and live?
Trinitarian: I respond by pointing out the dozens of places where men saw God and lived. God has a Spirit body. It may be impossible to see God in all His fullness and live, but the Bible says men see God, wrestle with God, and even dine with God and live. It may be the Word – the divine being who would become Jesus - that was visible and tangible, and the Father was the one that men were unable to see in all His fullness and live.

Oneness proponent: What is the name of your father?
Trinitarian: Bob Williams.

Oneness proponent: Why didn’t you say his name was “father”?
Trinitarian: That’s what I call him, but others know him as Bob.

Oneness proponent: Why do you say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are names? Aren’t they titles?
Trinitarian: A dictionary would help you here. One of the definitions of “name” is simply what you call somebody. Jesus called His God “Father” – that’s meets the dictionary’s definition for a name. Isaiah 9 specifically says “His name will be called… Father”; Father is a name. You cannot prove that “the Father” is a title from Scripture. The Holy Spirit is also called Comforter. The Son of God is called Jesus, the Christ, Messiah, Emmanuel, the Son of God, and the Son of man. Revelation calls Jesus the Alpha and Omega, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the Lamb.

Oneness proponent: But what did His family and friends call Him?
Trinitarian: Are you implying that one cannot have a name unless his family and friends call him that most of the time? That’s absurd. Do you have a middle name? I expect that you do. Do your friends and family call you by that name most of the time? I suspect that they do not. This proves that you can have a name and not be called by that name most of the time.

Oneness proponent: What’s your legal name? If you were to sign a check, would you sign it “Dad”?
Trinitarian: Did you know that you can sign a check “Dad”? You can sign it by your middle name, your nickname, or just a single letter. It’s true, the bank will cash it. If, when you get your bank statement, you discover that it wasn’t you who signed it, you can protest it, but the same is true if someone else signed your full name. It’s you signing it that makes it legal. If I were to give you a $1000 check and sign it “Preacher”, I’ll bet you’d still deposit it into your account, and your bank would let you. Oneness proponent: Who raised Jesus from the dead?
Trinitarian: The Bible says that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father cooperated to raise Jesus from the dead.

Oneness proponent: Where does it say that they cooperated?
Trinitarian: Jesus said, “No man takes my life; I lay it down, and I shall take it up again.” Romans 8 says that the Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead. Several passages in Acts say that His Father resurrected Him. They each did it. The Father sent the Holy Ghost to resurrect Jesus, and Jesus consented and resurrected – they cooperated.

Oneness proponent: Don’t you think that the Bible says that they each did it proves that they are one being?
Trinitarian: If your three children cooperate to clean up the living room, is that evidence that they are one person? No.

Oneness proponent: Do you believe baptism in water is necessary for remission of sins?
Trinitarian: Obedience is necessary to remain in the faith, to remain in right relationship with God, but were are imputed with righteousness when we believe, apart from the deeds of the law. Oneness proponent: How do you respond to Acts 2:38, which clearly teaches that baptism in water in Jesus’ name is necessary for the remission of sins?
Trinitarian: A sinner may exercise faith during water baptism, but it’s the faith that saves. How do you respond to Acts 10:43, which says, “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” without any mention of baptism as a condition? You must study everything that the Bible says on a subject before you try to build a doctrine on a couple of your favorite verses. The vast majority of hundreds of Scriptures on the subject of salvation do not mention water baptism as a condition of salvation, including most verses in Acts that speak on how to be saved.

Oneness proponent: Are you saying that there are different ways to be saved?
Trinitarian: The vast majority of Scriptures that give the conditions of salvation mention faith, without any other conditions attached. The Bible plainly says that we are made righteous by faith without the deeds of the law, before obedience to any command. Before a sinner obeys outwardly, “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.”

Oneness proponent: In Mark’s version of the great commission, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?” Do you agree?
Trinitarian: Yes.

Oneness proponent: Do you not see the contradiction? Earlier you said that you must only believe to be saved?
Trinitarian: Most passages that give the condition for salvation only mention faith and/or repentance. Water baptism is mentioned only in an extreme minority of the passages that give the conditions for salvation. It would have been equally true if Jesus had said, “He that believeth and is baptized and endures to the end shall be saved,” but in the context of everything else the Bible says on the subject, we are made righteous through faith before water baptism and endurance. Even the passage you cite proves that: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” is followed with “but he that believeth not shall be damned.” When you believe, you are not damned anymore. He that believes comes “from condemnation unto life.” You must still “work out your salvation” through “obedience to the faith”, but you are righteous before God through faith without the deeds of the law. Faith is often simultaneous with an act like confession or water baptism, but it’s the faith that purifies the heart.

Oneness proponent: In Acts 22, Paul testifies that when he was baptized, Ananias told him to “wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Do you agree that our sins are washed away when we are baptized?
Trinitarian: It may happen then. It is by faith in His blood that are sins are purged, and that happens before water baptism several times in Scripture. The Bible says in I Peter 3 that water baptism does not wash away the filth of the flesh. Even the evidence that Paul’s sins were washed away during his water baptism is weak. In the actual account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:17, it says Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost before his baptism. The Spirit of God doesn’t fill sinners, but believers. New wine enters new wineskins. Cornelius and his family were also filled with the Spirit before water baptism.

Oneness proponent: But 1 Peter 1:20 says that Noah’s family was “saved by water” and then in the next verse, it says that baptism saves us, without mention of faith or repentance. How do you respond to that?
Trinitarian: Water baptism saves us like enduring to the end saves us. The passage says that baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, and the Greek word translated “filth” refers to moral filth. Water baptism does not purify us, but is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” The conscience is “good” before water baptism, even if only momentarily before water baptism. If they don’t have faith before baptism, then they shouldn’t be baptized, for without faith it is impossible to please Him. If they have faith, then Acts 15 says that their hearts are purified by their faith without mention of water baptism. We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, including the commandment to be baptized.

Oneness proponent: How do you think new believers should be baptized in water?
Trinitarian: Any of the ways in which it is done in Scripture is acceptable. The only formula you can get from Scripture is that there is no formula. I baptized believers “in the name of the Father, His Son the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.” That follows the Lord’s instruction, meets the broad criteria in Acts, contradicts none, and happens to be the formula employed by Charles Parham. But I’m not dogmatic on that, because the Bible is not. What makes the baptism authentic is that it “is an answer of a good conscience toward God” and demonstrates an actual reality: that the person has died to sin through repentance and faith, and is a new creature in Christ risen to walk in newness of life. This is the baptism that saves us, and it happens before water baptism several times in Scripture.

Oneness proponent: John 3:5 says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Being born of water is being baptized in water. Don’t you find baptism clearly taught in this Scriptures as a condition for salvation?
Trinitarian: There’s no evidence that being born of water is water baptism. You’d have to impose that upon the passage. Being born of the Spirit is sufficient for salvation. What does the Spirit of God beget if not children of God? According to the immediate context of John 3:5, being born of water refers to our natural birth. When you are born, you mother’s “water breaks.” Some commentators believe it may refer to the washing of water by the Word. “How shall they hear without a preacher?” Hearing the Gospel is necessary in order to believe it, so I am content with that explanation. Jesus told Nicodemus that he could be born again right then, which your doctrine defies, as you do not believe that one could be born again until after the Pentecost. Your explanation of John 3:5 contradicts verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter, which says we receive eternal life through believing in Jesus. You also contradict the other verses that speak of being born again in the epistle of the same author. Oneness proponent: Romans 6 says that when we are baptized into Jesus Christ, we are baptized into His death, and we are raised to walk in newness of life. Clearly, we must be baptized with Christ before we are risen to walk in newness of life. How do you respond to that passage?
Trinitarian: The evidence that being baptized into Christ must happen at water baptism is very weak indeed. Cornelius in Acts 10 and the jailer in Acts 16 were both saved through faith in Jesus, without any mention of baptism before they were saved and filled with the Spirit. Acts 1 and I Corinthians 15 prove that not all baptism in Scripture is water baptism.

Oneness proponent: How do you believe we are baptized into Christ, if not in water baptism?
Trinitarian: Through faith. The new birth is a change of heart, from self and sin to God and godliness. Acts 15:9 says that we purify our hearts through faith. John 3:15 says, “Whosoever believeth in Him hath everlasting life.” I John 5:1 says, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Acts 10:43 says, “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” This sentiment is echoed throughout the book of Acts. Faith and/or repentance are mentioned as conditions for salvation without mention of water baptism all throughout the book of Acts.

Oneness proponent: Ephesians 4 says that there is one baptism. Yet you propose that there are many baptisms in Scripture.
Trinitarian: Seven, to be exact, and only one of them includes immersion into water. The question is, how can the Ephesians 4 passage be reconciled with everything that the Scripture says about baptism? Easily. There is one baptism that saves, and it is when we are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit, according to I Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 6. This is the change of heart that happens with repentance and faith. This baptism does not always happen simultaneously with immersion into water nor with the baptism in the Holy Ghost, which is when Christ is the baptizer, and he baptizes us into the Holy Spirit.

Oneness proponent: Titus 3:5 says that God saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. If you do not believe this happens at baptism, when does it happen?
Trinitarian: Not all washing in Scripture is water baptism, and water baptism according to I Peter 3 does not purify us of the filth of sin. Titus 3:5 does not say “the washing of water” but the “washing of regeneration.” This refers to the washing of the word, or the washing of the blood of Christ.

Oneness proponent: What about repentance? Is that optional too?
Trinitarian: Repentance is implied in saving faith. Faith is trusting God, or yielding one’s self up to the truths of the Gospel, which you cannot do if you are yielding up to sin. No man can serve two masters. One cannot trust in Christ without repenting. Faith works by love, Galatians 5 says, which is the fulfillment of all the law. Repentance is not redemptive without faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God.

Oneness proponent: James 2 says that faith without works is dead. It says that Abraham was justified by faith when he offered up Isaac. Romans 3:31 says that faith brings us into obedience to God. That we must obey God to be justified does not mean that salvation is earned, but a faith that obeys is the condition without which we cannot receive God’s gift of salvation.
Trinitarian: I concur. True faith brings us into compliance with God’s law. Nevertheless, we are first justified by faith, first made righteous, when we first trust. We are first made righteous through faith, without the deeds of the law. We must obey God to remain in the faith, but before we obey outwardly, we must believe inwardly, and if we believe in our hearts, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe.”

 Concluding Statements

Trinitarian:
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Every word. As we have seen, the error of Oneness proceeds from elevating some passages at the expense of the majority of Scriptures that speak to the same subject. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16). All Scripture. Error such as “Oneness” doctrine comes when we abandon most of the words of God for a few, when we subject Scripture to the traditions of men.

The evidence that Jesus is not His own Father is completely overwhelming. If you were to look at all the Scriptures on this subject, less than 1% would favor the Oneness position, whereas 99% would favor the Trinitarian position. Some of the passages, such as God being one, would appear to favor the Oneness position, but only if they impose an unbiblical definition to the word “one” which the context does not support. As you have seen through the course of this debate, the error of “Oneness” has filtered down into errors on many other doctrines – salvation, water baptism, Spirit baptism, and one of the most grievous errors, the belief that the Son of God is not God, but is only the spiritless, human flesh of Jesus that has a will contrary to the Father and which impedes the Father’s divine attributes. This belief is an attack on the oneness of the Father and the Son, as they believe that the Father is Jesus’ spirit and the Son is Jesus’ flesh, and these two are distinct and different. I find it interesting that a belief that superficially seems to elevate the divinity of Jesus actually undermines it under cross-examination. Jesus is, after all, just a mode of God, a temporary manifestation of God. That’s why church historians throughout history have called the oneness belief “modalism” – Jesus is a mode, or role of God. This view denies the rightful deity of the Son of God, for they claim that the Son of God is nothing more than spiritless, human flesh, a phase of existence which shall soon pass away.

The doctrine of Oneness rejects the existence of the One to whom Jesus prays, to whom He submits, and on whose right hand He sits. Would you be offended if your friend denied the existence of your Dad, even as you try to introduce your Dad to your friend? This doctrine is an offense to the Son and the Father.

The doctrine prompts those who embrace it to reject every Christian in the world today and throughout church history who has repented and trusted in Christ for salvation unless they’ve been baptized in Jesus’ name only - even if they been baptized, love God with all their heart, live free from sin, have the gifts and fruits of the Spirit, and even if they are rotting in a Muslim prison being tortured for their faith in Jesus. The martyrs who have passed on before are in hell right now, if they weren’t baptized in Jesus’ name only. Those who have been crucified or burned at the stake for their faith, those who have been imprisoned and had their fingernails pulled out for their faith, and those who have seen their children kidnapped by the state for their faith – they are all in hell, burning forever, because they were not baptized in Jesus’ name only. If the doctrine of oneness Pentecostalism is true, even its founders Charles Parham and William Seymour are in hell right now, as neither of them were baptized in Jesus’ name only.

What is the rock upon which God builds his church? The confession: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” – not that Jesus is the Father. What confession brings salvation? “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (I John 4:15). “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (I John 5:1). “Who is He that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God” (I John 5:4). Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch when he confessed, “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God”; thus, he was born again before water baptism. Oneness proponents put a little pebble up on the rock – “Jesus is the Father” - and reject the faith of everyone who’s on the rock of Christ, but not on their little pebble. The doctrine is as sectarian and divisive as any doctrine that has ever been devised by a sect of Christianity.

They make the Gospel more difficult after death and resurrection of Christ than before! Before the cross, the publican could smite his breast and say “God be merciful to me a sinner” and he leaves pardoned according to Jesus (Luke 18:9-14). The woman who wept at Jesus’ feet got up forgiven. The thief on the cross confessed Christ and was saved. After the resurrection of Christ, repenting and trusting in Christ is insufficient for salvation. Even being baptized isn’t enough according to Oneness proponents: you’ve got to be baptized in Jesus’ name only. Even that’s not enough. You’ve also got to speak in tongues. How much false condemnation has been heaped on children of God by this false doctrine since John Schaepe “got the revelation” in 1913, a revelation that condemned almost everyone saved in the apostolic Pentecostal movement to that point, including its founders.

The book of Acts is the primary emphasis of the oneness proponent, however, the book of Acts repeatedly mentions faith and/or repentance as a condition of salvation without mention of water baptism as a condition. Paul said in Acts 20, “I take you record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” What did he declare? The chapter says, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, no mention of baptism in water, and this is Paul’s evidence that he has not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God. To the Corinthians, he boasted that he did not come to baptize them and rejoiced that he had baptized so few, because “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.”

The last argument of the sectarian is, “You’ve just got to get the revelation.” When doctrine of Oneness and all the other errors that flow from it are cross-examined, they crumble like a deck of cards in a hurricane. Yet the Trinitarian believer in Jesus still lacks the “Oneness” revelation, a “revelation” that escaped almost all of the known church throughout church history, beginning with the antenicean fathers who rejected Monarchianism and Sabellianism with much greater vehemence than do I. If any revelation contradicts Scripture, the revelation must bow the knee to Scripture. “Every word of God” is the standard for doctrinal truth, not extra-biblical revelation. “Every word of God” transcends even the word of our elders, pastors, apostles, and every other spiritual authority in our lives. “Let God be true and every man a liar.” We must never bow to the word of man at the expense of the words of God.

Oneness proponent:
The doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical. The doctrine of the Trinity is just as foreign to Christianity as polytheism, and for the same reason: God is “1”. Nowhere in Scripture is God revealed as three beings in one God. The view that God is in three persons came into prevalence as a result of the Catholic take-over of Christianity. The Papal church persecuted those who dissented from them on doctrine, and the Protestant church fared no more tolerant. It was John Calvin who handed Servetius over to be executed for his dissenting views on the Trinity. Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees persecuted Christ, Peter, Paul, and those who propagated the truth in Acts, so the religious leaders have persecuted those who heralded the truth of God’s Oneness throughout church history.

That God is one is one of the chief truths of the Holy Bible, and that Jesus is the one God is the chief truth of the Gospel. God is the only Savior and the Only Lord. He said that beside Him there was no other God. The Bible says that God came in human flesh through Jesus. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. No man hath seen God at any time and lived, but Jesus revealed Him to man. In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.” Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. God didn’t send someone else to suffer, bleed, and die – God came, God bled, and God died for our sins. But God didn’t just come to earth as God. No, He came as a man. He humbled Himself, shed his divine qualities of omnipresence and omniscience, and became a genuine human being. In this way, He could be our example and offer Himself to be our atonement. As our example, Jesus was dependent upon the Father. He prayed and fasted; He was wholly dependent upon His Father to do His work.

The passages my debate opponent brings up to try to disprove the Oneness of God can all be answered by appealing to the different roles of God as Son and as Father. The Son of God is a manifestation of the one true God, sent to atone for our sins. Our heavenly Father is a manifestation of the one true God who receives the atonement and offers the mercy purchased through Christ’s death. How the Father and the Son can be one is a mystery, but biblical nonetheless. The Son of God was dependent upon His Father, yet Jesus was His Father. Jesus was a manifestation of the invisible God.

Jesus told Nicodemus that He had to be born of water and Spirit in order to be saved. Jesus told His disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on High. In Mark’s record of the Great Commission, Jesus plainly said that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved. After they received the promise of the Holy Ghost, they were to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, and to baptize them in the name – singular – of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

We see the exact fulfillment of these passages in Acts 2:38 and 39, where Peter told the crowd to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and then they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and speak in other tongues. In whose name were they to be baptized? In the titles “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”? Nowhere in Scripture were converts baptized in the titles of God. Rather, they are baptized in the name of Jesus. And they were not baptized in the name of Jesus because they were saved; they were baptized in the name of Jesus “for the remission of sins.” This demonstrates the truth of John 3:5. We are born of the Spirit when we repent and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. We are born of water when we are buried in the name of Jesus and resurrected to walk in newness of life.

These conditions, and this promise of the Holy Ghost was not just for them, but for their children and their children’s children, as for as many as our Lord shall call. It wasn’t just for the converts in Acts 2 – it’s for us as well. If we will repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, we too will receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

This is the simple plan of salvation, which is being restored through the Apostolic faith. My opponent accuses me of being sectarian and divisive, and I freely confess: the good news is sectarian to those who reject it, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

---

If you can help perfect the arguments presented for either side, or have some recommendations for the next version, please contact me through www.RightRemedy.org. For live dialogue, please facebook me. Thank you. Dr. Patrick Johnston