Oneness Theology[edit]

This is a page for discussing the differences between the Oneness view of God and the Trinitarian view of God, and the various Bible verses associated with the issue. The discussion began on the Talk:Trinity page.

John 17:5 & Isaiah 9:6[edit]

John 17:5 (ESV)

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Isaiah 9:6 (ESV)

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I'm probably just stirring the stink here, since this doesn't relate to the article, but I am naturally curious, so here goes...Jacob, how do people from your perspective explain passages like John 17:5, where it appears that Jesus (as an individual identity, "I") claims to have a certain relationship with the Father (as a different entity, "you"), before the world existed (i.e., eternally)? --MonkeeSage 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt a short answer, but no promises. Also, recognizing that I am a minority in my views, I know from history that a dozen or more people would like to respond to this post. Please remember that I am only one person and cannot respond to everyone. C.S. Lewis speaks of God's relationship with time this way: if you have a paper with a line on it representing time, God is the paper, meaning he is at all points of the line at once. The eternal Spirit of Jesus has always existed (Jehovah), but Jesus Himself did not exist in any tangible form until His nativity. Yet Jesus has always existed in the mind, plan, and will of God and in this way was always with God. Trinitarians like to quote John 1:1, 14 (so do non-Trinitarians) but then they take this incredible leap of faith that the Logos refers to a completely separate and distinct Person merely because the word "with". A simple translation of Logos means the Word of God and refers to the mind, will, and foreknowledge of God. (I'm not meaning to start a deep discussion on the Logos, the Wikipedia servers do not have enough space.) A plan or will of a person can be said to represent a person and even to be with that person, but it would never be considered as a completely separate person. Jesus' incarnation and death on the cross was God's plan from the beginning and therefore the Lord Jesus Christ was glorified since the beginning with God. Revelation 13:8 speaks of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Jesus was not literally slain from the foundation of the world, so this scripture obviously refers to the plan of God. Tertullian, generally considered to be the Father of the Trinity, did not even believe in an eternal Son. He concluded that the Son must have had a beginning at some point. I already mentioned how the Trinitarians created the term "eternally begotten". Another Trinitarian creation that could be brought up here is "God the Son". This term also never appears in the Bible though Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of God". At first it may seem like semantics, but there is a huge difference. Any distinction between the Father and the Son can easily be explained through St. Paul's statement of "one body and one Spirit". Trinitarians, in my opinion, must rely too heavily on non-Biblical language.

Now, let me ask you a question. A common Trinitarian diagram (shown in the article) illustrates the belief that the Father is God, the Son is God, etc., and that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, etc. How then, if the Son is not the Father, can you explain scriptures like Isaiah 9:6 that clearly say Jesus is the Everlasting Father? Not "at one with" or "unified with", but is the Father while at the same time being the son who was given? This is consistent with "one body and one Spirit", but from the orthodox definition of the Trinity as I understand it, it is not possible for the Son to ever actually be the Father. Jacob 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I understand what you mean about how you can talk about an action in terms of foresight or foreplanning, such as calling Jesus the lamb that was slain from eternity. But it is a bit odd to say that "another" person is with you in that sense, especially if that "other" person is really just a yourself in a different role in the future! That would be like a Farmer named John, who planned on going to college and becomming a Lawyer and changing his name to Henry, saying "In the beginning was the Lawyer, and the Lawer was with John, and the Lawyer was John." I guess one could say something like that, but it would be a strange way of speaking. But that is at least intelligible. But this is what doesn't make sense about the Oneness view, regarding John 17:5; Jesus (the Son) petitions YHVH (the Father) and requests his (Jesus') pre-incarnate glory that He had with YHVH, using a second-person pronoun. In other words, Jesus says "the glory I had with You." Now in the Oneness view, it would make sense for Jesus to say "the glory I had," and stop there, meaning "when I was the Father;" but it doesn't seem to make any sense to use two different personal pronouns about the Father and Jesus, referring to the same time period. It seems that Jesus as Jesus is requesting to one again share the pre-incarnate glory He once shared with the Father as the Father. How do you account for the fact that Jesus doesn't stop at "I had," but continues on to "with you"?

Regarding Isaiah 9:6, there are a couple of possibile interpretations from a Trinitarian perspective. The expression "eternal Father" could be taken the same way as the construction is taken in Gen. 4:20-22, where Jabal is the "of those who live in tents father," and Jubal is the "of those who play the lyre and pipes father" -- that is, the term "father" refers to the originating relationship, "father of X," similar to the Greek idiom for Chronos, "Father Time." This would mean that Isaiah 9:6 is calling the Son the Creator of eternity, which is consistant with John 1:3 and other passages which describe Him that way. Another possibility is that the term does simply mean "eternal Father," and is indicating an ontological relationship. According to the Trinitarian view, Jesus is the Father in terms of essence -- God is only one essense (or "being") -- but is not the Father in terms of personality (or "identity"). According to this interpretation, since Jesus' distinct personality from the Father had not yet been revealed, the passage is simply pointing out that the Son is in fact God, which is consistant with the parallel passage in Isaiah 7:14, where the Son is called "God [is] with us." --MonkeeSage 14:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You stated,

"But it is a bit odd to say that "another" person is with you in that sense, especially if that "other" person is really just a yourself in a different role in the future!"

I think the greatest mystery of all, that is neither explained by Trinitarianism or Modalism is how Jesus Christ was both God and man at the same time. Jesus often refers to Himself as completely separate from God, not from God the Father, but from God. It is possible and correct, when referring solely to the humanity of Jesus, to refer to Him as completely separate from God, God-ness, deity, substance of God, or however you would like to say it. I emphasize that this is in the context of His humanity alone, for Jesus was also fully God. It is this argument that has made Universalism a temptation to many, for it explains this very conveniently... Jesus was not fully God. But to get back to your comments, when Jesus speaks of Himself as a different person, it is because Jesus, the human being, was a different person. God is not a person at all, He is a Spirit. Jesus, the person, is the image of that invisible God. You believe that Jesus is "God the Son" manifest in the flesh. I believe Jesus is God, all of God, manifested in the flesh. This is consistent with Col. 2:9 which says the fulness of God dwells in Jesus bodily. Once again, one body and one Spirit.

Now, considering this statement of Jesus, there are some things that I have never really heard Trinitarians address. If Jesus is referring back to a pre-existent state, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-everything (each is equally important), why is the Holy Spirit excluded? Would not Jesus have mentioned Him there sharing in the glory? As you will find if you take the time to look, the Holy Spirit is often conspicuously absent from these statements of Jesus. Nicea seemingly ran into this problem when they added the Holy Spirit to the original creed almost as an afterthought. The two times in scripture that someone saw a vision of Heaven with Jesus sitting or standing at "the right hand of God", the Holy Spirit is not there. Why? Should not He, as an equal with the Father and Son have also been seen in the vision? How would you as a Trinitarian explain this? I would explain it by saying that Jesus, as the sinless sacrifice, represents the power of God (thus the Biblical symbology of the 'right hand'), and by simply stating "God", it refers to the one everlasing Spirit. For a Trinitarian, God here cannot refer to all of God (as in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), for then you would have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus all in the same picture. It must refer to the Father, thus excluding the Holy Spirit completely. How can this be? Jacob 02:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Isaiah 9:6, I am often amazed at how similar our views can sound. You stated that "Jesus is the Everlasting Father in terms of essence", and then "that God is one essence (one Being)". I agree that God is one Being. And if you then changed the term "distinct personality" to "distinct energy or manifestation or mode"... shoot, even "personality" comes close, we would be on the same page. It is that elusive bridge to "distinct Person" that I cannot find anywhere in scripture. Jacob 02:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I'm somewhat familiar with Oneness views (and you seem to be somewhat familiar with Trinitarian views, I might add). I hoped to continue discussion with you so that we could both learn more about each other's beliefs, where we agree and disagree. I just wanted to say that so you are aware that I'm not trying to "convert" you here. Of course, I believe my views are correct (and I assume the feeling is mutual), but it's good to exercise our doctrinal "legs" now and again, and to learn more about the views of others. Especially when the process is carried out in an environment of mutual respect and charity, as I feel we have here.

When you say ". . .when Jesus speaks of Himself as a different person, it is because Jesus, the human being, was a different person. . .", I want to remind you that my point in bringing up John 17:5 is that Jesus there speaks of a pre-incarnate state -- "before the world was." This cannot be the human aspect of Jesus speaking, as that aspect (however you view it) did not exist at the time of reference. You could say that the human aspect is speaking at the time of the petition, but not that the human aspect is in view at the time the petition references. That was my point: Jesus uses two different personal pronouns ("I" and "you") regarding a time at which, according to Oneness views, as I understand them, there was only the Father and the Son hadn't been manifested yet, but was still a precognition in the plan/foreknowledge of the Father.

You raised the point that "If Jesus is referring back to a pre-existent state, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-everything (each is equally important), why is the Holy Spirit excluded?" I would answer by pointing out the various roles that Trinitarians believe the different persons take, within the one being of God. When the Son asks the Father for anything, it is by means of the Spirit. The Spirit is not mentioned because He is only the medium, and the point of the passage is to record the Son's petition to the Father -- not to indicate the medium through which it comes, which is by the Spirit. All three are present, though not all three are vocalized in the petition. --MonkeeSage 04:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, let me say that I agree with your opening remarks. Iron sharpeneth iron, and I always feel sharper after discussions like this one. Your questions regarding Jesus and His pre-existent state were answered by the fact that the Logos, the will and plan of God, has always existed with God. Jesus, as the Word of God incarnate,has always had glory with the Father. It should not seem odd that He uses two different personal pronouns here for Jesus can be said to have been glorified since the beginning of time, even though He did not exist in any substantial sense until His actual incarnation. You must remember that His priestly prayers, like the one here, were just as much intended for His listeners as for His own sake. This is illustrated by His consistent references to Himself in the third person.

Regarding your usage of this passage to show a pre-existent state, we must also look at the context of this prayer to see the full meaning. Verse 3 states, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (NIV). Jesus, as a human being, completely separates Himself from the only true God. "The only true God" here cannot refer to the Trinity, since Jesus is listed separately. It is completely consistent with modalism to refer to the Father as the only true God. Since the keyword here is only, this prayer is inconsistent with the Trinity since the term "only" necessarily excludes God the Son and the Holy Spirit. This gives us the context of the subsequent prayers, that Jesus is referring to two things: the only true God (not the Trinity as I have already shown) and Himself as a human being, separately from God. In my opinion, this leaves room for only two views: Modalism or Unitarianism. Because Jesus is clearly shown as God manifested in the flesh, that leaves only Modalism. Jacob 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm still not understanding. I understand how, granted your view for the sake of argument, the mode of God we call "Christ," and the man Jesus, could both say something like "my glory." That would make sense, as "my glory" would refer to a possession of glory that could be foreseen, and would mean the same thing as "the glory I would have". But how can either of them say "glory I had...before the world was"? In other words, how can Christ (or Jesus) refer to a time "before the world was," using a past tense stative verb (had) with a first-person pronoun (I), in distinction from a different object described by a second-person pronoun (you), claiming to posess something at that time? Christ (or Jesus) didn't have an "I" at that point in time, right? How how can there be an "I had"?

I'm not sure why the phrase "the only true God, and Jesus Christ" would pose a problem to the Trinitarian view of God. If we take "God" as a metonym for "Father," there is no problem. John 1:1 says that the Logos was with "God," and 1:18 makes it clear by substitution of terms, that "Father" is the meaning of "God" in v. 1.

John 1:1, 18 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No one has ever seen God; the only God [some MSS. "Son"], who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV).

"With God" and "at the Father's side" seemingly express the same thought. Hebrews 1:8 seems to use the same metonym of "God = Father":

Heb. 1:18 But of the Son he ["God", v. 5] says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (ESV).

And both of these instances seem to indicate that the "Son" may equally be called "God," as distinct from "God [the Father]". So I don't really see any problem between John 17:3 and the Trinitarian view of God. --MonkeeSage 02:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is where our similarities always break down. It has been this way for nearly two millennia, so I don't suppose we'll reach any definitive conclusions today :).

This is what I believe, that the Father, referring to the eternal Spirit of God, is the “only true” God and stands completely alone in His deity. Jesus, as the fullest manifestation of God, is fully God in flesh, but can also be stated in terms that are distinct from the Father when referencing His humanity, thus "the Son". The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit at work in our lives to regenerate us unto eternity. Remember, there is only one body and one Spirit. When seeing the Logos as not a separate person, but as the will and plan of God, it can be said that Jesus, as the incarnate plan of God, was “with” the Father since before the world began.

To further support this, look at I Corinthians 8:6,

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

It seems obvious enough to me that St. Paul is referring to God the Father (a Biblical term) as the only “one God”. There is no mention of God the Son. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit. There is no evidence of any ontological relationship. All we see from this scripture, and many others like it, is that God the Father speaks of the totality of everything God is… singly, immutably, eternally One Alone. The possibility for separate and distinct persons is not provided for.

Apart from this one God, it is stated that we also have one Lord, Jesus Christ. This one Lord is “the man, Jesus Christ” who is the mediator between God and men. His body was the veil that was ripped to remove the separation between humanity and the eternal Spirit of God. It could be said that St. Thomas recognized this when he bowed down to the resurrected Lord proclaiming, “My Lord (humanity), and my God (deity)”. With all due respect to you as a brother in Christ and full understanding of our differences, I personally don't see any way that the Trinitarian doctrine can be compatible with such unequivocal statments by the Apostle Paul. Jacob 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this is as far as we get. But at least we kept it civil and respectful. :)

I'm still not sure you see where my problem lies with the Oneness view of John 17:5. I do not have any problem with the idea that it can be said that Jesus, as the incarnate plan of God, was “with” the Father since before the world began. I disagree about Jesus being a creation, but that issue aside, I understand how your view fits with that aspect of the passage. But here is where my hang-up comes: how can Jesus (or Christ), say "I had with you before the world was"? Each word seems significant: I a personal entity, had possessed at the time of reference, with you a different personal entity, before the world was all this was before the incarnation. Let me illustrate by analogy. Let's say I plan on giving you some money when you're 90 years old, now you go to a car dealer and tell him "I want to buy a car with the money I have." The problem is that you don't have the money at the time of reference, in the present. This is roughly analogous to the problem I see with the Oneness view and John 17:5 (the parallel is not exact, because at least there is an "I" that exists at the time of reference in the case of the analogy, but I think you get the idea).

Trinitarians agree that the Father is "one God" -- I don't see why this precludes different personal identities in the one God. In fact, I thought Oneness believed in different persons, just not at the same time? The phrase "God the Son" does appear to be Biblical, as Heb. 1:8 seems to indicate "he says to the Son '...O God'." The Father is also called "Lord" (Acts 2:39, 3:20, 7:33, &c). I appreciate your candor, and I understand that we will probably never agree, and I likewise believe you are my brother in Christ, but I likewise do not see how some Pauline phrases that identify Jesus with the whole being of God, like phrase in Colossians 2:9 πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ("all the fulness", "absolutely everything"), fit with the Oneness view. --MonkeeSage 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Colossians 2:9 is one of the greatest Oneness scriptures possible! Like I said previously, Jesus is fully God and fully man. All of the Godhead (deity) is in Him bodily (humanity), and we are complete in Him. Where is the Trinity here? I guess you feel about my explanation on John 17:5 the way I feel about your explanation on Isaiah 9:6. I'm still not sure why you don't understand the answer though. Anyway, I have truly enjoyed our discussion and have learned from it. Thanks for the time! Jacob 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)