Home About Us Doctrinal Stat

Home About Us Doctrinal Statement Scheduling Seminars Products Contact Us

Theological Identification: “Oneness” theology, historically known as “modalism.”[1]

Who: Oneness churches include the United Pentecostal Church International (hereafter UPCI), which is the largest Oneness domination. In addition to the UPCI, there are many other Oneness churches having generic names such as “Apostolic,” “Bethel Temple,” “Higher Ground,” “Jesus’ Name,” or even “Jesus Only,” etc. Further, there are many popular and prolific preachers on the airwaves that propagate Oneness theology (e.g., Trinity Broadcasting Network [TBN] features one of the most recognized Oneness preachers, T. D. Jakes of the Potters House, Dallas, TX. [2]

Theological Distinctives:

1. Oneness theology rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, for they are unitarian (i.e., believes that God exists as one Person—unipersonal).

2. Oneness theology rejects the eternality of the Person of the Son.

3. Oneness theology rejects that the Son was the actual Creator.

4. Oneness theology rejects the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

5. Many Oneness churches especially the UPCI rejects justification through faith alone by teaching that one must be water baptized (“in the name of Jesus” only) to be saved—with the evidence, as the UPCI teaches, of speaking in other tongues.

6. Virtually all Oneness churches reject that water baptism should be done in the *triune* formal as instructed by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, rather, as they insist, it should be dome in the name of Jesus only.

God: Oneness believers categorically reject the doctrine of the Trinity, thus rejecting the true nature of God—rejecting God Himself. Oneness doctrine holds to the idea that God is a unitarian deity, thus existing as one Person (or unipersonal).

This one unitarian/unipersonal deity (whose name is “Jesus”) has manifested as one of three modes or roles, as either the “Father” (the divine nature of Jesus who is God—eternal), or the Son (the human nature of Jesus, not God—not eternal), or Holy Spirit (synonymous with the Father mode). Hence, Oneness believers firmly deny that there is one God revealed in three distinct Persons. For this reason, believers in this doctrine are called “Oneness” believes. As seen, this belief is also defined as *unitarian* (a one Person God). In an official UPCI doctrinal tract titled, “60 Questions on the Godhead with Bible answers,” we read in question 11:

Does the Bible say that all the Godhead is revealed in one person? Yes, in Jesus Christ. II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:19; 2:9; Hebrews 1:3 (http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp).

Jesus: As indicated, according to Oneness theology, the “name” of this unipersonal deity is “Jesus.” Therefore, as they believe, Jesus, while on earth, had two natures: divine as the Father/Holy Spirit and human as the “Son of God,” though not “God the Son,” only the Father is God. Therefore, Jesus (the name of the unitarian deity) revealed Himself as three different modes or roles.

As a result, Oneness teachers assert that when Scripture speaks of Jesus as God (e.g., John 8:24, 58; 20:28 Titus 2:13; etc.) it is speaking of Jesus in the Father mode. But when Scripture speaks of Jesus as the human man (e.g., “I thirst” or “who touched Me”) it is really speaking of Jesus in the human Son mode. So, when reading Scripture, one must determine, according to this doctrine, in which mode or manifestation Jesus was speaking: the “Father” mode, the human “Son” mode, or the “Holy Spirit” mode?

By asserting that Jesus’ divine nature was merely the mode of the Father (and Holy Spirit), Oneness believers are able to proclaim that “Jesus is God in the flesh.” However, this is a play-on-words, for when they say “God” what they mean is that Jesus as the Father is God—namely, His divine nature. In this way, they can say that Jesus (as the Father) is the eternal God, or that Jesus (as the Father) preexisted; while claiming that it was only for the sake of redemption that the Father (Jesus’ divine nature, not the preexistent Son) came down and wrapped Himself in human flesh (though, not actually becoming flesh). In this view, Oneness doctrine teaches that the Person of the Son was not eternal His life started in Bethlehem.
For a short outline on the Oneness rejection of the Son's preexistence see this See The Preexistence of the Son and Oneness Theology.

The Father: Jesus’ divine nature, God.

Son: Jesus’ human nature, the Son of God, not God the Son, for only the Father is God. Jesus’ divine nature is the Father (or the Holy Spirit), His human nature is the Son.

Holy Spirit: Jesus’ divine nature. Thus, as to His divine nature, Jesus is both Father and Holy Spirit depending on His particular function (e.g., Jesus as the Father created all things, but Jesus as the Holy Spirit mode is the Comforter).

See10 Questions to ask Oneness Believers

NOTES

[1] Oneness theology was first known as monarchianism, which comes from the Greek word monarchia, meaning single principle. There were two forms of monarchianism: modalistic, and the far less accepted, dynamic (or more properly called adoptionism), both of which emerged at the end of the second century. Modalistic monarchianism, known also as modalism, Sabellianism (named after the heretic Sabellius, who came to Rome and taught it at the beginning of the third century) and even patripassianism (from Lat., meaning, “father to suffer”). Today, however, modalism is generally classified as “Oneness.” Modalism earned its name from its distinctive theology. Basically, modalism (or Oneness theology) teaches that God is a unitarian (i.e., unipersonal), indivisible monad. Hence, the titles “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” were merely the different modes, roles, or offices that the unipersonal deity temporally manifested for the sake of redemption. Oneness teachers today tell us that Jesus is the name of the single, lone Person behind the three masks of the “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” (in contrast to early modalism, which taught it was the Father Person behind the masks).

[2] If you are unsure about the orthodoxy of a particular church (or pastor), examine the church’s doctrinal statement concerning God. If it avoids the word “Person,” and/or describes God as three “manifestations” or “dimensions” (as T. D. Jakes does, see http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_doctrine.html use extreme caution! Orthodox Christianity has never described God as merely temporary appearances, manifestations, or even worse, “dimensions.” Oneness churches typically describe God in those terms. However, if a church claims to be Trinitarian, yet uses terms like “manifestations” to describe the three Persons of the Trinity, it reveals theological ignorance or carelessness. In my observation, the term “manifestations” in a doctrinal statement frequently indicates Oneness rather than Trinitarian theology. Therefore, when churches avoid the term “Persons” in their doctrinal statements—beware.

The Canon is closed

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone (Eph.2:19-20).

The foundation of the NT was laid once and for all. It was built on the apostle and prophets. The text does not say that the church was built on Christ, but rather on the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone that holds the whole church together. Paul does not envisage a succession of new apostles (as Rome teaches today). This is clear due to the fact that Paul uses the aorist passive participle form of epoikodomeō of (epoikodomēthentes, lit., “having been built”). Hence, the action of the verb indicates that the foundation that was laid once and thus never needs to be repeated.

The notion of 'successive apostles' as taught by groups such as Roman Catholics and LDS do not consider (a) logically, if there is a need for new foundational apostles, then, the foundation was never really laid to begin with. Hence, something foundational by definition never needs additional foundations, and (b) the idea that we need new apostles or even secondary ones who will add to the fundamental work of the first century are really implying that we need new foundations in addition to or regardless of the foundation that was already laid: viz. the NT "apostles and prophets." Thus, each new foundation would logically require a new cornerstone.

In direct contrast to the Protestant concept of sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone") is sola Ecclesia (i.e., “Church alone”), which is clearly the marrow of groups such as Catholicism. Hence, it is not that the Catholic apologist does not have the ability to exegete, but he has no need, for the Church has done the job for him. For the Catholic sees his Church, not Scripture, as the final sole authority in all areas of life and theology (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 84-85, 113).