Welcome to our dedicated thread on Oneness! This will be our central hub for discussing all aspects of Oneness theology—its foundations, implications, and points of difference from Trinitarian beliefs. Whether you’re looking to explore its biblical basis, historical context, or its role in modern Christianity, this thread is here to bring all resources, questions, and insights together in one place.
For those who may be new to the topic, Oneness theology asserts the belief in one indivisible God who reveals Himself in various manifestations rather than as three distinct persons. This understanding particularly influences the interpretation of Jesus’ divinity, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and God’s self-revelation throughout scripture.
Feel free to share your thoughts, resources, and questions. Let’s delve into the scripture, compare perspectives, and gain a deeper understanding of what Oneness means for our faith.
The question of why non-Trinitarian believers are sometimes labeled as non-Christian is one that touches on deep theological convictions and centuries of church history. For many, the doctrine of the Trinity—belief in one God existing in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is seen as a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity. However, there are devout believers who, while fully affirming the deity of Jesus and the authority of Scripture, do not adhere to the traditional Trinitarian formula. This raises important questions: Is belief in the Trinity a necessary criterion for being considered a true Christian? How do we define the boundaries of Christian identity and fellowship? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this—why do you think this issue is so divisive, and how should the Christian community navigate these differences?
A central point of contention between Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals is the nature of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians assert that the Sonship is an eternal relationship within the Godhead, while Oneness Pentecostals often argue that it is a temporary state that will cease after the final judgment.
To explore this issue, let’s consider the scriptural evidence. Does the Bible suggest that the Sonship is a permanent or temporary aspect of Jesus’ relationship with God?
1 Corinthians 15:24 states, “Then comes the end, when he will deliver over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every rule and every authority and power.” This passage seems to imply that Jesus’ role as Son will eventually come to an end.
However, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, we read, “And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.” This verse suggests that even after all things are subjected to the Son, he will still be subject to the Father.
How do we reconcile these two passages? Does the Bible indicate that the Sonship is a temporary state that will eventually cease, or is it an eternal aspect of the Godhead?
I’d say that this question reaches to the very heart of who Jesus is and why He came. When we explore questions about Jesus’ Sonship, we’re really asking about His identity and His work in God’s eternal plan for humanity. For many, understanding the Sonship of Christ gives insight into God’s love, how He relates to us, and the nature of our salvation.
For instance, considering whether the Sonship is temporary or eternal affects our view of how Jesus intercedes for us, how we relate to God, and what it means for Jesus as God to be both our Savior and our Lord. When Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 15:28 about Jesus delivering the kingdom to God and being “subjected,” he is speaking to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s purpose, where all things will be united under His authority, including the Sonship role.
So, this question matters because, as we meditate on it, we are drawn closer to understanding God’s eternal purpose. It allows us to see Jesus’ sacrifice, His love, and His future rule with even greater clarity. In the end, it’s not just a theological point—it’s about knowing the One who gave everything to reconcile us to Himself and who will rule forever.
I always find it more than slightly comical that God supposedly is pure spirit, the Three Persons of the Trinity thus existed as pure spirit before the incarnation, but now the Son walks around heaven in his resurrection body, shaking hands and hugging newcomers. What? The Trinity now has two spirit persons and one resurrection body person, yet someone how the Trinity and God as pure spirit remain intact. Really? I’ve encountered precisely one other person in 25 years who has raised this seemingly obvious issue.
The point of my who cares question is that we can’t know the answer in this lifetime, so whatever you choose to meditate upon may not, in fact, be ontologically true. What you seem to be suggesting (i.e., Jesus as the Son will rule forever) seems to me to conflict with what Paul is saying in the verses you cite, but apparenly you think not. To the extent I care at all, I as a non-Trinitarian would say Jesus was always and will always be the Son who is subject to the one and only God, who is pure spirit. What his role in the hereafter may be is above my pay grade and, to me, not worth thinking about.
Not at all, sorry if it seems that way. The question is posed to the Trinitarian who Believe the Son is Eternal from before creation and forever. I don’t believe that.
Then you should be in agreement with William Lane Craig as described in my recent thread “An interesting take on the Trinity” - the basic notion being that the “ontological” Trinity is simply three persons with no Father-Son-Spirit distinction and that the “economic” Trinity of F-S-S is simply the Trinity’s way of relating to the world in the plan of salvation. Which more or less fits with my notion that the Trinity doctrine is incomprehensible and simply a way of thinking and talking about a God who transcends human logic and language.
In understanding the nature of God, Scripture reveals a beautifully simple truth: God is One, and His oneness is entirely embodied in Jesus Christ, who is both fully divine and fully human. God’s relationship to humanity does not require the complex idea of three distinct persons but, rather, showcases His profound ability to assume roles, or titles, to accomplish our redemption. Isaiah 9:6 proclaims, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Here, we see the Son as “The mighty God” and “The everlasting Father”—a clear testament to the unity and fullness of God in Christ. In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” clarifying that the Father and the Son are not distinct persons but rather one divine being manifest in the flesh. The fullness of God is “in” Christ; Colossians 2:9 affirms, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” This statement signifies that every attribute of the divine nature is embodied in Jesus, making Him both the expression of God’s humanity and divinity.
Through Christ, God took on the role of Savior, bridging the divine and human, fulfilling the Father’s purpose to redeem and reconcile the world to Himself. God the Father—limitless and invisible—manifested Himself in a visible, tangible form as Jesus, to relate directly with humanity (1 Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…”). The titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separate persons; they are roles or aspects of how the one true God interacts with us. As Father, He is Creator; as Son, He is Savior; as Spirit, He indwells believers to guide and empower us. Jesus Christ fully embodies these roles as the one Lord and mediator for all humanity.
The nature of God is not beyond understanding but is revealed with clarity through Christ’s own words and actions. Jesus is not one of three persons but the visible image of the invisible God, the Father made flesh to dwell among us (Colossians 1:15). This biblical view not only keeps the integrity of God’s oneness intact but also demonstrates His profound love and desire to relate personally with His creation. Through Jesus, the mystery of God is revealed—not as a divided essence, but as a single, loving God who became flesh to redeem His people.
To quote the immortal Dude in The Big Lebowski, “That’s just your opinion, man.” (I’d post the clip, but I don’t think it would get past the censors here.) You have it all figured out, and it all makes sense to you - but, alas, it’s distinctly in the vein of some of the early “emanation” heresies and isn’t what orthodox Christians have ever believed. I don’t violently disagree with what you’re saying, and I have my own eccentric notions, but I’m rational and honest enough to say “These are just my convictions. I’m guessing along with everyone else.” I do admire and respect the fact that you at least seem to be thinking about and grappling with these issues.
Orthodox Christianity (at least the Trinitarian Part) came centuries after the Original Writers of the Bible (which has been lost to time and age.) Which Undermine two important Scriptures:
2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
2 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
The Nicene Creed (325 AD) and the Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) are not Scripture, but the product of Human reasoning not God-breathed inspiration.
The theological implications of 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 reveal a profound view of Scripture as directly inspired by God, bearing divine authority in its teaching, correction, and guidance. In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul asserts that “all Scripture” is “God-breathed,” indicating that every part of the inspired Word comes directly from God’s Spirit, which makes it entirely sufficient for “doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.” This notion is foundational because it places Scripture in a category abovehuman reasoning, philosophy, or cultural influences. When Paul says it is “profitable for doctrine,” he implies that Scripture alone is the source of all necessary Christian teaching, sufficient to guide believers in knowing the nature and character of God. Instruction in righteousness underscores its role in forming a godly life, making it clear that any additional doctrinal developmentmust not stray from the boundaries set by inspired Scripture.
2 Peter 1:21 further deepens this understanding, explaining that prophecy did not come by human will but by “holy men of God” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Peter’s words distinguish prophetic truth from any human origin, asserting that Scripture’s truths were not invented or shaped by man’s philosophical ideas or cultural influencesbut were supernaturally conveyed. This verse positions Scripture as wholly divine in origin, pointing to God as the primary author, with human writers merely serving as vessels of divine communication. In this way, any doctrinal or theological understanding must align with what has been directly inspired by God.
Theologically, this high view of Scriptural inspiration has significant implicationswhen considering the post-apostolic development of Christian doctrines. As Gentile believers became the majority in the early church, especially in the centuries following the apostles, their cultural context differed significantly fromthe Jewish context in which the Scriptures were originally written. To communicate the Christian faith to a Greek-speaking, Hellenistic audience, early Church Fathers frequently used philosophical concepts drawn from Platonism and Aristotelianism to articulate complex theological doctrines, particularly those concerning the nature of God and the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. Concepts such as “persons” and “substance,” central to later Trinitarian formulations, were rooted in Greek metaphysical categories rather than the Jewish monotheistic perspective of the Scriptures.
While these philosophical terms were intended to help explain and defend the Christian faith, they introduced interpretative tools that were external to the Scriptural worldview. The original Biblical texts, as understood by the Jewish authors, were strictly monotheistic and viewed God as one indivisible being. The Jewish writers of Scripture did not utilize philosophical constructs to define God; rather, they spoke of God as He revealed Himself in history—first through the Law and the Prophets and ultimately through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In John 4:24, Jesus taught, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,” a concept that does not divide or compartmentalize God but emphasizes His spiritual essence and unity.
These later Hellenistic influences are thus theologically distinct from the inspired Scriptures, which 2 Timothy and 2 Peter present as sufficient for doctrine and for understanding God’s nature. By introducing non-Scriptural categories to define God, there is a potential risk of distorting or over-complicating the simple monotheistic faith conveyed by the apostles. This is not to undermine the sincere efforts of early Church Fathers but to recognize that Scripture itself does not speak of God in terms of distinct persons within the Godhead. Rather, it consistently reveals a oneness of essence and describes the fullness of deity as manifested in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9).
Thus, the theological implication is clear: if all Scripture is inspired and sufficient as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 claim, then any doctrinal developments must adhere strictly to the language and worldview of the Bible. Concepts not directly supported by Scriptural terms or the framework in which the apostles and prophets wrote should be approached with caution. This is not merely a call for doctrinal purity but a reminder that Scripture is fully capable of revealing all that is necessary about God’s nature and His relationship to humanity without reliance on extra-biblical philosophies.
Of course, 1 Timothy was not written by Paul and 2 Peter was not written by Peter; they are among the very latest of the NT documents. I don’t know how old you are, but I will be 75 in a few months and have studied the history of the doctrine of the Trinity about as thoroughly as it could be studied. It does have roots long before Nicea, but the hashing out of the doctrine at Nicea and later Ecumenical Councils was largely political, never pretty and often violent. The Trinity formulation, IMO, is simply an attempt to make sense of who Jesus actually was - precisely the same as all the contemporaneous “heresies” were. I happen to think the most “scriptural” view of Jesus is pretty much exactly what the Arians believed and the JW now believe, but I also don’t believe this is who the historical Jesus actually was. This doesn’t mean I don’t think he was “divine” but that divinity remains as much a puzzle now as it was for the believers of the first century. My theology allows for mystery, uncertainty and ambiguity.
The problem with the Trinity can be found in Augustine’s writings. He stated that the Trinity is the most challenging part of Christian theology. Define who God is. Do humans have the ability to define something/someone that complex?
One God is correct. God is the power that created that created the universe. The best description we have of God can be found in Exodus 3:14
“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.”
Moses was told to say this to the Pharaoh and the Israelites. It made an initial impact, but that didn’t last very long. It often appears that the Old Testament is an account of the Jews turning their backs to God with God bringing them back in line.
Augustine referred to the Sermon on the Mount as the “Ultimate Guide for Living Your Life as a Christine.” Compare the Ten Commandments to the Sermon on the Mount. Then we can have a discussion.
Augustine was, however, thoroughly and conventionally Trinitarian. He said something to the effect that anyone who denies the Trinity is in danger of losing his salvation, but anyone who tries to understand the Trinity is in danger of losing his mind.
A true Trinitarian believes the Trinity is ontologically true: It is what God actually, really and truly, is as set forth in the creeds. The notion that it’s merely a way of thinking and talking about a transcendent, unfathomable God is not a genuinely Trinitarian position. Augustine was a genuine Trinitarian.
I’m not quite following your point here. The Ten Commandments are explicitly incorporated into the Sermon On the Mount (““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” etc., etc.). Augustine recognized this and wrote on it. I, at least, don’t see any big disconnect.
(I’d post the clip, but I don’t think it would get past the censors here.) You have it all figured out, and it all makes sense to you - but, alas, it’s distinctly in the vein of some of the early “emanation” heresies and isn’t what orthodox Christians have ever believed. I don’t violently disagree with what you’re saying, and I have my own eccentric notions, but I’m rational and honest enough to say “These are just my convictions. I’m guessing along with everyone else.” I do admire and respect the fact that you at least seem to be thinking about and grappling with these issues.