Throughout the history of the church, no issue has caused as much strife as that of the nature of the Godhead. And, despite all the energy expended, no consensus has been reached.

  Much of the problem apparently stems from the unwillingness to interpret the language of Scripture as the writers intended it to be understood. The biblical writers were writing in the realm of revelation, putting down what God revealed to them. When it came to the nature and attributes of God, they wrote passages that are true, but not exhaustive. A glimpse of God's nature can be found in one passage, another glimpse can be found in a second passage. Some of the data overlaps. Some of it does not.

  Some men, however, in their thirst for "knowledge," are uncomfortable with the doctrine of the Trinity as it is understood. So, they embark on the task of constructing what they consider to be a proper definition of the Nature of God. Thus, we have numerous attempts at answering the question "One God or Three?"

  One of the major components of the problem of defining the Nature of God is the attempt of finite human beings to reduce the infinite God to a series of propositions.

  Orthodox Christians believe through the Bible God has revealed to us everything about Himself that he wants us to know at this time. Although we may not always understand completely what the apostles were saying -- and there is ample evidence that they were many times at a loss themselves -- we must take the language that they used and not go behind it to try to dig out some hidden meaning.

  When people take the language of the Bible and try to explain that what it says is not necessarily what the original writers intended it to say, the problem of esotericism arises.

  Many of those who develop an unscriptural view of the Godhead see an esoteric, or hidden, meaning to the words of the Bible. Fanciful definitions usually are given for the clear words of Scripture to back up the particular view presented. When esotericists are confronted with linguistic scholarship that proves their definitions and conclusions incorrect, they retreat behind the mantle of special revelation.

  The argument may go something like this: "You know, that passage of Scripture used to give me considerable trouble. It wasn't clear at all. But last night while I was praying, the Lord Jesus came to me in a vision and explained to me just what that passage meant. Now, if you disagree with that, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with God." This is supposed to settle the argument.

  Once this approach to interpreting scripture is taken, any fanciful doctrine can be accommodated.

  That the nature of God somehow incorporates a threeness and a oneness usually is not at issue among groups that claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. It is the interrelatedness of the one and the three that causes the problems.

  Many Christians today -- some openly but the majority unwittingly -- believe in a concept of the Godhead that is a mixture of the thoughts of the early churchmen, Sabellius, Marcellus, and Nestorius. This concept has popularly been called the "oneness" doctrine or the "Jesus Only" doctrine. It is most openly promulgated by certain Apostolic and Pentecostal groups.

  In the second century A.D., a man named Sabellius postulated that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests Himself in three modes (hence the term modalism). The Trinity, he said, is not of distinct persons, but of action and office.

  In the fourth century A.D., Marcellus of Galatia expounded on this theory. He taught that instead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit being manifestations of the one God, they were expansions or dilations of one Being.

  Then, in the early fifth century, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, taught that the Body of Jesus was inhabited by two personalities. These were the Word (divine) and the human. As we shall see, the modern modalists, or "oneness" teachers, have synthesized the teachings of these three men into one doctrine.

  James Bjornstad gives us a succinct history of the birth of the "Jesus Only" doctrine:

"In 1913, a new form of modalism was born during a worldwide Pentecostal camp meeting at Arroyo Seco, near Los Angeles, California. John G. Scheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, tarried in prayer one night, and in the early morning experienced a revelation of the power of the Name of Jesus. Following this experience, Scheppe shared his revelation with many at the camp, which resulted in a study of the Scriptures concerning the name of Jesus. Such passages as Matthew 17:8, John 10:30, 14:13, Philippians 2:9, Colossians 3:17, etc., led Scheppe and his followers to adopt the modalistic interpretation of the Godhead which, unlike Sabellius, made Jesus, instead of the Father, the one God. Here it was Jesus who manifested Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. R.E. McAlister preached a sermon on 'Baptism in Jesus' Name,' which led many to go out and baptize only in the Name of Jesus (Acts 2:38), and denounce historic Trinitarian theology as unbiblical.

It is chiefly through the efforts of Scheppe's followers - Frank J. Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood and others - that the 'Jesus Only' or 'oneness' movement began to spread, primarily in the Holiness and Pentecostal groups. Today, such denominations as the United Pentecostal Church, the Apostolic Church, International Ministerial Association, General Assembly Church of Jesus, and others adhere to the basic tenets of the 'Jesus Only' movement, and these teachings can be found in the writings of such men as C. Haskell Yodon, John Paterson, Nathaniel A. Urshan, A. McClain, and others." (1)

  Out of these and other revelations have evolved the complex doctrine to which "oneness" believers now adhere. Gene Frost says this about the "Oneness Doctrine":

"The overall concept pictures God as a Being expanded throughout the universe and beyond, without any entity or form, He is so vast that he cannot know what he is about in every area except as He can communicate within Himself. God has an "image" that emanated from Him as He spoke; His words in creation came out in an image outline of a man. With this pattern, God made angels and man. In redeeming man, He took this image, His speech pattern, and with it formed the flesh of Jesus, who was then born of Mary. With the human spirit of the man Jesus, God moved in and shared the body. Thus, the Sonship began at the birth of Jesus and ceased or will cease, just when, Pentecostals have not yet decided. God also moves into the bodies of Christians and in this action is known as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, within each person, is exclusively his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent only as He employs the communication system within Deity to communicate with Himself in every other place." (2)

  As stated above, this view of the Godhead cannot be extrapolated from Scripture. One must present an esoteric view of interpretation to read this oneness doctrine into the Word of God.

  Oneness theologian K.V. Reeves, in his book, The Godhead, says that if we accept the language of the Scripture writers, we will be led to accept a plurality of persons in the Godhead.

"The variety and diversity of God's self-revelation forces Him to use language that may seem to imply plurality of persons, but if such is accepted literally, the effect would be a belief in a plurality of God." (3)

  Therefore, in Reeves' estimation, we must look for the hidden meaning behind the actual words:

"It is only when we search for the reality behind the words used, that understanding can be obtained." (4)

  In opposition to this method of interpretation, the Bible teaches that what has been revealed by God through men such as the Apostle Paul can be read and understood! In Ephesians 3:4, Paul says, "And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.

  We are to go in the direction that the language of Scripture takes us, even if it disagrees with our pet theories or church traditions. We are not required or equipped to understand totally one so vast as God. We are required to accept all that He has revealed of Himself in His Word.

  The answer to this question could not be more clearly stated in the Bible. There is only one God: Deuteronomy 4:35, 39, Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6,8, 24, 45:5-6, 46:9 and many other passages. So, if we take the language at face value, we come to the conclusion that there is one God! To try saying that there are three Gods goes beyond the words here.

  However, we also go beyond the words if we say that these passages mean there is only one personality in the Godhead. In reality, the Scriptures cited do not clearly teach one way or the other about the number of persons in the Godhead (although the Hebrew grammar implies a composite unity). The number of persons must be gleaned by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

  When we do compare those Scriptures, we see that the Bible teaches: 1) There is only one God (passages already cited).  2) There is a person called God the Father. (2 Peter 1:17)  3) There is a person (Jesus) known as the Son of God, who also is called God. (John 1:1, John 20:28)  4) There is a person called the Holy Spirit, who also is called God. (Acts 5:4)

  Therefore, within the nature of the one God, there exist three separate and distinct persons.

  It is here that we have disagreements with the "Oneness" viewpoint. They go beyond the actual meaning of Scripture to maintain that there is only one person in the Godhead who has expanded or dilated himself into three different modes. One has only to consult a few passages to see that the Bible will not support that assertion:

* Mark 13:32. This verse tells us that only God the Father knows the time of the Second Coming. If the Father and the Son were one and the same person, this would mean that that person would know something without knowing it at the same time. If the oneness people argue that the Son here is the human spirit and that Jesus is the eternal spirit, then you have two spirits in one body. This is Nestorianism. The conclusion that must be drawn from the language used is that the Father who knows is a separate and distinct personality from the Son who does not know. The Son is not the Father.

* Matthew 12:31-32 speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The logical conclusion that is drawn from this passage is that if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven, then the Son is not the Holy Spirit.

  Therefore, the Son is not the Father, the Son is not the Holy Spirit and yet the Son is God. However, Scripture tells us that there is only one God. Answer? Within the nature of the one God there exist three separate and distinct persons. There is no way around this.

* In John 6:38 Jesus says he came to earth not to do his own will, but to do the will of the Father. This would be impossible if Jesus and the Father were the same person. You would only have one will, not two.

* In John 8:16-18, Jesus speaks of two witnesses: Himself and His Father. If Jesus and the Father were the same person, then there would not be two witnesses. If oneness theology is correct, then Jesus was lying in this passage.

  Of course, one could opt for the position that the human Jesus was one witness and the divine Spirit within (i.e. the Father) was the other witness, but this creates some impossible problems and certainly the Bible in no way supports this view.

  In John 12:49-50, Jesus says, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak." If Jesus and the Father are the same person, then Jesus spoke of Himself. Unmistakenly, there are two persons spoken of here.

  These are only some of the passages that provide glimpses into the nature of the Godhead. It is true that no one single verse spells out everything about the nature of God. But when the pieces are put together like a mosaic, we get the picture of God's nature that He has revealed to us.

  Doctrinal decisions must be made on scriptural content, not "special revelation." The former leads one to the bedrock of Christian truth, while the latter produces strange doctrines, such as legalistic baptismal rules and supernatural signs that a baptism is valid (i.e. coming out of the water speaking in tongues), which have no place in Christianity.

  1) Jim Bjornstad & Walter Bjorck, "Jesus Only, A Modalistic Interpretation"; Christian Research Institute, 1970; pg. 1.

  2) Gene Frost, The Oneness 'Doctrine' of Pentecostalism and The Bible Doctrine of the Godhead; Preceptor Publications, 1974; pp. 4-5.

  3) Kenneth V. Reeves, The Godhead; published by author, 1971; pg. 29.

  4) Ibid., pg. 38.

(c) 1984 - PFO.  All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach.  Reproduction is prohibited, including BBS, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes.   For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.