Click here to go back to Part 1
New Testament
Luke 3:21-22
Now when
all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended
upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."
Commentary:
Here, we have all three Persons of the Trinity present at the same time. The Son is being baptized, the Holy Spirit descends
from heaven, and the Father speaks from heaven. However, according to Modalist theology, God cannot be in all three modes at
the same time.
Luke 12:10
"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
Commentary:
Modalism states that God cannot exist as all three modes (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) at once. They say that, during
the Incarnation, God was in the mode of the Son (or for Oneness theology, the Father in human flesh). However, according to
what Jesus said, the Pharisees just blasphemed the Holy Spirit! How can they blaspheme the Holy Spirit if God was not in that
mode at the time?
John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in
the beginning with God.
Commentary:
John states that the Word waswith God in the beginning even though He was of the same substance as God (i.e. “the Word was God”). John is clearly differentiating
between the Persons of the Father and the Son. Also, it is worthy to note that this proves the Son’s eternal existence contrary
to the teachings of Oneness Pentecostalism which says that the Son was created when the Virgin Mary was conceived. Robert Morey
comments:
“The second reason [theos] does not have the article is that it would lead the reader to the mistaken idea that the
Word was the Father…John did not place the article [o] in front of [theos] in order to maintain the distinction between the Father
and the Son. This is why he made that distinction once again in John 1:2.”
-Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1996), p.324.
John 3:17
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but
that the world might be saved through Him.”
Commentary:
God sent the Son. This clearly shows that, not only is the Son a different Person than the Father, but it also shows His eternal
pre-existence. The Modalist will usually object by saying that John the Baptist was also sent from God (John 1:6), and that
this proves that God sending the Son does not necessitate the Son’s eternal pre-existence. However, the word translated for
‘sent’ in John 1:6 is not the same word used for the Son who was sent from heaven. The word used for John the Baptist is ‘apestalmenos’,
and it does not carry any sense of pre-existence. The word used for Jesus, on the other hand, is ‘exapesteilen’, and it denotes
sending away from one place to another. Thus, the Son was sent from heaven to earth.
John 6:51, 57
"I
am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will
give for the life of the world is My flesh… As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he
also will live because of Me.”
Commentary:
Jesus describes Himself
as the One Who came down out of Heaven and as the One Whom the Father has sent. This shows the Son’s pre-existence.
John
8:13, 16-18
So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true."…"But even if I do judge,
My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the
testimony of two men is true. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me."
Commentary:
The Jews were complaining that Jesus was testifying about Himself. Jesus replied that He does not testify of Himself but that
both He and the Father Who sent Him testify. In Oneness theology, Jesus is the Father which makes this passage nonsensical! This passage only makes sense if Jesus and the Father are two separate ‘Persons’.
John 12:28
"Father, glorify Your name."
Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."
Commentary:
According to Oneness theology, the Father was in human flesh at that time. Why would Jesus speak to the Father if He was the
Father? Second, if the Father was Jesus, then Who spoke from heaven?
John 14:12
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes
in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.”
Commentary:
According to Oneness theology, Jesus is the Father. If this were true, how can Jesus go to the Father if the Father was already
one of Christ’s two natures?
John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
Commentary:
How can the Father send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is merely one of the manifestations of the Father? It only makes
sense if the Father and the Holy Spirit are different ‘Persons’.
John 17:5
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, withthe glory which I had with You before the world was.”
Commentary:
This clearly shows the pre-existence of the Son and that He is a different ‘Person’ than the Father.
Romans 8:3
For what the Law
could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for
sin, He condemned sin in the flesh…
Commentary:
Again, the Son was
sent which proves His pre-existence. [See the objection to ‘sent’ and the response in the commentary on John 3:17.]
Philippians
2:5-7
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality
with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Commentary:
How can Jesus have equality with God the Father if He is God the Father? If He took the form of a bond-servant, Who would He
serve? How could He serve the Father if He was the Father?
Colossians 1:13-17
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness,
and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Commentary:
Paul clearly states that God the Son created all things which proves the eternal pre-existence of the Son.
Galatians 4:4
But when
the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
Commentary:
Paul describes the Son as the One sent forth from the Father which proves His pre-existence. [See the objection to ‘sent’ and
the response in the commentary on John 3:17.]
Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND
THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.”
Commentary:
According to Oneness theology, the Son is only the human nature of Jesus whereas the Father is the Divine nature. However, according
to the writer of Hebrews, the Son is fully Divine.
Hebrews 1:10
And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;”
Commentary:
The writer
of Hebrews continues to speak of the Son. Here, he says that the Son created the heavens and the earth which proves the eternal
pre-existence and Divinity of the Son.
Revelation 5:7
And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the
throne.
Commentary:
The ‘He’ refers to the Lamb (i.e. Christ; v.6)
and the ‘Him’ refers to the “Lord God, the Almighty” (Revelation 4:8). Thus, it is clear that the Lord Jesus is a different
‘Person’ than God the Father. This passage is similar to Daniel 7:13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texts
Used By Modalists
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Commentary:
Robert Morey comments:
“In the Hebrew the word “Father” is first and then follows the word “eternal.”…After a great deal of research
on the many issues involved, we have translated…as “Father of eternal life.” Calvin correctly pointed out, “The name Father
is put for Author.” The word…“father” thus does not mean the One who possesses eternity but the One who gives it to others. The word…“eternal” is not the normal word for absolute eternity. Thus, we conclude that it means that the Son of God will be
the Author of eternal life for those who believe in Him.”
-Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible
Publishers, 1996), pp.184-185.
Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the
Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns
for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”
Commentary:
Robert Morey comments:
“The apostle John clearly viewed Zechariah
Rev. 1:7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth
will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.
The Messiah is the One who is pierced as well as the Son who is mourned. Zechariah
-Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1996), pp.524-525.
John
3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal
life.”
Commentary:
Modalists try to use the word ‘begotten’ and pretend
that it means ‘created’. However, this is merely one of their many nasty habits of anachronistically reading the meaning of
a 19th/20th century English word back into the meaning of a 1st century Koine Greek word. The Greek word for ‘begotten’, ‘menogenes’,
does not carry the sense of ‘created’ in this passage. It merely means ‘unique’. Just as Isaac was Abraham’s “only begotten
son” (even though Isaac wasn’t Abraham’s only son; Genesis
John 5:43
"I have come in My Father's name, and you do
not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.”
Commentary:
Oneness teachers argue from the phrase, “I have come in My Father’s name”, that the name of the Father is Jesus. Of course,
this is total eisegesis. It was common and still is common for someone to say that they have come in the name of someone or
something else that sent them. For example, someone may say, “I have come in the name of the Law.” Another example would
be for someone to say, “I have come as an emissary in the name of the King of
John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
Commentary:
[Same comments as John 5:43]
Philippians 2:9-11
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which
is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Commentary:
Robert Morey comments:
“It is argued by Oneness preachers that since “the name above all names”…is Jesus, then Jesus must be
the Father. The fatal problem with this argument is that the “Name above all names” is not Jesus…but “Lord,”…i.e. Yahweh. The text does not say “at the name Jesus,” but “at the name OF Jesus,” i.e., the name which belongs to Jesus. In terms of Greek
grammar, it is the genitive of possession, not identification. The “Name” is revealed in verse 11 as “Lord,” i.e., Yahweh.”
-Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1996), p.525.
For other arguments that Oneness
Pentecostals use and their refutations, go here: http://www.christiandefense.com/oneness.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly,
for the refutation of the highly heretical Oneness Pentecostal belief that one must speak in tongues in order to be saved, go here:http://www.carm.org/oneness/tongues.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:
Some helpful online reading can be found here:
http://www.christiandefense.com/oneness.htm
http://www.carm.org/oneness/tongues.htm
Suggested
reading:
- Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible
Publishers, 1996).
Click here to go back to Part 1
Modalism
(Part 2)