Oneness vs. Trinity--A Theory Pertaining to the Reason
for the Different Theologiesby
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@sbcglobal.net
The Oneness vs. Trinity issue is not simply an issue of what the Scripture teaches. Oneness believers and Trinitarians have the same Scriptures available to them. If it was simply a matter of an awareness of certain Bible verses, then everyone who has read the Bible in its entirety should have the same understanding of the nature of God. However, it is not the words of Scripture that distinguish the two theological camps, but rather the interpretation, explanation, and emphases of the same. This is why the views of each theological camp cannot be proven or disproved merely by Scripture citing. Our interpretation of Scripture differs, being colored by the preunderstandings we bring to it, and the emphases we place on certain teachings/portions of Scripture.
Both Oneness and Trinitarian theologians agree that the Bible teaches the existence of only one God; both agree that the NT makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit; both views maintain that the Scripture speaks of Father, Son, and Spirit as God. The question that both Oneness and Trinitarianism seeks to answer, then, is how to understand God as being one, and yet account for the Scriptural distinctions.
Oneness and Trinitarian theology both attempt to explain these distinctions, but do so from different starting points, and end up with two different conclusions. Oneness theology starts with the clear teaching of the OT that God is one, and understands the NT distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit in light of this foundational OT teaching. Trinitarians start with the NT distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit, and understand the OT assertions that God is one in light of these. The result is that Oneness theologians understand the distinctions as arising in the incarnation, while Trinitarians understand the distinctions as being eternal distinctions of divine persons in the Godhead both prior to, and after the incarnation.
The question before us, then, is what model or starting point does the most justice to the Biblical data? While every theological position has its own difficulties, which theological position (Trinitarianism or Oneness theology) more adequately preserves Biblical monotheism, while at the same time accounting for and explaining the distinctions we find in the NT?
Specifically, is the Holy Spirit simply another reference for a particular aspect of God's one person just like our spirit is a reference to a particular aspect of our one person (I Cor 2:11), or is the Holy Spirit a reference to a distinct person within God? If the latter, why did the OT not make this explicit and why is the NT data so lacking for such a conclusion?
While Oneness recognizes a distinction between the Father and Son, is such a distinction due to the addition of humanity to God's one eternal person (a distinction between God's transcendent existence beyond the incarnation and God's existence as a genuine man in the incarnation), or is such a distinction between eternal persons? If between eternal persons, why do we not read of the second person until the incarnation?
We must also ask why, if God is eternally Father, is He never called "God the Father" until the NT? It seems strange that we never read of Father and Son until the NT when God actually fathered a son (while "Father" appears approximately a dozen times in the OT it is used in quite a different sense than it is in the NT). Father and Son are relational terms used in the context of begetting a child. Did not God beget a child? Yes, at the time of the incarnation. Would this account for the lack of such a term in the OT and the virtual exclusive use of such a term for God in the NT?
Seeing that the incarnation brought a distinction between God's existence as Spirit made flesh (genuine humanity and deity conjoined into one unified person) and God's transcendent existence beyond the incarnation (Spirit alone), and therefore the need for a relationship between the Father and Son, is it not better to understand Father and Son to be incarnationally-bound terms rather than eternal relationships within the Godhead? After all, it is not until the NT that we find any distinctions in reference to God, and the Father/Son terminology. This incarnationally-grounded distinction might also explain the apparent lack of evidence for a distinct person of the Spirit. The OT speaks of the Spirit often, but it was always understood to be a reference to YHWH, referring to His nature as Spirit. The NT often makes a distinction between the Father and Son, but rarely distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit.
What model best explains the Biblical insistence on monotheism, the lack of any distinction in God's person in the OT, the emergence of Father/Son terminology only after the incarnation, and the fact that most often only the Father and Son are spoken of using distinction-terminology, to the exclusion of the Spirit? I argue that a Oneness theology best accounts for such a phenomenon, insisting that God is an absolute monad, the Spirit being His very nature and an aspect of His person, and the Son being none other than His own person incarnated as a man, but distinguished from the transcendent Spirit of God due to the hypostatic union of His deity and humanity. Oneness theology best accounts for the rise of distinction-terminology in the NT, and the emergence of the appellations "Father/Son," because it was not until the NT that God fathered a son, and it was not until the hypostatic union when God incorporated a human identity into His person that there arose such a need to make any distinctions in reference to God. The distinction, however, is never said to be between eternal persons in the Godhead. Such distinctions are only necessary in light of the incarnation.
Email
IBS | Statement of Faith | Home
| Browse by Author | Q
& A
Links | Virtual
Classroom | Copyright | Submitting
Articles | Search