Oneness Theology Denies the Deity of Jesus Christ

The dilemma with Oneness Theology and its strict adherence to unitarianism against trinitarianism, is that it denies Jesus Christ coming in the flesh and is therefore by definition antichrist.(1 Jn.4:1-4, 2:22-3) Both by denying Jesus was a full human person separate from the Father and also a divine person preexisting with the Father; two infinite persons. If Jesus is not a human person and also an eternal person (one person with 2 natures) with the Father, then it is a denial that he came in the flesh. Either a denial of his preexistence, so he did not come in the flesh; or if there aren’t 2 persons then he didn’t fully come in the flesh as he was not a separate human person from the Father. Or if they are forced to admit he was a 2nd person as a human then since in their doctrine God is unipersonal, Jesus would be a created human person and didn’t come in the flesh (any more than everyone else). If Jesus is a created person, this negates his death for our sins impugning the nature of God in punishing a third created person for our sins. (Prv.17:15, Ezk.18:4,20, 2 Chr.25:4, Ex.32:32-3, Dt.24:16) The nature of God, the person of Christ and the atonement are inextricably linked.  

 Take note from this sampling of scripture that Jesus is a person (an ‘I’) other than the Father who existed with the Father prior to his coming in the flesh.  

Jn.8:17-9 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.   

Jn.8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.   

Jn.16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 17:8 ... I came out from thee  

Jn.13:1 ...Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.v 3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;  

Jn.6: 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 1 Cor.15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.  

Jn.8:23 ... I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.  

Jn.5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.  

Lk.24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you  

Jn.10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father v30 I and my Father are one  

Jn.20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

Jn.14:28 I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 15:24 both me and my Father.  

Rev.3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.  

This might sound strange if you listen the Oneness teachers as they seem to think they alone have the revelation that Jesus is the I AM of the Old Testament.(Ex.3:14, Jn.8:58)  But as unitarians (God is unipersonal) as opposed to trinitarians (God is tripersonal) they are forced to conclude a 2nd human person called Jesus was just a man who prior to his incarnation was not a person at all; and who will cease to exist in the future. All you need to do is listen to them explain the passages above or John 17:5 where you have two persons clearly indicated and they will tell you one did not preexist his human birth.   

The consistent theme with Oneness obfuscation is when Jesus and the Father are ever speaking to each other or Jesus is praying suddenly instead of 2 persons we have 'flesh' praying to God. Which is supposed to hide the heresy. Suddenly 2 persons become 'human nature' praying to Spirit but only one person. So, if Jesus is not a person there, only 'human nature' then he was not fully a man/person (i.e. Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh). But if he was fully a man/person (i.e. Jesus Christ is come in the flesh) then he was a person with the Father before the world was. Either way Oneness are denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Jn.17:3  

It is antichrist to deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 Jn.4:1-4, 2:22-3). But they make it meaningless because although in reality the person who was with the Father (Jn.1:1-3, 1 Jn.1:1-3) in the beginning became a man- i.e. came in the flesh. They say the 2nd person (in Jn.17 & elsewhere) was a created person- like every other person and did not preexist. So, he didn't "come in the flesh”, he was just simply a human. In that sense every human being “came in the flesh”. Which means they deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh- because he didn't previously exist his birth as a person. So, while they are forced to believe in 2 persons, they therefore must insist one was a created man and the other was the Creator.  

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  

1 Jn.2:22-3 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.  

Let’s compare for example Phil.2:5-11 with John 1 & 1 John.1 to establish the preexistence of Jesus Christ.   

Phil.2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.  

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; v2 that eternal life, which was with the Father...  

Then:  

Phil.2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:  

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.  

1 John 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)  

So, the Son in a personal relational sense was with the Father in the beginning. We see this in these passages as well:  

Heb.1:1-2 God... Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;   

Col.1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son (v16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  

Eph.3:9 ... God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:  

Jn.1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.   

Here John tells us that in the beginning, which would be the beginning of creation, the Word was. The Word which is Jesus Christ already was, he already existed in the beginning before anything else was for all things were made by him and for him. He is the “beginning of the creation” (Rv.3:14); the beginning and the ending, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega (Rv.1:8,11,17). The beginning of the creation does not mean he himself was the first creation of God as the blasphemers declare. But that as Colossians 1:16-17 states “... all things were created by him, and for him” So, he is the beginning- that is all things were created by him; and he is the ending- that is all things are created for him.  

From John’s warnings we can draw out that we are to believe and confess that Jesus the preexistent one from the beginning with the Father (was with God and was God) was made flesh, or came in the flesh and was seen, felt and handled by the apostles. Not simply that there was a human called Jesus of Nazareth, but that he came from the Father in heaven and already was in the beginning, and came in the flesh. Jesus Christ came in flesh and blood. This is to confess and believe on the Son of God. That he was manifested unto us in the flesh and is the Christ. To deny this is by definition antichrist.  

   I pulled this from the transcript of Dr. David K. Bernard (here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MURw3L9l7Q) a leading Oneness educator trying to explain the incarnation from a modalist view. (timestamps included) Bernard tries to say Jesus was a real human person (to avoid orthodox heresy) but not use the word 'person'. But also to deny that Jesus was another person (to avoid contradicting Oneness heresy). Sorry for the grammatical errors, this is copied and pasted:  

4:17 the godhead bodily, a real human identity  

4:46 i say i mentioned a moment ago flesh body don't think of it as just god in a body or god putting on a piece of flesh like i put on a coat, that's an inadequate explanation it's god in human identity or god personified god coming as a human person  

 5:14 if he's going to pay the punishment for our sins he can't be just a body he has to be a human. now not a sinful human as i've already said but a true human nevertheless. now if you think of what makes us human not only do you have a body we have an inward person.  

5:46 Soul, spirit, mind, heart, will all those terms are used to jesus in his humanity when he prayed in gethsemane not my will but your will there's a human will my soul is sorrowful exceedingly sorrowful even unto death he's speaking of humanness in his soul at the cross he cried out father into your hands i commend my spirit there's a difference he's not talking about god's spirit he's talking about human spirit  

6:13 we shouldn't think of two different spirits in jesus because that would imply these two persons or you know he's schizophrenic or it might imply that he's no different than us because after all we are human beings  

6:43 jesus did not have a separate human identity the incarnation means humanity and deity were united in his spirit so if you're going to speak of his spirit i think you have to say he was both human and divine in spirit 

8:28 sometimes we might say as oneness people well the son was the flesh and the father was the spirit i think that's inadequate the son is the total person. god as he is manifested in the flesh but the term son always has always has reference to the incarnation so we think of father we're thinking of god and his transcendence we think of son that's god in the flesh so there is a distinction again not a separation not two persons 

9:25 well did he speak his man one minute and speak as god wouldn't well he spoke as a whole person he acted as a whole person he was the son of god so no you can't say that when he cried out on the cross i thirst well god doesn't get thirsty so it was because he was a human that he could say that but it was jesus who said that i'm not it wasn't the flesh saying That it was jesus saying that. 

9:54 well what was going on when jesus prayed well the flesh was praying to the spirit now that's inadequate one nature is praying to another nature that's can a nature pray what is the nature can a can a f can flesh a piece of flesh pray knows jesus as a human a real human like us now if that surprises us think of it this way if he didn't pray he wasn't a real human does that mean jesus is praying to himself no again that's inadequate that's trying to reduce jesus to one sidedness. jesus as a human prayed to god. 

11:16 the inner workings of how god could be a man at the same time our human minds will never comprehend

 ‘This Generation’ of Preterists & Their Problem Passages 

It is fair to say that the interpretation of the phrase “this generation” used by Jesus in the gospels as referring to the contemporary Jewish people of the 1^st century is the strongest point to be made by Preterists. Then couple this point with the multiple instances of the imminent return of Christ and apocalyptic urgency and this appears to emphasize a 1^st century fulfillment. (e.g. Romans 13:11-12, 16:20, 1 Pet.1:5, 13,4:7, James 5:8-9, Phil. 3:20, 4:5, Rev. 1:1-3, 3:3, 10-11, 22:6,7,10,12,20, 1 Cor.1:7, 7:29, 10:11, 11:26, 15:51, Mark 13:32-37, Luke 12:37, 40-41, Titus 2:13, Luke 21:36, 1 Thess. 1:10, 4:17-8, 5:23, 2 Thess. 3:5, 1 Tim. 6:14-15, 1 John 2:28, Col. 3:4.) Thus their ‘already fulfilled’ understanding of most New Testament prophecy leads to a de-literalizing of the texts. The extreme literal interpretation of the phrase “this generation” in the Olivet discourse ironically leads to a mostly consistent ‘metaphorical-izing’ of the rest of Christ’s words in those chapters. And while it is fair to consider the phrase “this generation” in the rest of the gospel record of Jesus’ words to establish a definition, let us make certain that we are indeed being consistent. Our initial survey of the instances of the phrase in question appears to support our Preterist brethren that it refers to the 1^st century Jews in Israel. For example: 

Matthew 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? (also, Luke 7:31) 

Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. v42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. (also, Luke 11:30-32) 

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.  

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;  

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.  

Luke 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.  

However, as we see in Mark 8:38 ‘this generation’ is not exclusive to the 1st century. “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Christ did not yet return with the holy angels. Neither did he “reward every man according to his works” as Matthew’s account records- Mt.16:27 (as partial preterists believe he will). So, Mark 8:38 is a general exhortation that applies to all generations although he spoke to the 1st century generation. And here- "ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people". 1 Pet.2:9 We also see an example in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2:40 “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Although Peter spoke to 1st century Israel in principle it applies to all generations Jew & Gentile. We understand this because the principle: “For our sakes, no doubt, this is written”. (1 Cor.9:9-11, 10:11, Rom.4:22-5, 15:4) This is why Isaiah who spoke to his generation, according to Jesus he “prophesied of you hypocrites” in this 1^st century generation also. (Mk.7:6, Mt.15:7) And why Paul applied Psalm 44:22 about ancient Israel to Christians of all generations in Rom.8:36. Also how he applied general truths from particular passages in Rom 9 & 10. 

We also see in Jesus' rebuke of Jerusalem in Mt.23 a peculiar use of “this generation”. Preterists are quick to point out in v36 “All these things shall come upon this generation” and conclude properly that he was addressing the 1st century Jews. But they never seem to notice v35. Jesus says concerning Zacharias son of Barachias “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” referring also to the 1^st century i.e. ‘this generation’. How did ‘this generation’ slay someone over 400 years earlier? 

The “the Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet.1:11) which was in Zacharias was resisted with murderous rejection by this same type of people. “Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” (Mt.23:31-2) The scriptures have the quality of being multi-dimensional. Applying in a literal historical understanding as well as multiple applications. Notice what Moses said to his generation- When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; Dt.4:30 

We previously pointed to Isaac for an example, who is referred to in the literal, physical, historical sense as the offspring and literal physical seed of Abraham (Mt. 1:2, Lk.3:34, Ac.7:8, Heb.11:17-8); which is exactly how you would understand it when reading the story in Genesis. But we also see Isaac as a child of promise and representing all the children of Abraham by faith (Rom.9:7-8, 4:16). And we see Isaac representing in an allegory, the new covenant (Gal.4:21-31); also representing Christ the seed of Abraham (Gal.3:16, 29) in figures (Heb.11:18-9). Does the use of the story of Isaac in an allegory mean that we should not interpret the Old Testament story of Isaac literally and conclude he was not a real person? No, we take all 4 interpretations or applications in symmetry. So, there is a ‘both/and’ or ‘now/not yet’ application to scripture and not an ‘either/or’ false dilemma that corrupts preterists eschatological understanding. (We covered this in more detail here and here.) 

Inconsistently preterists do employ a ‘now/not yet’ understanding on occasion. Note Kenneth Gentry’s comments- "The teaching of Scripture is often distorted, when the “now/not yet” understanding of the kingdom is overlooked. Just as there is a “now” aspect of the Messianic Kingdom (Matt. 12:28), as well as a “not yet” aspect (Matt. 6:10), so there is a “now” aspect of the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), as well as a “not yet” future to it (2 Pet. 3:13)." (HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION pg.299) "Peter even suggests it may be thousands of years before Christ’s return, in that the delay is based on God’s time rather than man’s: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (3:8). This fits well with Christ’s “now/not yet” teaching elsewhere, where He contrasts the short time until the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:36; 24:34) with that of the long wait for the second advent to end history (Matt. 25:5, 14).” (pg.303) So, they are aware of this hermeneutic principle but do not apply it consistently. 

If we do apply it consistently to the Olivet discourse, we can maintain a literal interpretation of scripture and see the ‘now’ 70 A.D. but ‘not yet’ future return in judgment by Christ. “This generation” can then apply to more than one period of time as in Mt.23:35 The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. would have been prophesied by Christ as well as the greater fulfillment in the future resulting in the Daniel 9 prophecy fulfilled in practical and literal terms; that is the salvation upon "thy people and upon thy holy city". NOT the destruction of them... obviously. (Rom.11:15, 25-8) 

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. 

 'This generation' would also have a ‘now/not yet’ application with the destruction of the temple in the past and the replay of the scenario in the future. Preterists should at the very least consider that the events may play out in the future literally, since Israel literally exists now and Jerusalem is its capitol city. Plus, the surrounding nations want to wipe it off the map and Jerusalem is a stumbling block to the whole earth. And talk of a prefabricated rebuilding the temple and the breeding of red heifers and priest's garments etc. are a thing currently in Israel. Just saying... 

With these multi-layered symmetrical interpretations of scripture, we can make more sense out of problem passages that preterists proclaim.  

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. 

Mt.16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. 

These passages are easy to understand as similitudes of future events. Consider 2 Pet.1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (Mt.17:1-9, Mk.9:1-10, Lk.9:27-36)

This would be as a figure of Christ’s literal bodily return in excellent glory upon the mount as the gospel of the kingdom spreads over Israel city by city accompanied by the 2 witnesses (Rom.3:21, Mal.4) Moses and Elijah. And ending in the discussion of the 'now/not yet' (or shall come/ has come) reality by Christ and the disciples. (Mt.17:10-13, Mk.9:12-13)

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.  

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 

These supposed preterist proving verses could likewise be understood as ‘ye’ representing a future generation (see Deut.4:30) as in Matthew 23 it represented a past generation. (Mt.23:35, 29-38) But also seen in figure with Stephen in Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 

In figure that generation had the Son of man standing in glory, but the future generation will see him literally sitting upon the throne of his glory. (Dan. 7:9-15, Matt.25:31-2) as they look upon him whom they pierced. 

Rev.1:5 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 

Zech.12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 

As pre-tribulationists we can agree with the preterists on the fact of an apocalyptic urgency in the New Testament church as well as an imminent return of Jesus as a thief in the night. As well as the ‘now/not yet’ interpretation. If they would only be consistent with that they would finally catch up and agree with us.