The word "trinity" is not found in any English translation. Neither is the word found in any of the three original languages of the ancient manuscripts - Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The concept of the trinity is foreign to ancient Jewish thought and the early Christians of Jesus' time.

The definition of a cult from the Christian perspective is: any religious belief that strays from the fundamental teachings of the historic, Bible-based Christian faith. Based on this classic definition, oneness is NOT a cult. It teaches that there is ONE God who manifests Himself as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost. Also, salvation is by faith alone through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

No, God is not a person. John 4:24 says that God is a spirit. The word 'person' comes from the Latin word 'persona' which denotes a human being. Originally a character in a drama or mask. This word may have been borrowed from the Etruscan word 'phersu'. (See also person)

"To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ" (II Corinthians 2:10.)

This passage refers to Christ as a person. 'Christ' (anointed one) points to Jesus' humanity, NOT deity. II Corinthians 5:19 says that "...God was in Christ." Keep in mind that Jesus is both God AND man.

Oneness is biblical monotheism - the belief in ONE God; God manifests Himself as Father in creation, in the Son for redemption, and as the Holy Spirit operating in the body of believers. This is ONE God in three MANIFESTATIONS - NOT three persons.

"Jesus only" is the name given to oneness believers because they believe in one God who reveals Himself in the manifestations of Father, in the Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus had taken Peter, James, and John to a high mountain and was transfigured in their presence. Then Moses and Elias appeared (Matthew 17:1-8).

Peter, in his excitement, proposed a tabernacle be made for Jesus, Moses, and Elias. A cloud overshadowed them and a voice from the cloud said, "...This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (verse 5b). After this, Peter, James, and John didn't see anyone except Jesus ONLY.

Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved".

I John 5:11-13 says, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (I John 5:11-13).

I am Jesus Only because the Bible COMPELS me to be Jesus only; there is NO GOD and Savior beside Jesus! The phrase "Jesus only" is a phrase used in ignorance by those who are opposed to oneness believers.

It is meant to denigrate us. But take heart and do not be offended. Stand proudly for what you believe because God Himself backs you up. Remember, you know that Jesus is GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH (John 1:14; I Timothy 3:16).

The 'Godhead' is an old English term found in the King James Version of the Bible; its modern equivalent term is 'deity'.

'Godhead' is found three times in the Bible: Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. This term is ONLY applied to God. It encompasses His omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, self-existence, immutability, etc. All that separates God from His creation is expressed by 'Godhead'.

No. The Bible plainly states that the Son, Jesus, was born. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem" (Matthew 1:25).

No. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him" (Matthew 3:16.) Notice the text carefully. It states that the Spirit of God descended on Jesus like a dove; it DID NOT say that it was a dove.

The Godhead is in Jesus according to Colossians 2:9.

Hebrews 1:4 declares that Jesus received His name through inheritance. He didn't inherit His name from the angels because Hebrews 1:4 says that His name is more excellent than theirs; he also didn't inherit his name from Joseph (obviously.) Jesus therefore inherited His name from the Father.

It is true that the word 'rapture' is not in the Bible, but the word doesn't contradict any doctrine or teaching. During the era when the King James Version of the Bible was being prepared, the word 'rapture' meant 'a state of overwhelming emotion' or 'elated bliss.' This is what all believers will experience when Christ returns. The word doesn't contradict any teaching of the Bible.

The event in question is described in I Thessalonians 4:16-17. The phrase 'caught up' in verse 17 is translated from the Greek word 'harpazo' which means 'to pluck, pull, catch up or away.'

While it is true that 'God' is translated from 'elohim' which is plural, it doesn't indicate a trinity or a plurality of 'persons'. The Hebrew language is unique in that it has words which are naturally expressed in their plural form (exp. water). When 'elohim' refers to Jehovah a singular pronoun is always used.

'God' is translated from a singular noun (theos) in the Greek New Testament. If 'elohim' in the Old Testament refers to a trinity when used of Jehovah, the plural Greek word 'theoi' would have been used in the New Testament.

'Elohim' was used of Moses when God was preparing to use him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 7:1).

No. The Bible clearly teaches that God dwelt in a body, but did not become a body. "To wit, that God was in Christ..." (II Corinthians 5:19a); "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell" (Colossians 1:19); "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9); "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." (I Timothy 3:16a); "Wherefore when he cometh in the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5).

I emphasized the pronoun "in" in verses II Corinthians 5:19a, Colossians 1:19, 2:9, and I Timothy 3:16a to show that the Father dwelt or lived in the Son. The Son is the "body" (Hebrews 10:5) that was prepared by God to indwell.

The word 'in' is a preposition; a preposition shows relationship between two nouns (person, place, or thing.) It means 'enclosed by,' 'inside,' 'contained,' or 'within.'

No. The idea that God is a triune Being ties in with the doctrine of the trinity. 'Triune' says that God is a 'tri-unity' - three distinct persons all of whom are God but there yet being one God. A triune God is the product of man attempting to reconcile the Bible's teaching of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost using his intellect alone. (Carefully and prayerfully read God IS for a fuller explanation.)

The Bible declares eleven (11) mysteries all of which are located in the New Testament. Following are those mysteries:

• The Incarnation (I Timothy 3:16)
• The Holy Ghost Indwelling (Colossians 1:26-27)
• Church Composed of Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 3:4,6)
• Seven Stars and Seven Candlesticks (Revelation 1:20)
• The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 13:11)
• The Translation of Living Saints (I Corinthians 15:51)
• Israel's Blindness (Romans 11:25)
• The Mystery of Iniquity (II Thessalonians 2:7)
• The restoration (Ephesians 1:9a, 10)
• The Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:32)
• Babylon the Great (Revelation 17:5)

There is NO mystery of the trinity. The only mystery that could be remotely considered to declare a mystery of the trinity is the incarnation. However, I Timothy 3:16 ONLY concerns the incarnation (God manifesting Himself in the flesh/Word was made flesh.) It DOES NOT state a mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons who are yet one God.

Trinitarian scholars frequently resort to the statement that the trinity is a mystery that must be accepted. I beg to differ. If the Bible doesn't sanction a mystery of a trinity NO ONE should blindly accept it.

God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and He is omnipresent. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that anyone can actually sit beside a Being who is EVERYWHERE. The phrase is therefore symbolic.

The word 'right hand' in ancient cultures meant a place or position of favor, distinction, honor, or authority. Even today the phrase 'right hand man' means a person who is very important.

'Hand' is used many times in scripture to suggest 'power' or 'might'. Let me also point out that the title 'Christ' means ' anointed one' (the Hebrew equivalent is 'Messiah'). Whereas the name Jesus can refer to the Father or the Son or both, the title 'Christ' refers to the Son ONLY. 'Sitting' or 'sitteth' means that Christ's work of redemption is complete and perfect.

(When the Jewish high priest made intercession for the people, he was constantly on his feet; he could only sit when he was finished).

There is only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4) and therefore the belief that there is a distinction and separation between Father and Son is unbiblical. Speaking of Jesus as being on the right hand of God means that Jesus is the one, true, and living God in heaven in His glorified body.

When John was taken to heaven he saw ONE throne AND ONE Being sitting on that throne. He saw God IN HIS GLORIFIED BODY. Jesus in His glorified body can and does occupy a physical throne.

Trinitarians see the baptism of Jesus as the event in which the three "persons" of the trinity were together at one time. Jesus was baptized and the Spirit came down upon him and the voice of the Father emanated from heaven.

But do the gospel accounts of Jesus' baptism declare three distinct "persons" each of whom is God? I'd rather not take their word for it, so let's go to the Bible.

The ninth chapter of Acts tells of Paul's encounter with God on the Damascus road. "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (verses 3 - 5).

The voice Saul (Paul) heard was the voice of Jesus from heaven. There is another biblical witness concerning the voice from heaven located in the gospel according to John. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN" (3:13).

Jesus was on earth conversing with Nicodemus when He made this statement. Yet he stated that He was in heaven AT THE SAME TIME! This is no wonder because Jesus is God, and God in everywhere at once.

The voice that came from heaven at Jesus' baptism came from Jesus Himself according to scripture. Far from teaching a trinity of "persons", the Bible actually teaches one God whose name is Jesus who has manifested Himself IN the Son, as the Father, and as the Holy Spirit.

'Person' in Hebrews 1:3 is translated from the Greek word 'hupostasis'. 'Hupostatis' means 'that which lies under', 'substructure', 'foundation'. It is translated 'substance' in Hebrews 11:1 and is rendered as 'confidence' and 'confident' in the three other times it is used in the New Testament (II Corinthians 9:4; II Corinthians 11:17; Hebrews 3:14).

The common Greek New Testament word for 'person' (human being) is 'prosopon'. This word is used in the following scriptures: Matthew 22:16; Galatians 2:6; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1, 2:9; II Corinthians 1:11; and II Corinthians 2:10. In II Corinthians 2:10, 'prosopon' refers to Jesus Christ.

'Hupostatis' is being used in a substantially different way in Hebrews 1:3 than in any other verse in which it appears. Its use here suggests the the very being of God is referred to. The King James translators used the word 'person' in the sense of 'essence' or 'nature'; the word 'substance' would not be appropriate because it suggests something material. Also, this passage is different from John 4:24 in that it isn't describing what God is, but rather is identifying Jesus as God Himself.

Jesus emphasized this when asked by a scribe, “…Which is the first commandment of all?” (Mark 12:28b) He quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 in His definitive answer. ‘One’ is translated from the Hebrew word ‘echad’ in Deuteronomy 6:4.

'Echad' itself carries no meaning of a compound one or compound unity. It is a numerical adjective which at times modifies a compound noun. Examples of this use are Genesis 41:5 and Numbers 13:23. Genesis 41:5 tells of one stalk composed of seven ears of corn while Numbers 13:23 says one cluster of grapes. How many stalks were there? One. How many clusters of grapes were there? Again, one. (I must emphasize the compound understanding lies in the noun, i.e., corn, grapes, NOT in the numerical adjective 'echad.') Other uses of 'echad' are 'first' as in Genesis 1:5 or 'one' as in Genesis 11:1 and Deuteronomy 6:4. 'Echad' is also used in the sense of 'the same,' 'each,' or a 'certain one.' Context must be the determining factor (Read Truth About Echad.)

But although the name Jesus is hidden in the Old Testament, we are given its origin. The revelation of the origin of the name Jesus proves that He is Yahweh who revealed Himself to Abraham and Moses and the other patriarchs. Numbers 13:16 reads, "These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua". All Bible students and Christians in general are familiar with Joshua. What many do not realize is that Joshua was not his birth name. His name given at birth was Oshea (savior, deliverer). Moses subsequently changed the name Oshea to Jehoshua. The name Jehoshua is a joining together of God's name, Yahweh or Jehovah, with Oshea. Jehoshua means 'Yahweh Savior'. The shortened form of Jehoshua is Joshua, Yoshua, or Yeshua. Yeshua is Jesus in English.

An unbiased study of the Bible plainly reveals that the name Jesus is the name of an indivisible and undivided God and encompasses all of His manifestations including Father, Holy Ghost, Angel of the LORD, bright and morningstar, and many others. The name Jesus also envelops the theophany of God who communed with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8) and the man whom Jacob wrestled (Genesis 32:24-30).

The Bible doesn’t teach that God is united and neither do oneness believers. The word ‘united’ fits perfectly with the doctrine of the trinity which believes one God exists in three ‘persons’. These ‘persons’ are said to be united in will and mind. The Bible teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) and there exists only one God (James 2:19). Oneness believers are often misidentified as Unitarians by the mainstream Christian church and trinitarian scholars. This charge is absolutely false and misrepresents our belief.

This study in and of itself refutes the foundation upon which the doctrine of the trinity is built, i.e., God existing in three 'persons'. The Bible teaches that God manifests Himself as the Father in creation, in the Son in redemption (I Timothy 3:16), and as the Holy Ghost dwelling in the body of believers today (I Corinthians 12:7).

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29)

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

“For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9)

The word ‘Godhead’ occurs only three times in the Bible. It is found in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Yet there is so much confusion among Christendom concerning the significance of this term. What does Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9 tell us about the Godhead? We learn from Acts 17:29 that it is unlike precious substances such as gold or silver. It is unique. Romans 1:20 infers that the Godhead is eternal and that creation is evidence of its existence. And we learn from Colossians 2:9 that it dwells in its entirety in Jesus Christ. II Corinthians 5:19 says that “…God was in Christ…” So we see that ‘Godhead’ is synonymous with God. ‘Godhead’ is an old English term for which the modern equivalent is ‘deity’. It includes all that makes God unique among everything that exists. Included in Godhead are eternality, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. These are incommunicable attributes (they cannot be shared among God’s intelligent creation – man and angels).

Confusion reigns among theologians and Bible students who believe ‘persons’ exist within the Godhead. Some declare one ‘person’ exists in the Godhead while others say that there are three. But of the three passages which use the term, not one declares any ‘persons’ or anything else existing in the Godhead. As point of truth, Colossians 2:9 plainly states that the Godhead itself dwells in the person of Jesus Christ. The Godhead has nothing to do with the manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Many theologians say that Godhead is the trinity. This is blatantly false because the Bible doesn’t say that. One website I viewed says that I John 5:7 is the Godhead. But this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the Godhead. It states that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost bear witness in heaven, and these three are one.

‘Rightly dividing’ the Word of God is allowing Scripture to speak for itself. The Father doesn’t dwell in the Godhead, neither does the Son dwell in the Godhead, and neither does the Holy Ghost dwell in the Godhead. Nor do all three dwell in the Godhead. Therefore the question of whether the Godhead is composed of one or three is irrelevant and without meaning because we are told that God was in Christ.

Oneness critics sometimes accuse us of modalism (also known as sabellianism). Stephen Nichols defines modalism as: "[a] heretical view that denies the individual persons of the Trinity. [It] views biblical terminology of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as merely modes of existence or manifestations of the one God" (For Us and For Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church; pg. 153).

The concept is based on the perceived but incorrect belief that oneness adherents see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as different modes of existence of God. Our critics accuse us of teaching that God first appeared as the Father, then as the Son, and finally as the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians see these as successive modes. Oneness does not teach that God appeared in three modes, successive or otherwise. It teaches that God manifests Himself as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost simultaneously. We do not use the word 'mode' in reference to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but rather the biblical word 'manifestation' (Read I Corinthians 12:7; I Timothy 3:16).

What is meant by God's back parts in Exodus 33?
The Bible makes it plain that God cannot be seen. John 1:18 says that no man has seen God at any time. 1 Timothy 6:16 declares: "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." And of course John 4:24 states that God is a Spirit. However, the Bible makes it equally clear that God did indeed reveal Himself to man. Abraham saw God and two of His angels as recorded in Genesis 18. Jesus told Philip that when he saw Him, he saw the Father (John 14:9.) How do we reconcile these apparent conflicting Scriptures? The answer will become clear when we explore Moses and God's back parts recorded in Exodus 33.

Moses asked to see the glory of God as recorded in Exodus 33:18. God responded in the following manner: "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live" (verse 20.) God continued by saying: "And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen" (verses 22-23.) What is meant by 'face' and 'back parts?' When man has seen God, it was always through a physical manifestation. Genesis 18 records God and two angels appearing visibly as men. And we know that Jesus the Son of God is God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16a.) 'Face' makes reference to the Spirit of the unseen God. It is impossible for man to see the Spirit essence of the omnipresent God. This is what John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 6:16 signifies. 'Back parts' refers to a physical manifestation of God. God allowed Moses to see an unspecified manifestation translated 'back parts.'

The Bible frequently makes use of anthropomorphisms in speaking of God. Exodus mentions the face, back parts, and hand of God. These are human body parts to help us relate to God Who is infinite in His attributes and invisible. He doesn't literally have a face, back parts, or hands.

John 1:18 has two opposing readings depending on the Bible version used. The King James version states "only begotten Son" while some modern versions say "only begotten God." Naturally, the latter reading directly validates the Trinitarian doctrine of 'God the Son' or 'eternal Son,' the second person of the Godhead. But which reading is the original reading (penned by the Apostle John himself)?

As shown above, the King James Version reads 'only begotten Son' in John 1:18. Let us first note the readings of other popular versions:

ESV: "No one has ever seen God; the only God,[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known." Footnote [a] says "Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son."

NASB: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

What is the Greek manuscript evidence for the 'only begotten God' reading? It turns out to be rather scanty. The only surviving Greek manuscripts which have this reading are the minority Alexandrian text type. Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are notorious for having been corrupted and tampered with belong to this group. Modern English versions rely heavily on these two. The Majority Text which comprises most of the surviving Greek manuscripts, including the Textus Receptus from which we get the King James Version, all read 'only begotten Son.'

Besides John 1:18, we read the 'the only begotten Son' in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9 of the King James Version. In the Greek, this is "ο μονογενής υιός." Not surprisingly, the ESV and NASB read 'only begotten Son' in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9 too. Since John is the writer of 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9 as well as 1:18, why would he write 'only begotten God' in 1:18 and not the other passages? He wouldn't because the context doesn't demand that understanding. And as noted above, the Greek wording is virtually the same in all texts.

John was Jewish who was taught by Jesus Himself and led by the Holy Ghost to write the gospel and epistles. The Holy Ghost as He is the Spirit of God knows intimately the nature of God. God was not begotten but existed always. The Son of God, however, was begotten (Luke 1:35.) The inspired reading of John 1:18 is 'only begotten Son.'

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:22-23.)

Many Trinitarian Bible students, theologians, and Bible students accuse Oneness believers of denying the Son of God. That accusation is not grounded in truth. What we do unashamedly deny is the Trinitarian doctrine of 'God the Son,' also known as the 'eternal Son.' Search the Bible thoroughly from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find either phrase anywhere. The Bible does reveal however the Son of God.

'God the Son' or 'eternal Son' is an oxymoron (contradictory terms.) It declares that the Son always existed, i.e. was eternal. Every Son has a point in time in which he was born or created. Prior to this point, the son was not in existence in a literal sense. (The Son of God is seen and spoken about in the Old Testament in a prophetic or future sense only.) Concerning the Son of God, Matthew 1:21 reads, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Luke 1:35 says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Galatians 4:4 states that the Son of God was made of a woman. Note carefully that none of the above Scriptural references reads 'God the Son' or 'eternal Son.'

This is a weighty and all important question. One's eternal destination is dependent on knowing what the Bible teaches concerning this question. (Caveat: All Trinitarians know and affirm that the word Trinity cannot be found in the Bible. However, they believe strongly that it is taught conceptually in the Scriptures, and its denial has negative spiritual consequences.) I have heard some Trinitarian theologians during a debate say specifically that no one can be a Christian (saved) if the Trinity is denied.

Let us peruse the web and examine several Christian websites concerning this issue. The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website says this: "In one sense you do not have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, but in another sense you do...though someone may not understand the Trinity when he or she becomes a Christian, eventually he will end up believing in it because he's a Christian...anyone who claims to be a Christian, but openly and continually rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, is probably not truly saved."

Reasons to Believe Ministry website (www.reasons.org) in an article entitled 'No Trinity, No Salvation,' states the following: "One can think of salvation as provided by the three divine persons in three logically ordered steps. First, motivated by agape (self-sacrificing) love, God the Father sends His only begotten Son into the world to save sinners (1 John 4:9–10). So the Father initiates salvation...Second, God the Son, also known as the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, accomplishes our salvation by dying in the place of sinners on the cross...Third, God the Holy Spirit, also called the Advocate or Comforter, applies salvation...Why is the Trinity doctrine so important to historic Christianity? Because there is no gift of salvation without it!"

We have shown that this issue is alive and taken seriously by many Trinitarian believers. But does the Bible teach that the acknowledgment of the Trinity is an absolute necessity in order to be saved? The answer is a conclusive and decisive no! First one must understand what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. In a nutshell, the Trinity is the belief in one God Who subsists in three coequal and coeternal 'persons,' God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. There is no Scripture which states that one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved. But, the Bible does teach explicitly that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to be a Christian (saved.) Hear the words of Jesus: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24.) Both Trinitarians and Oneness believers confess the deity of Jesus Christ.

In contrast to the Trinity, Oneness teaches that God manifests Himself as the Father, IN the Son, and as the Holy Ghost. So despite some Trinitarians who accuse us of denying the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the plan of salvation, we do not. And we affirm that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are manifestations, NOT 'persons.' We, though, reject that God eternally exists in three distinct 'persons.' Why do we reject a 'three-in-one God?' Because there is no biblical passage which states that there exist three 'persons' in the Godhead. Moreover, the Bible doesn't teach 'God the Son' or 'God the Holy Ghost.' Furthermore, God IS NOT a person. A person is a human being - an individual. John 4:24 says plainly that God is a Spirit.

In summarization, NO one will be lost because he/she refuses to believe in the Trinity. All, however, who deny that Jesus is God will die in their sins (be eternally lost; John 8:24.)

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38.)

Whether water baptism is part and parcel of a Christian's born again experience is a hot and very controversial topic. The polarization is between the Trinitarian and Oneness camps. Oneness apostolics believe that water baptism is an integral part of salvation while Trinitarians believe that it is subsequent to salvation. I will admit however that this subject is moot as long as a person submits to water baptism upon repentance.

Although controversy rages between Trinitarian and Oneness camps, the Bible is clear on the subject. Before I prove biblically that water baptism is essential to salvation, I must stress that Oneness does not teach, advocate, or sanction baptismal regeneration (Catholicism.) Water baptism apart from repentance is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. Let me also add that water baptism is not a work as many Trinitarians consider it. It is a command from God even though it must be performed by another individual. A work, on the other hand, is anything performed by an unregenerate individual in order ingratiate himself or herself to God.

The gospel message of salvation is centered on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4.) Jesus' death on the cross foretold the method of entrance into the New Testament Church. John 19:34 states, "but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." A person identifies into Jesus' death through repentance. Repentance is a turning away from sin and to God by dying to self (death, blood applied.) The water which flowed from Jesus' side signifies water baptism. Note Acts 2:38a, "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." Baptism in Jesus name remits (washes away, removes) sin. The Old Testament tabernacle in the wilderness provides this understanding. (Every New Testament teaching is firmly anchored in the Old Testament in types and shadows.)

The tabernacle courtyard contained two important items to be used by the priests, the altar and the laver. The priests shed the blood of innocent animals at the altar for themselves and for the people. Calvary was Jesus' altar and Jesus Himself was the innocent sacrifice. Next, the priest encountered the laver of water. It was imperative that the priest wash at the laver. "So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations" (Exodus 30:21.) How important was it for the priests to obey God? To bypass the laver was an act of disobedience which carried the death penalty. This shadow found substance in the water which poured from the side of Jesus.

Exodus 30:18-21 provides indisputable proof that the blood (repentance) must precede the water (baptism.) The sin which has been forgiven at repentance must next be removed (washed away.) When a person is baptized in water after having repented, God invisibly takes away his sins. Another type in the Old Testament was the scapegoat. One animal was slain while the second was released into the wilderness (symbolizing the removal of sin.)

It must be kept in mind that the Church was born on the day of Pentecost. Peter preached the inaugural message and Acts 2:38 embodies the plan of salvation for all. The Jews asked, "...what shall we do..." (Acts 2:37b.) Peter told them in verse 38. Every saint in the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Colosse, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, and Thessalonica received salvation by obeying Acts 2:38. To argue against water baptism as essential to salvation flies in the face of Scripture.

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" (Daniel 3:25.)

Although essentially Oneness, some neophyte students believe that the Son of God always existed. This belief is at its core the Trinitarian doctrine of 'God the Son' or 'eternal Son.' Yesterday one student remarked respectfully that Daniel 3:25 stated King Nebuchadnezzar saw one like the Son of God in the fiery furnace. This fact lends credence to her belief that the Son of God always existed. According to the King James Version, King Nebuchadnezzar stated he saw a person like the Son of God. This post will focus not on whether he saw a being 'like the Son of God' or 'like a son of the gods' (another possible translation,) but rather could the fourth have possibly been the Son of God?

Of course, Trinitarians will point to Daniel 3:25 and use that as a proof text for the existence of the so-called 'second person of the Trinity.' In answering this seeming Scriptural anomaly, I respond that the Bible provides many clear references to the birth of the Son of God. One of these is Luke 1:35. "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Note the word 'shall' which indicates a future event. The events of Luke 1 occurred hundreds of years after the days of King Nebuchadnezzar which means the Son of God could not have been in existence (born) at that time. King Nebuchadnezzar, despite his contention, did not see the Son of God.

What then did King Nebuchadnezzar see? The Old Testament records many times when God appeared to someone in some type of physical manifestation. Genesis 18 depicts three men who visited Abraham. Further reading makes plain that one of these men was God while the other two were angels. Did God appear as the Son of God on this occasion? No, because the Son of God would not be born for hundreds of years. And a careful reading of the Old Testament will show that at no time was a manifestation of God ever described as the Son of God. These physical appearances are aptly known as theophanies. Although appearing as a man, He was not the Son of God. The Son of God was unique in that He was a genuine human being having been born of a woman. This is not true of Old Testament theophanies of God. He appeared as or like a man but was not truly man.

There is no question that King Nebuchadnezzar saw God in a physical manifestation. But despite his perception, he did not see the Son of God. (Also notice carefully that he said he saw one LIKE the Son of God, he did not say he saw the Son of God.) The Old Testament predicts the future advent of the Son of God. But there was no literal and physical appearance of the Son of God until His birth hundreds of years later in the small town of Bethlehem.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"

The Son of God is here praying for all who would be born again into the family of God. This is accomplished through the preached word of the apostles and future men (and women) of God who disseminate the apostles' doctrine. It is important to understand that the Son (God manifest in the flesh) is distinctly praying to the Father (the One Who begot or sired the Son.) These are two distinct manifestations of the one God Jesus. The Son is the humanity of God the Father (eternal Spirit.) [The false doctrine of the Trinity teaches that here is portrayed the Son as a distinct 'person' praying to the Father as a distinct 'person.']

In what sense are believers to be one? We are to be one in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13,) in mind, purpose, and in service to God. This unity is being compared by the Son to that which exists between the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father ("...as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee...") Contrary to the triune God doctrine, this passage does not imply nor teach the unity of wills or minds between distinct persons. Rather, it verifies the unity (one accord) that exists between the human will and mind of the Son and the will and mind of God the Father (or between humanity and deity.)

How are we to be one in us ("...that they also may be one in us..."?) The 'us' is a reference to the Son and the Father. Again, the distinction is between the manifestations of God IN the Son (Read 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 Timothy 3:16a, Colossians 1:19, 2:19, and John 14:10) and of the Father. The Son's will was always in perfect conformity to the Father's will. When that is the case, God will hear (answer) any prayer. "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us" (1 John 5:14.)

There is a Oneness understanding as well as a Trinitarian understanding of any pertinent biblical text. A triune God interpretation is never acceptable by default or because Oneness has been declared a cult or unorthodox by some. Trinitarianism has become a long-standing tradition of the church but is not in any way substantiated by the Word of God.