Scripture in dialogue

Unitarianism and Oneness Pentecostalism

This kit addresses theological (biblical) unitarianism and Oneness Pentecostalism (e.g., United Pentecostal Church International), which affirm strict numerical monotheism and reject the historic doctrine of the Trinity, distinct from Unitarian Universalism, a separate, largely non-creedal denomination with different concerns.

Their position, stated fairly

God is a single, undivided person, not three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one being. Oneness Pentecostals hold that Jesus Christ is himself the one God manifest in flesh — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are names or modes describing the one God's activity, not eternally distinct persons — and that valid baptism must be performed 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 2:38) rather than using the Trinitarian formula. Biblical unitarians similarly affirm the Father alone as the one true God and hold Jesus to be a distinct, subordinate being (whether pre-existent or not, depending on the specific group) rather than co-equal deity.

Their strongest point. The concern to guard strict, uncompromised monotheism against any hint of tritheism is a serious and biblically rooted concern, since Scripture repeatedly and emphatically insists there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4), and any presentation of the Trinity that suggests three separate gods would indeed be a departure from biblical faith.

Background you need first

• Oneness Pentecostalism emerged in the early 20th century out of the Pentecostal movement, notably following controversies at a 1913 camp meeting that led to a 'New Issue' over the baptismal formula and the nature of God, culminating in the United Pentecostal Church International (formed 1945) and related groups.
• Oneness theology teaches modalistic monarchianism (sometimes called 'Jesus Only' theology): God is one person who has revealed himself successively or simultaneously as Father (in creation and as begetter), Son (in the incarnation), and Holy Spirit (in indwelling and empowering).
• Biblical unitarianism (distinct from Unitarian Universalism) holds a range of views, generally affirming the Father alone as fully God and Jesus as a distinct being, whether pre-existent (as in some Arian-influenced positions) or beginning to exist at his conception (as in Socinian-influenced 'humanitarian unitarian' positions).
• This differs from historic Unitarian Universalism, a modern non-creedal denomination emphasizing individual conscience and pluralism, which is a distinct religious body with different theological concerns from Oneness Pentecostalism or biblical unitarianism.
• Oneness Pentecostals typically insist on baptism 'in the name of Jesus' alone, following the pattern in Acts (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), viewing the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 as either referring to the single name 'Jesus' or as compatible with Jesus-name baptism when properly understood.
• Historic modalism was formally rejected as heresy by the early church, notably in the controversy surrounding Sabellius (3rd century) and addressed at later councils (Nicaea, AD 325; Constantinople, AD 381) which affirmed the distinct, co-eternal persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within one divine essence.

Verses they cite — and what the text says in context

Deuteronomy 6:4

Their reading. The Shema is cited as proving God is a single person, not three persons, since 'one' (echad) means numerical singularity of person.

In context. Trinitarians affirm the Shema's declaration of God's absolute oneness of being fully; the term echad is used elsewhere of a compound unity (e.g., 'one flesh' in Genesis 2:24, 'one' cluster of grapes in Numbers 13:23), so the verse establishes one God, not necessarily one undifferentiated person, and must be read alongside the fuller biblical witness to the Father, Son, and Spirit each being called God.

Acts 2:38

Their reading. Peter's command to be baptized 'in the name of Jesus Christ' is read as the correct and exclusive baptismal formula, showing 'Jesus' is the name of the one God.

In context. Acts 2:38 emphasizes the authority under which baptism is performed and the confession that Jesus is Lord and Messiah, in a missionary context addressing Jews who needed to be persuaded Jesus was the Christ; it does not explicitly negate or contradict the Trinitarian baptismal formula Jesus himself commanded in Matthew 28:19, and Luke elsewhere uses varied baptismal language without treating it as a rigid liturgical formula.

Isaiah 9:6

Their reading. The child to be born is called 'Everlasting Father,' cited as proof that the Son and the Father are the same person.

In context. In Hebrew idiom, 'Everlasting Father' ('avi-ad') conveys the Messiah's role as a father-like eternal provider and originator of an age of blessing to his people, a title of function and character rather than a claim of identity with the person of the Father — the same verse also calls him 'Mighty God' and 'Prince of Peace,' titles Trinitarians read as affirming full deity of a distinct person, the Son.

John 10:30

Their reading. 'I and the Father are one' is read as a straightforward statement of Jesus and the Father being one and the same person.

In context. The Greek 'hen' (one) is neuter, indicating unity of essence or purpose, not identity of person ('heis,' masculine 'one person,' is not used); Jesus consistently speaks of the Father as distinct from himself throughout John (e.g., John 17:1, 5, 24, addressing the Father in prayer), which would be incoherent if they were strictly the same person.

Colossians 2:9

Their reading. 'In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily' is cited as evidence Jesus simply is the one true God without remainder, leaving no room for distinct persons.

In context. Trinitarians agree Jesus possesses the full divine nature, but this is fully compatible with the Son being a distinct person from the Father who also possesses the same undivided divine essence; the verse addresses the fullness of Christ's deity against those minimizing it (the Colossian heresy), not the internal relations within the Godhead.

1 Timothy 3:16

Their reading. 'God was manifest in the flesh' (KJV) is cited as directly identifying Jesus as God the Father appearing in a body.

In context. The verse celebrates the mystery of the incarnation — that the eternal Son, fully God, took on human flesh — a truth Trinitarians affirm wholeheartedly regarding the Son's deity, without implying the Son is identical in person to the Father; older manuscripts and most modern translations render this 'He who was manifested in the flesh,' referring to the divine Son, not settling the question of modalism versus Trinity.

Scripture sets by topic

Distinct persons interacting with one another

Aim. Show texts where Father, Son, and Spirit are simultaneously present and relate to one another as distinct persons, which is difficult to reconcile with strict modalism.

Matthew 3:16-17 — At Jesus's baptism, the Son is baptized, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father's voice speaks from heaven — three distinct simultaneous manifestations.
John 17:1, 5, 24 — Jesus prays to the Father, addressing him as another person ('Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed').
John 14:16-17 — Jesus asks the Father to send 'another Helper' (the Spirit), implying three distinct parties: the one asking, the one asked, and the one sent.
Luke 3:21-22 — The heavens open, the Spirit descends bodily, and the Father speaks — a scene difficult to explain if these are simply one person appearing successively.
Romans 8:26-27, 34 — The Spirit intercedes for believers 'according to the will of God,' and Christ also intercedes at God's right hand — distinct intercessory roles for Spirit, Son, and Father.

The full deity of the Son and the Spirit within the one God

Aim. Establish that both the Son and the Spirit are called God and possess divine attributes, without collapsing them into an undifferentiated single person.

John 1:1 — 'The Word was with God, and the Word was God' — distinguishes the Word from God the Father ('with God') while affirming the Word's full deity ('was God').
Titus 2:13 — Paul calls Jesus 'our great God and Savior,' a clear ascription of full deity to the Son.
Hebrews 1:8 — The Father addresses the Son directly as 'God': 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.'
Acts 5:3-4 — Peter equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God, affirming the Spirit's full deity as a distinct person who can be 'lied to.'
2 Corinthians 13:14 — The 'grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit' names three distinct persons in a benediction.

Matthew 28:19 and the singular 'name' of three persons

Aim. Address the Great Commission's baptismal formula directly and its implications for the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 — Jesus commands baptism 'in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' — one name shared by three distinctly identified persons.
John 5:23 — The Son is to be honored 'just as they honor the Father,' establishing equal honor due to a distinct person.
John 5:19-20 — The Son says he can do nothing on his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing, and the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does — clear relational distinction, not self-address.
1 Corinthians 8:6 — Paul affirms 'one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ,' distinguishing yet uniting Father and Son within the one Lord God of Israel language (drawing on the Shema itself).

The Son's pre-existence and eternal relationship with the Father

Aim. Present texts affirming the Son's eternal, personal pre-existence with the Father, addressing 'humanitarian unitarian' claims that Jesus began to exist at conception.

John 1:1-3 — The Word already existed 'in the beginning,' active in creation, prior to the incarnation described in verse 14.
John 8:58 — Jesus says 'before Abraham was, I am,' a claim to timeless existence using language recalling God's self-revelation in Exodus 3:14.
Philippians 2:6-7 — Christ existed 'in the form of God' before he 'emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.'
Micah 5:2 — The ruler from Bethlehem has an 'origin from of old, from ancient days,' pointing to pre-existence prior to his human birth.

Historical continuity: the church's early rejection of modalism

Aim. Situate the Trinity as the church's careful, biblically-derived articulation, and modalism as a position weighed and rejected early in church history for exegetical reasons.

John 15:26 — The Son sends the Spirit 'from the Father,' and the Spirit 'proceeds from the Father' — relational origin language used across the early creeds.
Luke 1:35 — The angel distinguishes the Holy Spirit, 'the Most High,' and 'the Son of God' within a single announcement of the incarnation.
John 16:13-15 — The Spirit 'will not speak on his own authority' but takes what is Christ's and declares it, showing ordered, distinct relations among the three.
Ephesians 1:3-14 — Paul's extended blessing distinctly attributes different, coordinated saving actions to the Father (v. 3-6), the Son (v. 7-12), and the Spirit (v. 13-14).

Questions that move the conversation

“In John 17, when Jesus prays to the Father and speaks of the glory he shared with the Father 'before the world existed,' who is speaking and who is being addressed if they are strictly the same person?”
Directly probes the central exegetical strain in modalism — sustained, extended prayer of one 'mode' to another within a single narrative moment.
“If Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the singular 'name' of three distinctly named persons, how should that grammatical and theological structure inform how we understand Acts 2:38's shorter formula?”
Invites careful harmonization of the two texts rather than treating them as flatly contradictory, respecting both as Scripture.
“Does affirming that the Son is 'the same in substance' (homoousios) as the Father while remaining a distinct person amount to tritheism, or is this precisely what safeguards both unity and the relational language of Scripture?”
Clarifies that historic Trinitarian doctrine is not a compromise of monotheism but a considered attempt to honor all the biblical data, inviting reconsideration of the tritheism objection.
“How do you understand Luke's account of Jesus's baptism, where the Son is in the water, the Spirit descends visibly, and the Father speaks audibly, all at once?”
Presses on a scene of simultaneous, distinct persons acting together, which poses a specific exegetical challenge for strict modalism.
“If Jesus began to exist only at his conception (as some unitarian views hold), how do you understand his statement 'before Abraham was, I am' and passages describing his active role in creation?”
Focuses the conversation on the specific, load-bearing texts for pre-existence, inviting careful exegetical engagement rather than a general dismissal.

Mistakes to avoid

Avoid. Assuming all 'Oneness' or unitarian believers are ignorant of the Bible or acting in bad faith.
Instead. Recognize many hold their view out of a serious, conscientious concern to protect monotheism and have engaged the relevant texts carefully; respond with equally serious exegesis.
Avoid. Conflating Oneness Pentecostalism, biblical/Socinian unitarianism, and Unitarian Universalism as though they are the same movement.
Instead. Distinguish these clearly, since they have different histories, texts, and theological commitments (e.g., UU is largely non-creedal and pluralist, unlike Oneness Pentecostalism).
Avoid. Suggesting the Trinity means 'three gods' or caricaturing it in a way that would rightly be rejected as tritheistic.
Instead. Present the Trinity accurately as one God in three co-equal, co-eternal, distinct persons sharing one undivided divine essence — precisely what historic creeds intend.
Avoid. Treating the baptismal formula debate as a minor technicality not worth careful attention.
Instead. Recognize that for Oneness Pentecostals this is a significant matter of biblical obedience and identity, deserving careful textual engagement rather than dismissal.

Where they have a point

• Vigilance against any teaching that could be heard as tritheism (three separate gods) reflects genuine, commendable biblical seriousness that all Trinitarian Christians should share and continually guard against in their own teaching and language.
• The concern that some popular explanations of the Trinity (poor analogies, sloppy language about 'three gods who agree') genuinely can mislead people into functional tritheism is a fair critique of bad catechesis, not just a misunderstanding on their part.
• The high value placed on the name and authority of Jesus in baptism reflects a serious desire to honor the New Testament's emphasis on salvation and identity 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 4:12), a legitimate biblical emphasis even where the conclusion about the exclusive formula is contested.

Tone

• Engage as a genuine intra-Christian (or near-Christian) family conversation about the identity of God, not as though addressing an entirely foreign religion.
• Avoid strawmanning modalism as obviously irrational; it was a serious position argued by capable early theologians (e.g., Sabellius, Noetus) and addressed with careful exegetical and philosophical work, not just condemnation.
• Keep the focus on close, respectful exegesis of specific texts (John 17, Matthew 28:19, John 1:1) rather than appeals to creeds alone as a trump card, since the biblical unitarian and Oneness positions both claim to be more biblical, not less.
• Recognize the real personal and communal cost some Oneness or unitarian believers may face in reconsidering deeply held positions, and proceed with patience rather than urgency to 'win.'

Unitarianism and Oneness Pentecostalism

Verses they cite — and what the text says in context

Scripture sets by topic

Practice the conversation