Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?

[The_Omega]

@Terry_Sampson

So when Jesus speaks of being “sent”, He is speaking from his genuine humanity. “Sent by whom”? Obviously, you and your tribe must believe “by Jesus, speaking from his genuine divinity”, the way I figure it.

• Pardon me for noticing, but your God seems to have what some in this world would call a “Dissociative Identity Disorder.”

Terry, I understand the concern—it’s a fair question to ask how Jesus, if fully God, can also speak of being “sent” without implying two separate divine consciousnesses. But here’s the key difference: in the Oneness view, Jesus is not two persons talking to each other, nor is God suffering from anything like Dissociative Identity Disorder. Rather, Jesus is one Person with two natures—fully God and fully man (Colossians 2:9). When He speaks of being sent, He is speaking as a man, fulfilling the redemptive plan of the eternal Spirit who indwelt Him (John 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). It was the eternal, invisible Spirit—whom Jesus called “the Father”—that sent the man Christ Jesus into the world, not a separate divine person sending another divine person. This is not fragmentation or division within God—it is manifestation.

The Son was begotten in time (Luke 1:35), and His mission was orchestrated by the eternal God who became visible in Him. The “sending” language reflects the redemptive mission, not a split within God’s identity. So rather than picturing God as fragmented or divided, the Oneness view sees a unified, sovereign God who, in love, entered into His own creation in a real, flesh-and-blood body to redeem mankind. That’s not disorder—it’s divine condescension in the most beautiful form: Emmanuel—God with us.

@Terry_Sampson

So, the One Who once was Yahweh, but no longer is, then chronologically was Jesus of Nazareth, but no longer is, is Who? Oh, right, Jesus of the Cosmos?

I see the sarcasm in your question, but it does give an opportunity to clarify what Oneness theology actually teaches—and perhaps correct a misunderstanding. Oneness theology does not teach that God “was once Yahweh but no longer is,” or that Jesus “was once Jesus of Nazareth but no longer is.” Rather, we affirm that Yahweh is the eternal Spirit, the one true and living God, who in the fullness of time manifested Himself in flesh as Jesus of Nazareth (1 Tim. 3:16). That same Spirit never ceased to be God while dwelling fully in the man Christ Jesus (Col. 2:9). After the resurrection and ascension, Jesus is now glorified—but He does not cease to be human. Instead, He remains the visible, glorified image of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3; Rev. 1:13–18). He is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), both God and man, and He forever bears the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:9–11).

So no, we do not believe God switched roles or discarded identities. We believe the eternal God revealed Himself progressively and simultaneously—as Father in creation, as Son in redemption, and as Holy Ghost in regeneration. These are not separate persons but distinct manifestations of the same indivisible God, whose fullness now and forever dwells in the glorified Christ. Jesus is not “of the cosmos” in some vague cosmic identity—He is Yahweh revealed, the Lamb upon the throne, and the only name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

[The_Omega]

@Christy

Right. We agree on that. But taking issue with various Church Fathers’ extensive philosophizing is not the same thing as taking issue with the basic doctrine that was taught from the beginning that God is Three in One. I guess I don’t get the oppositionality of your movement. If it’s a corrective, it’s correcting things most people don’t ever think about or even understand. I don’t care if people want to take issue with the terminology and philosophical framework of later teachers. I take issue with them myself because many of them were deplorable misogynists and they also had no concept of modern science. And church history is full of violent conflict and political shenanigans because powerful men in the church needed people to agree they were right about stuff that ultimately doesn’t matter.

You can have your “it’s not homoousios,” I don’t think it’s worth arguing over. Christianity is a confessional faith, so it’s not like creeds and confessions serve no purpose, but I don’t think they are boundary markers for “salvation” as much as they are boundary markers for identities within Christianity. I don’t think faith is rationally assenting to theological formulations anyway, so I don’t think it matters to God that we are wrong about a bunch of things. Grace is big, it will cover all the weaknesses and limitations of our humanity when it comes to grasping divine truth or interpreting Scripture. Faith is experiencing God’s love and faithfulness and responding in love and loyalty to serve the Kingdom. All I really care about is whether your beliefs lead you to Christ-likeness and the fruit of the Spirit and contribute to making the world a more just and peaceful place.

I genuinely appreciate the heart and balance in your response, and I find myself resonating with much of what you’ve shared. You’re absolutely right that Christianity is a confessional faith, and that the ultimate aim of our beliefs should be to lead us toward Christ-likeness, producing the fruit of the Spirit and helping to build a world marked by justice, mercy, and peace. I agree wholeheartedly that God’s grace is vast, and that it extends over our intellectual limitations and theological misunderstandings. None of us have perfect knowledge, and I don’t believe salvation hinges on mastering theological terms, but on a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ—marked by love, faith, obedience, and transformation.

Where I do take a different tone—though not oppositionally, but cautiously and conscientiously—is in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity as it was formalized. You’re right again: taking issue with the terminology and philosophical framework of post-apostolic theologians is not the same as rejecting God or His mystery. Many of those formulations—like homoousios or eternally begotten—were responses to cultural and philosophical pressures of their time. My concern is not to villainize them, but to ask whether those terms were ever necessary to begin with, especially when the apostles themselves never used them. I believe much of the later language, while well-intentioned, introduces abstract metaphysics that the average believer neither understands nor finds in the biblical text.

The Oneness movement isn’t trying to dismantle the faith—it’s trying to return to the language of Scripture itself, where God is described in profoundly relational, singular, and manifestational terms: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19), “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). I’m not opposed to tradition for tradition’s sake, but I do believe that when tradition starts to function as a filter rather than a lens, it can obscure more than it clarifies. That’s why this conversation matters—not to win a doctrinal debate, but to humbly ask: Are we representing God as He revealed Himself?

So in the end, I agree—what matters most is whether our theology leads us to reflect Christ, to love well, to walk humbly with our God, and to be agents of His Kingdom on earth. That’s where our conversations should lead, and I’m thankful we can share this space in that spirit.

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

UPCI - Our Beliefs A brief overview of our essential doctrines

“The Holy Spirit by emanation” – sounds Gnostic to me.

@adamjedgar

Its important to clarify to readers why preceed/preceeds

“Preceeds” is not a word. I didn’t use it, so why are you inventing it as though as I did? I used the word that Jesus did – “proceeds”.

@adamjedgar

Your AI is incorrect: the belief in the pre-existence of Christ is not “rooted in the concept of the Trinity”.
This is a great example of reasons to not trust conversational AI.

@adamjedgar

we cant simply make up stuff to suit ourselves that isnt there in its pages

LOL

That’s exactly what YEC spends most of its effort in doing!

@Christy

the revelation pretty clearly speaks of two Persons. (or entities or individuals or beings or actors or participants

Heh – it has been observed that if Koine Greek had had just one more word to express “essence” then more than half the Christological controversies, including the Trinity, would not have happened.

@Christy

All this to say that God chose to self-reveal in ways that definitely strongly imply multiple personhoods.

Including right down in the grammar/syntax.

@Christy

No orthodox theologian is saying the Trinity is three beings, they are saying God is one God-in-Three-Persons.

Indeed the Creed, which is definitely Trinitarian, explicitly denies three beings!

@Christy

Jesus does pray to the Father. The Father does send the Son and the Spirit. The Bible does say the Son obeys the Father and does the Father’s will and not my will but yours be done. The text says what it says.

To be picky, the text (along with the Creed) says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that Jesus sends the Spirit.

@Christy

Then in my opinion, you guys are just making stuff up to fit what you can conceive too.

Absolutely – they are starting from a philosophical position and forcing the texts to fit.

@Christy

I still don’t understand how any of these nuances in conceptualization of a fundamental mystery matter to the gospel

It matters when Oneness theology chops the Son into two pieces by having the human pray to the divine! Christ was one, simultaneously human and divine, so when He prayed it was both human and divine praying. That results in a “Gospel” where Jesus couldn’t pay for our sins because the human and divine natures are at best pasted together.
This, BTW, is why what is now called the Church of the East objected to “in two natures” in the Chalcedonian Definition, because given who they were dealing with the issue was treating Christ as two rather than just as one.

[St.Roymond]

@Christy

Which is why I often think it’s pointless to have conversations with you. You are incapable of representing other people’s views accurately, even after extensive explanation and clarification.

Bravo!

@Christy

@adamjedgar

You remain convinced that we must reinterpret ancient language

You don’t speak ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek. Obviously, you need a translation. All translation involves interpretation in the source language and to read a translation you need to “reinterpret” it in the target language. This has nothing to do with theology or the Bible, it’s just how languages and meaning work.

And even after translation work must be done depending on the type of literature, the use of varying worldview imagery, etc.

[The_Omega]

@St.Roymond

Indeed the Creed, which is definitely Trinitarian, explicitly denies three beings!

St. Raymond, you’re absolutely right that the Creed—especially the Nicene and Athanasian formulations—claims to deny three beings. It repeatedly insists that God is one in essence or substance while being three in person. However, the tension lies in how that distinction plays out practically and biblically. If each “person” of the Trinity has a distinct will, mind, and relational capacity—able to send, speak to, and glorify one another—then despite the creedal denial, this functions as three centers of consciousness, which by any reasonable definition amounts to three beings in relationship. The claim of oneness in substance becomes a philosophical solution to maintain monotheism, but it doesn’t resolve the functional tritheism that results from describing three co-equal, co-eternal persons interacting.

By contrast, Scripture does not speak in terms of three co-equal divine persons. It reveals one God (Deut. 6:4), who is a Spirit (John 4:24), and who manifested Himself in flesh as Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 3:16). The distinctions we see—such as the Son praying to the Father—are not between divine persons, but between the humanity of Christ and the indwelling Spirit of God. So while the Creed may deny three beings on paper, the theological framework it creates still struggles to avoid that very conclusion when examined in light of Scripture. The Oneness view takes seriously both God’s oneness and His self-revelation in Christ—without needing creedal constructs that go beyond the biblical text.

@St.Roymond

It matters when Oneness theology chops the Son into two pieces by having the human pray to the divine! Christ was one, simultaneously human and divine, so when He prayed it was both human and divine praying. That results in a “Gospel” where Jesus couldn’t pay for our sins because the human and divine natures are at best pasted together.
This, BTW, is why what is now called the Church of the East objected to “in two natures” in the Chalcedonian Definition, because given who they were dealing with the issue was treating Christ as two rather than just as one.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on one vital point: Christ is one person, fully human and fully divine. Oneness theology affirms this without compromise. The idea that Oneness believers “chop the Son into two pieces” is a misunderstanding. We do not say that a mere man prayed to a separate divine being—we say that the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), who was fully God and fully man, expressed His humanity genuinely, including through prayer. His prayers were not a performance, nor were they divine pretending to be human—they were the authentic human response of the Son, the visible expression of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), communing with the omnipresent Spirit who filled Him without measure (John 3:34).

This does not divide Christ—it reveals the depth of the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). The same Jesus who healed the sick by divine authority also grew tired, prayed, and wept as a man. That’s not dualism—it’s true incarnation. The prayers of Jesus do not reflect division within the Godhead but the real human dependence of the Son upon the Father—who is, in Oneness terms, the eternal Spirit. Just as Jesus could say, “The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works” (John 14:10), so too could He pray to the same Spirit who indwelt Him and was simultaneously omnipresent in heaven.

Rather than weakening the Gospel, this affirms its power: God Himself, took on flesh, experienced human submission, and offered the perfect sacrifice as both the High Priest and the Lamb. That’s not two Christs—it’s one glorious Savior, fully divine, fully human, fully unified.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@St.Roymond

To be picky, the text (along with the Creed) says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that Jesus sends the Spirit.

To be picky back, the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the creed. (At least in the Western Church, there were big fights over the filioque clause, remember.) Because in Scripture it’s both. In John 14:26, the Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name. In John 15:26, Jesus sends the Spirit from the Father. In the Hebrew Scriptures the LORD sends the Spirit.

@St.Roymond

It matters when Oneness theology chops the Son into two pieces by having the human pray to the divine!

But I believe this is what happened too. I believe Jesus prayed like any other human and while on earth he could only relate to the Father through the indwelling Holy Spirit, like any of us. Probably being God helped with that connection, but I don’t think Jesus was omnincient, and I think his understanding of his mission as the Son of God was constrained by his human, encultured brain and embodied experiences. These are Christology beliefs about how Jesus could be fully God and fully human though.

@St.Roymond

That results in a “Gospel” where Jesus couldn’t pay for our sins because the human and divine natures are at best pasted together.

I think that is a strawman. And just because some conceptions of penal substitutionary theory need sharp divisions between the Persons of the Trinity for their wrath-appeasing exercises doesn’t mean it’s actually in the text. PSA is also a later theological construct. If you were more focused on the Oneness of God (which in itself is in no way a heretical focus), you would probably just gravitate more to Christus Victor models where Jesus is the representative human, the perfect Imago Dei who defeats sin and death by obeying where all other human intermediaries/representatives have failed. This model of atontement is also well-attested in the texts.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@The_Omega

However, the tension lies in how that distinction plays out practically and biblically. If each “person” of the Trinity has a distinct will, mind, and relational capacity—able to send, speak to, and glorify one another—then despite the creedal denial, this functions as three centers of consciousness, which by any reasonable definition amounts to three beings in relationship. The claim of oneness in substance becomes a philosophical solution to maintain monotheism, but it doesn’t resolve the functional tritheism that results from describing three co-equal, co-eternal persons interacting.

I think this is actually a good point, and this whole idea of totally separate wills, (with the Son’s will conceived as totally submitted to the Father’s will, hypothetically even against his own will) is how the weirdos over at CBMW argue analogically that women must submit their wills to men like Jesus submitted to the Father. It’s their erroneous conception of the Trinity being analogous to three distinct individuals in some kind of marriage that is analogous to human marriage that provides the vehicle for their wacko gender theology. Of course all of the arguments (for and against the eternal subordination of the Son) were completely inaccessible to the average Christian, because the average Christian doesn’t think about the Trinity in the terms they were invoking, all of which are post-Scripture constructs (functional vs economic Trinity or ontological vs functional subordination, for example.)

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Christy

@The_Omega

However, the tension lies in how that distinction plays out practically and biblically. If each “person” of the Trinity has a distinct will, mind, and relational capacity—able to send, speak to, and glorify one another—then despite the creedal denial, this functions as three centers of consciousness, which by any reasonable definition amounts to three beings in relationship. The claim of oneness in substance becomes a philosophical solution to maintain monotheism, but it doesn’t resolve the functional tritheism that results from describing three co-equal, co-eternal persons interacting.

I think this is actually a good point, and this whole idea of totally separate wills, (with the Son’s will conceived as totally submitted to the Father’s will, hypothetically even against his own will) is how the weirdos over at CBMW argue analogically that women must submit their wills to men like Jesus submitted to the Father. It’s their erroneous conception of the Trinity being analogous to three distinct individuals in some kind of marriage that is analogous to human marriage

But I don’t think you actually spoke to his point, which was to equate three persons with three beings. I quite agree this idea of two become one in marriage is not the same as Jesus and the Father are one. In this you make a VERY good point. But it is not the point The_Omega is making. I think The_Omega is confining God to human limitations.

But even in the marriage issue. I think the problem is imposing any idea of the relationship on everyone. People are different and the combinations are even more vast. Everyone has to find the way that works for them and trying to force it into preconceived patterns is a formula for failure even disaster. Some actually like the whole submissive relationship thing. Isn’t that their personal business? For others it might be mutual submission. The possibilities are many.

[Terry_Sampson]

@The_Omega

I see the sarcasm in your question,

• Sarcasm, IMO, is a talent of Skeptics, exercised with variable skill. Any you see in my words barely compares with the sarcasm of my Louisville nephews and nieces, according to whom the most skilled are masters.

@The_Omega

If each “person” of the Trinity has a distinct will, mind, and relational capacity—able to send, speak to, and glorify one another—then despite the creedal denial, this functions as three centers of consciousness, which by any reasonable definition amounts to three beings in relationship. The claim of oneness in substance becomes a philosophical solution to maintain monotheism, but it doesn’t resolve the functional tritheism that results from describing three co-equal, co-eternal persons interacting.

• My latest attempt to wrap my head around Oneness theology led me to rework my previous Scutum Fidei to see I if I can nuzzle a little closer to comprehension, with the following result:
  
  
• What that diagram is missing is the mathematical statement:
  
  on each double-lined bar connecting each pair of outer circles, i.e. “The Creator–The Redeemer”, “The Redeemer–The Regenerator”; and “The Creator–The Regenerator”.
• Hopefully, the
  

says:

• The Creator and *The Redeemer are not equal but they are equivalent;
• The Redeemer and The Regenerator are not equal but they are equivalent;
• The Creator and The Regenerator are not equal but they are equivalent.
• Note: ““Not equal” refers to two values or expressions that do not have the same value, indicated by the symbol ≠. “Equivalent,” on the other hand, means that two expressions represent the same relationship or value under certain conditions, even if they are not identical, such as in the case of equivalent fractions or equations.”
• Am I any closer?

[St.Roymond]

@Christy

the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the creed.

That’s not part of the Creed, it’s an addition stuck in by a regional council and accepted by Rome.

@Christy

Because in Scripture it’s both. In John 14:26, the Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name. In John 15:26, Jesus sends the Spirit from the Father.

But proceeding is unique, from the Father to the Son. The Fathers who fashioned the Creed were careful to adhere to the terms in scripture.

@Christy

I believe Jesus prayed like any other human

That divides the natures, chopping Jesus in two. He prayed as a single Person, not a split one.

@Christy

but I don’t think Jesus was omnincient, and I think his understanding of his mission as the Son of God was constrained by his human, encultured brain and embodied experiences.

That’s where kenosis comes in.

@Christy

you would probably just gravitate more to Christus Victor

Christus Victor still requires a fully divine Christ because if it was merely a human atonement then it couldn’t count for anyone but Himself.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I was listening again to the video of Bishop Robert Barron on Michel Foucault and it ends with him answering a question on the Trinity. He suggested that calling them persons is misleading because some people do equate 3 persons with 3 beings, and he basically suggests that if that is your mindset then persons is the wrong word. He used the word “movements” to say they are 3 movements and I don’t think that works for me… sounds too much like modalism.

For me the issue is whether we are restricting God to human capabilities or worse restricting God to less than human capabilities since we know that human beings ARE capable of multiple personalities. Now of course in the human case it is pathological and those are definitely fragmentary persons, and clearly in the case of God we are not suggesting anything quite like that. As different persons, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not fragments or pathological, but since we are speaking of an infinite being which is clearly capable of vastly more than human beings are capable of then it seems foolish to limit God to a singularity of person.

And if you don’t limit God in that way then you have to honestly ask what is going on in scripture. And for me the principle question whether Jesus is God or not and clearly the Christian answer to this question is yes. But then God as multiple persons becomes the most reasonable way of reading the text, and frankly it is the objections which look the most suspicious to me – unnecessarily limiting God.

[The_Omega]

@mitchellmckain

As different persons, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not fragments or pathological, but since we are speaking of an infinite being which is clearly capable of vastly more than human beings are capable of then it seems foolish to limit God to a singularity of person.

And if you don’t limit God in that way then you have to honestly ask what is going on in scripture. And for me the principle question whether Jesus is God or not and clearly the Christian answer to this question is yes. But then God as multiple persons becomes the most reasonable way of reading the text, and frankly it is the objections which look the most suspicious to me – unnecessarily limiting God.

Mitchell, I appreciate your desire to uphold the greatness and infinite nature of God, and you’re right—God is not confined by human limitations. But paradoxically, elevating God’s nature doesn’t require multiplying divine persons; it requires recognizing how He has chosen to reveal Himself. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is “the express image of His person”—not persons, but person (Greek: hypostasis), singular. The fullness of God is not distributed among three centers of consciousness but is revealed entirely and completely in Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:9 reaffirms this, saying, “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Not one-third of God, not one person of God, but all the fulness.

The idea of God being limited by singularity assumes that unity is restrictive, when in fact Scripture consistently presents God’s oneness as His glory (Deut. 6:4; Isaiah 43:10). The incarnation doesn’t split God into persons—it reveals that the invisible Spirit (John 4:24) has chosen to dwell fully and bodily in the man Christ Jesus. That’s not a limitation; that’s a profound and beautiful mystery: the eternal God making Himself fully knowable in flesh. Rather than unnecessarily multiplying persons to preserve relational dynamics, the biblical picture shows us one God—relational within His own redemptive activity, but never internally divided. The only thing that’s truly limiting is insisting that God must conform to post-biblical categories of personhood in order to be understood.

[Terry_Sampson]

My diagram by no means resolves Oneness Theology’s problem with Theistic Evolution, but I’m waiting for feedback from Omega (and Biologos’ members) on my diagram which replaces Trinitarian Persons with “Tasks”, and Yahweh/Yeshua just happens to be a divine “Multi-tasker”.

[The_Omega]

@Terry_Sampson

My diagram by no means resolves Oneness Theology’s problem with Theistic Evolution, but I’m waiting for feedback from Omega (and Biologos’ members) on my diagram which replaces Trinitarian Persons with “Tasks”, and Yahweh/Yeshua just happens to be a divine “Multi-tasker”.

Terry, I want to say—your diagram is a creative and thoughtful attempt to move the conversation away from person-based metaphysics and back toward a more functional, biblical model of how God reveals Himself. It aligns far more closely with what Oneness theology has always emphasized: that the one true God—Yahweh, fully revealed in Yeshua (Jesus)—manifests Himself in distinct roles or modes of operation, not as separate divine persons but as the same God working in different ways.

The terms “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and “Regenerator” reflect offices or tasks, not divisions in essence. In Isaiah 44:24, God says, “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” No co-Creator. In Titus 2:13, Paul calls Jesus “our great God and Savior,” placing redemption squarely in the hands of God manifested in flesh. Then in John 14:17–18, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit and immediately says, *“I will not leave you comfortless: *I will come to you.” The Regenerator is not another person—it’s the Spirit of Christ indwelling us (Romans 8:9–11).

What your diagram communicates beautifully is the oneness of divine identity across distinct acts of God. Yahweh/Yeshua is not fragmented—He is a divine multitasker, as you said. The use of Hebrew in the center (יהוה / ישוע) powerfully anchors this in Scripture: Jesus is Yahweh come in flesh (John 8:58). This model affirms God’s unity and avoids the philosophical complications of trying to explain multiple co-equal, co-eternal centers of consciousness.

In short, your diagram doesn’t just align with Oneness theology—it helps visually clarify it in a way that even skeptics can engage with. It’s a strong visual rebuttal to Trinitarian constructs while remaining faithful to Scripture. Well done.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@The_Omega

Not one-third of God, not one person of God, but all the fulness.

That is not Trinitarian doctrine. If frankly sounds more like your teaching. Trinitarian teaching is that the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are NOT parts of God – that is rejected just the same as modalism. Each is the fullness of God in the Trinitarian teaching. Frankly, more and more, this is beginning to look like the stubborn insistence on lying regarding what it is all about, just the same as creationism is constantly lying about evolution. And more than anything, I want nothing to do with such persistent liars.

[The_Omega]

@mitchellmckain

That is not Trinitarian doctrine. If frankly sounds more like your teaching. Trinitarian teaching is that the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are NOT parts of God – that is rejected just the same as modalism. Each is the fullness of God in the Trinitarian teaching. Frankly, more and more, this is beginning to look like the stubborn insistence on lying regarding what it is all about, just the same as creationism is constantly lying about evolution. And more than anything, I want nothing to do with such persistent liars.

@The_Omega

I understand the Trinitarian position three distinct Persons who are not divided, yet fully and equally God in their shared divine essence. And I do recognize that Trinitarian theology draws a careful line between “distinct” and “separate” to avoid accusations of polytheism. But from the Oneness perspective, the difficulty is not in the presence of mystery or paradox—Scripture is full of divine mysteries. The issue is when language foreign to the Bible is used to construct that mystery in ways that the inspired text does not actually support.

When the Bible speaks of God, it emphasizes His absolute oneness without qualifying it with eternal interpersonal distinctions. “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isa. 45:5). It doesn’t say “no other Persons beside Me.” The Son is never described in Scripture as an eternal person with God but rather as the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14), begotten in time (Luke 1:35), and called Son because of that incarnation—not because of an eternal co-personhood.

So while I understand that Trinitarian theology insists “distinct” doesn’t mean “divided,” the way it plays out—three centers of consciousness, wills, and interactions—still reads functionally as division, even if it’s not philosophically labeled as such. Oneness theology doesn’t reject the revealed differentiation we see in Scripture—we just ground those distinctions in the incarnation and God’s redemptive plan, not in the eternal structure of God’s being. There’s still deep mystery in how the infinite Spirit of God could dwell fully in a finite human body—but that’s the mystery Scripture gives us: God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).

Appropriate to re-post here.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Your logic and thinking based on your own premises is not the teaching of the Trinity. We reject your premises and logic, so substituting your characterizations for the actual teaching of the Trinity is still lying.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@St.Roymond

That’s not part of the Creed, it’s an addition stuck in by a regional council and accepted by Rome.

Yeah, and it’s now in the Nicene Creed, which is what millions of Christians recite every Sunday.

Nicene-Creed.pdf

@St.Roymond

That divides the natures, chopping Jesus in two. He prayed as a single Person, not a split one.

No it doesn’t. Refer to the aforementioned pages of ink spilled on kenosis.

@St.Roymond

Christus Victor still requires a fully divine Christ because if it was merely a human atonement then it couldn’t count for anyone but Himself.

We aren’t arguing about Christology. Obviously, it requires a fully divine Christ. It doesn’t require the Father and the Son to have separate wills in the same way PSA requires the will of the Son to be subordinated to the will of the Father.

[The_Omega]

@mitchellmckain

Your logic and thinking based on your own premises is not the teaching of the Trinity. We reject your premises and logic, so substituting your characterizations for the actual Trinity is still lying.

Mitchell, I understand your concern, and I want to affirm that I’m not trying to substitute my own definitions or misrepresent what you believe. My intention is not to lie, but to engage honestly with what Trinitarian theology says and how it functions when examined through the lens of Scripture. I fully recognize that classical Trinitarianism teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts or divisions of God, but each fully God in shared divine essence. I respect that framework as a system that seeks to safeguard monotheism while accounting for Scriptural plurality in redemptive roles.

But from the Oneness perspective, the concern isn’t about logic alone—it’s about biblical fidelity. We’re not rejecting mystery—we embrace it. What we’re questioning is whether the framework of eternal interpersonal relationships within the Godhead is derived from the inspired text or built from extra-biblical categories introduced later. Our goal is not to mischaracterize but to go back to the language of Scripture itself, where God is consistently presented as One Spirit (Eph. 4:4), One Lord (Deut. 6:4), and where the distinctions we see—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—are tied to God’s manifestation in time, not a plurality within His eternal being.

So no misrepresentation is intended—only a sincere appeal to stay grounded in the very Word we both revere. If we disagree, let it be a disagreement rooted in Scripture and charity, not accusation.

[Terry_Sampson]

• Note my correction to the mathematical statement which should be printed on each of the double-bar connections between: (1) The Creator & The Redeemer; (2) The Redeemer & The Regenerator; and (3) The Creator and The Regenerator.

My correction:

• I have corrected my diagram and added an IS to the inner crossbars:
  
  

But I still don’t seem to be able to insert my corrected mathematical statement to more than one of the crossbars between the outer circles.

• @Mervin_Bitikofer, If you would, please, confirm that my mathematical symbols say: Not Equal and Equivalent.