What do I believe?  Here is my creed:

I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
creator of heaven and earth,
who is one in essence, and one in person
and who for us became one of us, and yet remained God.

I believe in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, and descended from David,
being both true God and true man.

Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day,
who ascended to heaven, from whence He’ll return in glory
to judge the world, raise the dead,
and inaugurate a kingdom without end.

I believe in salvation through Christ alone,
by grace through faith, and evidenced by good works.
I believe in repentance from sin,
baptism in Jesus’ name, and regeneration of the spirit.


68 Responses to “Credo”

  1. michaelwbryant Says:



  2. I really love this credo Jason. Excellent.


  3. jasondulle Says:

    Thank you kind sirs! I tried to capture the most important teachings of Christianity, being specific enough in some matters to both clarify truth and exclude certain errors, while being sufficiently vague in other areas so as to not exclude those who might differ from me in some specifics. For example, the statements on eschatology could be affirmed by a pre-tribber or a post-tribber, a pre-miller or an a-miller.



  4. That’s what I noted. Good job. I don’t have a credo at EF but been wanting one. I have written a couple but not good at writing those. You think I could use this one, specifing yourself as the author, and link it back here?


  5. jasondulle Says:

    Sure. I would be honored for you to publish the Dullean Creed on your site. 🙂



  6. Dullean Creed is what it should be titled? Just making sure.


  7. jasondulle Says:

    No, that term was just a joke.



  8. Bill Scott Says:

    Jason, I’ve written to you before and was pleased that you responded in a very thoughtful manner. I’m not sure what you mean by “Oneness” theology. I understand that you don’t believe in the Trinity but in your credo you mentioned that Jesus was God but there’s no mention of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that you believe in a “dual” God but not a Trinitarian God?


  9. jasondulle Says:


    Good questions. As an advocate of Oneness theology, I believe God is uni-personal. The Father and Son are not two divine persons, but the same divine person in two distinct modes of existence. The Father is YHWH’s divine mode of existence, and the Son is YHWH’s human mode of existence (made possible by His assumption of human nature). When God became a man, He did not cease existing and functioning as God. He simply took up another mode of existence, and began to function as man simultaneously to His divine mode of existing/functioning.

    As for the Holy Spirit, Oneness advocates understand that to refer to YHWH’s nature (he is holy, and he is spirit). Scripture speaks of God as Holy Spirit when speaking of God acting within His creation. So the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from the Father, nor even a distinct mode of existence (unlike the Son, whose existence is modally distinct from the Father/Spirit).




  10. Bill Scott Says:

    Thanks for your quick response, Jason, but I have to follow up on your response:

    I can understand what you’re saying about God and the Son being one and I think advocates of the trinity say the same thing. In fact, I don’t see a difference at all when we’re only talking about the Son and the Father. When it comes to the Holy Spirit, I just recently asked my minister something in regards to this. I said, if God is spirit and Jesus is God in the form of man, then what is the purpose of a third part called the Holy Spirit? Why, if two parts of the trinity are spirit, did we need two spirits? Maybe we’re making too much out of all of this. After all, who cares if we call God the father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit a trinity or not, they’re ALL God anyway.

    But I still don’t see a distinction in “oneness” theology saying that God the father and the son are both God and so is, what a trinitarian calls, the Holy Spirit God. How is a trinitarians theology different from yours?

    Thanks again,
    Bill Scott


  11. jasondulle Says:


    No, Trinitarians do not say the same thing. They say the Father and Son are two eternally distinct persons within the one being of God. In contradistinction, Oneness adherents say the Father and Son are two distinct modes of existence of a single divine person.

    Trinitarians don’t simply say that God is spirit, and Jesus is God in human form. They say Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. In other words, of the three eternal persons in God, only the second person (God the Son) became man. The Father and Spirit did not. It’s Oneness theology that says God is a spirit, and Jesus is that God in human form.

    I agree that it doesn’t matter so much what one calls God (although terminology is important) so much as that they have the right concept of God. But that is where Trinitarians and Oneness people differ. Trinitarians think God is three eternal persons in one being/substance, whereas Oneness adherents think God is one person in one being/substance. Trinitarians see an eternal and personal distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit. Oneness adherents, on the other hand, do not. We see a modal distinction between Father and Son brought about by the incarnation, and only a nominal distinction between Father and Spirit. In other words, we understand Father, Son, and Spirit to be different ways Scripture refers to the self-same, single person of God. We see a real distinction between Father and Son, but it is a modal distinction, not a personal distinction. “Father” is YHWH’s divine mode of existence, whereas “Son” is YHWH’s human mode of existence.

    This is a lot to try to explain in a comment, so I’d suggest you read the following on my main site:




  12. wade deforest Says:

    Mr. Dulle,

    I pastor an Assemblies of God church in Fort Worth. I have enjoye reading your articles concerning the Godhead. I have a question for you. I do not ask it for the sake of argument but for your viewpoint from a oneness perspective.

    In Paul’s letters (Cornthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, etc) he greets the church with “grace and peace to you from God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” or “God or Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    If Jesus is God, and I believe that He is, why the reference to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ? This would seem to indicate a distinction.

    Look forward to your response.

    Wade DeForest


  13. wade deforest Says:


    Excuse the typos. I meant to say “God our Father…”




  14. jasondulle Says:


    Thank you for your readership. I’m assuming you are referring to http://www.onenesspentecostal.com, because I don’t address theology proper on this blog much.

    Yes, there is a distinction between Father and Son. There is no question about it. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny a distinction. What we question is the nature of the distinction. Are the distinctions personal or incarnational in nature? In other words, is the Father-Son distinction an eternal distinction between distinct divine persons, or a distinction that begins at and is caused by the incarnation? We think the latter explanation better accounts for the Biblical data. See http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/whytrinitarian.htm for more information on this.

    I actually address your specific question in my article “Christology” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/christology.htm), saying:

    “In the benedictions of Paul’s epistles especially, something is commonly said to the effect of, ‘Grace and peace be unto you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Why this dual usage? Why did the writers of Scripture greet the churches or people they wrote to with peace from God and from Jesus? They seem to be spoken of as separate individuals. It is interesting that we rarely find a mention of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in one verse or passage. It is usually just the Father and Jesus that are spoken of. Why is it that the Holy Spirit is always ‘left out?’ There is a purpose for this type of usage among the New Testament writers. … When God assumed humanity, He acquired a consciousness and identity which He never possessed before the incarnation. He had a human psyche not overwhelmed or consumed by His deity. The exercise of Jesus’ human nature (such as His consciousness, spirit, will, mind, emotions, and flesh) in such a way requires that in the incarnation, Jesus be spoken of as possessing an identity distinct from, but not separate from the Father.”

    And as I wrote in “Jesus’ Prayers: It Doesn’t Take Two Persons to Tango” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayerstango.htm):

    “When God became man He took up a human existence, being conscious of Himself exclusively as man in that mode of existence, all the while continuing to be conscious of Himself as God transcendent to the incarnation in His continued divine mode of existence. … In God’s incarnational condescension He acquired a new way of existing and a new mode of consciousness that was thoroughly human, all the while continuing to exist and be conscious of Himself as He always had prior to His incarnational act. Subsequent to the incarnation, then, God exists in two distinct modes, and is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: as God, as man. In His continued mode of existence transcendent to the incarnation He functions exclusively as God; in His incarnate mode of existence He functions exclusively as man.”

    Or as I wrote in “Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son” (http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm):

    “Because Oneness believers recognize Jesus’ deity to be that of the Father, it is tempting to conclude that there is no real distinction between Father and Son. Such a conclusion would be inaccurate, however, in light of the hypostatic union. While the deity of the
    Father and the deity of the Son is the self-same person, the Son is distinct from the Father in His mode of existence. ‘Father’ refers to God’s divine mode of existence, whereas ‘Son’ refers to God’s incarnate mode of existence; ‘Father’ refers to God as deity alone, whereas ‘Son’ refers refers to God as deity and humanity united in one theandric existence. The union of the divine and human natures in Christ brought into being a mode of existence distinct from God’s normal and continued manner of existence beyond the incarnation as the transcendent, unlimited Spirit. There is, then, a distinction between who God is, and the manner in which He exists. The distinction is not an eternal distinction within God’s essence, but a temporal distinction beginning at the incarnation because of God’s newly acquired human existence; the distinction is not between Christ’s deity and the deity of the Father (Trinitarianism), or between Jesus’ divine and human natures (Nestorianism), but between God’s divine and human modes of existence.

    “While there is only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this one person has come to exist in two distinct ways simultaneously: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as God beyond the incarnation. Jesus is the same divine person as the Father, but in a new mode of existence and self-revelation (as man). As Father, YHWH experiences His existence in a divine manner; as Son, YHWH experiences His existence in a human manner. While the Son is modally distinct from the Father, He is not personally distinct from the Father. Jesus is God’s personal existence as man, while the Father is that same God’s continued manner of existence beyond the incarnation. After the incarnation, then, we know God in two distinct ways: beyond the incarnation as Father, and in the incarnation as Son.

    “What’s important to grasp is that YHWH’s duality of consciousness/function is not internal to Christ between His two natures, but external to Christ, between YHWH’s two modes of existence. As Father, YHWH is conscious of Himself as God, and functions as God via the attributes of the divine nature. As Son, YHWH is conscious of Himself as man, and functions as man via the attributes of the human nature. So Jesus qua Jesus does not experience both omnipresence and limited presence. As Son, YHWH only experiences limited presence and limited knowledge. And yet that same divine person transcends the incarnation as the unlimited God, and in that mode of existence He continues to experience omnipresence and omniscience.

    “In Christ YHWH became conscious of Himself as man and functioned as man, not merely in His human nature, but through His human mode of existence. He continued to be conscious of Himself as God, and function as God in His cosmic mode of existence transcendent to the incarnation. While personally the same, the Father and Son are existentially, metaphysically, psychologically, volitionally, and functionally distinct.”

    I hope this helps!



  15. Jamie Harrison Says:

    Here is my style of your creed:

    A Charismatic-Pentecostal Articulation of Faith

    I believe in one ever-living, eternal, and uniquely complex God,
    the creator of heaven and earth,
    who is one in essence, and one in person,
    infinite in power, holy in nature, attributes, and purpose;
    possessing absolute, indivisible, and singular deity,
    and who for us became one of us, and yet remained God.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God,
    the essential, supreme, and absolute Theophany of the Almighty;
    who was conceived by the personification of the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, and descended from the line of David,
    being both true God and true man.

    Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day,
    who ascended to Heaven, from whence He will return in glory
    to judge the world, raise the dead,
    and inaugurate a kingdom without end.

    I believe in salvation through Christ alone,
    by grace through faith, and evidenced by good works.
    I believe in repentance from sin,
    baptism in Jesus’ name, and regeneration of the Spirit.



  16. Johannes Says:

    I do not agree with this creed because it contains un-Biblical elements.

    If Jesus was a true human, He was subject to sin. The most important characteristics of humans is that they are:

    1. created from the dust by God (Gen 2:7)
    2. they have spirit, flesh and blood (Ps 139)
    3. they are fallen sinners by nature (Rom 3:13)

    Jesus does not fit this description.

    Jesus was not created, because He was the Creator (Col 1:16). Jesus was not a sinner (Heb 7:26) because He was without sin, and He could not die (Rom 6:23). This leaves the resemblance between humans and Jesus only to point 2: He had Spirit, flesh and blood.

    The Spirit in Jesus was the Father (John 14:10, 2 Cor 5:19), The flesh and blood was the flesh and blood from God (Acts 20:28). His flesh was conceived from the Holy Ghost (Luk 1:35, Matt 1:20), not from human conception (will of the flesh).

    The Bible nowhere states that Jesus was a human being, but that He was in the form of a man (Phil 2:6-7). The form, likeness not the nature. (homoyama means shape, resemblance, not nature or essence)

    The only place in the Bible that equates Jesus with a nature is a heavenly nature.(2 Pe 1:4). The flesh of Jesus can save us because He was not from the dust, but the Lord from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). Adam was from the dust, but Jesus was from heaven (John 8:23).

    God bless,

    Br. Johannes


  17. Greetings! Jason

    I disagree with your belief that regeneration occurs by the holy Ghost which is contrary to holy scripture. Because according to Paul’s epistle to Titus regeneration occurs at water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. And as I often have said I disagree with your belief that God Almighty became a man instead of God creating a man and robing himself with that man or body of flesh and blood to redeem humanity particularly the elect.

    May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Marquest Burton


  18. Naz Says:

    Jason, nice creed. If I could add anything, it would be that “I believe in the love of God”. I know it’s sort of implied in your creed but often as Christians we overlook this and focus more on trying to be doctrinally correct.

    I agree with your statement that Jesus was fully human. To say He wasn’t makes Him unqualified to redeem mankind. In fact, it is absolutely necessary from a theological standpoint that He must be fully human in order to become a substitute for us.

    Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
    Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

    There is no scripture in the bible about God “robing” Himself in flesh. This only sounds good when somebody is preaching about it but it is non-biblical. Figuratively, yes, God did “robe” Himself in flesh. But what that means is that He became flesh and blood – human.

    As always you have nicely explained the distinctions between Father and Son in your responses to these posts. I think it is important that we come to a good understanding of God and how He exists. At the same time, everyone should be aware that this is NOT a salvation issue. Therefore, this should be discussed openly and freely without people getting their “nickers in a twist”. Just enjoy and bless God for all He has done. Amen.



  19. jasondulle Says:


    Appreciate the thoughts. I agree. As for the love of God, I consider that to be more of a theological minutae, and thus not appropriate for a creed (which paints in broader brush strokes). After all, if I add that, why leave out God’s justice, righteousness, holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence?



  20. Johannes Says:

    If Jesus was fully human, how can He be without sin at the same time? Human nature is a sinful nature, and Jesus was without sin (Heb 7:26).

    (Heb 7:26 [NET])
    For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

    Heb 2:16 does not say that Jesus took on human flesh. The KJV translation is flawed here because it adds words that are not in the original text. The modern translation is better:

    (Heb 2:16 [NET])
    For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants.

    (Heb 2:17 [NET])
    Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.

    Jesus Christ had flesh and blood, but as He clearly states, the origin of that flesh is from heaven, and not from the dust (like Adam or Mary or Joseph):

    (John 6:51 [NET])
    I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

    (John 8:23 [NET])
    Jesus replied, “You people are from below; I am from above. You people are from this world; I am not from this world.

    (1Cor 15:49 [NET])
    And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.

    Jesus was a High Priest from the order of Melchidezek, without parents, so not from human descent:

    (Heb 7:3 [NET])
    Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.

    God bless,

    Br. Johannes


  21. Leon "Zulu"Hargreaves Says:

    Dear Mr Dulle
    Thank you for your thought provoking theories on the Godhead.The Trinity dogma has never been seriously challenged for almost 1700 years and though it has never been fully understood by its adherents seems to have stood the test of time.Your creed is unlike any I have seen before and seems to be a rehashing of the ancient theories of Noetus,Epigonus and Praxeas.So-called Modalistic Monarchianism is to be commended for its reaction against the Logos Theology of the Greek Apologists.The monarchian apologists however swung the pendulum too far to the other extreme of explaining away the obvious N.T distinctions of Father,Son and Holy Spirit.Oneness Theology seems to be in the same quandary in modern times,for the distinctions of Father and Son are explained as spirit(Father) and flesh(Son)and worse still as a distinction of the divine nature(Father)and human nature(Son).Is this not the error of Nestorius? Oneness seems to begin with a form of Unitarianism positing one Person in the Godhead,the Father who becomes manifest in the flesh as the Son.Is God the Father mutable according to your theory? Your dual existence doctrine parallels that of Beryllus of Bostra who was said to have been “corrected” by Origen.The Trinity dogma is in itself not satisfactory and suffers the tension of a theory that attempted to bring together two extremes; modalism which makes no personal distinctions and tritheism/Arianism which made too much of the distinctions.Sabellius, who has been grossly misrepresented in church history taught that the One God expressed Himself in Three Personal modes.When you say God is one Person, do you mean one hypostasis?Mr Dulle, I too believe God is one hypostasis on the basis that the term means essence or substance.The terms “ousia” and hypostasis mean practically the same thing.The Trinity posits three hypostases(essence-for that is the original Greek meaning of the word)in one “ousia”(essence).What a mishmash of words used to plaster the cracks of an untenable dogma?Trinitarianism hides its true tritheistic identity behind the facade of monotheism.They would not use the word “prosopon”for person because it was “tainted” by Sabellianism and replaced it with hypostasis which has become the death-knell for the dogma of the Trinity.Modern Oneness theologians have developed their theory in reaction to their Trinitarian opponents using the same words and phrases.God, from all eternity was alone with His Logos which is within Him as reason,logic,internal discourse and deed which became expressed at creation and manifest at incarnation.The WORD is how God utters Himself forth and relates to His creation.God outside of time can never be described as a “person”.The terminology of Father,Son and Holy Spirit arose as God made Himself known to creation.The distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Real and Genuine as well as eternal in the Logos.The Logos is God expressed as Father,Son and Holy Spirit;the ONE GOD.God is one hypostasis(essence) expressed as three prosopa(persons).


  22. Leon Hargreaves Says:

    Oneness Theology is just as untenable as Trinitarianism and Arianism.


  23. Jay Says:


    I was wondering if I can get in contact with you via email.



  24. jasondulle Says:

    Hi Jay,

    Sure. It’s jasondulle@yahoo.com



  25. "B" Says:

    May I post ur Credo on my profile?



  26. Errol Says:


    Question for you. How do you explain Romans 8:26 in light of a Oneness belief? if the Holy Spirit is the Father, why is he praying then?



  27. jasondulle Says:

    I think the more fundamental question is if the Holy Spirit is divine, why would He be praying at all?


  28. Errol Heron Says:

    Good question. But I would still like to hear your theological response to this question. I am a Oneness believer and was asked this question and was not very convincing with my response, so I am forwarding the question to you.


  29. jasondulle Says:


    Sure thing. I was simply trying to make the point that this is a difficult passage for everyone, Oneness adherents and Trinitarians alike. On the face of it, it doesn’t seem to support either theological system since both systems believe the Holy Spirit is God, and God is always the person being prayed to, not the person doing the praying. God has no need of prayer.

    As for my take on the passage, I address it here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/rom826.htm.



  30. richardgobble Says:

    It’s funny what is viewed as a “difficult” passage to some…but might seem not a problem at all to others. I have always taken Romans 8:26 to describe the Holy Spirit within us (i.e. indwelling Spirit) praying “for us” when we know not what we ought to pray.

    I have no biblical support for this, just an impression I got when I read the passage in light of my oneness views.

    I have always viewed the deepest levels of intercessory prayer as a place where I “turn over” my will to the Lord.

    Again, it must be said, this is just a personal view…not something to hang any doctrine on.


  31. Human Ape Says:

    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty, creator of heaven and earth,”

    The whole thing has a lot of problems. For example in your first two lines you say there’s a god fairy without providing any evidence for it. And you invoke this magical creature to explain the development of planets.

    The formation of solar systems is a natural process. Your fairy’s magic wand was not one of the mechanisms of this development.

    The heaven idea is just a fantasy for gullible cowards.

    Then you write about the dead Jeebus as if he were something more than a worthless preacher man.

    Your “rose again the third day” is the most disgusting and most anti-science fantasy ever invented.

    I respectfully suggest you throw the whole thing out, escape from the Dark Ages you’re hiding in, and join the rest of the human race here in the 21st century.


  32. jasondulle Says:

    Can I really take you seriously when you chide me for not providing evidence in a creedal statement? It’s a “creedal” statement. It’s intended to say what I believe, not provide justification for it. I provide plenty of justification for my beliefs in other posts and articles.

    And all of your ad hominems shows that you are not prepared to engage in serious dialogue. Anybody can offer ridicule and engage in name-calling.


  33. richardgobble Says:

    Your work is appreciated Jason. Your articles have been of immeasurable value to me over the years. Thank you.

    As for post #32…well…it is much easier to tear down than to build up.


  34. I tend not to leave a response, but I looked at a lot of remarks here Credo Theo-sophical Ruminations. I actually do have a couple of questions for you if you tend not to mind. Could it be simply me or does it look like some of these responses look like they are left by brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting on other places, I would like to follow everything new you have to post. Would you list of all of all your public sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?


  35. Jason Says:

    “to judge the world, raise the dead…”

    I’ve been told by family members that they don’t want me to be cremated,as I once suggested. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized why, lol. They feel if I get cremated, there wouldn’t be any body to be raised when Jesus comes back! I don’t mean to sound mean, but to think that people are going to actually raise from the dead is ludicrous to me, especially since the ones that have been in the grave for hundreds of years are already dust. To believe that one day everyone is going to start rising out of their graves is enough for me to put the Bible in the same category as the other divine stories and mythical fantasies. It is either than believing in zombies, lol, I just can’t do it.


  36. jasondulle Says:


    It is ludicrous if one’s starting presupposition is naturalism. But if theism is true, there is nothing ludicrous about it. After all, if God could create the world out of nothing, and if He could fashion man’s body from dust, then surely it is a cinch for Him to refashion man’s body once again from dust. The real issue, then, is whether theism is true.


    Liked by 1 person

  37. Paul Plumb Says:

    Instead of starting with some man made crede, let’s read what the Bible says about the Godhead

    Gen 1:26 Let US make man in our image – this teaches there is more than one in the Godhead

    Matt 3:17 – He didn’t say “this is my beloved SELF. There was a distinct separation or God is just a great ventriloquist

    Matt 20:23 – the Saviour recognizes a distinct separation in recognizing he doesn’t have the authority to give what was asked

    Matt 26:39 – submission of the Son to the Father

    Here is what the scriptures say about the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Forget the creeds – they aren’t true.

    Luke 1:32 – Jesus is the SON of the highest.

    Luke 3:22 This is so obvious that there are 3 distinct members of the Godhead – you can see all 3 in this scripture.

    John 5:19 An acknowledgement by the Saviour that He, the Son can do nothing except he is shown what to do by the Father.

    John 10:30 Here He states that He and the Father are one and clarifies in 38 that the Father is in him and He in the Father. In other words they are so alike, they are one in thought, purpose, etc. John 17:21 Jesus prays that we might be one as He and the Father are one. Put those two verses together and think about them

    John 12:28 Clear separation unless you believe in ventriliquism again

    John 14:28 Simple statement the Father is greater than the Son

    John 20:17 Jesus tells her to go to his brothers (how are they his brothers?) and say “I ascend to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God.
    While Jesus is God, yet the Father is his Father and his God, the same as he is for all of us.

    Acts 2:33 – Jesus seen on the right hand of God. Why would that vision be given if it were not true exactly as seen. There is Jesus standing on the right hand of God, the Father.

    1 Cor 8:6 – There is but one God – the Father — and one Lord Jesus Christ
    God, the Father and God, the Son. not some mythical creature dreamt up by the superstitious Doctors of the 4th century who neither knew God or his doctrines

    2 Cor 4:4 I am in the image of my earthly father. If you saw me you would see how close an image I am of my earthly father. This is all this is saying – Christ is the image of God – They look the same but are separate.

    Eph 3:14 Here there are named the Father and our Lord. they are not the same person.

    Col 1:15 Jesus is the image (looks exactly like) the invisible (The Father never showed himself during New Testament times) How is Christ the firstborn? He wasn’t the first born on earth. He was the first born spirit child of our Father. Hebrews states we are the children of God, if children then Heirs, Heirs with Christ. We are less than the dust compared to Him, but we are still Heirs with Christ as his children.

    1 John 5:7 three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost.

    Now if you want to know if this is true – study it out so you understand. For those steeped in man made creeds this may take a while. Then pray sincerely to know if the scriptures above are true and if you pray with real intent to know – you WILL know.


  38. Don Says:

    I just want to make sure that what you are saying is that you reject orthodox Christian teaching on the Trinity. “who is one in essence, and one in person”
    is a denial of the triune God who is “one in essence, and three persons”.


  39. Dobbin Says:

    The standard terminology of creeds that refer to Jesus’ relationship to the Father as being of the same essence always seemed lacking. It wasn’t until i realized part of the hard-edged philosophical realities of the I Am that I was able to wrap my head around the idea of Jesus praying to God and also BEING the same person.
    I’m sort of embarrassed to say this, but the implications of the transporter and replicator technology on Star Trek was instrumental to revealing those realities to me.

    Our I Am is what we want to survive when we avoid death. If some mishap like necessary brain surgery caused me to lose part of my memory or lose a talent or aptitude or even something like my sense of humor; preserving the continued existence of my I Am would likely trump any other consideration.

    Which brings me back to Startrek. Is a person transported any different from a replica with the original disintegrated? If a replicator created several copies of me, it might be useful to help me accomplish certain tasks. When the task is done though, who gets unmade? My wife and friends couldn’t tell the difference but individual survival would matter very much to each identical replicas. Because of this understanding, I would fight going into a transporter as vigorously as I would fight being tossed from an airplane.

    Bottom lines are: Having the same attributes does not necessarily mean that you are talking about the same person. Conversely, having DIFFERENT attributes doesn’t necessarily mean that you are talking about another individual either.

    The omnipotent God had the power to create a body that His I AM could inhabit. In the incarnation, the Father put His I AM into the human body he created within Mary. There was no contradiction with the I AM of Father being on Earth as Jesus while simultaneously being the Father the great I AM. That is because IT WASN’T SIMULTANEOUS!! Or rather simultaneity doesn’t apply when the Father exists outside of time ad created time while the same I Am was within time as Jesus. Jesus was a “chip off the old block” relative to God. Somewhat like the way I invested my life into the existence of my son, Jesus’ subordinate relationship to to Father was a consequence of the greater to lesser/ begetter to begotten nature of the relationship.

    Jesus’ heavenly body existence was also within the created time and space of Heaven, so there is no simultaneity conflict there either. Where I most run afoul of people’s theology is when I state that I believe Jesus existence had a beginning with the start of time in heaven. Whether that was 14Billion years ago, 6000years or eternity past I can’t say I could argue for each.

    This explanation makes sense out of the separate but the same person doctrines that arise from scriptures. The notion of Jesus having a beginning causes problems for those who hold creeds that have words like “Begotten not Made” in them.

    This makes 2/3 if the Trinitarian belief more comprehensible. I don’t have a similar tidy explanation for the Holy Spirit.


  40. Don Says:

    the concept of person-hood has to do with 1st-person intentionality. It is nonsensical for the same person to say, “not my will but thy will be done” and also identify with the “I AM” unless there is some union of Being while also having a distinction of persons.


  41. THE BIBLE TEACHES NOTHING ABOUT THE TRINITY. The Trinity is the interpretive notion of religious, dogmatic men almost 1700 years ago.

    The Original Nicene Creed of 325 C.E.
    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

    By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

    Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

    He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

    From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

    And in the Holy Ghost.
    The revised Creed:
    The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 C.E.)

    We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:
    Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
    And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
    And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
    And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
    And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
    And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;
    And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
    We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
    We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
    And the Life of the age to come. Amen.


  42. I was always taught that the original Nicene Creed was Trinitarian. Yet as I continued to give myself to assiduous study of church history, I found that the original contents of the 325 Creed are not explicitly Trinitarian. Then I later found that the early Modalists actually signed the Creed.
    Church historian Jaraslov Pelikan wrote that Marcellus of Ancyra and other Modalists signed the Creed in 325. Eustathius of Antioch was one of many Modalist who confronted the Arians and Semi-Arians like Eusebius for teaching against the early Nicene Creed.
    In my recent debate with Steve Morrison in Austen Texas, I was able to show that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ called the “paracletos” who now intercedes for the saints because God also became a man. Ephesians 4:10 and Galatians 4:6 prove that after the incarnation and ascension of Christ, God now exists as the omnipresent Father and as the indwelling Holy Spirit which is Christ who is now making intercession for the saints according to the will of God. For more info go to ApostolicChristianFaith.com


  43. Scalia Says:


    Hello! You write:

    This makes 2/3 if the Trinitarian belief more comprehensible.

    Respectfully, I don’t think the confusion rests in what you think is answerable in Star Trek analogies. The problem with the doctrine of the Trinity is its assertion that there is one God, but there are also three persons who are fully God. Regardless how one twists and turns, there is no way to make that work from a logical standpoint. How can a person genuinely believe in something unintelligible?


  44. Scalia Says:

    @Dr. H. Davis

    Your link does not address the substantive logical conundrums of the Trinity. It is a standard, boilerplate reply to what are basically insignificant questions. The author doesn’t appear to even be aware of the fundamental logical issues with said doctrine.

    If you understand trinitarian doctrine, then by all means explain why you think it can survive logical scrutiny.


  45. Scalia Says:


    You write:

    the concept of person-hood has to do with 1st-person intentionality. It is nonsensical for the same person to say, “not my will but thy will be done” and also identify with the “I AM” unless there is some union of Being while also having a distinction of persons.

    This objection has logical traction if one denies the deity of Jesus. Given the way you’ve worded your post, I assume you subscribe to some version of the Trinity, so my reply will be limited to that. If you in fact deny Christ’s deity, then I’ll need to offer a different kind of reply, so forgive me if I wrongly assume that you hold trinitarian beliefs.

    First, you imply that it is “nonsensical” for Christ to say, “not my will but thy will be done,” if Christ is the Father. Isn’t it equally nonsensical for a fully divine being (God the Son) to have a conflict of will with another divine being (God the Father)? If Jesus is fully God and if the Father is fully God, how can there be a conflict of wills? A person acts in accordance with his nature, and the nature of God is infinitely perfect. Hence, by definition, there can be no conflict of wills in God, for an infinitely perfect being will always will what is infinitely perfect.

    Second, if God the Son wills one thing and God the Father wills another, one of the persons will have to yield (as in the instant case). But the conflict itself indicates an imperfection of power. An omnipotent being does not need the cooperation of any other being to realize His will. What if one person does not yield (as indicated by the conflict)? Can the other person prevent said person from acting? God is independent, He therefore does not need anybody’s cooperation to realize His will and cannot be prevented from acting on His will. No truly divine person can obstruct the will of another divine person. You can answer that the yielding is strictly voluntary, but that doesn’t address the underlying issue. A conflict indicates a limitation of one’s scope, else there would be no need to cooperate or to submit. If one needs cooperation, one is dependent. God is not dependent; consequently, at least one of the persons cannot be omnipotent if a conflict exists.

    The only logical alternative is that Christ spoke as a man, not as God. In standard trinitarian theology, God the Son did not cease being God while incarnate. He continued to function as God while simultaneously functioning as the messiah. That means, of course, that Christ’s human will was just as much in conflict with God the Son’s will as with the Father’s (and God the Holy Ghost’s, for that matter). Hence, it was the human will that submitted to the divine will. That is the standard reply whether one is trinitarian or a modalist.

    There are other replies extending from the above, depending on one’s version of the Trinity, but I’ll not offer them unless you affirm otherwise.


  46. Scalia Says:


    I don’t know if you’re getting updates to this thread, and your post is quite old. If you’re still around, you write:

    The terminology of Father, Son and Holy Spirit arose as God made Himself known to creation.The distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Real and Genuine as well as eternal in the Logos.The Logos is God expressed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the ONE GOD. God is one hypostasis (essence) expressed as three prosopa (persons).

    You say that God is one essence, and you use the pronouns He and Himself in reference to God. Thus, God is rational being (the indefinite article ‘a’ being intentionally left off). You also say elsewhere in your post that the Logos is within God (“Him”) “as reason, logic, internal discourse and deed which became expressed at creation and manifest at incarnation.” Since our reason, logic, etc. are not distinct (or separate) personal identities, I infer that you agree that the Logos is also not a distinct personal identity.

    You then say that God is one essence expressed as three persons. Please define person in the context of your post.

    Thanks, in advance.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Scalia Says:

    @Paul Plumb

    1) Gen. 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

    Mat. 19:4 – “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,”

    Is. 44:24 – “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

    There are many verses in the Bible like these. God is a He not a they. God created the earth by Himself, not with anybody else. The Jews, who are better experts at their native tongue than trinitarians, view vs. 26 as either a majestic plural or an address to angels. Though the angels did not actively create, they participated in worship as God created the earth (Job 38:4-7).

    2) The Son is the human creation of God. God did not lose His transcendence while incarnate. Ventriloquism has nothing to do with it. God’s essence in Christ is the same essence in heaven (Jn. 3:13).

    3) If Jesus didn’t have the authority, then He isn’t God. If, as you later insist, He is a member of the Godhead, then he most definitely has the authority as the Almighty to decree anything in accordance with His nature. The fact that He declaims authority demonstrates He is speaking as a man, not as God. Even trinitarians acknowledge that very obvious point.

    4) Again, if the Son “submits” to the Father, it can only mean that the Son is subordinate and not co-equal with the Father. God doesn’t submit to anybody. His essence is infinitely perfect. Consequently, submission must occur as a man. Even trinitarians acknowledge that God the Son could not vacate heaven while incarnate, that He existed as God and as man simultaneously. If “God the Son” is a reality, then the humanity of Christ was just as subject to His divinity as it was to the Father’s.

    5) The Son was made of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and made under the law. Since God created a male human body, He must by definition be called the Son.

    6) John 1:33 – “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”

    God produced a dove as a special sign to John the Baptist that Jesus is the messiah. The Holy Ghost is not a bird.

    7) If the Son can do nothing but what is shown by the Father, then the Son cannot be a member of the Godhead. God doesn’t need instructions from anybody.

    8) In John 10:30 Jesus plainly identified Himself as the Father. Trinitarians either use textual sleight-of-hand with the Greek or go outside the immediate context to sustain their doctrine, but the Jews clearly understood what He was saying:

    John 10:33 – “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

    Of course the Father (the eternal Spirit) was in the Son (the fleshly manifestation of God). God is invisible (Col. 1:15). Christ is the image of God in that His body is God’s human tabernacle, and we behold God’s glory in Christ’s face (2 Cor. 4:6).

    9) And as already shown from John 3:13, Jesus was in heaven while on earth. Do you really believe Jesus is God?

    10) If the Father is greater than God the Son, then the Son cannot be a co-equal member of the Godhead. If that’s what you believe, then most trinitarians would reject your beliefs as heretical. The “greater” distinction is between God and man, not God and God.

    11) If the Father is Christ’s God as God is our God, then Christ is as subordinate to God as we are, else you’re equivocating. Your explanation attempts have one’s cake and eat it simultaneously. For the analogy to hold, you have to restrict Christ’s statement to His role as a subordinate man, not to His position as God.

    12) The “right hand” refers to God’s power (see Ex. 15). This is shown repeatedly in the Old Testament. God is invisible, and we have already seen that Jesus is the visible expression of the invisible God. Hence, when the Scriptures refer to Jesus at God’s right hand, it is saying that He is the visible expression of God’s power and glory. You cannot get to the physical right hand of God for God is not confined to spatial coordinates.

    13) Yes, there is one God, the Father. The one God of the Bible is the Father (Mal. 2:10). Although you try to inject your words into the text, it doesn’t say that. If there is one God, you cannot acknowledge anybody else. The “one Lord, Jesus Christ,” refers to the mediatorial role of Christ as our redeemer (1 Ti. 2:5). As redeemer, he mediates between God and man (Gal. 3:20), but even there He performs both roles simultaneously. Since He is God and man, he mediates man to Himself.

    14) The image of God has been addressed.

    15) You don’t bow to Jesus?

    16) 1 Jn. 5:7 – Why did you leave out the last clause of that verse? “These three ARE ONE.” Notice the difference between verse 7 and verse 8. In verse 8, you have three separate things: Spirit, water and blood, yet they AGREE in one. They, together, relate to the witness in earth, but the heavenly witness isn’t a unity of agreement — these three ARE ONE.

    I sincerely hope you will rethink your conclusions.


  48. Scalia Says:

    Praise the Lord, inthebeginningiam!

    Thanks again for writing your paper and for you willingness to discuss the topics you raise. I will post my reply piecemeal due to the length thereof.

    You write:

    Since God created all things, He necessarily exists beyond or apart from that which comes into being from and through Him. Furthermore, since time, space, matter and energy are all part of the created order we can thereby deduce that in His transcendent state of existence He must be, timeless, beginning less, immaterial, and without spatial location.

    Yes, God is transcendent. There is nothing in back of God or beside God that makes Him to be God. As an infinite (not finite) being, there is nothing outside of Him that defines or determines Him. He is truly the all-sufficient one.

    You ask, “What was God’s ultimate objective in creation? And what steps were necessary for Him to accomplish His divine plan which He decreed from eternity? One such clue can be found in Rev. 21:3 KJV.” You then quote said passage and remark:

    From this verse it seems that dwelling with a people whom He has made acceptable to Himself was His ultimate goal, and everything from beginning to end tells the story of what He had to be or do in order to achieve this goal.

    Although you qualify your proof with an “it seems,” I don’t see the logical connection between your assertion and the cited verse. The fact that God’s tabernacle would be with men and that He would dwell with them does not prove that that was His ultimate goal. Indeed, the Scriptures appear to indicate something more precise. All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

    Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

    1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

    Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.

    From these verses we understand that everything (all things) are created for God through Christ. We, as Christians, are made for His glory.

    Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
    Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
    Indeed, the heavens declare God’s glory for God has left a record of Himself in the natural order (Ro. 1:20). Everything created was made in the will of God to express His glory

    I realize that one can counter that this is simply a semantical difference, but I don’t think so. The assertions we make should be clearly delineated scripturally before proceeding to build on them. Precision compels us to affirm that we are not His object. Rather, God is His own object and we are expressions of that object.

    More to follow…


  49. Jesuspeake Says:

    Rudimentary, typical bible immaturity.

    Forget Jesus, the revolutionary who tried in vain to get your ancestors to open their supernatural eyes of ritualism, punishment, revenge and death.

    Go immediately to the persecutor of Jesus and his following, rely on Paul the proud Pharisee to tell you the way and mind of God….leave Jesus totally out of the picture.

    It shows the extent to which Christianity has been mired since the days Paul became its common denominator…..to the neglect of Jesus from whom the Pauline doctrine ostensibly sprang.

    Jesus was just too common sensical, too ordinary. And Christians rationalized. Especially the ones who fancied themselves scholars. You see, it would have been so much easier if he of had sort of a genius for a father or a mother, if he’d been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, everything that money could buy, he’d come back from this university and the other having gathered every kind of academic distinction and degree but he was too ordinary, “this man”.

    But Paul? Paul was a scholar, a Pharisee and a proud prosecutor and protector of Roman rule; he was an academic, well versed in the scholarly religious nonsense of the Pharisees and so the STARS of Christianity need a bible star to support their religious academia so they quote Paul’s pretentious prose and academia prowess as though Paul’s intellect will rub off and support their own personal interpretation of scripture if it leads to Paul’s backup writings and Jesus…well Jesus was not a scholar so Jesus has nothing to offer Pauline Christians

    Jesus is made nauseated by Paul and the followers who call themselves Christian.


  50. Scalia Says:

    You then proceed to support your contention that God created a pre-incarnate intermediate mode of existence which you call either the Logos or YHWH. In fact, you go so far as to insist that you will scripturally demonstrate “an intermediate permanently visible mode of existence as YHWH Elohim.”

    Your first items of evidence are creation passages (Ge. 1:1, 2:4 & Jn. 1:1) which employ the terms Elohim, YHWH Elohim, and Logos, respectively. Since the cited terms must refer to the same being, you suggest that some distinction between them must have been intended. You note that the term YHWH Elohim was not used until Ge. 2:4 which was after the completion of creation’s sixth day and use that fact to assert that the new term “suggests” a divine transition from transcendence to temporality via a new mode of existence. However, that does not follow. Though you qualify that interpretation as a suggestion, there are other equally valid “suggestions,” such as God simply chose to use His name in what we call Ge. 2:4, or that He wanted to use His name in some progressive revelatory scheme without creating a literal physically visible mode of existence. At this point, I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong, but your failure to engage other interpretations renders yours arbitrary.

    You then attempt to connect Paul’s greetings in his epistles to Jn. 1, but even if the intent of both authors was the same, your inference that this refers to a pre-incarnate mode is again unsupported by argument. According to the account in Genesis, God literally spoke the worlds into existence. Indeed, Psalm 33 says:

    Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

    Since Christ taught that a person’s words reveal his heart (out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks), this can represent God’s self-revelation, power and the creative force of the spoken word (as shown by preaching—see Romans 10); it does not necessitate the interpretation that a visible mode was created.

    You then quote 1 Co. 8:6—

    1 Cor 8:6 NASB yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

    From this verse, you write:

    In other words, Paul explains that there is only one God whom he designates as “the Father” who presumably corresponds to the beginning less, eternal, immaterial source or wellspring of all creation, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom (in his pre-incarnate state as Logos or LORD God) He created all things.

    This does not at all follow. Your other writings indicate a familiarity with standard oneness analysis, but your paper engages none of them (other than your theophany reference at the beginning of your paper). It may certainly be the case that your interpretation is superior, but without engaging the counter arguments, it amounts to a bare assertion.

    The standard oneness explanation is that God indeed created the worlds through Christ, but it wasn’t due to some pre-incarnate physical mode of existence; it was through the foreknowledge of His redemptive plan that He predicated creation upon. As John Miller in the 1800s wrote, God predicated creation upon the future arrival of Christ. Hence, there was no need to create some visible agency of creation.

    I repeat, the oneness explanation may be insufficient, but your refusal to explain why simply, in part, reduces your explanation to an unsupported opinion.

    More to follow…


  51. Scalia Says:

    EDIT: The word refusal in Post 53 should be replaced by failure. I think that you simply overlooked counter arguments, not that you deliberately side-stepped them.


  52. Scalia Says:

    You then quote Phil. 2:6-11 and argue:

    Paul explains in verse 6 that in His pre-incarnate mode of being, Christ existed in the form*, Greek morphe of God and it is significant that the word “existed” in this verse is the Greek word huparchon, present active participle of huparcho which literally means to begin under or to make a beginning.

    Where is your argument that Christ’s “form” was a preincarnate mode of being? You again assert this without justification and again fail to engage the counterarguments from fellow oneness theologians.

    The relative pronoun “who” in vs. 6 explicates “Christ Jesus” from vs. 5. Of course, the term Christ always refers to one who has been anointed. So, when did this anointing occur?

    Act 10:37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed:
    Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

    This is clearly in reference to the inauguration of Christ’s earthly ministry subsequent to His baptism. Moreover, Luke tells us:

    Luk 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country.
    Luk 4:15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.
    Luk 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
    Luk 4:19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
    Luk 4:20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
    Luk 4:21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

    It thus appears that the scriptural evidence of Christ’s anointing is decidedly in favor of the inauguration of His earthly ministry and not in some preincarnate sense.

    The present participle translated “being” (ὑπάρχων) derives its aspect from the aorist indicative verb “considered” (ἡγήσατο) – which denotes “simple past action” (from the time of the writer/speaker). The noun rendered “form” (μορφῇ) can mean either “outward appearance” or “nature” depending on context. Here, the context is clearly within the scope of Christ’s earthly ministry. Though He clearly understood His identity, He chose not to exercise His divine prerogatives in order to fulfill the purpose of His ministry. Many exegetes have concluded that this passage refers to the historical Christ and not some preincarnate existence.

    Now, you may disagree with all of this, but given the fact that you don’t address it, you provide no reason for anybody to abandon their version in favor of yours.

    Your mini-analysis of ὑπάρχων does not force the conclusion Vincent places on it. As BDAG states, said word means to exist or be in a state or circumstance. Their citation of the LEB translation is simply:

    who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped,

    You are thus saddled with proving that μορφῇ precludes the form of Christ on earth. You cannot do so because the word’s definition corresponds with how it was translated: A form or appearance. There is thus no “strong suggestion” other than that He was, in His earthly body, the visible manifestation of the invisible God (John 14:9, 1 Ti. 3:16, & 2 Co. 4:4-6).


  53. Scalia Says:

    You don’t analyze Col. 1:15-17 any differently than the above verses. You don’t engage counterarguments and again fail to show why your conclusion is forced. You write:

    If we allow these 3 verses to speak for themselves, they paint a beautiful Christological portrait. We know that God in His timeless mode of existence in eternity was immaterial or invisible, but in verse 15 we discover that the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ was the first to emerge from eternity and created all things as the firstborn; Greek,prototokos. (See also Rev 3:14). We also learn from verse 15 that when He came forth from eternity He took upon Himself a visible image. (This conforms to what Paul said in the Philippian passage regarding themorphe or form of God).

    Since you want us to “allow” the verses you cite to “speak for themselves,” why did you stop at verse 17? Why ignore verse 18 which defines what being “firstborn” is?

    Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

    Moreover, Luke tells us:

    Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,
    Act 13:31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.
    Act 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
    Act 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’

    We thus see that the firstborn and begetting refer primarily to Christ’s resurrection which is the prototype of the believers’ resurrection. And as stated above, the fact that God created all things through the ministry of Christ does not at all imply an actual, physical “mode” of existence prior to creation. It is textually permissible, given God’s foreknowledge to say that creation was actualized with Christ as the referent.


  54. Scalia Says:

    You next cite Heb. 1:1-4, and my arguments above apply here as well.

    You then move to Isaiah 43:10-11 and read into said passage the same suppositions as previous passages. You interpret said passage to mean, “Before me no god was formed by me into a physically visible mode of existence and after me none shall be.” But it is obvious that this is not the only interpretation of those words. The word “formed,” especially considering Israel’s history, is a clear reference to idols. In other words, no creation of man’s hands is a true God. Man has not crafted any legitimate deity before God and he never will. As Matthew Pool stated:

    Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me; the gods of the heathens neither had a being before me, nor shall continue after me: wherein more is understood than is expressed, that whereas the Lord is God from everlasting to everlasting, these false pretenders to the Deity are but of yesterday, and shall shortly be abolished. And withal he calleth them formed gods, in way of contempt, and to show the ridiculousness of their pretence to the Divinity, which are formed by the hands of men.

    And Gill adds:

    before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me; intimating that idols were formed by the hands of men, and yet none of these were formed before him, and therefore could make no pretensions to deity, or to an equality with him; nor should any be formed afterwards, that could be put in competition with him. In short, the sense is, there is no other god beside him; as the Targum, Septuagint, and Arabic versions render it.

    From there you move to John 1:1, and since you believe you have established your assertions, you work them into this verse. Since your assertions have not been established, this verse cannot be used to support them. The same goes for vss. 14 & 18, but you make another invalid move when you comment on verse 18:

    The phrase, only begotten God is simply another way of describing the Logos of John 1:1. So we can say that at the precise moment that the Logos came forth from eternity, time began and the Logos, who was God Himself, began a temporal mode of existence as YHWH Elohim (LORD God).

    Since vs. 18 follows vs. 14, and since vs. 14 tells us that the Word was made flesh, the contextual “begotten” clearly refers to the incarnation and not to a logical point “prior” to creation. You thus employ an illogical inference by imposing a definition on a term discordant with the context.


  55. Scalia Says:

    The rest of your paper is substantially a defense of the oneness doctrine. Since I am in obvious agreement with that, no further comment is needed except to say that it is helpful to explain why trinitarianism is an unintelligible doctrine. Logically speaking, the only two biblically interpretive Godhead options are modalism or unitarianism (due to the inherent logical contradictions in trinitarianism). No version of the Trinity can escape either polytheism or an acknowledgement that the so-called persons of the Godhead are not God.

    Brother, as I’ve stated multiple times, you are a very good writer, but your content suffers in that it fails to address reasonable objections to your arguments and fails to prove that your conclusions necessarily follow the evidence you cite. My counterarguments are primarily designed to show the reasonableness of said objections, even if they turn out to be inadequate. Your arguments will be made stronger if you take the time to engage them.

    All the best,


  56. bkstokes Says:

    Hello Jason, I hope you and your family are well. I wanted to ask if you still believe in this Creed or Credo? Do you still believe Oneness theology?
    I am uncertain of the position myself. I am not per se against it. I am just unsure. I do not agree with many Oneness 20th century “holiness” standards. Since I think they err in that regards, it cause me to question if they are correct with the Godhead.

    I received the Holy Spirit in a Oneness church and I was baptized in Jesus Christ name. I do believe Jesus name baptism is the correct form of baptism. Nevertheless, I have read so many books and seen so many debates about the Godhead. Also, I have read many of the patristic writers and there did not seen to be a major agreement on the issue until Nicea.

    Thanks for your response in advance.


  57. Scalia Says:


    I know you addressed your comments to Jason, and I have no doubt that he will reply, but given that this is an open forum, I’d also like to offer a few observations. You write,

    Do you still believe Oneness theology?
    I am uncertain of the position myself. I am not per se against it. I am just unsure. I do not agree with many Oneness 20th century “holiness” standards. Since I think they err in that regards, it cause me to question if they are correct with the Godhead.

    So, because 20th century Pentecostals may be in error over modesty standards, they might be wrong about the Godhead too? What’s the connection? There are a lot of trinitarians who preach a modesty standard as well (Amish, Mennonite, classic Methodists, classic Seventh Day Adventists, New Testament Christian Church, the Trinitarian Apostolic Church, Bible Missionary, and independent Baptist churches). Are trinitarian groups who preach modesty standards wrong about the Godhead too? I think you’re clearly making an irrational move.

    I do believe Jesus name baptism is the correct form of baptism. Nevertheless, I have read so many books and seen so many debates about the Godhead. Also, I have read many of the patristic writers and there did not seen to be a major agreement on the issue until Nicea.

    One of the problems with most Oneness/Trinity debates is that Oneness proponents typically cede too much ground to their trinitarian opponents. The doctrine of the Trinity (DT) in all its forms forces its adherents to affirm logical contradictions which renders it untrue by definition. In order to escape tritheism, trinitarians of all stripes are forced to affirm some form of composition in the divine essence which automatically renders God a dependent being which of course “ungods” the entire edifice, including the persons composing the Godhead. Since logical contradictions are untrue by definition, and since the Bible is true by definition, it follows that the Bible cannot teach any form of the DT. In other words, the DT is a non-starter.

    Regardless what the Bible teaches about the Father and the Son, the trinitarian conclusion that they are equal members of the Godhead and that there is only one God cannot, given its own terms, be true. The DT is the logical equivalent to square circle, and as such, must be rejected as false.

    As to modesty or holiness standards, I most vigorously disagree with you that they are unbiblical. The overwhelming majority of Pentecostals I’ve interacted with (and I’ve interacted with a good many) who’ve gone the way of the world have done so simply because they wanted to be like the world and consequently looked for any prop to justify their television, cosmetics, jewelry, sports, theater and music. As Old Testament Israelites desired to be like the nations around them, so too modern Pentecostals yearn to be like their neighbors. And the closer they get to the world, the better the world looks. Worldliness is whatever makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange. If television is your norm, the Bible will be subtly or overly relegated to the category of the abnormal. As James warns us (4:4) whoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of God. There is no middle ground. And for those Pentecostals who are sincerely inquiring what the Scriptures actually teach on the topic, we’ve been able to convince the vast majority of them that the standards are biblical. We’ve been able to do so because they are 100% willing to live however God wants them to live and are not motivated by an ingrained bias against it.

    God grants the knowledge of the truth to those willing to obey it, not those merely curious to know it.


  58. bkstokes,

    Yes, I still agree with my creed, and the Oneness theology it articulates. As you’ll notice, however, nothing is said about holiness standards in the creed. I also don’t agree with many of the holiness standards, but the two issues aren’t connected at the hip. That said, I understand why people question one when they question the other. It’s often presented as a packaged deal. And, one always has to wonder if a church could be so wrong about one thing, if they might not be wrong about other things as well. But you should treat the issues separately. Each issue stands or falls on its own merits.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. bkstokes Says:

    Thank you for responding back Jasón. I honestly want to believe in Oneness theology. However, I have read a lot of Church History and I have listened to many different perspectives.

    Jason, have you ever reflected or reviewed Dale Tuggy’s argument?


    Tuggy is a Unitarian.

    Please note that I am not trying to debate or attack. I am seeking answers and/or perspectives.

    Thank you


  60. Scalia Says:

    @bkstokes, you cite an argument from the well-known unitarian apologist, Dale Tuggy. His argument is as follows:

    1. Suppose that modalism is true about the Son.
    2. Therefore, either the Son is identical to God, or the Son is a mode of God.
    3. The Son is identical to God only if whatever is true of God is true of the Son, and vice versa.
    4. Some things are true of God which are not true of the Son, and vice versa.
    5. Therefore the Son is not identical to God. (3,4)
    6. If the Son is a mode of God, then the Son at no time has a loving interpersonal relationship with God.
    7. The Son has had a loving interpersonal relationship with God.
    8. Therefore, the Son is not a mode of God. (6,7)
    9. Therefore, modalism about the Son is false; the Son is not a mode of God. (2,5,8)

    Statements 2-5 generally follow the overall Oneness framework. Most Apostolics teach that the term “Son” always refers to the incarnation, specifically, with respect to the material body of a male human called Jesus. There is thus a clear difference between the Father and the Son as to role.

    As to statements 6 and 7, “interpersonal” means: of or pertaining to the relations between persons; existing or occurring between persons. And Tuggy’s justification for that is the “New Testament” and the “necessary truth” that a person cannot have an “interpersonal” relationship with a mode of being.

    For so-called Oneness believers who believe that Jesus as a man is a genuine person so that the person of Christ is not the person of God, Tuggy’s argument does not apply. But, obviously, such believers are actually unitarians who call themselves Oneness. The hallmark of modalism is that Jesus is really and Truly God. If Jesus is a completely different person from God, then He is not God by definition.

    Others believe that the “segment” of God which inhabited Christ somehow erased His memory and became a man in every sense of the word while remaining God as to His personhood. Thus, the “relationship” between the Father and the Son was not a mere show on the Son’s part. Under this doctrine, Christ fully believed that He was calling on “another,” and this self-imposed amnesia will persist until the consummation of all things. Now, however, implausible this sounds, it withstands Tuggy’s argument for there is more than one way to have a relationship, and so long as this option is logically possible, Tuggy’s argument fails.

    The critical component of this counter is the legitimacy of the claim that God can impose a limit on His knowledge. Based on the doctrinal statements of all the mainline denominations within Christianity, the vast majority of Christians would reject that premise. It is no more possible for God to forget something than it is for God to “make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it,” or to tell a falsehood, blaspheme His own name or to die. Alternately, many Christians affirm what they call “functional subordination,” wherein the Son refuses to exercise His divine prerogatives (so that they are never lost). Under this theory, the Son simply doesn’t access His “memory database” and can thus operate as if He were another person (you can find this in both trinitarian and Oneness variations). However, this also appears to fly in the face of divine aseity. Nonetheless, if the objections against the violations of aseity can be adequately answered, Tuggy is unsuccessful here as well.

    Finally, there are Oneness advocates who deny the “interpersonal” argument as question-begging. The term itself asserts multiple persons to the effect that Oneness is either untrue on its face or it is untrue in light of the “clear” interpersonal relationship between the Father (F) and the Son (S). For these believers, God assumes the role of a son for redemption purposes and lives His life as an example to all believers of a proper relationship with God (in prayer, worship, discipline and daily living). Thus, God certainly speaks to Himself as humans speak to themselves. God certainly loves Himself as He commands all humans to love others as they love themselves. In other words, we should love others exactly as we love ourselves. And since one can definitely have a relationship with oneself, and since one can certainly do myriad things as an example to others, nothing “interpersonal” is entailed. And though one may object that this amounts to “play acting,” there is nothing contradictory being asserted and is, as such, immune to Tuggy’s argument.

    Moreover, with slight modification, Tuggy’s argument applies to most variations of the Trinity. For critics of the Trinity, one of the major flaws of the DT is its failure to properly identify the difference between the F & S. From the appeal to relations (what are relations without relata?) to composition, the wheels of reason roll off the cart, thus making the DT subject to similar arguments from Tuggy.

    At bottom, though Tuggy’s argument will work for some forms of “modalism,” it doesn’t touch the basic position that the role of F & S are fulfilled by the same person. What remains at issue with unitarians is whether Jesus is God. As with atheist arguments over the logical problem of evil, the silver bullet argument which renders modalism logically impossible turns out to be a blank.


  61. Scalia Says:


    It appears that Tuggy doesn’t accept comments on his site. That’s too bad for it seems that he made a genuine effort to understand modalism. I wonder why he doesn’t allow comments. It certainly cannot be the case that he is afraid of interaction because I’ve seen his comments all over the internet.

    If one wants to see him interact with a person capable of defending the deity of Jesus, check out his debate with Michael Brown. Of course, Brown is a trinitarian, and he explicitly rejects modalism. Nonetheless, he’s a top-notch debater and in my estimation, he thoroughly outclassed Tuggy in their debate.


  62. bkstokes Says:

    Hello Scalia,

    I am uncertain about comments of Tuggy’s cite. I have interacted with him a few times via email. All of our emails were irenic and Tuggy seemed to be very versed in his position. One of main complaints of the Unitarians is their lack of belief in important areas. Many of them are cessationists. Historically speaking – a lot of doubt sections of scripture – in particular certain miracles of the NT.


  63. Terry Wilson Says:

    From your Credo…God is one in essence, one in person. So you are unitarian?


  64. Terry Wilson Says:

    Forget the question. I see that you are not Trinitarian.


  65. Terry, but neither am I unitarian in the traditional sense of that word. Unitarians deny the deity of Jesus. I am Oneness Pentecostal, meaning I subscribe to the full deity of Jesus. We affirm that God is both one in essence and person, and that Jesus is that one divine person incarnate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s