#918 Countering Oneness Theology
December 15, 2024Dr. Craig, I am from India and have been following your teachings for some time now. Your work has profoundly impacted my spiritual growth and understanding of Christian doctrine. As a follower of your work, I have been reflecting on arguments for God's existence, studying physics to better understand the scientific evidence for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and exploring issues like the historical Adam. However, where I live, the primary issue isn’t atheism or non-theism, but rather the divide between Christian denominations—particularly between Trinitarian believers and Oneness believers, maybe similar to the way Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses present challenges in the West.
Many Oneness believers here are firm in their faith primarily because their leaders have convinced them that the doctrine of the Trinity is a false teaching, rooted in pagan polytheistic concepts. They are often led to believe that Trinitarians do not consider Jesus as God. Due to language barriers, most of them are unable to explore deep theological explanations in English, so their understanding of the Trinity is often limited to the impression given by their leaders. I am thinking of translating your Doctrine class on the Trinity into my native language to help clear up misunderstandings, whether through speech or social media.
While translating, I have encountered three issues on the Trinity that I would like to ask you about:
First, in your teaching on the Trinity, you explain how the New Testament writers carefully distinguish between God the Father and Jesus by using different terms like "Ho Theos" for the Father and "Kurios" for Jesus, affirming their divinity while maintaining their distinction. This careful usage prevents confusion between their identities. However, in a few instances, the New Testament refers to Jesus as "Ho Theos," such as when Thomas addresses the resurrected Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). While the Oneness believers in my group may not be aware of these instances yet, I am concerned that when I translate this part of your teaching, they may use this information to argue that calling Jesus "Ho Theos" equates Him with God the Father. How can I effectively explain that these isolated uses of "Ho Theos" do not imply an identity with God the Father, but rather affirm Jesus' divinity in a way that maintains their distinct personhood within the Trinity?
Second, in the same teaching, you emphasize that the Holy Spirit is considered a person within the Trinity, supported by the New Testament’s use of the personal pronoun "He." However, a Oneness believer argued that personal pronouns in English are often used for impersonal objects (like referring to a country as "she"), suggesting that the use of "He" for the Holy Spirit might not indicate personhood. How would you respond to this challenge and demonstrate that the New Testament writers were intentionally conveying the personhood of the Holy Spirit rather than using pronouns as a matter of tradition or sentimentality?
Finally, most Oneness believers here seem to believe that the term "person" applies only to humans. From my understanding, however, a person is any being capable of rational thought, which could include more than just humans. Perhaps the confusion arises from a naturalistic worldview where "person" is limited to humans. Could you share your thoughts on how we might communicate this broader understanding of personhood in the context of Trinitarian doctrine?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my question. It would mean a lot to me to hear your thoughts on these issues.
Anisha
India
Dr. craig’s response
A
I really sympathize with your situation, Anisha, and am grieved that confessing Christians in India would embrace Oneness teaching in opposition to the Trinity. It seems that out of a fear of Hindu polytheism they have embraced Hindu monism! As for your questions:
1. How can I effectively explain that these isolated uses of "Ho Theos" do not imply an identity with God the Father, but rather affirm Jesus' divinity in a way that maintains their distinct personhood within the Trinity?
This is easy to answer: just show that the very same authors who dare to refer to Jesus as “(ho) theos” also differentiate the Father from Jesus Christ the Son. Here are the relevant passages referring to Jesus as God:
Romans 9.5
to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Heb 1.8
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
Titus 2.13
while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
II Peter 1.1
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
John 1.1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
John 1.18
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
John 20.28
My Lord and my God!
I John 5.20
we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
For example, Paul, who wrote Romans 9.5, distinguishes the Father from the Son, e.g., in I Corinthians 8.6: “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.” The author of Hebrews does the same, e.g., “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.” In I John 5.20 itself John distinguishes “him who is true” from “his Son Jesus Christ.” Of course, your friends will push back, but you have the advantage of sound exegesis on your side.
2. How would you demonstrate that the New Testament writers were intentionally conveying the personhood of the Holy Spirit rather than using pronouns as a matter of tradition or sentimentality?
The question does not concern English but Greek, which has masculine, feminine, and neuter genders for nouns. The word “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter, but John violates grammar by using a masculine pronoun for a neuter noun, which cannot be done in English. Moreover, the use of first-person pronouns cannot be accommodated to your examples of referring to inanimate things with third-person pronouns. More fundamentally, the activities ascribed to the Holy Spirit are personal activities which cannot be done by an impersonal force. I give numerous examples in my contribution to One God, Three Persons, Four Views: A Theological and Philosophical Dialogue, ed. C. A. McIntosh (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, forthcoming).
3. Could you share your thoughts on how we might communicate this broader understanding of personhood in the context of Trinitarian doctrine?
Give your Oneness friends examples of non-human persons in the Bible, such as angels, demons, and, of course, God himself. Emphasize that by a “person” you just mean a self-conscious, rational being endowed with free will. God is tri-personal in that he has three centers of self-consciousness, rationality, and will. If they deny that God is personal, then they have accommodated themselves to Hinduism even more than I imagined.
- William Lane Craig