I fear, lest… your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Corinthians 11:3–4; NKJV)

We read in the Bible that Jesus said to beware because many false prophets have gone out into the world. So how can we make sure that our view of Christ is true to the Bible? Well, in the above passage we have an answer: stick with the simplicity of the Christ that the apostles preached, and don’t be inclined to a different one. It is safe to say that all false teachings about Christ ignore this simply stated commandment from the apostle Paul.

To understand this verse we first need to know what the apostle meant by the word “preached.” The word “preach” simply means to proclaim, or to publish. That is, it is something that is openly stated or said. The opposite of proclaiming is, of course, to conceal, or to hide, or even to deny. The word preached means that Paul is simply telling us to cling to the same Jesus that he and the other disciples clearly and openly proclaimed; thus, not to a view that would appear to be concealed, or hidden, or denied.

We see, then, that this passage gives us a simple biblical rule for knowing who and what the real Jesus Christ is. That is, we need to read what the apostles openly proclaimed Jesus to be! This also shows us that if we listen, the Bible itself tells us how to, and how not to, understand it.

Most Christians unknowingly ignore this simple, biblical command, as will be shown in this study.

But first let’s ask, what did the apostles preach?

Invariably, they preached that Jesus was, “a man approved by God,” as they did, for example, in Acts 2:

^“22Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him… ³⁶…God has made him both Lord [King] and Christ [the Anointed One], this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:22–23, 36; see also Acts 3:13–26, 5:29–32, 7:37, 7:54–56, 13:16–41, etc.)

The reason we look to Acts for what the apostles preached is because the other books were letters to those who had already received and believed the things the apostles preached, thus they are letter of instruction, or teaching, not proclamations. In the Book of Acts the apostles never once strayed from preaching Christ as a man who was foreknown and anointed by God, and who was born of the offspring of David. In fact, this same Son of God doctrine (that Jesus is a man, born of the seed of David) is the only view of Christ that can make all these claims:

• • It is the only view of Christ that the apostles invariably preached (openly declared or proclaimed).
  • It is the only view of Christ that was clearly and invariably confessed without any ambiguity whatsoever.
  • It is the only view of Christ that you can find clearly and thoroughly taught (expressed, explained, and expounded upon) in the entire Bible.
  • It is the only view of Christ that doesn’t require any extrabiblical words and phrases to adequately express.
  • It is the only view that is clearly prophesied throughout the OT.
  • It is the only view that is clearly expressed in the first mention and the last mention of Christ in the Bible (in addition to every other clear passage in between)!

All of the preceding list is on the positive side of the Son of God doctrine! On the negative side:

• • All other Christologies are based on pagan categories of incarnations (i.e., Acts 14:11).
  • All other Christologies owe some of their main teachings to the antichristian Gnostics.
  • All other Christologies resort to interpreting the Bible the way the devil does!

Neither Trinitarians nor Onenessians can even come close to making any of these claims, let alone every one of them! At best, both of those doctrines are shrouded in mystery, as if the Bible was ashamed to come out and simply express the claims of these two opinions!

For I am not ashamed of the Good News of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes… (Romans 1:16)

Why would the Bible be ashamed to clearly and openly preach, proclaim, prophesy, confess, and explain such a saving doctrine as these groups claim of their positions? It’s simply because those ideas aren’t taught in the Bible; they have to be read into the Bible!

Such is far from the case with the Son of God doctrine. Again, quite frankly, taking any other position than the Son of God doctrine that the apostles preached is to claim Paul lied in 2 Corinthians 11:3–4!

We are going to cover the apostle’s preaching of Christ more fully in Chapter Twenty. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to look up the following verses and see for themselves in their own Bibles whether the claim we made above is true: Acts 2:22–23, 36; 3:13–26; 5:29–32; 7:37; 7:54–56; and 13:16–41. Moreover, throughout this book we’re going to show you just how true this doctrine is and how false, mistaken, misguided and misleading all other views are!

Methods of Interpretation

When hearing about the Son of God doctrine, Onenessians commonly respond, “well, what about Scripture x,” and they’ll quote their favorite proof text.

So, it won’t do simply to state that Modalism is wrong. One of the first things we need to do, therefore, is to show you how clearly and obviously wrong and disobedient their method of interpretation is to begin with. What they and Trinitarians resort to is called “proof-texting.” This is when a verse or passage is used to “prove” a doctrine when there are no passages that simply state what it is they are really trying to say. This method always leads to false teachings.

Here is an example of this proof-texting approach: the thief on the cross ploy. Every good Oneness Pentecostal knows that the thief on the cross is not a good example around which to build one’s salvation doctrine. Let’s read the passage…

³⁹One of the criminals who was hanged… ⁴²…said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” ⁴³Jesus said to him, “Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39–43)

As Pentecostals, we all know how frustrating it is when doubters fall for the “what about the thief on the cross?” tactic. Most Onenessians know what I mean; the Bible is so very clear in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto (Gr. eis = unto) the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit!” Peter’s words couldn’t be clearer. And if you’re a Pentecostal worth your salt, you know all the Scriptures about obeying the gospel by dying out to your sins in repentance, being buried with Jesus in water baptism and rising again in new life by receiving the precious gift of the Holy Spirit as you are born again as evidenced by speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance! What a glorious salvation, which we also share with Oneness Pentecostals!

And you try to show someone the Scriptures testifying to this glorious salvation plan and explain that they could experience the same for themselves, and yet no matter what Scriptures you show them, some people still can’t get over the idea that nothing was said about that thief being baptized in order to be saved.

But do you know what makes the thief on the cross excuse a subterfuge? It’s that what they believe it means isn’t anything that the Bible actually says! Nowhere does the Bible say a person can be saved if they don’t submit to water baptism in Jesus’ name! No Scripture says a person receives the promise of the Holy Spirit quietly and uneventfully. Do you see that? What the Bible does say is, “Repent and be baptized.” It also says “baptism does also save us” (1 Peter 3:21) and that it is effective “by the answer of a good conscience toward God.” In fact, it says baptism saves us in the same way that building an ark saved Noah! Yet the Bible says that Noah was saved by faith! Why? Because we are told that Noah obeyed through faith! (That’s why, as Oneness Pentecostals know, we are also told we are “buried with Christ by baptism” in Romans 6:3–4). More precisely, by faith Noah saved his house by building an ark by faith (Hebrews 11:7). Would Noah have saved his house if he’d replied, “Oh, I don’t need to build an ark. God is powerful enough to save me by grace alone through faith alone.” Yeah, that would have gotten Noah a long way! No! It would have proven just how disobedient he was, rather than displayed his obedient faith.

Many people get the idea of “obedient faith” wrong because they aren’t hearing the whole counsel of God. They are “cherry-picking,” which means they pick the passages they want to hear and downplay and ignore the ones that don’t fit their preconceived opinion. For example, in response to the misguided “faith alone” dogma, there is only one verse in the whole Bible with the words “faith” and “alone” in the same breath. This one:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2:17, KJV)

Faith alone is dead faith, so why do people build their whole salvation plan on dead faith? This is one clear verse that plainly contradicts the “by grace alone through faith alone” rejection of water baptism for remission of sins.

Furthermore, the fact is, we don’t really know if the thief was or wasn’t baptized! In fact, chances are better that he was baptized than that he wasn’t. Why? Because of what the Scripture says:

⁴John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. ⁵All the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem went out to him. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:4–5)

If all were baptized, who’s to say the thief was not baptized? Not only is it written that all the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem were baptized, but we are also told what the state was of those who refused to be baptized:

²⁹When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they declared God to be just, having been baptized with John’s baptism. ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God, not being baptized by him themselves. (Luke 7:29–30)

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God by not being baptized. So then, even though they were on the other side of the cross, and thus under the Old Covenant, they could still be held accountable for not submitting to God’s latest command through His prophet John the Baptist!

By their mutual rejection of the necessity of water baptism, even for those “under the law,” we see that those who use the thief on the cross as an excuse for not accepting the necessity of baptism for repentance have more in common with the Pharisees than they do with the actual, true believers! The believers, who did submit to baptism, declared, by that action, that God was just!

So, what we are seeing is that the “thief on the cross” ploy is just an excuse people use to keep from submitting to what God’s word commands! Even though it is supposedly based on building a doctrine from what the Bible implies, it is not founded on what the Bible clearly says; in fact, it actually opposes what the Bible does explicitly say! And that is exactly how the doctrines of both Trinity and Modalism were developed: by using the same method of interpretation as those who use the “thief on the cross” ploy. In all three of these cases, their doctrine isn’t based on what the Bible clearly and explicitly says and explains, but what they see implied and then presume it must mean, which then contradicts what is written somewhere else in the Bible.

This is why it is such a big deal that only the Son of God doctrine was openly proclaimed in the Bible, consistently confessed, and clearly spelled out and explained throughout the Bible, and it doesn’t need any extrabiblical or nonbiblical terms or phrases to describe it!

Our challenge in convincing Onenessians is that they are trained and conditioned to respond to challenges to their man-made interpretation! In fact, they often respond in the same way that Trinitarians respond to challenges to the Trinity. And it’s the same way the “faith only” groups respond with their pet Scriptures. Yet proof-texting as an interpretive method goes against the biblical rules telling us how to properly interpret the word of God. Yes, there is a right and a wrong way to interpret the Bible. And both are spelled out in the Bible. In fact, once you learn these rules, it doesn’t matter what teaching you come up against; these same tools will allow you to biblically discern how any doctrine is formulated and whether it is truly biblical or not.

So our next point of business is to clarify this pivotal issue: how to rightly interpret the Bible, using biblical rules of interpretation that no one will be able to honestly refute!

 Print This Post