“Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5)

We began this topic in Chapter 3. Now let’s address the second half of the above verse. 

We’ve previously quoted many of the scriptures, particularly God’s definition of His son in 2 Samuel 7:11-14, and God’s sworn oath to David (Psalm 89:3-4, 35-36, 132:11; Acts 2:30–31), that God’s son would be David’s offspring. Admittedly, a typical Oneness response to the above scriptural definitions, is that none of these say Jesus is not a dual natured incarnation of the person of the Father. Hopefully you are beginning to catch on that the issue is not what it does not say, the issue is sticking only to what the Bible does openly and clearly teach and explain and doing so without negating what is explained. The Bible explicitly commands against adding doctrines that it does not teach, saying, “command…men not to teach a different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3) and “learn not to think beyond the things which are written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

So, now, with the understanding that “proof texting” is not the way to arrive at truth, we will return to 1 John 5:5 and address, in the context of overcoming the world, why it is so crucial to understand the difference between believing in Jesus as “the son of God,” versus believing that Jesus is “an incarnation of the person of God.”

One major clue is the fact that, according to the Bible, the world says, “…The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” (Acts 14:11). Thus, this idea states the “Tradition of Defiance” view.

According to God’s word here, that is clearly something the world believes. So, it is a worldly, pagan idea that gods can come to earth in the form of men. But the Apostles preached otherwise…

“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…even as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)

The apostles overcame just such jumped to conclusions and false accusations of the worldly Pharisees and understood that Jesus wasn’t a man claiming to be God, but was a man approved of God who was faithfully obedient to God and was therefore worthy of being exalted above all others. That is what the Bible openly and clearly teaches when it is allowed to explain why Jesus is so exalted.

To understand why Jesus was exalted, it is critical to first understand that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin, which is why he was exalted.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” (Matthew 4:1)

“¹⁴Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold tightly to our confession. ¹⁵For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:14–15)

This scripture is very clear that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are. Furthermore, to emphasize this point, Jesus made our salvation conditional on whether we overcome even as he overcame.

“He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne. (Revelation 3:21)

To the contrary of Jesus being tempted, it is clearly explained to us that God himself cannot be tempted:

“¹³Let no man say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God,’ for God can’t be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one. ¹⁴But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. ¹⁵Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death.” (James 1:13–15)

So, according to morality as explained in God’s word, Jesus was tempted, and God cannot be tempted. But Onenessians want him to be both God and man. Therefore, to try to make the “temptation of Jesus” passages “fit” their doctrine, Onenessians take it upon themselves to redefine both “self” and “temptation” to be something other than what the Bible describes. And this is a major point where Oneness theologians have jumped the fence to align with the long running “Tradition of Defiance.” They have decided to redefine God and His son, not based on the “son of God” teaching, rather, they have instead decided to “determine what is right and what was wrong for themselves” autonomously, meaning, regardless of what God’s word explains to the contrary of their redefinitions.

But the problem there is, if God merely robed Himself in flesh while Jesus remained 100% God, then it could only have been the person of God that was tempted when Jesus was tempted. And that is contrary to what the Bible teaches and explains (being “God’s morality”) because in James it is written that the very person, the “himself” (Gr. “autós”), of God cannot be tempted. Contrary to both the Trinity and Oneness doctrines, the Bible teaches that the Son of God was tempted as to his personal self, his “autós”; thus, explicitly, “he himself” and not just his so-called human nature:

“¹⁷Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. ¹⁸For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:17–18)

The Greek “péponthen autós” [“he himself”] here explicitly states that he personally experienced temptation. This Scripture totally refutes the false imagination that Jesus was personally God but was only tempted as to his human nature. But only for those who allow God to explain morality; not so much for those who redefine morality according to their opinions. No Scripture explains Jesus as distinct between an imaginary “deific” nature in contrast to a “human” nature in one individual. 

The humanistic tradition of defiance claims, “God is entitled to his own opinions…it is okay to disagree with him.” This is clearly the very same worldly and carnal attitude that Onenessians have succumbed to by assuming for themselves the authority to redefine what God has defined otherwise. And by doing so, they are continuing in the long tradition of defiance exhibited by the devil, Eve, Adam, Cain, Kings Saul and Solomon, the Pharisees, Trinitarians, and so forth. 

To the contrary of man-made traditions that claim Jesus was only tempted as to ‘his human nature’, Hebrews 2:18 explains in specific detail that Jesus was tempted in his very person, which would be utterly impossible if he were the person of God incarnate. Notice how temptation is defined in the Bible:

“¹⁴But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.” (James 1:14)

Jesus was tempted in all points like we are. Therefore, he was tempted, according to God’s definition, when he was “drawn away of his own lusts and enticed.” Jesus was tempted, but he did not succumb.

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe God (Himself) doesn’t exist? Man is tempted to believe God doesn’t exist quite often if you haven’t noticed.

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe that there are other gods? Another common temptation of ours.

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe that He can make a man-made image of Himself (either physical or conceptual) and call that His God? 

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to bow down and worship Satan? For that matter, if Satan knew Jesus was God incarnate, how foolish would he have to be to believe his creator would worship him as God?

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe that as a man he had the authority to redefine God’s moral absolutes of good and evil? As we’ve quoted humanists, the devil, Eve, Adam, Cain, King Saul, Solomon, the Pharisees and even Trinitarians and Onenessians do.

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe that as a man he had the authority to redefine God’s (His own) very nature? Especially since what He had been explaining of Himself in scripture was already established absolute truth? Could God be tempted to lie about who and what He is like people obviously are tempted to do?

How can God, incarnate as a man, truly be “drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” being “in all points tempted like we are,” to believe that as a man he had the authority to redefine the relationship of God’s son (Himself) to His own Father (Himself)? After all, both Trinitarians and Onenessians have succumbed to the temptation that they have the authority to redefine Jesus as a dual natured individual.

Is it really so hard to see how ludicrous it is to claim Jesus can be God incarnate AND be tempted in all points like we are at the same time? The problem is, Onenessians don’t honor Jesus in this when they claim he was a God-man hybrid. Rather, they dishonor him by denigrating the monumental feat of overcoming all manner of our temptations that he did as the human, declared, son of God.

These are all legitimate questions because Onenessians say things like this:

“…Whenever Jesus speaks in Scripture we must determine whether He is speaking as man or as God… Sometimes it is easy to get confused when the Bible describes Jesus in these two different roles, especially when it describes Him acting in both roles in the same story. For example He could sleep one minute and calm the storm the next minute. He could speak as a man one moment and then as God the next moment.” David Bernard, The Oneness of God, 87–88.

There’s that devil-inspired, humanistic concept of taking up the authority to define morality upon oneself. As is clear, in the Oneness view, Jesus does not ever stop having inherent awareness of His deific person; that is, He never “stops” being “God” long enough to be tempted in all points as we are, as a human consciousness. The major problem with the above Oneness imagination and opinion is that it directly contradicts what the Bible explicitly teaches and explains and adds something the Bible never does explain. The Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus was only tempted as far as his human nature goes, or “role.” Nor does it explain that he switched back and forth between his human and deific consciousnesses. Rather, it does explicitly teach that “he himself” was tempted:

“…he also himself… he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers… in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14–18)

“He himself” was made like his brothers, just as “he himself” was tempted. The Bible doesn’t separate Jesus into dual natures, or any kind of “roles” for that matter. That idea is pure imagination and jumped to conclusion that is never taught or explained as such in the Bible but negates all the many scriptures wherein Jesus explained himself in terms of being an agent of God and personally distinct from God. This shows how clearly the Onenessians must add to and take away from what the Bible clearly teaches and explains in order to reexplain and assert their imaginary relationship between God and His son.

And they do that, because they have not overcome the world in believing that Jesus is “the son of God” as defined by God as David’s offspring, and instead insist he is “God incarnate as a man” according to their redefinition and rejection of God’s explicit teachings on the subject. That means that Onenessians not only use the devil’s method of interpretation to arrive at their “imagination,” but they have succumbed to the attitude inherent in every major failure in biblical history; they have decided they have the authority to redefine what God has already defined by His words. Apparently for them, God is entitled to His opinion even if He is wrong. Can you not see how dangerous that attitude is?

No human, no matter how close in time he was to the apostles, has the authority to add to and take away from teachings in the Bible! The reality of the matter is that everything Jesus said or did, he said or did as a man who was fully authorized by, and yet remained totally in submission to, God. That is what is “inherent” about the meaning and definition of both of his titles, “Christ” and “son of God.” 

“…I said, ‘I am going to my Father;’ for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Jesus did not say here that his deific nature is greater than his human nature. Nor is that Oneness and Trinitarian imagination taught anywhere in the scriptures. If Oneness is true, Jesus was misleading at best or a liar at worst.

As we’ve seen, Jesus reiterated this truth repeatedly! And that is the difference between viewing Jesus as the “son of God” (which is how to overcome the world) versus viewing Jesus as “God incarnate.”

For more evidence of this, that we’re not addressing a straw man, let’s consider what Oneness preacher Anthony Mangun said about Jesus, revealing his view of Christ. As you read this, consider what the Scriptures say about Jesus’ very real temptations, and ask yourself if this Jesus that Mangun is talking about could ever have been sincerely tempted in all things the way you and I are truly tempted, as the Bible clearly teaches. In this passage, Mangun is comparing his view of Jesus to that of Dan Brown’s in The Da Vinci Code.

“They called him a man because he was flesh and blood, but he was housing the Father Almighty God… I’m going to tell you Mr. Da Vinci Code, he never married… He had enough pressure on him being God, he didn’t need to be married. Can you imagine [him] coming home and sitting down… Mary [speaking to Jesus]: ‘Why you ten minutes late? Where’ve you been today? Who you been talking to? What you getting me for Christmas? I didn’t approve that new bass boat!’ He had enough pressure on him without being married… But can you imagine the pressure on her? ‘Hey, God, what’s happening today? What went on over the other side of the world today?’ He never had a child in spite of what Dan Brown has written; blasphemous!… He never had a child. He was the absolutely almighty God, born without sin.” Anthony Mangun, The Dual Natures of Christ, Disc 5, “Jesus the Man,” track 8 at 0:00–1:55.

So, you see, in the Oneness view, Jesus, himself personally, is thoroughly and inseparably God incarnate by identity and consciousness; He being fully aware of His deific personality at all times. And what “empowers” them to redefine Jesus as a “dual natured” individual? It is, as was mentioned before, the “dual nature” doctrine of the antichristian Gnostics.

“…foreseeing these blasphemous systems [Gnostics] which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that he was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: ‘Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared…’” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16, par. 5

Contrary to the scripture that teaches Jesus was obligated to be made like us in all things, but completely in line with certain Gnostic systems, in the Oneness view, God incarnate “has” flesh, but that is only an impersonal temple that his deific personal consciousness “dwells in.” The “human” part of Jesus, in the Oneness view, is therefore not really 100% human, because he has no human personality and no human consciousness apart, and separate from, deific consciousness (like us); rather, for them, that part of him is all God, just like in antichristian Gnosticism. 

As “God incarnate,” the Oneness Jesus could be asked what’s going on over on the other side of the world. If God incarnate could be aware of what is happening on the other side of the world, how could He forget that He created the devil that was tempting Him to worship him? How could He be tempted in any real sense as we are? Do you recall having consciousness of your deific side when you are tempted? I doubt you do. Therefore, in the Oneness view, Jesus’ real temptations are a sham, a pretend act, by a God who couldn’t possibly fail, and couldn’t possibly be drawn away by his own lust, and enticed, being in all points tempted like we are. Remember, God could already “feel” our pain even before He dwelled in the human temple of Jesus…

“⁸For he said, Surely, they are my people…so he was their Savior. ⁹In all their affliction he was afflicted…” (Isaiah 63:8–9)

Being afflicted in our afflictions is much different than being “drawn away by his own lust and enticed.”

The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in that way (in all points like us), and in order to be tempted, as James 1:14 states, he had to have “lusts” that could even be tempted in the first place! Only a human, separated consciously and personally from God, could have these kinds of “lusts” (or desires) that “every man” is tempted by. God cannot be tempted; so then, for the scripture to teach that Jesus was tempted by sin like us is to declare absolutely that Jesus is not personally God, who by definition cannot be tempted like we are. And the way Onenessians get around that is by adopting the same, unbiblical “revelation” as the Gnostics had: the blasphemous dual nature theory.

Which means there is an unbiblical revelation that needs to be addressed here. Notice how it is explained by the humanist Fredrick Edwords:

“…The positive side (of Humanism) is liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G. Ingersoll: 

“’When I became convinced that…all the…gods are myths, there entered into my brain… the feeling, the joy of freedom…I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free—free to think, to express my thoughts…free to judge and determine for myself…’ Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout ‘hallelujah!’“ –F. Edwords.

As with the humanistic “revelation” of liberty from God, the Oneness revelation is a revelation that “frees” the Oneness believer from all the supposedly “restrictive” and “oppressive” definitions and explanations that God gives of Himself and His son in the Bible, and allows Onenessians to “judge and determine” and define for themselves the “god” they want to worship. And that is what the hoopla is about when a Onenessian says, “it’s a revelation. You either get it or you don’t.” However, no one in the Bible ever confessed the revelation of the son of God being a “mode” of the person of the Father.

On the other hand, all these Onenessian and Trinitarian jumped to conclusions and extrabiblical imaginations are simply and immediately “cast down” when you overcome them by believing, like the Bible says, that “Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.”

Do you yet see the importance of the challenge on the table to show where your view of Jesus is Named, Proclaimed, Confessed, AND Explained?

Anything short of that, and choosing instead to negate what God has explained, is to align with the long running “tradition of defiance” of the humanists, the devil, Eve, Adam, Cain, King Saul, King Solomon, the Pharisees and even Trinitarians. At least the humanists are honest about their defiant attitude toward God; that he is “welcome to His opinions but they are only His opinions.” Isn’t that what Trinitarians do when they read the first commandment given by Jesus in Mark 12:29 and say, “well, what God means is one substance, not one person.” No, that isn’t what “God” means,” it is what Trinitarians want Him to mean. How much different is that than when Onenessians say, “well, God didn’t mean Jesus himself was personally tempted, just his human nature.” Same exact attitude, just a different topic.

We showed you patterns of how the apostles consistently preached that “Jesus is the Christ, the son of God” (and never once preached Jesus to be “God incarnate”). We showed you patterns of how Onenessians proclaim their doctrine by proof texting and jumping to conclusions which negate scores of explanatory scriptures to the contrary of their conclusions. And we’ve shown you that the common pattern of all the failures of faith in the Bible is to redefine and thereby negate what God’s word explains and how the Oneness method precisely aligns with that pattern for arriving at their belief.

Each of those major failures also show that another of the main temptations of created beings, whether men or angels, is to let assigned or presumed power and authority and/or even just autonomy of thought go to their heads. That is the “attitude” that caused each of them to redefine God and His morals. It began with Lucifer and spread to Eve and Adam, Saul, Solomon, the Pharisees, and so on.

But in Jesus’ case, unlike these other failures, the passing of the “tradition of defiance” stopped with Jesus Christ, the son of God, the second Adam, the offspring of David.

If Jesus wasn’t purely a man; if he was “God incarnate as a man,” then no man has ever overcome the temptation to be “like God.” If Jesus was “God incarnate,” that would prove that only God Himself could ever be trusted to not let authority go to one’s head. Redefining morality for oneself is, after all, the attribute that was common to all previous failures in the long “fellowship” of the “Tradition of Defiance.” So, it is critical to understand that Jesus had to be entirely human to justify God, Who judges against man, for thinking they could be on His level.

And that topic of Jesus’ overcoming is what we will address in our next chapter.

 Print This Post