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

In the last chapter, we emphasized that Jesus, “he, himself” (Hebrews 2:18) was tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). And then he told us to overcome even as he overcame (Revelation 3:14, 21).

Jesus’ temptations would have no legitimacy whatsoever as being examples to us of how to overcome if he was God Himself incarnate. It would be impossible for us to overcome “even as he overcame” if he were God incarnate unless we also are “God incarnate.” And, whether they realize it or not, that is what those who insist Jesus is God incarnate are implying. Which means they are, again, repeating the devil’s temptation, “you shall be as gods knowing good and evil.” That’s because the Bible plainly says that when he reappears, we shall be like him (1 John 3:2) and every Christian knows that. Which also explains why overcoming the world is to believe, not that Jesus is God incarnate, but that Jesus is the “son of God.” Which we are going to demonstrate in this chapter.

To begin with, Jesus’ overcoming of temptation by being faithful unto death was much more than merely “keeping God’s commandments.” What Jesus ultimately overcame was the human lust for power that the “failures” we’ve often referred to failed at overcoming. Overcoming the human lust for power, that is, “to be like God,” was by far Jesus’ greatest accomplishment. And he could only do it by being entirely and exclusively human.

If he were “God incarnate” in either the Trinitarian or Oneness sense, he couldn’t have ever stopped knowing he was God. He could have never stopped knowing that he could not fail. He could have never stopped knowing his eternal purpose. He could have never truly been afraid of death. This list could go on and on.

I’ve heard Trinitarians falsely claim that they can overcome everything Jesus overcame with the view of Jesus being God incarnate. But that is self-deception and a lie. A very big lie. Why? To begin with, Trinitarians interpret the Bible according to their own opinions and imaginations and that is how they “conclude” that “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance.” To be a Trinitarian, then, is to be someone who thinks that “God is entitled to his own opinions” and “it is ok to disagree with him” regarding the first commandment and it is that attitude that enables them to feel they have the anointing or authority or reasoning ability to add to and take away so much Bible that contradicts the man-made doctrine of the Trinity.

I say this because my target audience right now is Onenessians who realize this is the case with Trinitarians. But if my target audience were Trinitarians, I could say the same about Onenessians (who likewise believe they have the anointing and authority and reasoning ability to redefine Jesus as being God the Father Himself incarnated as a dual natured individual in the “mode” of a son). The point being, a Trinitarian, by the fact of being a Trinitarian, has failed to “overcome the world” by the very fact of their insisting on adopting and maintaining the world’s view of “gods come to earth in the form of men” (Acts 14:11). And that applies to Onenessians as well. And the way they both arrive at their distinctive doctrines is, as we’ve been showing, by applying their own opinions through the devil’s method of jumping to conclusions, and creating false dilemmas, that negate what God has already explained to us through the Bible. Which is all first enabled by some level of a “God complex” whereby they believe they have been empowered to redefine the God they worship on their own terms. And at that point, they then become “creators of gods,” which also reveals their desire to “be like god knowing/determining” totally in line with the serpent’s original lie.

If that is not true, nor accurate, then take the challenge that is being presented in this study. Show where the Oneness (or Trinity if you are Trinitarian) is Named, Proclaimed, Confessed, AND Explained in the Bible. Failing that, what are you left with? There is no biblical excuse or authority given to mankind to redefine God and His son in man-made terms. That is the definition of idolatry.

Another way in which neither Trinitarians nor Onenessians can possibly “overcome” everything Jesus “overcame” is their view of Jesus as a dual natured individual. Which, as I’ve previously demonstrated, is a doctrine that was invented by antichristian Gnostics who also did not want to accept that Jesus was “the Anointed One, the son of God,” as defined by God as David’s offspring and heir to David’s throne.

So then, what does the scripture teach and explain? If Jesus were God Almighty incarnate as a man, we should expect to see the apostles making that their consistent and priority message. And that is what this “Bible Challenge” is all about. To give Onenessians an opportunity to gather and quote all the places where the Bible openly and clearly preached, taught, and explained the unique details of their unique view that “God the Father himself has come to earth in the form of a man.” After all, that is what Onenessians openly preach and teach. So why doesn’t the Bible? Why do they have to search for proof texts and then explain with extrabiblical words what they claim such texts mean, but don’t come out and say, if their doctrine was taught all over the place in the scriptures?

On the other hand, if Jesus was a man approved of God, who was exalted by God for being the one to overcome the worldly, humanistic, pride of life, where all others had tried and failed, then we should expect to see the apostles consistently and openly preaching and teaching and explaining just that.

So, which one of the above two explanations of Jesus do we consistently and often find in the Bible?

The latter, by far. Let’s read and see…

“³A Man of sorrows… ⁵he was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities… ¹¹My righteous Servant shall justify many, For he shall bear their iniquities. ¹²Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, And he shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because he poured out his soul unto death, And he was numbered with the transgressors, And he bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:3, 5, 11–12; NKJV)

What is clearly explained in the above as indicated by the words “because” and “therefore”? 1) his sacrificial death; 2) his being “numbered with the transgressors” (that is, he was made in all things like his brethren, as described in Hebrews 2:17–18); 3) his having borne the sins of many; and 4) his having “made intercession for the transgressors.” No explanation of him being the “mode” of son here.

The following twin passages provide two more explanations of why Jesus was anointed and exalted above the rest of us, his brothers:

“You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” (Psalm 45:7)

“You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” (Hebrews 1:9)

Jesus loved righteousness and hated wickedness, and those are two more “therefore” reasons why God anointed him above the rest of us. Anyone who rejects the truth clearly stated in these passages minimizes what Jesus Christ accomplished as a human person. Men have made up the idea that he was God acting as a man, but they have absolutely no Scriptures that clearly explains that. Such an idea certainly isn’t explained here. So, only in their “imagination” was he a dual natured individual in order to justify their opinion, which replaces God’s stated explanations in these passages.

Here is yet another “therefore” type passage in which Jesus tells us the reason why God his Father and our Father did not leave him alone:

“He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for [because, since] I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” (John 8:29)

Again, we see a clear and specific reason given for a result between two distinct personal pronouns. This isn’t the person of God’s human nature speaking to his deific nature; this is between two personal individuals. Nor is there any explanation here of Jesus being a “mode” of the person of the Father; such an idea is contraindicated by what is explained.

This next passage explains the exact reason that Jesus was given a name above all names. Once again, it wasn’t because he “was God”; rather, it was because he was obedient to the one who commanded him:

“⁵Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, ⁷but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. ⁸And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. ⁹Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, ¹¹and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ¹²So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:5–12)

This passage is often misunderstood, but if we use other Scriptures that talk about the same topic, we can gain a better understanding. For example:

“¹⁷Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. ¹⁸No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father. (John 10:17–18)

When we compare and interpret these two passages together, it should be hard to miss the true meaning. The first thing to note in Philippians is that it begins and ends with how we are to think and how we are to put those thoughts into action. Certainly, we aren’t supposed to think that we consciously eternally preexisted and temporarily submitted ourselves to be made human so that we could show how submissive we can be to our deific nature. But that is basically what it means if viewed through the lenses of Trinitarians and Onenessians.

The next thing it says in Philippians is that Christ existed “in the form of God,” which refers to the truth that he is the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was also made in the form, or image, of God. Adam was told the purpose of mankind was to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. So, Philippians 2:5-12 is really explaining quite clearly to us that Jesus was exalted because he overcame where Adam succumbed. Adam, being in the form of God, was given dominion just as was Jesus, and that is what “form of God” signifies commonly in both cases, but Adam decided that meant that he could decide for himself, autonomously, what is right or wrong. Jesus, on the other hand, never succumbed to that temptation; rather, he overcame by saying, “not my will but yours be done.”

Again, this does not say, “not my mode of son’s will be done, but my mode of father’s will be done.” According to John 10:18, Onenessians would have us believe that God commanded himself to obey His own commandment, which again exposes the dual nature, and their rejection of Jesus as truly human.

Philippians goes on to explain exactly how Jesus overcame Adam’s failure: by his obedience even unto death. And if we are confused about what this all means, we have Jesus’ own explanation that the Father loves him because he lays down his life. Jesus explained that he received this as a commandment from his Father. This shows that Jesus neither was the Father (as in Modalism), nor was he “coequal” with the Father (as in Trinitarianism) and that he always allowed Father’s definition of what was right and wrong to influence and direct his thoughts, attitudes, and actions.

Now think about how nonsensical the passage of Philippians 2:5-10 becomes if it was relating a case where God “robed himself in flesh,” and pretended to be human, while retaining full knowledge and awareness of His deity, and pretended to “overcome” what he could never fail at doing, and then claiming to exalt himself for the great feat of “overcoming” unto death while knowing without a doubt he couldn’t die, but that at worst he could only suffer a minor “flesh wound.” What message of example would that truly send to us? That we can pretend to be something we’re not as well? Again, what a terrible sham the incarnation views of Jesus make of what Jesus accomplished as a man by overcoming what literally every other human had failed at.

Along these same lines, and totally in harmony with what we’ve just seen explained by the Scriptures, the Book of Hebrews provides yet another “because… therefore” passage.

“¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who [personal pronoun] was faithful to Him [personal pronoun] who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house. ³For he has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. ⁴For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. ⁵Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken, ⁶but Christ is faithful as a Son over his house; whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:1–6)

Jesus, “who” number one, (not “human nature”), was faithful to another “who,” his Father, who is God, and Jesus was therefore, as verse 3 says, “counted worthy” of more glory and honor than Moses. The point this passage clearly explains is that he (Jesus) had to be faithful to Him (God the Father) who appointed him (Jesus). These personal pronouns specifically mean, not merely imply, different and separate “personalities” and not “two natures” in one personality. This demonstrates that Jesus was not explained here as being inherently worthy by “deific substance” (as in Trinitarianism), nor was he an incarnation of the Father (as in Modalism). None of the language of either of those opinions is clearly or openly taught in these passages (or any other); those ideas have to be artificially imposed and read into them. Rather, it says he had to prove himself through faith; thus, Jesus was “faithful to Him who appointed him.” Faith (or hope) that is seen is not faith; Jesus couldn’t “hope” to please “himself” all the while knowing he was the “who” he was “hoping” to please! This is another way in which Onenessians simply ignore or dismiss or reexplain away what the Bible says in order to assert their own imagination.

Furthermore, in saying that Jesus was faithful, and thereby counted worthy, this passage in Hebrews reiterated what was said in Psalms 45:7: “You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” It is in this context that God designated, exalted, and anointed Jesus above all his fellow human beings.

Following is yet another “because… therefore” passage found in John:

“¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, “Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. ²⁰For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he Himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. ²¹For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires. ²²For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, ²³that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father who sent him.

“²⁴Most assuredly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. ²⁵Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God’s voice; and those who hear will live. ²⁶For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. ²⁷He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. ²⁸Don’t marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, ²⁹and will come out; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. ³⁰I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.” (John 5:19–30)

This passage is packed with personal pronouns; but nowhere does Jesus say he was acting in the “mode” of “son” redefined as “the flesh” of a dual natured individual. Rather, Jesus explains himself as the son here to be personally distinct from the Father through Jesus’ use of “myself” in contrast to the Father (verses 19 and 20). Then, Jesus clearly explains again why he has the authority to judge: because the Father gave all judgment to the Son (verse 22). This means exactly what it says: that personality number one (God the Father) bestowed an authority upon personality number two (Christ Jesus), who did not previously have any authority inherent to his person. Thus, according to Jesus himself, he was neither coequal with the Father (as in Trinitarianism), nor was he simply an incarnation, nor “mode,” of the person of the Father (as in Onenessianism), clearly and explicitly because this authority was given to “him” by another “He” [i.e., Himself, verse 20] being God the Father.

Verse 27 clears up any issue or so-called mystery by explaining to us, again ever so clearly that Jesus was given this authority from God “because he is a son of man.” Thus, it isn’t talking about a deific nature giving His human nature its own inherent personal authority. Rather, the one personal God is bestowing upon another personal son this specific authority.

Finally, in verse 30, Jesus declares that his judgment is righteous not because he is God, but because he doesn’t seek his own will. 

And that is where Jesus explicitly explained that he did not succumb, as the previous failures had, by assuming their own autonomous authority. And all of this is explicitly explained and summarized in the following passages:

“¹⁷For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. ¹⁸So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. ¹⁹For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:17-19)

“²¹For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. ²²For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Think of how nonsensical all these explanations become if they are supposed to be explaining the non-personal flesh of the person of the Father speaking in the “mode” of being a son.

But these aren’t nonsensical, they aren’t myths, and they aren’t the “imaginations of men” that are to be cast down. These are biblically stated and clearly explained purposes and reasons, and thus not guesswork, jumped-to conclusions, or speculations.

All these Scriptural explanations are made totally and completely of no effect by Onenessianism. That is, unless and until they impose their man-made opinion, contrary to God’s scriptures, that “son” means “flesh” and “father” means “deity’ in a dual natured, single personality. 

This means that it is impossible to believe Jesus’ words and the Scriptures we’ve cited at face value while at the same time believing in Onenessianism without following the tradition of defiance that was set in motion by the devil in the Garden and was continued by all the major failures seen in the Bible. The apostles simply never explained Jesus as one individual that was made of two natures, nor that Jesus was merely a “mode” of the Father.

By explaining their “image” of Jesus in terms other than the Bible clearly, explicitly, and consistently explains, Onenessians are setting themselves, humanistically, as the authors and arbiters of morality instead of God just as the devil tempted Eve.

Anthony Mangun made the following claim:

“We believe in separate offices of God or manifestations of God the Father in the Son… The reason I believe in that is because I don’t want to be antichrist… You can’t deny the Father and the Son but what you’ve got to proclaim is both of them are one. Father is Spirit, Son is flesh…” Anthony Mangun, God in Christ, The Dual Natures of Christ, (DVD, 2006), Disc 4, track 1 at about 37:00–41:00.

If someone really wanted to “not be antichrist,” wouldn’t it make more sense, biblically, to not adopt the dual nature doctrine of the antichristians and to not take it upon oneself to redefine the Father and son contrary to what God Himself explained?

 Print This Post