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

Please note that this does not say, “Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity.” And it does not say, “Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the person of God the Father incarnate acting in the “mode” of son.” But before we get there, let’s start by asking, who or what is the “world” this is talking about? What is it that “the world” has fallen for, or succumbed to, that we are to overcome?

It is critical to understand the depths of this question in order to really see and understand the scope and ramifications of the difference between the “son of God” doctrine and others such as Oneness and Trinity. Therefore, before going on, we’re going to begin this subject, raised by 1 John 5:5 here, and take it back up later in chapters 14-16 with further points. But first we will address what “not” overcoming the world looks like. We will do that by looking at things like questions that are raised by the Oneness view, and by how “proof-texts” are used exclusively to arrive at the Oneness view. But for now, we want to expose the “tradition of defiance” that is so prevalent in people’s attitudes that keeps many souls from overcoming the world. In other words, we’re going to first expose the heart and intent that enables the “formulation” of extrabiblical teachings like Trinity and Oneness.

“For the word of God is…able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

Simply put to “overcome the world” means to succeed where the rest of the world has failed. Accordingly, let’s consider the common factor in virtually all major failures in the Bible.

The first major failure in the Bible would be the fall of Lucifer, who wanted to be “like the most high,” and with him, apparently, a third part of the angels (Revelation 12:3–4, 9).

“¹²How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low! ¹³You said in your heart, “I will ascend into heaven! I will exalt my throne above the stars of God!… ¹⁴…I will make myself like the Most High!” (Isaiah 14:12-14)

Although this passage was written about the king of Babylon, this is also at least a “type” or “example” of what happened with the devil. Jude explains what happened to the angels like this:

“Angels who didn’t keep their first domain, but deserted their own domain, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6)

As we will see in chapter 13, the “first domain” of angels was as God’s agents, meaning messengers and legal representatives of YHWH. But, if we consider Isaiah 14 as referring to Lucifer, he wasn’t content with being a mere messenger of the most high, he wanted to be like the most high. He wanted to be the one who defines good and evil, morality and immorality for himself.

This is the source, the beginning of the “Tradition of Defiance.”

Jesus said,

“the devil…was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because…he is a liar, and its father.” (John 8:44)

The devil became “the father of lies” beginning with the temptation that he proposed to Eve, the next major failure in history…

“¹Now the serpent was more subtle than any… ⁴The serpent said to the woman… ^{5for God knows that… you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1-5)}

There is more to this than meets the eye. It means having within oneself the authority to determine morality for oneself. Note this scholar’s explanation…

“Adam relied on his own skill… he didn’t rely on God, and he decided that he was the one who would determine what was right and what was wrong for themselves. That’s what the phrase the knowledge of good and evil means. It means I am going to decide for myself what is right and what is wrong; I am going to be morally autonomous. And that’s what it means to think like God.” Dr. Peter Gentry, Southern Seminary, https://youtu.be/UzSHFiVsUGU (Emphasis added)

So, it was not merely knowing or recognizing good and evil, but even further, it was the idea of having the inherent ability and authority to define and/or redefine what is good and evil that the devil was proposing. Why? Because what he did, and what he was tempting Eve to do, was to redefine what God had already clearly established as morally right and wrong. So, the devil was conspiring with Eve to supersede God’s moral commandment in order to replace it with a redefinition of their own making. And that reflects exactly what Lucifer had done in his relationship with God in heaven; he redefined what God had established for angels, and replaced it with the idea that he could be like the most high.

And the “Tradition of Defiance” began.

Savvy Onenessians will recognize that Trinitarians applied this same attitude in developing the Trinity in order to change the first commandment that God is one into, instead, “God is three persons in one substance.” That is what “deciding for themselves” looks like.

Why is all this a problem? It is because God alone has the authority to define morality (including Who He is and how we should understand Him); and He has done so very clearly and carefully for us.

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting, unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’.” (Romans 7:7)

This idea of creation elevating itself to be like the most high regarding “moral autonomy” can be seen reflected precisely in the following definition of “humanism” from the American Humanist Association…

“What is Humanism?… The word… has a number of meanings… Renaissance Humanism is… confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood…
“The Secular Humanist tradition is… a tradition of defiance…
…Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of “God’s Moral Standards.” I said, “If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!… Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is ok to disagree with him, her or it… Since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God’s will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition.” –F. Edwords, https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/edwords-what-is-humanism/

Notice that this is where our term “Tradition of Defiance” comes from: the humanists. Biblically minded Christians should readily see the influence of the devil’s temptation upon the viewpoint of humanism. Humanists defiantly declare they, not God, determine for themselves what their moral standards are. This is clearly beyond merely “knowing” good and evil but extends to deciding and judging matters of what is good and evil for themselves, regardless of, and even contrary to, God’s “opinion.” This is what it looks like to have an attitude of being “like gods knowing good and evil.”

The next major failure was when Cain slew Able. Cain sacrificed the fruit of the ground, but Able the firstlings of his flocks. The latter precedence had been set by YHWH when Adam and Eve sinned, and God clothed them with animal skins that had to have been “sacrificed” to cover their naked bodies. Cain was attempting to apply his own opinion as to what is good and evil (See Genesis 4:17). God told Cain, “If you do well, will it not be lifted up? If you don’t do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it” (Genesis 4:7). Clearly, God’s expectation to mankind was to overcome their desire to determine good and evil for themselves and submit to God’s standards of morality.

The next major failure was during the days of Noah.

“Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5). Again, we see man choosing for themselves their own moral standards, which, again, turned out to be in opposition to God’s definitions. It is written to us as Christians that our warfare is to “cast down imaginations and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Another major failure was at Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18. They also rejected God’s standards of morality and burned in their lusts man for man and woman for woman.

Then there was the incident of the golden calf at Mount Sinai. While Moses was still on the mount hearing from God, the children of Israel took it upon themselves to redefine their God as a molten image. Which was yet another case of man defining morality for themselves contrary to God’s definitions of good and evil. The reason the first commandment is the first moral commandment isn’t because God is egotistical. Rather, it is simply because there is no greater injustice and insult than for man to define, and thereby “create” the “god” he worships, rather than man allowing his true Creator to do the defining and explaining of Himself to man. When God does so, and man “disagrees” or ignores God’s explanations, man is choosing for himself a “god” of man’s own creation. And that is what idolatry is.

Then there was King Saul, who could have had an everlasting kingdom like David, but he failed God. And how did he fail? Saul had been anointed prince of God’s inheritance, and had been told by Samuel…

“6and the Spirit of Yahweh will come mightily on you, and you shall prophesy with them, and shall be turned into another man. ⁷Let it be, when these signs have come to you, that you do as occasion shall serve you; for God is with you.” (1 Samuel 10:6-7)

But he had also told Saul,

“You shall go down before me to Gilgal; and behold, I will come down to you, to offer burnt offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace offerings: you shall wait seven days, until I come to you, and show you what you shall do.” (1 Samuel 10:8)

Saul failed YHWH by being disobedient by, again, redefining his own version of morality contrary to God’s definition. In this case, he failed to wait for Samuel the priest and took it upon himself to make an offering before Samuel arrived. Samuel told him he had disobeyed the commandment of the Lord and would lose his kingdom because of it (1 Samuel 13:10-14).

Then Saul disobeyed again in the matter of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. Samuel had given him a command from God to utterly destroy all the Amalekites, including their livestock (1 Samuel 15:3). However, King Saul decided to sacrifice the best unto the Lord (vs 8-9). When Samuel returned, Saul exclaimed, “I have performed the commandment of Yahweh” (1 Samuel 15:13). Samuel was shocked at Saul’s disobedience, even while Saul was claiming obedience. This is the well-known passage where Samuel explained that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and [iniquity]. Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, He has also rejected you from being king” (1 Samuel 15:22–23).

The concept of Saul believing he was being obedient when he was disobedient helps us understand the scene in the Garden of Eden. In both cases they seem to have felt they were keeping God’s commandment to them. The serpent tempted Eve into believing that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a good thing and to be desired. She may have been tempted to believe that this was what God intended, from Satan’s words, “For God does know…” implying this was God’s intention. This is how Eve was seduced to believe that Satan’s lie was God’s unspoken intention.

In like manner, for example, Trinitarians admit the scripture doesn’t describe God as a Trinity of persons, yet they claim that is nevertheless “what God meant.” They realize, at best, their Trinity doctrine is only implied in Scripture (even though it goes against what is explicitly commanded and explained of God). They use this excuse to imply that describing the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a job left up to them. That is the same type of presumption that the serpent assumed for himself. It is also the same type of presumption that King Saul presumed for himself. Thus, they all fall under the category of the “Tradition of Defiance.”

So, we are seeing a definite pattern in what it looks like when people presume authority for themselves to interpret and explain God and/or morality on their terms and not on God’s.

Solomon was another case of eventually redefining morality contrary to God’s definitions. (See Deuteronomy 7:1-3; 17:17 and 1 Kings 11:1-13)

This same type of failure, redefining morality, happened again with the Pharisees, our next example. They claim that their oral traditions inspired a greater joy and love of God…

“The Rabbis maintained that ‘things not revealed to Moses were revealed to Rabbi Akiba and his colleagues.’ The role of the sages in interpreting the word of the Bible and their power to issue new ordinances are basic elements of Jewish belief, and something for which our sages found sanction in Deuteronomy 17:11. The Torah was compared to ‘a fountain which continually sends forth water, giving forth more than it absorbs. In the same sense, you can teach (or say) more Torah than you received at Sinai.’
“In their intention to inspire greater joy and love of God, the Rabbis expanded the scope of the law, imposing more and more restrictions and prohibitions. ‘There is no generation in which the Rabbis do not add to the law.’” Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man; A Philosophy of Judaism (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1983), 302-303.

This quote demonstrates the opposite attitude from Jesus. What Jesus renounced as making “void” the word of God (in Matthew 15:3–9; Mark 7:6–13), the rabbis considered “their intention to inspire greater joy and love of God.” The rabbi’s decided for themselves what was good and evil. Also note that the rabbi’s claimed their traditions were authorized in the Bible, just as Trinitarians and Onenessians claim.

As we have mentioned, whether they admit it or not, the Trinitarians applied the same humanistic reasoning in developing the Trinity doctrine. Thus, the Trinity doctrine is another example of a failure to uphold God’s express definition of what is good and evil… in this case, who and what He, God, is. This was a transgression of both the first and the second commandment. They claim that all their “proof texts” indicate that “what God meant” (even though God never said so), was their imagination of “a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance.” But as we “son of God” believers, and Oneness believers also realize, is that isn’t what the Bible teaches or explains anywhere and it is contrary to God’s first moral commandment, that God is one.

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10)

The love of money is a lust for power to do one’s own will. It is one of the opposites of trusting in God as provider, of both goods and morality. The more money one has the more power they have to choose and determine for themselves their own destiny and even to influence the destiny of others. When we think of the ultimate “lovers of money” we could think of people like the Rothschilds, or Bill Gates or George Soros and those type of people. Look what they are using their money for–basically playing God in hordes of people’s lives. The ultimate end of their lust for power exposes the “love of money” as being the root cause of this prophecy:

“16He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to be given marks on their right hands or on their foreheads; 17and that no one would be able to buy or to sell unless he has that mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)

If you have been paying attention to what is going on in the world, Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) Scores are now upon us. This means that the “love of money” folks have taken their lust for power to such an extent that they have determined a new set of moral standards for us, explained by them of course, and contrary to God’s moral laws and priorities. This is the world system we are commanded to come out of that is fast approaching.

“I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don’t receive of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4)

Ironically, just like the serpent tempted Eve in the Garden, this New World Order crowd claim to be implementing these standards for the good of us, society. Jesus said, “25…The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26But not so with you. Rather, the one who is greater among you, let him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves” (Luke 22:15-16). But today’s “love of money” benefactors set on controlling our world are as concerned about us as the devil was looking out for Eve when he tempted her. The real motive in either case is power to control and increase in control.

So, what does all this have to do with our challenge to Onenessians? It’s that the “love of money” folks who are ushering us toward the reign of antichrist, represent the ultimate “end product” of the long-standing “Tradition of Defiance.” The A/C’s system is a combination of financial, governmental, military, and spiritual/religious factors or branches. All of which will ultimately stand together in opposition to God and His son, and God’s definition of Himself and morality (good and evil) for us. When people take upon themselves the role of redefining God and morality, they have aligned themselves with the spiritual/religious branch of the devil’s “Tradition of Defiance” being manifested in this system. Hopefully this should shock any Christian out of the arrogant idea that man has the authority to redefine our Creator and His son in one’s own terms according to one’s own opinions. And therefore, it is just as important to identify the “character” of that temptation that the adversary tempts us all with.

This leads us to another aspect of the “Tradition of Defiance” mindset, and that is one of compulsory compliance. This can be seen, clearly, with how the current New World Order folks will be imposing their standards on us and controlling us through those standards. This level of control can also be seen in the Pharisees who, “taught as commandments the traditions of men” (Mark 7:7). Similarly, once the Trinity was formulated in the fourth century, Trinitarian leaders held people accountable to believe in the man-made image they had created. This is called having one’s own righteousness instead of the righteousness, which is from God by faith, which faith comes from hearing the word of God.

“⁷However, I consider those things that were gain to me as a loss for Christ. ⁸Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be a loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ ⁹and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith, ¹⁰that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death, ¹¹if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:7-11)

Do Onenessians believe they have acted any differently? Well, let’s see. Does the Bible ever command anyone to “believe that Jesus is the person of the Father incarnated as a man in the ‘mode’ of son” and anyone who believes otherwise should be anathema? Absolutely not. And yet, for example, when I, as a Oneness, began challenging that “golden calf” of the Onenessian’s formulation, I began to be considered by them as wayward and aberrant for not submitting to their man-made redefinition of God and His son. So, to them, limiting myself to believing in only biblically stated definitions of God’s son was not enough. I had to also believe in their man-made definitions and constructs, or I was considered back slidden and in gross error. Do Onenessians have the right, the authority, and/or the anointing to compel someone to comply with their traditions of men as if they were commandments of God? Not any more than the Pharisees. Not anymore than the Trinitarians. Not any more than the leaders of the New World Order. Do you see the comparison and the similarity?

“…We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

All of this is meant to explain and emphasize why it is so important for us to let God define Himself and morality for us rather than us defining either of them for ourselves. Which is why the challenge to Onenessians being presented here is so significant.

What Onenessians typically fail to realize is that they apply the exact same type of humanistic reasoning, that we see patterned in all the above examples of “failures,” in order to develop and defend the Oneness doctrine.

“¹Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things. ²We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. ³Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? ⁴Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:1-4)

Onenessians, just as Trinitarians do, claim that all their “proof texts” indicate that “what God meant” (even though God never said so), was their man-made imagination that “Jesus is a dual-natured incarnation of the Father, and ‘Father’ refers to His ‘deific nature’ and ‘son’ refers to his ‘human nature’.” But as we, and our Trinitarian neighbors realize, that isn’t what the Bible teaches. That is a “man made construct” just as much as the Trinity is. Furthermore, it is also contrary to God’s clear and consistent definitions that His son is the offspring of David and is an agent of God and thus not the “identify” of God.

Which simply identifies the Oneness formulation as just another clear case of man “determining for themselves what is right and wrong” and making themselves “morally autonomous” apart from God’s defined set of morals. Why? For one very important reason, to begin with, is because, “fathers” and “sons” are moral relationships between two separate people by God’s definition.

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” (Exodus 20:12; see also Ephesians 6:2-3)

One of Jesus’ prime examples against the Pharisees who made God’s commandments void, was through their practice of redefining, and resultantly negating, the moral values of the relationship between children and their parents:

“⁹…Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. ¹⁰For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’… ¹¹But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;’ ¹²then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 13making void the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:9–13)

Likewise, Onenessians believe they have the autonomous authority to change the meaning of “father” and “son” to “modes” of the same personal individual in Jesus. But this is a major problem, not just because it aligns their attitude of putting themselves in the place of being God in redefining morality, but because denying the “Father” and “son” is to enter the “antichristian zone” of understanding…

“²²Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. ²³Whoever denies the Son, the same doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22–23)

To change the meanings of the words “father” and “son” to something different than what is biblically meant, such as the unbiblical idea of “modes,” is to disbelieve in the concept the apostle was referring to when using those particular, very common and well understood, words. What makes a father a father? The obvious answer is by having a son or daughter. Thus, if a man doesn’t have a “son,” but instead has a “mode” of himself, then that is not a son, and having a “mode” does not make someone a father.

Let me ask you, Are you a “mode” of existence of the person of your father? If you are a parent, is your son or daughter a “mode” of your personal existence and can you say in all honesty that when your child speaks or acts anything at all, they are just speaking and acting on your exact words and your exact actions? If not, then you are being a hypocrite in claiming that Jesus is a “mode” of the Father. Why? Because, to begin with, the words “father” and “son” are among the most basic words in any language or culture and certainly “daddy” and “mommy” are among the very first words practically every child ever born first learns, and these words are never meant to indicate to the infant that she or he is a “mode” of her or his parents. Furthermore, the words “father” and “son” are used quite extensively and consistently in the Bible to explain the exact relationship between Jesus and his Father, and you are fully aware what those terms truly mean, but the word or concept of “mode” is never once named or taught in the Bible. Therefore, for you to then dismiss the true meanings and substitute another artificial meaning is to deny what those words mean and to deny the faith that is based on the true meanings of those words. Even Jesus himself always spoke in terms of himself doing the works and speaking the words of his Father, but never once explained himself as a “mode” of the Father.

Thus, saying the son is a “mode” of the “father” creates confusion. And those who believe that Jesus was not a personally distinct son from the Father, but something different of their own “imagination,” are the very ones John was writing against in 1 John 2:21–23! In God’s case the Father Himself defined His son in 2 Samuel 7:12-14. He never defined His son as a “mode” of Himself. So, the second half of 1 John 2:22 clearly exposes “modalism” as having its basis in what God’s word defines as antichristian doctrine. And that would make Onenessians guilty of “determining for themselves truth and falsehood,” thus aligning themselves with the long “Tradition of Defiance.”

This is true about the first half of verse 22 as well. “22Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One?…” The Bible, God’s word, not Onenessians, defines who the “anointed one” is. And it does so clearly in Hebrews chapter 5:

“⁴Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. ⁵So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.” ⁶As he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever…” (Hebrews 5:4–6)

The whole point of being “anointed” is that it is an “official” act of someone giving or bestowing honor or power on someone else. It is absolutely NOT something one takes on himself. God’s word does not “define” anointing as something one “mode” gives to another “mode” of oneself. And ever so clearly, the Bible says, “so also Christ.” But Onenessians believe they have the authority to change God’s definitions of morality just like the devil did, just like Adam and Eve wanted to do, just like Solomon did, just like the Pharisees did, and just like the Trinitarians have done. And thereby they perpetuate the long procession of the tradition of defiance initiated by the devil himself.

This is also true about the third definition of “antichrist” that John warns us of:

“…Many deceivers… don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. (2 John 7)

“…Every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist… (1 John 4:2–3)

When John wrote “came in the flesh” he was using a Jewish idiom for being born, and in this case, born completely human. For examples of this idiom, in John 16:21 we are told that a woman has “joy that a child has been born into the world.” And in 1 Timothy 6:7, Paul writes, “…we have brought nothing into the world…” We know we did not literally pre-exist and then we left everything we possessed when we passed through the womb to become humans. And yet, that pagan idea is what Incarnationists impose on their idea of Christ. But Christ himself claimed that he was “born,” not “incarnated”:

“Pilate therefore said to him, ‘Are you a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice’.” (John 18:37).

This means that, by interpreting the Bible the way the devil interprets God’s words, Onenessians have also, by no coincidence, aligned their view of Jesus with all three of the explicit definitions of the antichrist spirit given by John! The Bible teaches that in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established, and here we have three strikes against the Oneness doctrine as being of the spirit of antichrist. That is some serious stuff.

Now, having this “Tradition of Defiance” background established, before we look at how Jesus overcame the world by believing he was the son of God, we are going to first raise some serious questions about the Oneness view, and then we will take a good look at the “nuts and bolts” of how Onenessians use the devil’s method of “interpretation,” that they employ exclusively to arrive at their conclusion, which is “proof texting. Then we will get back to the subject of overcoming the world, in chapters 14-16.

“¹Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world… ⁶We are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God doesn’t listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1, 6)

 Print This Post