The objection
Jesus says: Whoever sees me sees the Father. In him the entire fullness of deity dwells, and the apostles baptize in his name. Does this not support one God with different modes of revelation?
1. The dispute does not simply concern Jesus' deity
Oneness doctrine, for example in the UPCI's own account, confesses Jesus as God in flesh.[1] It must therefore not be treated as though it makes him merely an ordinary human. The decisive difference concerns the Son's relationship to the Father and the Spirit.
We must show that scripture connects full deity with real personal distinction. An argument for Jesus' deity alone does not yet answer this particular question.
2. John 14 explains seeing through revelation and fellowship
Jesus' statement is followed by the explanation that he is in the Father and the Father in him. A few verses later he says he will ask the Father, and the Father will give another Advocate. The immediate context therefore distinguishes the one asking, the one giving and the Advocate given.
Here perfect revelation does not mean that revealer and revealed are the same person. Precisely because the Son makes the Father perfectly known, the Father is known through him. If “seeing” meant personal identity, the context would have to immediately abolish its own distinctions.
3. The fullness of deity is no enumeration of the persons
Colossians 2,9 says that in Christ the entire fullness of deity dwells bodily. The text contradicts a merely partial or mediated deity of Christ.[2] It does not say that the Son as person is simultaneously the Father and the Spirit.
Likewise, the Spirit's activity at Jesus' conception does not make the Spirit Jesus' biological father. Luke 1,35 describes God's creative activity, not sexual begetting. Anyone deriving an identity of persons within God from the cause of conception confuses two different statements.
4. Jesus' name does not abolish the Trinitarian baptismal statement
Acts characterizes baptism as belonging to the crucified and risen Jesus. Its formulations need not be read as complete reproductions of every spoken baptismal word. Matthew 28,19 explicitly names Father, Son and Spirit.
The shared name is no proof that the three designations mean the same person. Otherwise this would first have to be justified against the personal relationships within the same Gospel witness. The stronger overall explanation preserves both: Jesus' full deity and the Father to whom he speaks, whom he reveals and by whom he is sent.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- United Pentecostal Church International, Our BeliefsTheir own account: Jesus is God in flesh; Father, Son and Spirit are explained within Oneness doctrine.
- Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian FaithOn the fullness of deity in Christ, pp. 252–253.