Oneness Pentecostalism: A Critical Examination of Contemporary Modalism
Oneness Pentecostalism: A Critique of Contemporary Modalism
J. Neil Daniels
Introduction
Oneness Pentecostalism—commonly referred to as the "Jesus Only" movement—constitutes a pronounced departure from the doctrinal foundations of historic Christianity. Arising between 1913 and 1916 within the Assemblies of God, the movement diverged sharply from classical Pentecostalism by repudiating Trinitarian theology in favor of a novel reinterpretation of the divine nature. Though birthed within a revivalist milieu, it has since developed into a distinct and theologically aberrant movement, encompassing several major denominations such as the United Pentecostal Church International, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and others, collectively claiming an estimated four million adherents worldwide.
Institutionally, Oneness Pentecostalism has established a robust infrastructure, including a denominational publishing arm (Word of Flame Press), educational institutions, social outreach ministries, and various media platforms. Public figures such as T.D. Jakes have drawn attention to the movement, particularly due to theological ambiguity surrounding their public statements on the Trinity. While Jakes has made overtures toward Trinitarian orthodoxy in dialogues with figures like Mark Driscoll, questions persist regarding the substantive nature of such claims.
Historical Context and Development
The genesis of Oneness Pentecostalism must be understood within the broader framework of early twentieth-century Pentecostal revivalism. Theological ferment during this period gave rise to internal disputes, particularly concerning the nature of the Godhead. Some leaders within the Assemblies of God began advocating a non-Trinitarian conception of God, ultimately leading to formal separation and the establishment of new ecclesial bodies. This episode echoes earlier theological controversies in church history, such as Sabellianism and Monarchianism, wherein attempts to defend divine unity resulted in distorted understandings of personhood within the Godhead.
More than a numerical phenomenon, the historical import of Oneness Pentecostalism lies in its departure from the ecumenical creeds and patristic consensus. While many Pentecostal groups retained adherence to Nicene orthodoxy, Oneness adherents adopted a revisionist theology that severed their doctrinal continuity with the broader Christian tradition.
The Doctrine of Modalism: A Rejection of Trinitarian Theology
Core Theological Position
The defining theological hallmark of Oneness Pentecostalism is its commitment to a modalistic understanding of the Godhead. Denying the existence of three coequal and coeternal persons, Oneness theology asserts that God is a singular person who reveals Himself in various modes or manifestations. David Bernard, a principal theologian within the movement, summarizes this position by asserting that "Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate," and that "the Oneness Pentecostal movement teaches that the biblical, apostolic, Christian doctrine of God... excludes the modern doctrine of the Trinity."
This framework collapses the eternal personal distinctions within the Godhead into functional roles or historical manifestations. Thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not seen as distinct persons but as sequential or simultaneous expressions of the one divine person—Jesus Christ.
Distinction from Classical Unitarianism
Though bearing similarities to Unitarianism in its rejection of Trinitarian doctrine, Oneness theology departs in notable respects. How do?Traditional Unitarianism often reduces Christ to a created being or an exalted man and denies the personal reality of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostals maintain the full deity of Christ but subsume all divine persons under the singular identity of Jesus. This attempted nuanced distinction renders Oneness theology a modern reiteration of the ancient heresy of modalistic monarchianism, rightfully condemned by early councils for failing to preserve the biblical portrayal of interpersonal relationships within the triune Godhead.
Critical Examination of Oneness Arguments
The Tritheism Objection
A frequent Oneness critique is the charge that Trinitarianism entails tritheism. Kenneth Reeves, for instance, contends that belief in three divine persons with attributes such as omniscience and omnipotence amounts to belief in three gods. Similarly, Bernard argues that inter-personal communication within the Trinity implies multiple centers of consciousness, and thus, polytheism.
Such objections reveal a categorical misunderstanding of Trinitarian metaphysics. Historic Trinitarianism affirms one divine essence subsisting in three persons—each person fully possessing the divine nature, yet without division or multiplication of the divine essence. Far from positing three gods, the doctrine of the Trinity safeguards monotheism while accounting for the inter-relational dynamics evident in Scripture.
The Terminological Argument
Oneness apologists frequently argue that the terms “Trinity” and “persons” do not appear in the Bible, and therefore lack biblical warrant. Bernard and Stegall contend that doctrinal formulations must restrict themselves to biblical vocabulary.
Upon a little thought, this line of reasoning fails by its own criteria. Oneness terminology—such as "manifestations" and "modes"—also lacks direct biblical attestation. As theologians such as Gregory Boyd have noted, the validity of a doctrine does not rest on the mere presence of its nomenclature in Scripture but on whether it faithfully articulates the content of divine revelation. Theological language, developed over centuries, serves as a conceptual scaffold for preserving the integrity of biblical teaching.
The Functional Unity Argument
Another Oneness argument holds that the shared actions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indicate that these are merely roles of the same person. Since each performs divine functions—such as creation, redemption, and sanctification—the distinction of persons is deemed unnecessary.
This argument confuses functional similarity with personal identity. The fact that distinct persons participate cooperatively in divine acts does not imply ontological sameness. Calvin Beisner aptly illustrates this by analogy: multiple athletes may perform identical feats, yet remain distinct individuals. Likewise, Scripture repeatedly presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as engaging one another in personal, relational discourse.
Soteriological Distinctives and Their Implications
Speaking in Tongues as Salvific Necessity
The soteriology of Oneness Pentecostalism includes the doctrine that speaking in tongues is the necessary evidence of Spirit baptism—and by extension, salvation. The United Pentecostal Church International asserts that saving faith entails repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, and the reception of the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues.
This theological position conflicts with the apostolic teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:30, where Paul rhetorically asks, "All do not speak in tongues, do they?"—clearly expecting a negative answer. To mandate tongues as a salvific criterion is to impose a theological burden unsupported by Scripture, thereby undermining the sufficiency of grace through faith.
Baptismal Requirements and Formulaic Restrictions
Oneness theology also demands baptism exclusively in Jesus’ name, in explicit rejection of the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19. This practice reflects not only a theological repudiation of the Trinity but also an elevation of liturgical form to a salvific necessity.
Such sacramental legalism is foreign to apostolic teaching. While Acts records baptisms “in the name of Jesus,” this is best understood not as a rigid formula, but as a theological declaration of allegiance to Christ. To make salvation contingent on the precise verbal articulation of a baptismal rite risks (and in fact actualizes) a sacramental reductionism that displaces the centrality of faith in Christ’s redemptive work.
Biblical Evidence for Trinitarian Doctrine
The Triadic Revelation in the New Testament
While the term “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture, the doctrine itself is clearly grounded in the biblical witness through the integrated testimony of both Testaments. Nowhere is the triune nature of God more vividly displayed than in the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:16–17), where the Son is baptized, the Spirit descends like a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven, affirming the Son with divine approbation. This scene offers a simultaneous manifestation of the three Persons, presenting them not as successive roles or modal operations but as coexistent and interactive agents. Modalistic interpretations are thus exegetically insufficient, for the event presupposes personal distinction, simultaneity, and harmony within the Godhead. Similarly, the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) commands baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The singular noun “name” (ὄνομα) followed by three distinct appellations signals unity of essence and plurality of personhood. These and other texts reinforce the classical Trinitarian affirmation: one divine essence subsisting eternally in three distinct Persons.
Interpersonal Relations within the Godhead
The Gospel of John offers beautiful and profound theological insight into the eternal relationship among the divine Persons, particularly in Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17). Jesus’ address to the Father is deeply personal, marked by reciprocal glorification, mutual love, and shared purpose. Far from rhetorical flourish, such language presupposes a genuine interpersonal dynamic within the Godhead. Christ prays for His followers to reflect the same unity He shares with the Father (John 17:21–23), a unity that is ontological and relational, not merely functional. This interrelation is further emphasized throughout the New Testament. The Father sends the Son into the world (Gal 4:4; John 3:16), the Son promises to send the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26), and the Spirit intercedes with the Father on behalf of believers (Rom 8:26–27). These operations of sending, glorifying, and indwelling are not interchangeable functions of a single person but the coordinated activity of three distinct Persons within the one divine essence. The economic roles of each Person in salvation history reflect and reveal their eternal personal distinctions, underscoring the Trinitarian framework of biblical theology.Old Testament Foundations and Hints of Plurality
Though less overt than the New Testament, the Old Testament nonetheless provides anticipatory insights into divine plurality within the unity of God. The plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) suggest a deliberative process within the Godhead that exceeds mere royal self-reference or divine council language. This pattern reappears in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7, and finds retrospective clarity in light of New Testament revelation (cf. John 1:1–3). Isaiah’s vision of the thrice-holy God (Isa 6:3) has likewise been interpreted by many theologians as a liturgical intimation of triune holiness, later reflected in the Trinitarian formulas of Christian liturgy. The Angel of the LORD passages (e.g., Exod 3:2–6; Judg 6:11–23) further contribute to this mosaic, as this figure both identifies with Yahweh and yet engages Him in personal dialogue, implying a distinction within the divine identity. These Old Testament threads, while not amounting to a developed doctrine, form the preliminary contours of Trinitarian theology, which the New Testament brings to completion as an expression of progressive revelation.
Trinitarian Ontology and the Christian Experience of God
The Trinity is not a speculative abstraction but the necessary conclusion of God's self-disclosure in redemptive history. The New Testament consistently presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as united in essence yet distinct in personhood, particularly in the cooperative operations of creation, incarnation, atonement, and sanctification. This relational ontology is central to Christian theology, for “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and love, by definition, entails personal communion. The Father loves the Son (John 3:35), the Son glorifies the Father (John 17:4), and the Spirit testifies to Christ (John 16:13–14) and proceeds from both (cf. John 15:26). This eternal communion within the Godhead stands in sharp contrast to both polytheistic division and unitarian singularity, offering a vision of divine unity that is neither static nor impersonal but dynamic, loving, and eternally personal.Patristic Witness to Trinitarian Doctrine
The early church’s articulation of the Trinity was not an extrabiblical innovation but a theological crystallization of the scriptural witness. The patristic tradition—particularly the theological labors of Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen—proved decisive in confronting and refuting the dual threats of Arianism and Sabellianism. Against Arian denials of the full deity of the Son and Sabellian conflations of the divine persons, these fathers upheld the coequality and coeternity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as essential to the Christian faith.
Athanasius, in his Orations Against the Arians, vigorously defended the eternal generation of the Son and His consubstantiality with the Father, declaring, “The Son is not from nothing, but from God; not made, but begotten” (Athanasius, Orationes Contra Arianos 1.9). His polemic laid the groundwork for the Nicene formulation of homoousios, affirming that the Son is of the same essence (οὐσία) as the Father. For Athanasius, to deny the Son’s full deity was to dismantle the entire economy of salvation: “He became man that we might become god” (De Incarnatione 54), a truth intelligible only within a robustly Trinitarian framework.
Basil of Caesarea, responding to the Pneumatomachian heresy, emphasized the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in On the Holy Spirit, asserting, “The Spirit is not divided from the Father and the Son in nature or in dignity” (De Spiritu Sancto 9.22). His distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person) proved critical for later conciliar definitions. Gregory of Nyssa, likewise, affirmed that in the Trinity there is “no division according to essence, but a distinction in the manner of existence” (Contra Eunomium 2.4).
Gregory Nazianzen, known as the “Theologian” of the Eastern Church, offered a concise yet profound summary of the orthodox position: “I cannot think on the One without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the Three; nor can I discern the Three without being straightway carried back to the One” (Orationes Theologicae 40.41). For Gregory, Trinitarian theology was not merely speculative but devotional, reflecting the inner life of God as revealed in the economy of salvation.
These patristic voices culminated in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381), which formalized the orthodox confession: one God in three coequal, coeternal persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The creed preserved the mystery of the divine nature while maintaining fidelity to the biblical testimony and refuting heretical distortions. As Robert Letham summarizes, “The early fathers did not invent the Trinity; they bore witness to it, developed its implications, and defended it against misrepresentation” (The Holy Trinity).
Thus, Trinitarian doctrine is not a later theological imposition but the necessary implication of Scripture’s unified witness and the church’s consistent teaching. It grounds Christian worship, prayer, and life in the relational being of God Himself. To embrace the doctrine of the Trinity is to enter into the eternal communion of divine love—the Father who sends, the Son who redeems, and the Spirit who indwells.
Contemporary Significance and Theological Assessment
The ongoing vitality of Oneness Pentecostalism illustrates the persistent appeal of simplified theological constructs that prioritize divine unity at the expense of biblical complexity. Despite affirming Christ’s deity and scriptural authority, the movement promulgates a non-Trinitarian theology that diverges sharply from the apostolic and catholic consensus.
Orthodox Christianity regards and thus rejects Oneness Pentecostalism as a modern reiteration of modalistic heresy. Its theology lacks the necessary conceptual apparatus to account for the inter-personal relationships revealed in Scripture, and its sacramental theology adds human conditions to the gospel of grace. Thus, it falls outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy.
Faithful engagement with this movement requires a renewed commitment to biblical literacy and doctrinal clarity. The Christian community must equip believers to discern truth from error, not merely for polemical victory, but for the spiritual wellbeing of those ensnared by theological distortions.
Conclusion
Oneness Pentecostalism is a theologically significant but deeply flawed movement that misrepresents the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Its modalistic interpretation of the divine being, coupled with its doctrinal innovations concerning salvation and baptism, place it in opposition to the historic Christian faith.
The challenge posed by Oneness theology underscores the necessity of theological vigilance. While acknowledging the sincerity of many adherents, the Christian church must lovingly and firmly articulate the triune nature of God and the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. Only by remaining tethered to Scripture as the final authority can the church guard the deposit of truth entrusted to it and faithfully proclaim the gospel in every generation.
For Further Study
Primary Sources
Bernard, David K. The Oneness of God. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2000.
———. The New Birth. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984.
———. Essentials of Oneness Theology. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1985.
United Pentecostal Church International. Articles of Faith. Hazelwood, MO: UPCI, 2020. https://www.upci.org/about/article-of-faith
Reeves, Kenneth V. The Godhead. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1966.
Stegall, William B. Understanding the Godhead. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983.
Secondary Sources (Books)
Beisner, E. Calvin. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1984.
Bickersteth, Edward H. The Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1957 reprint.
Butner, D. Glenn. Trinitarian Dogmatics: Exploring the Grammar of the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, Academic, 2022.
Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Emery, Gilles, and Matthew Levering, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Oxford:
Oxford University, 2011.
Garrett, James Leo., Jr. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Systematic, and Historical. 2 vols.
1990–95. Reprint. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. 1:305–38.
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology. 4 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002– 2005. 2:53–54, 278–312.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020. 269–337.
Hall, Christopher, and Roger Olson. The Trinity. Guides to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2002.
Harwood, Adam. Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, Systematic. Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Academic, 2022. 135–59.
Horton, Michael S. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
Ryken, Philip G., and Michael LeFebvre. Our Triune God: Living in the Love of the Triune God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011.
Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2010.
White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.
Yarnell, Malcolm B. God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.
Secondary Sources (Articles and Essays)
Beisner, E. Calvin. “Jesus Only: The Oneness Pentecostal Movement.” Christian Research Journal 10.3 (Winter 1988): 9–15. https://www.equip.org/article/jesus-only-movement/
Beisner, E. Calvin. “Oneness Pentecostalism: Heresy, Not Hairsplitting.” Christian Research Journal, August 9, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/oneness-pentecostalism-heresy-not-hairsplitting/
Beisner, E. Calvin. “Sharing Your Faith with a Oneness Pentecostal (Part 1).” Christian Research Journal, August 5, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/sharing-your-faith-with-a-oneness-pentecostal-part-1/
Beisner, E. Calvin. “Sharing Your Faith with a Oneness Pentecostal (Part 2).” Christian Research Journal, August 5, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/sharing-your-faith-with-a-oneness-pentecostal-part-2/
Boyd, Gregory A. “Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity and Trinity and Process.” Christian Research Journal, August 5, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/oneness-pentecostals-and-the-trinity-and-trinity-and-process/
Boyd, Gregory A. “The Trinity and Oneness Theology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27.1 (1984): 63–72. https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp063-072_JETS.pdf
Burgos, Matthew. “The Revival of Modalism: A Contemporary Assessment of Oneness Pentecostal Theology.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55.2 (Spring 2013): 209–25.
Feinberg, Paul D. “The Trinity: A Case Study in Implicit Truth.” Christian Research Journal, August 5, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/the-trinity-a-case-study-in-implicit-truth/
Foster, Michael B. “The Modalistic Monarchianism of the Early Third Century and Its Contemporary Reemergence in Oneness Pentecostalism.” Evangelical Quarterly 61.4 (1989): 291–312. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1989-4_291.pdf
Geisler, Norman L. “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Christian Research Journal, August 8, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/the-biblical-basis-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
Geisler, Norman L., and Ron Rhodes. “Is the Trinity Biblical?” Christian Research Institute. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-the-trinity-biblical/
Kreeft, Peter. “Loving the Trinity.” Christian Research Journal, August 3, 2010. https://www.equip.org/articles/loving-the-trinity/
Rhodes, Ron. “Is Oneness Pentecostalism Biblical?” Christian Research Institute. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/is-oneness-pentecostalism-biblical/
Sanders, Fred. “Understanding Nicene Trinitarianism.” Christian Research Journal, August 9, 2011. https://www.equip.org/articles/understanding-nicene-trinitarianism/
Schreiner, Thomas R. “The Biblical Basis for the Trinity.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 1.1 (Spring 1997): 6–30. https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/the-biblical-basis-for-the-trinity/
Tidball, Derek. “The Trinity and the Christian Life.” Evangelical Review of Theology 34.3 (July 2010): 204–15.
Wright, David F. “Triunity and Unipersonality: Patristic Responses to Monarchianism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 41.1 (1988): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600030981
Yandell, Keith. “The Doctrine of the Trinity: A Philosophical Analysis.” Religious Studies 23.3 (1987): 303–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500019057
I am so glad you wrote about this, my personal take and what I have experienced and seen in that church quiet frankly looks, sounds, feels like a cult. Even my ex husband use to tell me stories of how he grew up in the Pentecost church and how much they confuse him when it came to theology, he always left with so many questions that no one could answer. Thank the Lord for restoration. He was the one that brought me to Beracha my church now. God is faithful where there is positive volition the Holy Spirit of God will direct. Glory to God! Thank you for this essay Dr. J. Neil Daniels. ☺️🤗
ReplyDeleteSolid food for needy believers.
ReplyDeleteOn this day June 16th 2025@ 3am (WAT), I reread this. It was necessary. I'm enlightened!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this essay.
🤗