I recently ran into a Oneness Pentecostal acquaintance of mine. We talked for nearly 2 hours. We caught each other up on new developments in our lives and we also discussed our differences concerning the nature of God. I am supposed to meet with him as well as a mutual acquaintance (who preaches at the University of Maryland for a particular oneness parachurch group known as “Impact UMD”) in the near future.
If you are unfamiliar with Oneness Theology, click here to read more.
In light of these recent events, I wanted to post a summary statement of the real issue at hand when we deal in love with Oneness individuals. This summary statement came from Dr. James White in his debate with Roger Perkins in 2011, which can be viewed here. It has proved useful in highlighting the very key distinction between the Trinitarian and Oneness position. And I would contend that it can be adapted to address the different forms of Unitarianism as well. Here it is:
Did the Son, as a divine person (not as an idealized plan, not a thought in the Father’s Mind, but as a divine person aware of His own existence and the existence of the Father and Spirit) exist prior to the Incarnation itself, that is, in eternity past?
If the Son, as a divine person, engaged in activities that only a person can engage in prior to the Incarnation, that is a refutation to the Oneness position (the debate is concluded for the Trinitarian position is established).