Jump to content

Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 11

From BelieveTheSign
Revision as of 13:53, 27 May 2026 by Admin (talk | contribs)


Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.


Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham



David Bernard's book, The Oneness of God, is, in the kindest possible reading, a theologically motivated exercise in confirmation bias dressed up in the costume of systematic theology. He sets out not to discover what the Bible teaches about God but to defend a conclusion already reached. The result is a book riddled with logical fallacies, selective use of evidence, category errors, and interpretive sleight of hand. What follows is a chapter-by-chapter and argument-by-argument analysis. References are drawn from Boyd's Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grudem's Systematic Theology, and Geisler's Come Let Us Reason Together.

You are on the page that is in bold. Click on the links to go to a particular chapter:

Bernard provides a history of Trinitarian doctrine's development, arguing it originated partly from pagan religious parallels and Greek philosophy, was shaped by political pressure at Nicea, and did not achieve its final form until the late 4th century. He criticizes the terminology ("person," "three") as nonbiblical. 1. THE PAGAN PARALLELS ARGUMENT — A TEXTBOOK GENETIC FALLACY

Bernard spends several pages documenting trinities in Babylon, Egypt, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Platonic philosophy. His implied argument: Christian Trinitarianism resembles pagan trinities, therefore it derived from paganism, therefore it is false. This is the genetic fallacy: the truth or falsity of a belief cannot be determined by its origin or resemblance to other beliefs. If it could, then Oneness monotheism would be discredited by its resemblance to strict Unitarian Islam, and the Christian doctrine of resurrection would be discredited by parallels in pagan dying-and-rising god myths.

Furthermore, the specific parallels Bernard cites are weak: 

   The Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hindu trinities are trinities of separate gods with different ontological statuses — fundamentally polytheistic, not "one God in three persons."
   The Buddhist Trikaya is a soteriological doctrine about the Buddha-reality's modes of manifestation — actually closer to Bernard's own modalism than to Christian Trinitarianism.
   The Platonic triad (One, Intellect, Soul) is an ontological hierarchy, not a Trinity of coequal co-divine persons.

None of these are structurally equivalent to Christian Trinitarian theology. Bernard is practicing superficial pattern-matching rather than genuine comparative religion. 2. THE HISLOP CITATION IS FATAL TO SCHOLARLY CREDIBILITY Bernard cites Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons to document Babylonian trinity worship. The Two Babylons (1853) is universally dismissed by historians of ancient religion as a discredited 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic. Its methodology — finding surface-level symbolic parallels between Christianity and Babylon — has been comprehensively refuted by specialists in ancient Near Eastern religion. Citing Hislop as a historical authority in any academically serious work is an appeal to a discredited source that undermines the entire pagan-parallels section. 3. THE "LATE FOURTH CENTURY" ARGUMENT CONFLATES FORMULATION WITH SUBSTANCE Bernard repeatedly cites The New Catholic Encyclopedia to establish that the Trinitarian formula was "not solidly established prior to the end of the 4th century." This is true and Trinitarians acknowledge it. The Council of Nicea (325) addressed the Arian crisis; the Council of Constantinople (381) addressed the pneumatomachian crisis (those who denied the Spirit's full deity). The formal articulation developed as heresies arose that required precision. But Bernard treats "the formula was late" as equivalent to "the substance was invented late." This confuses the map with the territory. All of the following are present in the NT itself before any council met: the full deity of the Son (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9), the full deity of the Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 3:17), the personal distinction of all three at the baptism and in the High Priestly Prayer, and the triadic benedictions (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The councils did not create Trinitarian theology from pagan raw materials; they defended it against Arian, Sabellian, and pneumatomachian distortions using biblical data that had always been there. 4. TERTULLIAN AND ORIGEN: CHARACTER ATTACKS SUBSTITUTING FOR ARGUMENT

Bernard devotes significant attention to Tertullian's later Montanism and eventual excommunication, and to Origen's heresies and posthumous anathematization. The implication is that the architects of Trinitarian theology were themselves condemned heretics, discrediting their theological legacy. This is ad hominem circumstantial. Tertullian's later Montanism does not retroactively falsify his earlier formulation of tres personae, una substantia. Origen's allegorism, preexistence of souls, and apocatastasis (universal salvation) are unrelated to his contribution to eternal Sonship doctrine. The same logic would require Trinitarians to discredit Bernard's Oneness theology because the United Pentecostal Church International has had various organizational scandals — which is obviously irrelevant to the truth of the theology. 5. CONSTANTINE AND NICEA: POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT DETERMINE THEOLOGICAL TRUTH Bernard presents Nicea as essentially a political event driven by an emperor who wanted unity for political reasons. He quotes Heick's assessment that a majority at Nicea "did not understand the conflict but wanted peace." This is historically plausible. But the political circumstances of a council's convocation do not determine the theological truth of its conclusions. Constantine wanted agreement, not a specific outcome — and the Nicene affirmation (homoousios) was not Constantine's preference, since it was strongly opposed by many participants and led to decades of conflict that Constantine's successors spent trying to reverse. The theological debate drove the outcome; the political context shaped its urgency, not its content. 6. THE TERMINOLOGY CRITIQUE: "PERSON" AND "TRINITY" NOT IN THE BIBLE

Bernard argues that because the words "trinity" and "persons" (in the plural, referring to God) don't appear in Scripture, the doctrine is nonbiblical. This is the fallacy of biblical literalism about terminology. Many essential Christian doctrines use non-biblical vocabulary: "incarnation," "atonement," "omniscience," "propitiation" (in English), "inerrancy," and indeed Bernard's own term "Oneness" as applied to the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is not the word "Trinity" — it is the systematic summary of what the NT teaches about the Father, Son, and Spirit. The fact that the codified term appeared in the 2nd century (Theophilus used trias c. A.D. 180) does not mean the reality the term describes was unknown before Theophilus.


Chapter 11 executes a two-part attack. First, it attempts to define Trinitarianism in terms that make it look philosophically incoherent — inherently tritheistic, chronically subordinationist, and dependent on extra-biblical vocabulary. Second, it attempts to disqualify Trinitarianism as a legitimate Christian doctrine by tracing its origin to paganism, philosophical speculation, and political coercion rather than Scripture. If successful, this chapter would leave the reader with no intellectually respectable alternative to Oneness. It fails on both counts, and the failures are methodologically revealing. SECTION 1: THE DEFINITION OF TRINITARIANISM — PAGE 146 Bernard's Strategy: Bernard defines Trinitarianism as "the belief that there are three persons in one God" — coequal, coeternal, coessential — and then immediately foregrounds tritheism and subordinationism as the doctrine's two inherent problems. Critical Problems: a) The Definition Is Accurate But Strategically Incomplete Bernard's vocabulary is adequate, but what he omits is the theological precision with which Trinitarian theologians have always qualified the term "person." The Cappadocian Fathers — Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil — developed the distinction between ousia (essence, one in God) and hypostasis (subsistence/person, three in God) specifically to prevent the tritheistic reading Bernard is about to press. The argument in this chapter proceeds by selecting the most unsophisticated popular representations of Trinitarianism — three bodies, three separate personalities, three beings — and treating them as representative of the doctrine. This is the straw man fallacy: attacking the weakest popular caricature of the opposing view rather than its strongest theological articulation. Bernard even quotes a Trinitarian scholar defining the Trinity as "one God in three modes of existence Father, Son, and Spirit, and each of these participates in the activity of the other." He quotes this without noting that this formulation — reminiscent of Barth's Seinsweisen — is a sophisticated modern Trinitarian position that moves quite close to the Oneness concern about plurality, and that it represents a significant counter-argument to his tritheism charge. He cites the evidence against his own position and then ignores it. b) The Cappadocians Are Misrepresented

Bernard says: "The three Cappadocians of the fourth century (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea) emphasized the threeness of the trinity to the point that they had three personalities." This is a significant distortion. The Cappadocians are precisely the theologians who developed the most careful orthodox answer to the tritheism problem. Gregory of Nyssa's On the Difference Between Essence and Hypostasis specifically addresses how "three hypostases" do not imply "three gods." The Cappadocians distinguished three subsistences within a single shared essence — which is not "three personalities" in any modern sense. "Emphasis on threeness" is not the same as "three personalities," and Bernard's equation of them misrepresents the most sophisticated ancient Trinitarian theology. SECTION 2: THE PAGAN ROOTS ARGUMENT — PAGES 150–152 Bernard's Argument: Trinitarianism has pagan parallels in Babylon (father-mother-child triad), Egypt (Osiris-Isis-Horus; Ra-Amon-Ptah), Hinduism (Brahma-Shiva-Vishnu), Buddhism (Trikaya), Taoism (Three Purities), and Neo-Platonism. The Logos doctrine specifically "stems from the Neo-Platonic philosopher Philo." Since the doctrine originated in the same cultural environment that produced these pagan trinities, its roots are pagan. Critical Problems: a) The Genetic Fallacy in Its Most Extended Form

The genetic fallacy is the error of evaluating a belief by its origin rather than its content. Even granting every pagan parallel cited is accurately described — and several are not — the existence of pagan trinities does not establish that Christian Trinitarianism is derived from them, borrowed from them, or invalidated by their existence. The parallel consideration is obvious and fatal: Jewish and biblical monotheism — the bedrock of Oneness theology — also has parallels in pagan philosophy. Xenophanes argued for a single unchanging divine mind (c. 570–478 B.C.). Akhenaten's Egyptian monotheism predates Moses. Plato's Republic moves toward a single transcendent Form of the Good. Plotinus posits "the One" as the ultimate divine reality. Does the existence of pagan monotheism invalidate biblical monotheism? Bernard would obviously say no. The same logic defeats his pagan trinity argument at every point. b) The Hislop Source Is Academically Discredited Bernard's primary source for the Babylonian trinity claim is Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (1858, revised 1916). This work is the source of most "Babylon mystery religion" genealogical arguments in Protestant popular theology. It has been thoroughly discredited by contemporary scholars. Ralph Woodrow, who originally popularized Hislop's arguments in Babylon Mystery Religion (1966), later withdrew and repudiated his own book after his more careful research exposed Hislop's fundamental historical errors (The Babylon Connection?, 1997). Woodrow documented that Hislop fabricated connections, misread ancient sources, invented etymologies, and constructed a historical narrative without basis in primary sources. Bernard cites Hislop as a "trinitarian scholar." He was a 19th century Protestant polemicist whose methodology does not survive academic scrutiny. c) The Specific Parallels Bernard Cites Are Not Trinitarian in the Christian Sense 

   The Babylonian "father-mother-child" triad — if it existed as described — is a family triad of separate beings, not three persons in one substance. This is structurally closer to tritheism than to classical Trinitarian theology.
   The Egyptian Ra-Amon-Ptah identification was a syncretic move combining three separate gods into one — the reverse direction from Christian Trinitarianism, which distinguishes three within one.
   The Hindu Trimurti — Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu — are three separate deities with separate mythological histories and separate devotional traditions. They are theologically closer to polytheism than to the Trinitarian formula.
   The Buddhist Trikaya is a doctrine about three "bodies" or modes of manifestation of a single Buddhahood — which is structurally much closer to Oneness modalism (one reality, three manifestation modes) than to Trinitarianism.

The irony is that if pagan parallels prove anything, some of Bernard's examples are better parallels for Oneness theology than for Trinitarian theology. d) The Philo/Logos Claim Is Anachronistic and Oversimplified

Bernard says: "the trinitarian Logos doctrine stems from the Neo-Platonic philosopher Philo." Several problems: 

   Philo was not a Neo-Platonist. He was a Middle Platonist working in the 1st century B.C./A.D. Neo-Platonism is a 3rd century A.D. development (Plotinus). The anachronism undermines the genealogical claim.
   More importantly: John 1 uses logos in a way that challenges Philo's framework rather than deriving from it. Philo's Logos was an intermediate being that God used as a tool for creation — not fully divine and not incarnate. John 1:14 ("the Word became flesh") is precisely the claim Philo's framework would not allow. The incarnation of the Logos is the distinctively Christian claim that no pagan parallels contain.
   Even granting that early Christian thinkers used Logos terminology familiar from the Hellenistic environment, this is not the same as deriving their doctrine from that environment. Using vocabulary does not mean adopting its philosophical content.

SECTION 3: THE TERTULLIAN ARGUMENT — PAGES 153–154 Bernard's Argument: Tertullian — "father of Christian trinitarianism" — (1) used persona ambiguously (mask/role vs. distinct person); (2) believed the Trinity was temporary, not eternal; (3) ended his life as a Montanist heretic and was excommunicated. Critical Problems: a) The Persona Ambiguity Cuts Both Ways Bernard lingers on the possible "mask" or "role" meaning of persona to cast doubt on Tertullian's Trinitarianism — perhaps he was really just talking about roles, not distinct persons. Then, in the same paragraph, Bernard concludes: "We conclude that Tertullian did mean three essential differences in God and that persona did connote or imply a distinct personality." So Bernard accepts the non-ambiguous reading when it suits his argument (that Tertullian was a genuine Trinitarian opposed by the "majority" Oneness believers), while having invoked the ambiguity to cast doubt. This is a rhetorical maneuver, not a logical argument. b) The Montanist Charge Is Ad Hominem Tertullian's later Montanism and excommunication do not retroactively invalidate the arguments he made in Against Praxeas. This is the ad hominem fallacy applied to a historical figure: "he was bad, therefore his arguments are wrong." Bernard cannot dismiss Tertullian's Trinitarian arguments by noting his later sectarian affiliation. The content of Against Praxeas stands or falls on its textual and logical merits.

More importantly: Bernard applies this same pattern to Origen (anathematized) and implicitly to Constantine (morally corrupt). What he never acknowledges is that the same standard of guilt-by-association applies with equal force to his own Oneness historical witnesses: Swedenborg (comprehensive theological error), Servetus (executed heretic), Abelard (accused innovator). The ad hominem is not a weapon he can deploy against the Trinitarian tradition without having it turned against his own historical case. c) The "Temporary Trinity" Concession Is Self-Undermining

Bernard notes that Tertullian "believed that the trinity exists for the purpose of revelation only, and after this has been accomplished the distinctions between the persons will cease." He uses this to suggest Tertullian's Trinitarianism was incomplete. But notice: if Tertullian believed in real distinctions that would eventually cease, he was affirming real distinctions. Real distinctions that eventually cease are still real distinctions — which is precisely what Oneness theology denies. Bernard cannot claim Tertullian was "possibly more Oneness than Trinitarian" while simultaneously acknowledging Tertullian affirmed genuine personal differences. The "temporary Trinity" position is a form of subordinationist Trinitarianism, not modalism. SECTION 4: THE ORIGEN ARGUMENT — PAGES 154–155 Bernard's Argument: Origen "had many heretical beliefs" — preexistence of souls, universal salvation, allegorical excess. He was excommunicated and anathematized by church councils. Critical Problems: a) The Argument Is Purely Ad Hominem

Origen's genuine theological errors are real and significant. But his contributions to biblical scholarship, Trinitarian theology, and the theology of prayer stand independently of his errors. The fact that Origen had heretical tendencies in some areas does not invalidate his arguments in other areas. The content of Origen's Trinitarian theology must be evaluated on its own merits. b) The Standard Is Selectively Applied

Bernard applies a strict purity test to the originators of Trinitarianism — Tertullian (Montanist), Origen (anathematized) — while applying no comparable test to his own historical witnesses. If Origen's Trinitarianism is discredited by his heresies, then Swedenborg's Oneness-sounding theology should equally be discredited by his far more comprehensive errors. Bernard explicitly acknowledges Swedenborg's errors as "questionable" — an admission that by his own logic discredits Swedenborg as an Oneness witness. He does not notice, or does not acknowledge, that the same logic applies symmetrically. SECTION 5: THE CONSTANTINE ARGUMENT — PAGES 155–157 Bernard's Argument: Constantine convened Nicaea for political, not theological, reasons. He was morally corrupt. He secured the outcome by banishing dissenting bishops. The resulting creed was politically coerced. As Bernard quotes: "a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor... Not a bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." Critical Problems: a) A Genetic Fallacy at the Institutional Level

The same logic that disqualifies Tertullian and Origen is now applied to the Council itself. Because the doctrine was formulated in morally and politically compromised circumstances, the doctrine is suspect. This proves far too much. The biblical canon was identified and ratified through church councils operating in the same Constantinian empire. If Constantinian political influence invalidates the Nicene Creed, it equally undermines the canonical decisions that gave us the New Testament in its present form. Bernard does not and cannot apply this standard to the canon — it is the foundation of his entire argument. He has no principled way to distinguish between the political process that produced Nicaea and the political process that produced the canon. b) The Historical Account Is Selective

What Bernard omits from his account of Nicaea: 

   Constantine himself was largely indifferent to the theological substance. He wanted agreement in whatever form the bishops could achieve. He would have been equally satisfied with an Arian or a Sabellian formula as long as the participants agreed.
   The sixty years after Nicaea — which Bernard himself describes as a "seesaw battle" — demonstrate that the outcome was not simply a fait accompli of imperial coercion. Athanasius was exiled five or six times. A council reversed Nicaea in 335. If Constantine's coercion had been decisive, the controversy would have ended at Nicaea.
   The majority at Nicaea were not committed Athanasians but a large middle party that "did not understand the conflict but wanted peace" — by Bernard's own citation of Heick. Many voted for the formula precisely to end the controversy, not because they had deeply held Trinitarian convictions.

c) Bernard's Own Admissions Undermine the Narrative Bernard acknowledges: "the modalists had first used the chosen word (homoousios) to express the identity of Jesus with the Father." He also acknowledges that many who resisted homoousios "wanted to avoid the modalistic implications of the former term." And he acknowledges that the resulting Nicene Creed "did not clearly reject modalism (or Oneness thought today)."

This set of admissions is internally contradictory with the chapter's claim that Nicaea was a decisive Trinitarian victory. If the creed's key term was originally modalist, if many resisted it precisely because of its modalist implications, and if the creed did not clearly reject modalism, then Nicaea was not the clean Trinitarian coup Bernard's narrative requires. He wants to portray Nicaea as both (a) a decisive Trinitarian imposition and (b) a document that failed to clearly reject Oneness thought. These cannot both be fully true. SECTION 6: THE NON-BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY ARGUMENT — PAGES 149–150 Bernard's Argument: The Bible never uses "trinity." "Person" appears only twice in the KJV in relation to God, neither referring to a Trinity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia and Emil Brunner both acknowledge that Trinitarian language is not biblical. Therefore, Trinitarianism is "nonbiblical." Critical Problems: a) The Argument Proves More Than Bernard Intends

The Bible does not use the word "trinity." It also does not use "oneness" as Bernard uses it — as a theological system denying personal distinctions in God. It does not use "manifestations" or "roles" or "modes" to describe the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It does not use the formula "Jesus-name baptism" as a doctrinal category. It does not describe "tongues as the initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism" — the specific formulation defining modern Oneness Pentecostalism. If the absence of a term from the Bible disqualifies a doctrine, then Oneness Pentecostalism is equally disqualified on exactly the same basis. Bernard is applying a standard of biblical vocabulary that his own system fails by identical criteria. b) The Brunner Quotation Is Radically Decontextualized

Bernard quotes Emil Brunner: "The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine... It is the product of theological reflection upon the problem... The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only the product of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation." Brunner — a fully orthodox Reformed Trinitarian theologian — was making a specific epistemological point: the formal systematic doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrinal formulation, is the product of reflective theological work on biblical data, not a simple literal reading of a particular verse. He was distinguishing between biblical revelation (which he fully affirms) and systematic doctrinal formulation (which always involves theological moves beyond a text's surface). Brunner was not saying the Trinity is false or unscriptural; he was saying that systematic theology always involves conceptual development. Bernard has taken a statement about the relationship between biblical data and systematic formulation and converted it into a claim that Trinitarian theology has no scriptural foundation. This is a straightforward decontextualization — taking a scholar's methodological observation out of context and using it as an admission against his own theological convictions. c) The New Catholic Encyclopedia Quotation Is Similarly Decontextualized Bernard quotes the NCE to the effect that the "verbal idiom" and "patterns of thought" of patristic Trinitarian theology "would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the New Testament writers." This is a statement about the methodology of patristic theologians — specifically their use of Hellenistic philosophical categories — being methodologically foreign to the New Testament's own idiom. It is not a claim that the theological content of Trinitarian doctrine is absent from the New Testament. The NCE nowhere states that the New Testament does not teach the Trinity; it states that the philosophical vocabulary of later Trinitarian formulation was not the New Testament's own vocabulary. Bernard uses it as if the NCE is admitting the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity. SECTION 7: THE APOSTLES' CREED — PAGES 159–160 Bernard's Argument: The Apostles' Creed did not originate with the apostles, and its language does not specifically teach Trinitarianism. Bernard would rather not use it to avoid association with Trinitarianism. Critical Problem: The Old Roman Symbol Bernard quotes affirms: "I believe in God the Father Almighty... And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord... And in the Holy Ghost." The creed affirms three distinguishable subjects of belief — one believes in the Father AND in Jesus Christ AND in the Holy Ghost. This coordinated three-part structure implies three distinguishable divine referents as objects of faith, which is the proto-Trinitarian skeleton even without later Athanasian elaboration. Oneness theology holds that there are not three distinguishable entities but rather three designations for the one God. The Creed's "in... and... and..." structure implies genuine threefold distinction.

Bernard's reason for not using the creed is revealing: use of it "could associate us with trinitarianism." This implies that the creed's language is — at minimum — susceptible to Trinitarian reading, which is precisely the problem for his claim that it "does not teach Trinitarian doctrine." If it can be read in a Trinitarian direction so naturally that Oneness believers must avoid it for fear of misunderstanding, it is difficult to maintain it is not Trinitarian in structure. CHAPTER 11 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The chapter's four main attacks all fail: 

   The pagan roots argument fails as a genetic fallacy, relies on the discredited Hislop, and describes parallels that are either not Trinitarian in structure or are better parallels for Oneness theology than for Trinitarianism.
   The non-biblical terminology argument proves too much — Oneness theological vocabulary is equally absent from the biblical text.
   The ad hominem against Tertullian and Origen proves nothing about Trinitarian doctrine and is a standard the author applies selectively.
   The Constantinian coercion argument is a genetic fallacy at the institutional level, proves too much (if it invalidates Nicaea it invalidates the canon), and is contradicted by Bernard's own admissions about the ambiguous outcome of Nicaea.

What the chapter establishes unintentionally — and accurately — is that the formal doctrinal expression of Trinitarianism developed over several centuries, that early formulations were diverse and contested, and that political factors played a role in council decisions. These are standard historical observations no Trinitarian would dispute. They do not establish that Trinitarianism is false, non-biblical, or pagan in origin.

Footnotes


Navigation

Retrieved from "https://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Bernard%27s_The_Oneness_of_God_-_Chapter_11&oldid=27627"