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:

Chapter 6 is the culmination of the book's positive constructive argument. Having established (in his view) that Jesus is God and that the Son is a temporal role, Bernard now explicitly addresses the three persons of the Trinity and argues they are not persons at all — merely "different aspects, roles, modes, functions, or offices through which the one God operates and reveals Himself." The chapter then applies this framework to Matthew 28:19 (the baptismal formula) and 1 John 5:7. This is where the Oneness soteriology and ecclesiology most directly meet the Oneness theology — and where the logical and exegetical failures are most concentrated and consequential.

The Holy Spirit — Depersonalization by Redefinition

Bernard's Claim "The Holy Spirit is simply God... 'Holy Spirit' is another term for the one God... If the Holy Spirit is simply God, why is there a need for this term? The reason is that it emphasizes a particular aspect of God. It emphasizes that He who is a holy, omnipresent, and invisible Spirit works among all people everywhere."

The Problems

The Spirit Has Explicitly Personal Attributes in the NT

Bernard reduces the Holy Spirit to an "aspect" or "function" emphasizing God's active omnipresence. But the NT consistently attributes irreducibly personal acts to the Spirit — acts that a divine attribute, function, or aspect cannot perform:

He speaks: "The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2) — a command using first person
He can be lied to: "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 5:3) — only persons can be deceived
He can be grieved: "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God" (Ephesians 4:30) — grief is an emotional response; attributes don't grieve
He has His own will: "the same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Corinthians 12:11) — sovereign personal will in distributing gifts
He intercedes with groanings: "the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Romans 8:26) — intercession is a personal act between distinct persons
He testifies: "But when the Comforter is come... he shall testify of me" (John 15:26) — testimony is a personal cognitive and legal act
He teaches: "the Holy Ghost... shall teach you all things" (John 14:26)
He appoints leaders: "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20:28)
He hears: "he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak" (John 16:13) — hearing is an act of personal receptive consciousness

An aspect or function of God does not speak in the first person, be lied to, grieve, exercise a will, intercede, testify, teach, appoint, or hear. Each of these attributes requires a subject who is a person. Bernard's reduction of the Spirit to a divine function is systematically refuted by the NT's language about the Spirit throughout.

John 16:13 Is Decisive

When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.

The Spirit hears from a source distinct from Himself and speaks what He hears. Hearing requires a subject with a distinct cognitive identity from the one speaking to him. A divine attribute does not "hear" from God — it simply IS God expressing Himself. The language of hearing and speaking between the Spirit and the Father requires genuine personal distinction. Boyd (Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, pp. 112–116) identifies this verse as one of the most powerful NT affirmations of the Spirit's personal distinctness.

"Another Comforter" — The Allos vs. Heteros Distinction

Bernard's Claim

John 14:16 promises "another Comforter" who Bernard identifies as Jesus Himself returning in Spirit form: "The other Comforter is Jesus in another form — in the Spirit rather than the flesh... the Holy Ghost was with them in the person of Jesus Christ, but the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, soon would be in them."

The Problems

The Greek Word Allos Specifically Indicates Personal Distinction

The Greek word Jesus uses is allos (ἄλλος) — not heteros (ἕτερος). NT Greek clearly distinguishes these:

Allos = another of the same kind, a numerically distinct individual
Heteros = another of a different kind or nature

Jesus says the Father will give allos parakletos — another Comforter of the same kind as Jesus Himself, but numerically distinct from Him. This is the standard lexical distinction noted by every major NT Greek reference (BDAG, Thayer, Vine). If Jesus intended to say "I will return in a different form," heteros might be appropriate — but allos explicitly indicates a distinct person of the same nature. As Grudem notes, Jesus' use of allos is a deliberate indicator that the Comforter is a genuinely distinct personal being, not Jesus in different dress.

The Logic of the Prayer Collapses Under Bernard's Reading

John 14:16: "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." If the Comforter is Jesus Himself returning in Spirit form, then Jesus is asking the Father to send Himself — a prayer in which the one praying and the one being sent are the same person. This is either:

Incoherent (a person cannot send himself by asking himself to send himself)
Theatrical (a public performance of prayer with no real distinction between the one praying, the one prayed to, and the one sent)

Neither option is theologically acceptable. The prayer structure in John 14:16 requires three genuinely distinct participants: Jesus who prays, the Father who is prayed to and who gives, and the Comforter who is given and sent.

John 14:26 Uses "Him" Not "Me"

"The Father will send him [the Comforter] in my name." If the Comforter is Jesus returning, the pronoun would be reflexive ("will send me back") not third-person ("will send him"). The third-person pronoun used throughout John 14-16 in reference to the Spirit (masculine ekeinos — "that one," "he") consistently treats the Spirit as a distinct personal referent separate from both Jesus and the Father.

The Parallel Action Arguments — Undistributed Middle, Multiplied

Bernard's Method

Bernard presents nine parallel-action pairs to prove Father = Holy Ghost, then eleven more to prove the Holy Ghost = Jesus. The structure is:

A does action X (e.g., Father raises the dead)
B also does action X (e.g., Spirit raises the dead)
Therefore A = B (Father = Spirit)

The Problem: This Logic Refutes Itself When Fully Applied

This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle applied systematically. As established in earlier analyses, shared actions prove shared nature — not personal identity. But Bernard's argument collapses under its own weight when applied consistently:

If:

Father does X AND Spirit does X → Father = Spirit (Bernard's claim)
Father does X AND Jesus does X → Father = Jesus (Bernard's claim)
Spirit does X AND Jesus does X → Spirit = Jesus (Bernard's claim)

Then by transitivity, Father = Spirit = Jesus — all three are the same person (strict modalism). But Bernard simultaneously maintains that "we do not believe the Father is the Son" (Chapter 6, p.75). He cannot use parallel action to collapse Father into Spirit and Spirit into Jesus while also maintaining a meaningful distinction between Father and Son. The argument is internally inconsistent: it over-proves when applied to Spirit/Father while Bernard tries to preserve a Father/Son distinction. Trinitarianism gives the coherent answer: The external works of the Trinity are undivided — Father, Son, and Spirit always act together in every divine work because they share one divine nature and will. Parallel actions are exactly what Trinitarian theology predicts and what modalism cannot fully explain (because if they are truly one undivided person, the repeated distinction between the agent descriptions — "the Father raised... the Spirit raised... Jesus raised" — is meaningless).

The Father = Holy Ghost Argument From the Virgin Birth

Bernard's Claim "Matthew 1:18–20 and Luke 1:35 plainly reveal that the Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus Christ... Since all verses of Scripture in reference to the conception or begetting of the Son of God speak of the Holy Ghost as the agent of conception, it is evident that the Father of the human child is the Spirit; it is only reasonable to conclude that the Holy Ghost is the Father."

The Problems

The Argument Conflates Biological Fatherhood With Ontological Identity

Bernard's argument is: the Holy Spirit caused the conception → the one who causes conception is the father → the Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit → Father = Holy Spirit.

But this argument confuses two senses of "father":

Biological/causal fatherhood: The Holy Spirit was the agent of Jesus' miraculous conception (Luke 1:35)
Personal/ontological Fatherhood: God the Father is eternally the Father of the eternal Son

These are different relationships. The Holy Spirit's role in the virgin conception is the Spirit's work in the economy of salvation — an external divine act. This does not mean the Spirit IS the Father in terms of personal identity. The same Spirit who overshadowed Mary for conception is the Spirit who descends at Jesus' baptism while the Father speaks from heaven — simultaneously, distinguishing all three.

Luke 1:35 Does Not Identify Father and Spirit

The angel's words: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

The verse mentions two things: the Holy Ghost and "the power of the Highest" (the Father's power). Bernard reads these as identical. But the structure of the verse uses them as parallel agents — both the Spirit's coming and the Father's power overshadowing are involved. The natural reading is that these describe unified divine action in the conception, not a single agent wearing two labels.

Matthew 3:16–17 Destroys the Father = Spirit Identification

At the baptism of Jesus — immediately after the Incarnation in which Bernard argues the Spirit = the Father acted — the Father speaks from heaven while the Spirit descends as a dove. If Father and Spirit are the same being, the simultaneous voice from heaven and dove descending are the same single person manifesting in two places at once for theatrical purposes. The narrative structure of Matthew 3:16–17 treats the Father, Son, and Spirit as simultaneously and distinctly present — a scene inexplicable on modalist premises.

"The Name of the Father Is Jesus" — John 5:43 Misread

Bernard's Claim

"In John 5:43, Jesus said, 'I am come in my Father's name.' According to Hebrews 1:4, the Son 'by inheritance obtained a more excellent name.' In other words, the Son inherited His Father's name... The only name He used was the name of Jesus, His Father's name."

The Problems

"Coming in Someone's Name" Means Representing Their Authority, Not Sharing Their Name

Coming "in someone's name" (en tō onomati) is a standard Greek idiom for acting under someone's authority and as their representative — an ambassador or envoy comes "in the name" of the one who sent them. This is consistently how the phrase is used in the NT:

Disciples come in Jesus' name (Matthew 18:5) — they don't thereby bear the personal name "Jesus"
John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17) — he was not Elijah
Kings sent messengers "in their name" without those messengers sharing royal names

Jesus coming "in his Father's name" means He comes as the Father's authorized representative — not that Jesus' personal name IS the Father's proper name. Bernard's interpretation requires reading the idiom hyper-literally in a way no other instance of the phrase supports.

John 5:43 Explicitly Contrasts Two Kinds of "Coming in a Name"

The full verse: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Jesus contrasts coming in the Father's name (representing the Father's authority) with coming in one's own name (self-authorization). If coming "in my Father's name" means bearing the Father's personal name (Jesus), then the contrasting "come in his own name" would mean this other person also bears Jesus' name — which is absurd. The contrast only makes sense if "in my Father's name" means "by the Father's authority" not "bearing the Father's personal name."

Hebrews 1:4 Identifies "Son" as the Excellent Name

As established in Chapter 4 analysis: Hebrews 1:4-5 identifies the "more excellent name" as "Son" — the unique divine Sonship declared in Psalm 2:7. The immediate context (verse 5) explains: "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?" The excellent name is "Son," not "Jesus." Bernard's identification requires overriding the text's own explanation with an external importation.

Matthew 28:19 — The Singular "Name" Argument

Bernard's Claim

The singular "name" (not "names") in "baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" proves Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one person sharing one name — Jesus.

The Problems

The Singular Proves Unity, Not Identity

Bernard is correct that the singular onoma is significant. But its significance is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine name/authority — they are not three competing divine authorities with separate names. This is entirely consistent with Trinitarianism: one God in three persons shares one divine name because they share one divine nature. The singular does not require them to be one undivided person. A royal family shares one royal name and crest without being one individual.

The Grammar of the Verse Works Against Bernard

The verse lists three distinct genitives: "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Three separate genitive nouns joined by conjunctions describe three distinct referents. If these were simply three titles for one person (Jesus), the sentence would be grammatically redundant and pragmatically misleading. When Matthew lists three separate entities with three separate genitives, he intends three separate referents sharing one divine name/authority.

Bernard Misuses His Own Source

Bernard quotes Presbyterian professor James Buswell acknowledging the significance of the singular "name" in Matthew 28:19: "The 'name'... of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God." Bernard says: "His insight of the singular is correct, although his identification of the singular name is in error."

This is a fundamental misuse of a source. Buswell was making an explicitly Trinitarian point — the singular name is YHWH, the one divine name shared by the triune God. Bernard agrees with Buswell's grammatical observation, rejects his theological conclusion, and then cites Buswell as if he supports Bernard's position. He does not. Buswell's statement, in its own context, directly contradicts Oneness theology.

The Apostolic Baptism Texts Do Not Prove What Bernard Claims

Bernard argues that the apostles' practice of baptizing "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) proves the one name in Matthew 28:19 is "Jesus." But:

These Acts references describe the authority under which baptism was administered (in Christ's name, not in Jewish or pagan name), not a complete liturgical formula excluding the Trinitarian description
The Didache (early 2nd century) records both formulas in use in the same Christian communities — the Trinitarian formula and the Jesus-name invocation were not seen as contradictory
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) describes baptism as being done "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" — indicating the Trinitarian formula was early and widespread
If the apostles baptized "in Jesus' name" only, and Matthew 28:19 actually commands the Trinitarian formula, then the apostles disobeyed Jesus' explicit command — a conclusion Bernard accepts but which requires a remarkable breach between the Commission and its execution

Bernard's Matthew 28:18-19 Logic Argument Is a Non Sequitur

Bernard argues: "Jesus said, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore... baptize in the name.'" In other words, Jesus said, 'I have all power, so baptize in my name.'"

This is a non sequitur. The "therefore" (oun) in verse 19 connects the commissioning with the authority — because Jesus has been given all authority, the disciples are authorized to go and make disciples. It does not follow that the baptismal formula must use only Jesus' personal name. The logic would be: "I have all divine authority → you can baptize under the divine name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" — because Jesus, as the one in whom all divine fullness dwells (Colossians 2:9), encompasses all three.

1 John 5:7 — "These Three Are One": The Argument That Proves Too Much

Bernard's Claim "It says that 'these three are one.' Some interpret this phrase to mean one in unity as husband and wife are one. But it should be pointed out that this view is essentially polytheistic. If the word 'one' referred to unity instead of a numerical designation, then the Godhead could be viewed as many gods in a united council."

The Problems

The False Binary: Numerical Identity OR Polytheism

Bernard presents a false dilemma: either "one" means strict numerical identity (same person) or it means polytheistic unity of separate gods. He ignores the Trinitarian middle ground entirely: three persons sharing one divine essence/nature. This is not "many gods in a council" — it is one divine being whose one divine nature is eternally subsisting in three personal relations. Bernard's binary is the same fallacy committed in Chapter 1, and it remains logically unjustified. Geisler (Come Let Us Reason Together) specifically addresses this error: unity of essence does not collapse into polytheism merely because it admits personal distinctions.

The Statement "These Three Are One" Requires Three Genuine Referents

Bernard's strict numerical-identity reading creates its own absurdity: if Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are literally one undivided person with no genuine distinctions, why does the verse say "these THREE are one"? A statement of three-becoming-one only makes sense if there are genuinely three entities whose unity is being asserted. If they were already one undivided person, the statement "these three are one" would be pointless — equivalent to saying "this one thing is one." The very structure of the statement — three that are one — is the Trinitarian formula: genuine threeness and genuine oneness held in tension. Bernard's modalism eliminates the genuine threeness, which makes the sentence meaningless.

The "Word" vs. "Son" Observation Backfires

Bernard notes that 1 John 5:7 uses "Word" not "Son" and uses this to argue the Word is not a distinct person but God's "thought, plan, or mind." But as established in the Chapter 4 analysis, John 1:1-2 already established the Word as a distinct personal being who "was WITH God" (relational, face-to-face pros) and "was God." Using "Word" rather than "Son" in 1 John 5:7 actually strengthens the Trinitarian case — it points to the pre-existent divine person whose personhood John established in the prologue.

"God Is Not Limited to Three Manifestations" — A Self-Defeating Argument

Bernard's Claim "Despite the prominence these manifestations have in the New Testament plan of redemption and salvation, it does not appear that God can be limited to these three roles, titles, or manifestations... the number three has no special significance with respect to God."

The Problems

This Argument Trivializes the Trinitarian Revelation

If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely three of many possible divine "manifestations" — no more significant than King, Lord, Bridegroom, Shepherd, or Lamb — then the specific NT revelation of God as Father, Son, and Spirit carries no special ontological weight. But the NT consistently uses these three specifically in contexts of:

Baptism (Matthew 28:19)
Salvation (John 3:5-6, Galatians 4:4-6, Titus 3:4-6)
Prayer (Ephesians 3:14-17)
Divine blessing (2 Corinthians 13:14)
Spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)

This is not the pattern of three arbitrarily selected roles among many. The Father-Son-Spirit triad is the consistent, structured, redemptive revelation of the divine life. Bernard's "many manifestations" argument cannot account for why these three appear together in every significant soteriological context while "King," "Shepherd," and "Bridegroom" never do.

The Argument Contradicts His Own Chapter Structure

Bernard has spent five chapters arguing that "Jesus" is the one name that encompasses and replaces all other divine names and titles. Now in Chapter 6 he argues that God is not limited to three manifestations and has many. But if Jesus encompasses ALL divine manifestations (as Chapters 3-5 argued), and if God also has many other manifestations (as Chapter 6 now claims), then either:

"Jesus" does not truly encompass all manifestations (contradicting Chapter 3)
All manifestations are modes of Jesus (in which case Father, Son, and Spirit are not even three uniquely significant modes among many — they are three of many Jesus-modes)

The argument creates an internal inconsistency between Chapter 6 and the preceding chapters.

Ephesians 3:14–17 — Perichoretic Unity Mistaken for Personal Identity

Bernard's Claim

Bernard uses Ephesians 3:14-17 to demonstrate that Father, Spirit, and Christ are "one in the sense just described" — because Paul addresses the Father, mentions the Spirit, and asks for Christ's indwelling in the same prayer. The Problem

The passage actually presents three grammatically and functionally distinct referents:

Paul kneels to the Father (verse 14)
He asks the Father to strengthen them through His Spirit (verse 16)
So that Christ may dwell in their hearts (verse 17)

The Father is prayed TO. The Spirit is the AGENT of strengthening. Christ is the RESULT of the Spirit's work in terms of His indwelling. Three distinct grammatical and functional roles in a single sentence — not one person described three ways. Bernard reads the unified purpose (all three working toward the same goal of the believer being strengthened and indwelt) as proof of personal identity. But Trinitarianism specifically predicts this: the perichoretic unity of the three persons means their external works are inseparable (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt). The Spirit's strengthening and Christ's indwelling are the same divine act viewed from different personal perspectives. This is precisely what Trinitarian theology teaches and what modalism cannot adequately explain — if they are one undivided person, why does the passage grammatically separate Father, Spirit, and Christ as distinct agents within the same single divine act?

"The Deity of Jesus Christ Is the Father" — The Nestorianism Problem Returns

Bernard's Claim

Bernard writes: "Since 'Father' refers to deity alone, while 'Son of God' refers to deity as incarnated in humanity, we do not believe that the Father is the Son. The distinction is pivotal. We can say the Son died, but we cannot say the Father died. The deity in the Son is the Father."

The Problem

Bernard is explicitly maintaining a distinction between "Father" (deity alone) and "Son" (deity in humanity). By doing so, he separates Christ into two components: the Father (divine Spirit, cannot die) and the Son (human, can die). This creates a genuine Nestorian division — the divine Spirit and the human component are separable, distinguishable entities within "Jesus." The divine Spirit did not die; only the human died.

But the orthodox Christian doctrine of the atonement requires that the eternal Son of God genuinely died — not merely that a divinely-animated human died. The infinite worth of the atonement depends on an infinite divine person making the sacrifice. If only the human "Son" died while the divine "Father" (the real God) remained unaffected, the sacrifice is not a divine sacrifice — it is the sacrifice of a divinely-indwelt human.

Grudem (Systematic Theology, pp. 540-542) notes that this is precisely why the doctrine of the eternal Son matters for soteriology: the atonement's infinite efficacy derives from the eternal divine person making the sacrifice. Bernard's framework, by separating "Father" (who cannot die) from "Son" (who can), inadvertently undermines the sufficiency of the atonement he affirms.

"These Terms Describe Relationships to Humanity, Not Persons in a Godhead"

Bernard's Claim

"They describe God's relationships to humanity, not persons in a Godhead."

The Problem: Intra-Divine Relationships Exist Before and Apart From Humanity

Multiple NT texts describe the Father-Son relationship as existing before creation and apart from any relationship to humanity:

John 17:5 — "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" — the Son's shared glory with the Father pre-dates creation
John 17:24 — "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world" — the Father's love for the Son pre-dates creation
John 1:1 — "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" — the relational existence of the Word with God pre-dates "the beginning" (creation)
Proverbs 8:22-30 — Wisdom "was set up from everlasting" and was "daily his delight, rejoicing before him" — pre-creation intra-divine delight

These are not descriptions of God's modes of relating to humanity — they are descriptions of an eternal intra-divine life existing before any creation or human relationship. Bernard's claim that the Trinitarian terms describe only relations to humanity is directly contradicted by these texts. The Father loved the Son before there was any human to relate to. The Son shared glory with the Father before the world existed. These eternal relations are not functions or roles toward creation — they are the eternal personal life of God.

Summary: Chapter 6's Argumentative Failures

Section Primary Failure Holy Spirit as "aspect"

Spirit's personal acts (speaking, grieving, willing, hearing) require personhood, not function "Another Comforter"

Allos = distinct person of same kind; logic of the prayer requires three distinct participants Parallel action arguments

Undistributed middle applied 20 times; Trinitarianism predicts unified action better than modalism Father = Holy Ghost from Virgin Birth

Conflates causal fatherhood (Spirit's role in conception) with eternal personal Fatherhood "Name of Father is Jesus"

Coming "in someone's name" means representing authority, not sharing personal name; John 5:43 contrast defeats the reading Matthew 28:19 singular "name"

Singular proves shared divine identity, not single undivided person; Buswell citation is misused Acts baptism formula

Early church used both formulas; neither formula negates the other 1 John 5:7 "these three are one"

Three genuine referents required for the statement to be meaningful; false binary of identity vs. polytheism "Not limited to three"

Trivializes the specific Trinitarian revelation; contradicts preceding chapters on Jesus' all-encompassing name Ephesians 3:14-17

Three grammatically distinct referents show perichoretic unity, not personal identity "Father cannot die"

Creates Nestorian division undermining infinite worth of the atonement Relations describe humanity not persons

Contradicted by John 17:5, 17:24, John 1:1, Proverbs 8 — pre-creation intra-divine relations The Chapter's Deepest Structural Problem Chapter 6 is built on a single foundational claim — that "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" describe God's relationships to humanity rather than eternal personal distinctions within the divine life. This claim is the Sabellian position stated precisely. The problem is that it is falsified by the NT's own testimony about the pre-creation intra-divine life, the Spirit's own irreducibly personal acts, and the structure of the Comforter discourse in John 14-16.

Bernard's framework produces a God who performs three roles without genuinely being three persons — and this inevitably reduces the Christian life to relating to a single divine person in different masks rather than being drawn into the genuine personal communion of the triune God. The NT presents the Father sending the Son, the Son returning to the Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, believers indwelt by the Spirit and thereby brought into relationship with the Father through the Son — this rich relational structure of salvation is not a description of one person wearing three hats. It is the eternal life of the triune God opened to human participation. Recommended Response Strategy for Message Followers Using Chapter 6

On the Spirit's personhood: "Acts 13:2 says the Holy Spirit said 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul.' Romans 8:26 says the Spirit intercedes with groanings. John 16:13 says the Spirit 'hears' and then speaks what He hears. Can a divine 'aspect' or 'function' speak in the first person, be grieved, and hear? These are the acts of a person, not a role."
On 'another Comforter': "Jesus used the Greek word 'allos' — another of the same kind, a distinct person. If He meant 'I'll come back in a different form,' why use the word that specifically indicates a distinct individual rather than a different form? And why pray the Father to send Himself?"
On Matthew 28:19: "You say the singular 'name' means one person — Jesus. But the verse lists three separate entities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Three separate genitives with three separate conjunctions. If they were all just Jesus, why does Jesus list three of them? Why not just say 'baptize in my name'?"
On pre-creation relations: "In John 17:24, Jesus says the Father loved Him 'before the foundation of the world.' That love existed before any humans existed to relate to. If Father and Son are just roles God plays toward humanity, who was the Father loving before humanity existed?"
On the atonement consequence: "Bernard says 'we can say the Son died, but we cannot say the Father died.' If the Father (the real divine Spirit) didn't die — only the human Son died — then an infinite divine person didn't make the sacrifice. How can a human sacrifice have infinite worth sufficient to save all humanity for all time? Orthodox Christianity says the eternal Son of God died — that's why the sacrifice is infinite. Bernard's view makes it a human death with divine endorsement."
On parallel actions: "Bernard says the Father and Spirit both raise the dead, so they must be the same person. But by the same logic, since the Spirit intercedes AND Jesus intercedes, the Spirit = Jesus. And since the Father gives eternal life AND the Spirit gives eternal life AND Jesus gives eternal life, all three are identical. But then what does 'another Comforter' mean in John 14:16? You can't use parallel actions to merge persons while also insisting there's a meaningful distinction between Father and Son."

Footnotes

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines	Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us