What do you think?
Rate this book
The Oneness of God: Volume 1
The biblical revelation of the one true God, including the identity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh, is the foundation of the Christian faith. The Oneness of God is a thorough, biblical exposition of the oneness of God and the deity of Jesus Christ, with answers to objections and explanations of difficult passages of Scripture. The author's treatment of the oneness of God is simple, but the truths are profound, scholarly, and priceless.
- GenresTheologyChristianity
344 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1986
162 people are currently reading
665 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
July 12, 2022
4 Stars
If the title didn't give it away, this book, in-depth, tackles the theology of Oneness and provides a concise defense for accepting 'Oneness' over the Trinitarian belief.
Chapters 1-6: The doctrine of Christian monotheism conveyed by the Bible
Chapters 7-9: Rebutting other interpretations
Chapter 10: History of Oneness postapostolic
Chapters 11-12: Doctrine, history, and development of the Trinitarian Doctrine
My biggest nitpick with this book concerns the writing:
-Chapter 6: "The Son" seems almost contradictory to 'oneness' theology. As well, the last 50% of this book regarding the "Son"/'Jesus Christ as a man' becomes a bit confusing in terms of ascertaining whatever exactly the author is trying to convey.
-This book is based on building blocks of former chapters and heavily relies on recalling and repeating previous information which becomes incredibly tedious to read at times.
Though others may find it boring, I enjoyed the somewhat frivolous arguments against Oneness theology that are presented and debunked.
All in all, a solid book that I highly recommend not reading in one sitting (such as I did).
------
Notable Quotes:
-A common remark by some trinitarians about the Old Testament doctrine of the oneness of God is that God only intended to emphasize His oneness as opposed to pagan deities but that He still existed as a plurality. However, if this conjecture were true, why did not God make it clear? Why have the Jews not understood a theology of “persons” but have insisted on an absolute monotheism? Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In the preceding verses of Scripture in Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.
-In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example, the heart of God denotes His intellect and His emotions, not a blood-pumping organ (Genesis 6:6; 8:21). When God said heaven was His throne and earth was His footstool, He described His omnipresence, not a pair of literal feet propped up on the globe (Isaiah 66:1). When God said His right hand spanned the heavens, He described His great power and not a large hand stretching through the atmosphere (Isaiah 48:13). “The eyes of the LORD are in every place” does not mean that God has physical eyes in every location but indicates His omnipresence and omniscience (Proverbs 15:3). When Jesus cast devils out by the finger of God, He did not pull down a giant finger from heaven, but He exercised the power of God (Luke 11:20). The blast of God’s nostrils was not literal particles emitted by giant heavenly nostrils but the strong east wind sent by God to part the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8; 14:21). In fact, literal interpretation of all the visions and physical descriptions of God would lead to the belief that God has wings (Psalm 91:4). In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ.
-These moral attributes of God are not contradictory but work in harmony. For example, God’s holiness required an immediate separation be tween God and humans when they sinned. Then, God’s righteousness and justice required death as the penalty for sin, but God’s love and mercy sought pardon. God satisfied both justice and mercy by the death of Christ at Calvary and the resulting plan of salvation
-In using LORD as a substitute for YHWH, they were simply following an ancient Jewish tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH when copying or reading the Scriptures. This custom arose because the Jews wanted to safeguard against taking God’s name in vain, which would violate the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). They felt that by constantly repeating the sacred name of God they might begin to treat it too casually and lightly. The name of God was so holy and sacred that they did not feel worthy to use it.
-Jesus means Jehovah-Savior, Jehovah our Salvation, or Jehovah is Salvation. This is why the angel said, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The identification of the name Jesus with salvation is particularly evident because the Hebrew for Jeshua is practically identical to the Hebrew for salvation, especially since ancient Hebrew did not use written vowels. In fact, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance transliterates Jeshua as Yeshuwa and the Hebrew word for salvation as Yeshuwah. Although others have borne the name Jehoshua, Joshua, or Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only One who actually lived up to that name. He is the only One who is actually what that name describes.
-Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation, or the manifestation of “The mighty God” and “The everlasting Father.”
-The statement that Jesus is God necessarily implies that God took on human flesh. This is in fact what the Bible says.
1. “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (I Timothy 3:16; see verse 15 for further confirmation that God is the subject of verse 16). God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.
2. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:1, 14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented among us. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses prove that Jesus is God—that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh.
God is a Spirit—without flesh and blood and invisible to us. In order to make Himself visible to us and in order to shed innocent blood for our sins, He had to put on flesh. (For more on the purposes of the Son, see chapter 5.) Jesus is not another God or a part of God, but He is the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh.
-John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).
-We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son. On His human side He is the Son of man; on His divine side He is the Son of God and is the Father dwelling in flesh.
-When Paul, the educated Jew, the Pharisee of Pharisees, the fanatic persecutor of Christianity, was stricken on the road to Damascus by a blinding light from God, he asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, “Who are You, Jehovah?” The Lord answered, “I am Jesus” (Acts 9:5).
-Although Moses dealt with Jehovah God, Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ to be greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. So Moses’ God was Jesus Christ.
-The Jews were right in believing that there was one God, in believing that only God could forgive sin, and in understanding that Jesus claimed to be the one God (the Father and Jehovah) incarnate. They were wrong only because they refused to believe Jesus’ claim.
It is amazing that some people today not only reject the Lord’s assertion of His true identity but even fail to realize what He did assert. Even the Jewish opponents of Jesus realized that Jesus claimed to be God, the Father, and Jehovah in flesh, but some today cannot see what the Scriptures so plainly declare.
-We should consider the dual nature of Christ in the framework of biblical terminology. The term “Father” refers to God Himself—God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. “God the Father,” therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.
-According to God’s plan, the shedding of blood was necessary for the remission of human sins (Hebrews 9:22). The blood of animals could not take away human sin because animals are inferior to humans (Hebrews 10:4). No other human could purchase redemption for someone else because all had sinned and so deserved the penalty of death for themselves (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Only God was sinless, but He did not have flesh and blood. Therefore, God prepared a body for Himself (Hebrews 10:5), that He might live a sinless life in flesh and shed innocent blood to save humanity. He became flesh and blood so that He could through death defeat the devil and deliver humanity (Hebrews 2:14-15). In this way Christ is our propitiation—the means by which we obtain forgiveness, the satisfaction of God’s justice, the appeasement of God’s holy wrath (Romans 3:25).
-Hebrews 1:2 states that God made the worlds by the Son. Similarly, Colossians 1:13-17 says all things were created by the Son, and Ephesians 3:9 says all things were created by Jesus Christ. What does creation “by the Son” mean, since the Son did not have a substantial preexistence before the Incarnation?
Of course, we know that Jesus as God pre existed the Incarnation, since the deity of Jesus is none other than the Father Himself. We recognize that Jesus (the divine Spirit of Jesus) is indeed the Creator. These verses describe the eternal Spirit that was in the Son—the deity that was later incarnated as the Son—as the Creator. The humanity of Jesus Christ could not create, but God who came in the Son as Jesus Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:10 clearly states that Jesus as Lord was the Creator.
-“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. . . . God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” The first portion of the above passage clearly refers to the deity in the Son, while the second portion refers to the humanity of the Son. The writer of Hebrews quoted a prophetic passage in Psalm 45:6-7. This is not a conversation in the Godhead but a prophetic utterance inspired by God and looking to the future incarnation of God in flesh. God was speaking prophetically through the psalmist to describe Himself in a future role.
-We should note that these three titles are not the only ones God has. Many other titles or names for God are very significant and appear frequently in the Bible, including terms such as LORD (Jehovah), Lord, Word, God Almighty, and Holy One of Israel. The Oneness view does not deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but it does refute the view that these terms designate persons in the Godhead. God has many titles, but He is one being. He is indivisible as to His existence, but His revelation of Himself to humanity has been expressed through many channels, including His revelation as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost.
-We know that the one name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus, for Jesus is the name of the Father (John 5:43; Hebrews 1:4), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). The New Testament church understood this to be so, for they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; I Corinthians 1:13). Matthew himself endorsed this interpretation by standing with Peter and the other apostles during the sermon in which Peter commanded the people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:14-38).
Some claim that the references in Acts do not really mean that the name of Jesus was orally uttered as part of the baptismal formula. However, this appears to be an attempt to twist the language to comply with an erroneous doctrine and practice. Acts 22:16 says, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The Amplified Bible says, “Rise and be baptized, and by calling upon His name wash away your sins.” The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament says, “Invoking the name.” Therefore this verse of Scripture indicates the name Jesus was orally invoked at baptism.
-We should remember that water baptism is administered because of our past life of sin; it is for the “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since the name of Jesus is the only saving name (Acts 4:12), it is logical that the name be used in baptism.
-The New Testament writers had no conception of the doctrine of the trinity, which was still far in the future. They came from a strict monotheistic Jewish background; one God was not an issue with them at all. Some passages may seem “trinitarian” to us at first glance because trinitarians through the centuries have used them and interpreted them according to their doctrine. However, to the early church, who had no concept of the future doctrine of the trinity, these same passages were readily understandable. There was no thought of contradicting either strict monotheism or the deity of Jesus.
-Do the prayers of Christ indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father? No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His deity. If the prayers of Jesus demonstrate that the divine nature of Jesus is different from the Father, then Jesus is inferior to the Father in deity. In other words, if Jesus prayed as God then His position in the Godhead would be somehow inferior to the other “persons.” This one example effectively destroys the concept of a trinity of coequal persons.
How can God pray and still be God? By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.
What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the man Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God. God did not need help; only the man did. As Jesus said at the Garden of Gethsemane, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).
-By referring to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, the writers were emphasizing two roles of God and the importance of accepting Him in both roles. Not only must we believe in God as our Creator and Father, but we must accept Him as manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ. Everyone must acknowledge that Jesus is come in the flesh and that He is both Lord and Christ (Messiah). Consequently, the salutations emphasize belief not only in God, which the Jews and many pagans accepted, but also in God as revealed through Christ.
This explains why it was unnecessary to mention the Holy Ghost; the concept of God as a Spirit was wrapped up in the title of God the Father, especially to the Jewish mind. We must remember, too, that the doctrine of the trinity did not develop until much later in church history. (See chapter 11.) Therefore, these phrases did not sound the least bit awkward or strange to the writers or the readers.
-II Corinthians 13:14 reads, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” Again, we should remember that Paul penned this verse of Scripture at a time when trinitarianism was still a doctrine of the future, and therefore the verse was not puzzling or unusual at the time. Basically, the verse conveys three aspects or attributes of God that we can know and have. First, there is God’s grace. God has made His grace available to humanity through His manifestation in flesh, in Jesus Christ. In other words, unmerited favor, divine help, and salvation come to us through the atoning work of Jesus. Then God is love, and love always has been part of His basic nature. He loved us long before He robed Himself in flesh as Christ. And finally, the baptism of the Holy Ghost gives us communion (fellowship) with God and with our fellow believers: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body”—the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). Through the indwelling Spirit of God, not the presence of the physical body of Jesus Christ, we have a present, continuing relationship with God unlike anything available to the Old Testament saints.
II Corinthians 13:14 is logical and under standable when we interpret it as three important relationships God has shared with us or as three different works the one God accomplishes. There are diversities of operations but only one God working all in all (I Corinthians 12:4-6).
-The Bible does not mention the word trinity, nor does it mention the word persons in reference to God. The Bible does not even relate the words person and three to God in any significant way.
Nonbiblical terminology in and of itself does not mean that a doctrine described by it is necessarily false, but it does cast considerable doubt on the matter. This is especially true when the nonbiblical terminology is not merely a replacement for biblical terminology, but instead it teaches new concepts. In short, nonbiblical terminology is dangerous if it leads to nonbiblical ways of thinking and eventually to nonbiblical doctrines. Trinitarianism certainly has this problem.
If the title didn't give it away, this book, in-depth, tackles the theology of Oneness and provides a concise defense for accepting 'Oneness' over the Trinitarian belief.
Chapters 1-6: The doctrine of Christian monotheism conveyed by the Bible
Chapters 7-9: Rebutting other interpretations
Chapter 10: History of Oneness postapostolic
Chapters 11-12: Doctrine, history, and development of the Trinitarian Doctrine
My biggest nitpick with this book concerns the writing:
-Chapter 6: "The Son" seems almost contradictory to 'oneness' theology. As well, the last 50% of this book regarding the "Son"/'Jesus Christ as a man' becomes a bit confusing in terms of ascertaining whatever exactly the author is trying to convey.
-This book is based on building blocks of former chapters and heavily relies on recalling and repeating previous information which becomes incredibly tedious to read at times.
Though others may find it boring, I enjoyed the somewhat frivolous arguments against Oneness theology that are presented and debunked.
All in all, a solid book that I highly recommend not reading in one sitting (such as I did).
------
Notable Quotes:
-A common remark by some trinitarians about the Old Testament doctrine of the oneness of God is that God only intended to emphasize His oneness as opposed to pagan deities but that He still existed as a plurality. However, if this conjecture were true, why did not God make it clear? Why have the Jews not understood a theology of “persons” but have insisted on an absolute monotheism? Let us look at it from God’s point of view. Suppose He did want to exclude any belief in a plurality in the Godhead. How could He do so using then-existing terminology? What strong words could He use to get His message across to His people? When we think about it, we will realize that He used the strongest possible language available to describe absolute oneness. In the preceding verses of Scripture in Isaiah, we note the use of words and phrases such as “none, none else, none like me, none beside me, alone, by myself,” and “one.” Surely, God could not make it plainer that no plurality whatsoever exists in the Godhead. In short, the Old Testament affirms that God is absolutely one in number.
-In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example, the heart of God denotes His intellect and His emotions, not a blood-pumping organ (Genesis 6:6; 8:21). When God said heaven was His throne and earth was His footstool, He described His omnipresence, not a pair of literal feet propped up on the globe (Isaiah 66:1). When God said His right hand spanned the heavens, He described His great power and not a large hand stretching through the atmosphere (Isaiah 48:13). “The eyes of the LORD are in every place” does not mean that God has physical eyes in every location but indicates His omnipresence and omniscience (Proverbs 15:3). When Jesus cast devils out by the finger of God, He did not pull down a giant finger from heaven, but He exercised the power of God (Luke 11:20). The blast of God’s nostrils was not literal particles emitted by giant heavenly nostrils but the strong east wind sent by God to part the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8; 14:21). In fact, literal interpretation of all the visions and physical descriptions of God would lead to the belief that God has wings (Psalm 91:4). In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ.
-These moral attributes of God are not contradictory but work in harmony. For example, God’s holiness required an immediate separation be tween God and humans when they sinned. Then, God’s righteousness and justice required death as the penalty for sin, but God’s love and mercy sought pardon. God satisfied both justice and mercy by the death of Christ at Calvary and the resulting plan of salvation
-In using LORD as a substitute for YHWH, they were simply following an ancient Jewish tradition of substituting Adonai for YHWH when copying or reading the Scriptures. This custom arose because the Jews wanted to safeguard against taking God’s name in vain, which would violate the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). They felt that by constantly repeating the sacred name of God they might begin to treat it too casually and lightly. The name of God was so holy and sacred that they did not feel worthy to use it.
-Jesus means Jehovah-Savior, Jehovah our Salvation, or Jehovah is Salvation. This is why the angel said, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The identification of the name Jesus with salvation is particularly evident because the Hebrew for Jeshua is practically identical to the Hebrew for salvation, especially since ancient Hebrew did not use written vowels. In fact, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance transliterates Jeshua as Yeshuwa and the Hebrew word for salvation as Yeshuwah. Although others have borne the name Jehoshua, Joshua, or Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only One who actually lived up to that name. He is the only One who is actually what that name describes.
-Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation, or the manifestation of “The mighty God” and “The everlasting Father.”
-The statement that Jesus is God necessarily implies that God took on human flesh. This is in fact what the Bible says.
1. “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (I Timothy 3:16; see verse 15 for further confirmation that God is the subject of verse 16). God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.
2. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:1, 14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented among us. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses prove that Jesus is God—that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh.
God is a Spirit—without flesh and blood and invisible to us. In order to make Himself visible to us and in order to shed innocent blood for our sins, He had to put on flesh. (For more on the purposes of the Son, see chapter 5.) Jesus is not another God or a part of God, but He is the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh.
-John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man’s word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).
-We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son. On His human side He is the Son of man; on His divine side He is the Son of God and is the Father dwelling in flesh.
-When Paul, the educated Jew, the Pharisee of Pharisees, the fanatic persecutor of Christianity, was stricken on the road to Damascus by a blinding light from God, he asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, “Who are You, Jehovah?” The Lord answered, “I am Jesus” (Acts 9:5).
-Although Moses dealt with Jehovah God, Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ to be greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. So Moses’ God was Jesus Christ.
-The Jews were right in believing that there was one God, in believing that only God could forgive sin, and in understanding that Jesus claimed to be the one God (the Father and Jehovah) incarnate. They were wrong only because they refused to believe Jesus’ claim.
It is amazing that some people today not only reject the Lord’s assertion of His true identity but even fail to realize what He did assert. Even the Jewish opponents of Jesus realized that Jesus claimed to be God, the Father, and Jehovah in flesh, but some today cannot see what the Scriptures so plainly declare.
-We should consider the dual nature of Christ in the framework of biblical terminology. The term “Father” refers to God Himself—God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. “God the Father,” therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature.
-According to God’s plan, the shedding of blood was necessary for the remission of human sins (Hebrews 9:22). The blood of animals could not take away human sin because animals are inferior to humans (Hebrews 10:4). No other human could purchase redemption for someone else because all had sinned and so deserved the penalty of death for themselves (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Only God was sinless, but He did not have flesh and blood. Therefore, God prepared a body for Himself (Hebrews 10:5), that He might live a sinless life in flesh and shed innocent blood to save humanity. He became flesh and blood so that He could through death defeat the devil and deliver humanity (Hebrews 2:14-15). In this way Christ is our propitiation—the means by which we obtain forgiveness, the satisfaction of God’s justice, the appeasement of God’s holy wrath (Romans 3:25).
-Hebrews 1:2 states that God made the worlds by the Son. Similarly, Colossians 1:13-17 says all things were created by the Son, and Ephesians 3:9 says all things were created by Jesus Christ. What does creation “by the Son” mean, since the Son did not have a substantial preexistence before the Incarnation?
Of course, we know that Jesus as God pre existed the Incarnation, since the deity of Jesus is none other than the Father Himself. We recognize that Jesus (the divine Spirit of Jesus) is indeed the Creator. These verses describe the eternal Spirit that was in the Son—the deity that was later incarnated as the Son—as the Creator. The humanity of Jesus Christ could not create, but God who came in the Son as Jesus Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:10 clearly states that Jesus as Lord was the Creator.
-“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. . . . God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” The first portion of the above passage clearly refers to the deity in the Son, while the second portion refers to the humanity of the Son. The writer of Hebrews quoted a prophetic passage in Psalm 45:6-7. This is not a conversation in the Godhead but a prophetic utterance inspired by God and looking to the future incarnation of God in flesh. God was speaking prophetically through the psalmist to describe Himself in a future role.
-We should note that these three titles are not the only ones God has. Many other titles or names for God are very significant and appear frequently in the Bible, including terms such as LORD (Jehovah), Lord, Word, God Almighty, and Holy One of Israel. The Oneness view does not deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but it does refute the view that these terms designate persons in the Godhead. God has many titles, but He is one being. He is indivisible as to His existence, but His revelation of Himself to humanity has been expressed through many channels, including His revelation as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Ghost.
-We know that the one name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus, for Jesus is the name of the Father (John 5:43; Hebrews 1:4), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). The New Testament church understood this to be so, for they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; I Corinthians 1:13). Matthew himself endorsed this interpretation by standing with Peter and the other apostles during the sermon in which Peter commanded the people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:14-38).
Some claim that the references in Acts do not really mean that the name of Jesus was orally uttered as part of the baptismal formula. However, this appears to be an attempt to twist the language to comply with an erroneous doctrine and practice. Acts 22:16 says, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The Amplified Bible says, “Rise and be baptized, and by calling upon His name wash away your sins.” The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament says, “Invoking the name.” Therefore this verse of Scripture indicates the name Jesus was orally invoked at baptism.
-We should remember that water baptism is administered because of our past life of sin; it is for the “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Since the name of Jesus is the only saving name (Acts 4:12), it is logical that the name be used in baptism.
-The New Testament writers had no conception of the doctrine of the trinity, which was still far in the future. They came from a strict monotheistic Jewish background; one God was not an issue with them at all. Some passages may seem “trinitarian” to us at first glance because trinitarians through the centuries have used them and interpreted them according to their doctrine. However, to the early church, who had no concept of the future doctrine of the trinity, these same passages were readily understandable. There was no thought of contradicting either strict monotheism or the deity of Jesus.
-Do the prayers of Christ indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father? No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His deity. If the prayers of Jesus demonstrate that the divine nature of Jesus is different from the Father, then Jesus is inferior to the Father in deity. In other words, if Jesus prayed as God then His position in the Godhead would be somehow inferior to the other “persons.” This one example effectively destroys the concept of a trinity of coequal persons.
How can God pray and still be God? By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.
What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the man Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God. God did not need help; only the man did. As Jesus said at the Garden of Gethsemane, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).
-By referring to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, the writers were emphasizing two roles of God and the importance of accepting Him in both roles. Not only must we believe in God as our Creator and Father, but we must accept Him as manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ. Everyone must acknowledge that Jesus is come in the flesh and that He is both Lord and Christ (Messiah). Consequently, the salutations emphasize belief not only in God, which the Jews and many pagans accepted, but also in God as revealed through Christ.
This explains why it was unnecessary to mention the Holy Ghost; the concept of God as a Spirit was wrapped up in the title of God the Father, especially to the Jewish mind. We must remember, too, that the doctrine of the trinity did not develop until much later in church history. (See chapter 11.) Therefore, these phrases did not sound the least bit awkward or strange to the writers or the readers.
-II Corinthians 13:14 reads, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” Again, we should remember that Paul penned this verse of Scripture at a time when trinitarianism was still a doctrine of the future, and therefore the verse was not puzzling or unusual at the time. Basically, the verse conveys three aspects or attributes of God that we can know and have. First, there is God’s grace. God has made His grace available to humanity through His manifestation in flesh, in Jesus Christ. In other words, unmerited favor, divine help, and salvation come to us through the atoning work of Jesus. Then God is love, and love always has been part of His basic nature. He loved us long before He robed Himself in flesh as Christ. And finally, the baptism of the Holy Ghost gives us communion (fellowship) with God and with our fellow believers: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body”—the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). Through the indwelling Spirit of God, not the presence of the physical body of Jesus Christ, we have a present, continuing relationship with God unlike anything available to the Old Testament saints.
II Corinthians 13:14 is logical and under standable when we interpret it as three important relationships God has shared with us or as three different works the one God accomplishes. There are diversities of operations but only one God working all in all (I Corinthians 12:4-6).
-The Bible does not mention the word trinity, nor does it mention the word persons in reference to God. The Bible does not even relate the words person and three to God in any significant way.
Nonbiblical terminology in and of itself does not mean that a doctrine described by it is necessarily false, but it does cast considerable doubt on the matter. This is especially true when the nonbiblical terminology is not merely a replacement for biblical terminology, but instead it teaches new concepts. In short, nonbiblical terminology is dangerous if it leads to nonbiblical ways of thinking and eventually to nonbiblical doctrines. Trinitarianism certainly has this problem.
November 1, 2013
In reading the book The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard, I felt that the author did a wonderful job explaining the Oneness of God. Overall I would give this book a five out of five, because, Scriptures that I have read and not realized the power that they had. This book has definitely taught me to pay better to the scriptures I read.
Right away in chapter one the writer quotes a scripture, " Hear, O Israel : The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Also quotes Galatians 3:20, " God is one". I love how he starts out with plain and bold scriptures. This right here teaches all of us that God is one, and there is only one Lord. The boldness throughout this book has taught me to be bold in my faith, after I get the truth into my heart and mind I need to show it boldly.
This book is broken down into chapters and at the end of each chapter the writer has notes, stating where he got all of his information, and citing his works, which I definitely believe gives this book a lot of credibility. Overall, I would recommend this book to everyone to read; new believers, prospects, and people searching for more information on Jesus Christ.
Right away in chapter one the writer quotes a scripture, " Hear, O Israel : The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Also quotes Galatians 3:20, " God is one". I love how he starts out with plain and bold scriptures. This right here teaches all of us that God is one, and there is only one Lord. The boldness throughout this book has taught me to be bold in my faith, after I get the truth into my heart and mind I need to show it boldly.
This book is broken down into chapters and at the end of each chapter the writer has notes, stating where he got all of his information, and citing his works, which I definitely believe gives this book a lot of credibility. Overall, I would recommend this book to everyone to read; new believers, prospects, and people searching for more information on Jesus Christ.
June 18, 2013
The language and doctrine employed by Trinitarians are products of thinking that occurred after the canon of the Bible had been written.
The language employed by Oneness Pentecostals is consistently more faithful to the plain words of the 66 books of the Old and the New Testament.
I'd much rather be caught offending so called religious councils and clergyman that decided what the Bible meant in 325AD than offend the plain ordinary language of the Bible.
When I tell my professors of literary studies, humanities, and Religious studies (not affiliated with Bible schools) that I'm not a Trinitarian, many of them respond by saying something like, "well that's ok, because that's something read into the Bible with doctrines that were created after the apostles and writers of the canon."
And that's not a lie.
People who hold so called "church history" post Biblical canon in line with the 66 books of the Old and New Testament for doctrine are appealing to non-canonical materials.
And they'll use these post-canon councils to call other people heretics!
It's better to obey God than men.
The language employed by Oneness Pentecostals is consistently more faithful to the plain words of the 66 books of the Old and the New Testament.
I'd much rather be caught offending so called religious councils and clergyman that decided what the Bible meant in 325AD than offend the plain ordinary language of the Bible.
When I tell my professors of literary studies, humanities, and Religious studies (not affiliated with Bible schools) that I'm not a Trinitarian, many of them respond by saying something like, "well that's ok, because that's something read into the Bible with doctrines that were created after the apostles and writers of the canon."
And that's not a lie.
People who hold so called "church history" post Biblical canon in line with the 66 books of the Old and New Testament for doctrine are appealing to non-canonical materials.
And they'll use these post-canon councils to call other people heretics!
It's better to obey God than men.
January 14, 2019
This is a great book and David K. Bernard has presented the Oneness of God in a way that's constantly backed by scripture. Every time he makes a statement it is followed with scripture not an opinion backed by philosophies of men. I have read this book twice and always enjoy books by him. This book has also been presented in a way that the average person can understand.
June 10, 2010
This book will blow your mind as it is packed full of intelligent debate and reasoning for the Oneness of God. This book is a must and as it will show you it is a must to the Christian faith.
August 13, 2012
I read this book many years ago while studying a Biblical course in the Oneness of God. It's a very good theological reference for teaching.
Read
June 8, 2020Excellent, Biblically accurate explanation of the identity of God.
October 28, 2020
Thankful for Dr. David K Bernard and his writings on the oneness of God. Thankful for the revelation of oneness! Check this book out!
July 26, 2023
David K. Bernard is a champion of Oneness Pentecostal Theology. I had never heard of him prior to being recommended this book by a Pentecostal friend, but later discovered this. The book is a thorough defense of the Oneness doctrine of God. Bernard does cover all his bases as far as addressing all the major arguments and passages used as arguments against Oneness theology. I wouldn't say that he answers all the arguments sufficiently. Whenever there is a difficult passage from a triniarian perspective, he resorts to interpretation overload where he gives 6 or 7 possible responses without settling on any one, hoping the reader is overwhelmed so much that they don't see past the illegitimate of any one of the arguments. He does this on p. 185 when responding to to argument "How could God be love if love is a reciprocated quality, and if there was no one in the beginning to reciprocate love with?" This is a classic trinitarian argument for God being more than one in person. Bernard doesn't give a solid answer but uses she shotgun approach acknowledged above. He does this a few other times throughout the book. He contradicts himself badly a couple of times I remember. He harps over and over that trinitarianism relies on the fact that God's nature is a mystery, but Bernard says it isn't and Oneness theology leaves no mystery. But then in His conclusion he states that to understand God's nature and Oneness one must be illuminated by the H.S. He has an odd understanding of mystery if this is the case. Another major contradiction is when He describes the deity and humanity in Christ being inseparable, yet when explaining things like how Jesus talked to Himself (the Father) Bernard consistently separates the deity of Christ from His humanity to explain this. This latter argument and response by Bernard and Oneness people is the greatest mystery of them all. The dual nature of Christ is the greatest stumbling block for the Oneness position. It is seen in this book that Bernard constantly alludes back to the "humanity and deity" of Christ, because there is no other response to make sense of the three persons in the progressive revelation of the NT, yet this response never makes any sense and is unfortunately a great mystery which only Oneness Pentecostals who have been illuminated can understand. For a book on Oneness theology, I would suppose this is probably the best resource out there.
July 7, 2023
This book is being rated on two spectrums. One, how well it represents its own movement and two, how persuasive I find it's arguments.
HOW WELL IT REPRESENTS THE ONENESS MOVEMENT
While this is probably the most read work on the Oneness of God from the Oneness perspective, it is not Bernard's best work on the subject. The strongest presentations on the Oneness position I am aware of would be David Norris "I AM" and David Bernard's "The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: Deification of Jesus in Early Christian Discourse." Both of these works are a bit dense and on the scholarly side.
HOW PERSUASUVE I FIND IT'S ARGUMENTS
This book essentially only refutes 2nd Millennium Protestant reinterpretations of Nicaea (Egalitarian Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism, etc) and never really discusses the Old Nicaean view of the Monarchy of the Father and the Deity of Christ. I think it's presuppositions of what 2nd Temple Jews would have believed is mistaken. It's presuppositions, paradigms, and false dichotomies don't seem to touch the view held by the church of the First Millennium and, at best, only offers a limited critique of modern ideas.
THE ONENESS MOVEMENT
In recent years, Oneness theologians have cleaned up the tendency to lean hard into Nestorianism and other errors. In addition, they have improved their ability to refute various Western Trinitarian Errors in Classical Evangelicalism instead of just picking apart easy targets like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, or Finnis Dake (as if these men represent anything but overactive egos and imaginations let loose and redefining historic words). My interactions on the lay level seem to still indicate the average lay-person still holds to not too much more than "Father/Son/Spirit" are interchangeable titles for Jesus. The pastors (and especially those graduating from their Bible Colleges) seem to becoming clearer on their positive position rather then simply identifying over what they reject. Still, I am unaware of anyone in the movement (though I have not kept track for a decade now) who is really meaningfully interacting with the views of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Early Church. It seems they are too reliant on Wester reinterpretations of what the Early Church Fathers taught or meant by their words.
HOW WELL IT REPRESENTS THE ONENESS MOVEMENT
While this is probably the most read work on the Oneness of God from the Oneness perspective, it is not Bernard's best work on the subject. The strongest presentations on the Oneness position I am aware of would be David Norris "I AM" and David Bernard's "The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ: Deification of Jesus in Early Christian Discourse." Both of these works are a bit dense and on the scholarly side.
HOW PERSUASUVE I FIND IT'S ARGUMENTS
This book essentially only refutes 2nd Millennium Protestant reinterpretations of Nicaea (Egalitarian Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism, etc) and never really discusses the Old Nicaean view of the Monarchy of the Father and the Deity of Christ. I think it's presuppositions of what 2nd Temple Jews would have believed is mistaken. It's presuppositions, paradigms, and false dichotomies don't seem to touch the view held by the church of the First Millennium and, at best, only offers a limited critique of modern ideas.
THE ONENESS MOVEMENT
In recent years, Oneness theologians have cleaned up the tendency to lean hard into Nestorianism and other errors. In addition, they have improved their ability to refute various Western Trinitarian Errors in Classical Evangelicalism instead of just picking apart easy targets like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, or Finnis Dake (as if these men represent anything but overactive egos and imaginations let loose and redefining historic words). My interactions on the lay level seem to still indicate the average lay-person still holds to not too much more than "Father/Son/Spirit" are interchangeable titles for Jesus. The pastors (and especially those graduating from their Bible Colleges) seem to becoming clearer on their positive position rather then simply identifying over what they reject. Still, I am unaware of anyone in the movement (though I have not kept track for a decade now) who is really meaningfully interacting with the views of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Early Church. It seems they are too reliant on Wester reinterpretations of what the Early Church Fathers taught or meant by their words.
August 12, 2025
I have always found the trinity doctrine very puzzling and, if I'm honest, unrealistic. I 100% get why people use it. It helps explain God in an abstract way, but abstract doesn't work for real life. I think the Oneness doctrine that this book proposes seems a lot more logical and understandable. But here's the thing, I read James White's book, "The Forgotten Trinity," a while ago; and his explanation of the trinity in Ch. 12 sounded a lot like David K. Bernard's explanation of Oneness. I kinda feel like we are all saying the same thing with different words. God is not literally 3 persons. He just has 3 roles, functions, presentations, or dare I say; modes. That's the reality of the situation. The only way the word person works is if you qualify it with a new definition. I don't know who decided that using the word mode is off limits; but no one has a monopoly on that word. Let's be honest, it's a good word for this.
Also, in James White's book, he wrote the following: "The church confesses the trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man."
I would agree with James on that point because the only time the trinity starts to make any sense at all is when it's described in a Oneness, or modalist way.
David K. Bernard did an excellent job explaining Oneness in this book. He answered many common questions people have about the doctrine and he covered many scriptural references that may be brought up in a debate on the subject. The only reason I'm rating this book a 4 star is because he explained his point so well that it seemed redundant at times.
Also, in James White's book, he wrote the following: "The church confesses the trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man."
I would agree with James on that point because the only time the trinity starts to make any sense at all is when it's described in a Oneness, or modalist way.
David K. Bernard did an excellent job explaining Oneness in this book. He answered many common questions people have about the doctrine and he covered many scriptural references that may be brought up in a debate on the subject. The only reason I'm rating this book a 4 star is because he explained his point so well that it seemed redundant at times.
June 12, 2023
I believed on the Trinity all my life. However, all my life I always was confused and dumbfounded about the explanation of the Trinity. Every time when I asked someone to explain it, they would say “God is a mystery.” or “We will never be able to figure God out.” Even when I wanted to explain it, I couldn’t because it didn’t make sense, it’s a walking contradiction. I couldn't accept that, until I came across Pastor Gino Jennings that he introduced me to “Oneness”, and I thought he was crazy & blasphemous. But as I prayed and studied more, I came across Dr. David Bernard & Steven Gill and they took it to another level for me. I could finally say that I fully understand who I serve and who God truly is.
There is one God. God is one, and JESUS IS HE. HALLELUJAH.
There is one God. God is one, and JESUS IS HE. HALLELUJAH.
October 2, 2025
The content included more of what it wasn’t about than what it was. It kept saying reasons certain belief systems are wrong, but there wasn’t too much depth on what was right. So he did not convince me sorry. My friend who was trying to convince me of this doctrine was really nice though so shoutout to her. All this to say, I’m pretty sure I’m a trinitarian. And I wasn’t sure of that until I read this book haha.
November 27, 2018
Great teaching
An outstanding exposition of true biblical teaching showing a way more perfect.
I like that there is an emphasis on getting back to biblical language not man made understanding that should warn us against being led astray by false doctrines!
Highly recommended to everyone who wants get closer to God.
An outstanding exposition of true biblical teaching showing a way more perfect.
I like that there is an emphasis on getting back to biblical language not man made understanding that should warn us against being led astray by false doctrines!
Highly recommended to everyone who wants get closer to God.
January 30, 2022
This book is fantastic. I love Bernard’s scholarly approach to the Doctrine. I throughly enjoy his many citations and quotes form respected theologians to help support the Oneness of God. His treatment of churches to reason incredible. Pointing out the errors of heresy and upholding the true biblical doctors of God.
August 10, 2023
Very clear and concise explanation of our beliefs along with the historical origins of the trinitarianism among other beliefs. I like how it showed the parallels and explained through scripture why nothing else can be truth.
March 15, 2020
Practical, biblical and in depth. This is a slightly heavy read, but is a tremendous resource for the oneness doctrine.
August 24, 2021
The best treatise in print against the doctrine of the trinity. Well researched. If read with an open mind, biblical revelation of the One God will be apparent.
January 8, 2022
Bernard shows he's a good lawyer, able to argue his views effectively, but ignoring the entirety of scholarship too prove his point
July 18, 2022
Worth revisiting regularly.
June 8, 2023
Bunk. The author replaces the Trinity for an obscure misunderstanding of the hypostatic union which causes more problems than it is fabricated to solve. Role replaces person functionally
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2024
I believe
I am a oneness Pentecostal and I believe this book and found it very helpful and informative. Although there were many problems with the kindle edition
I am a oneness Pentecostal and I believe this book and found it very helpful and informative. Although there were many problems with the kindle edition
February 1, 2013
This book contains a mixed bag of some important considerations tainted by equivocation. If the book stayed focused on the most important clear exegetical issues it would be 10x more useful. For example, an argument like the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary therefore the Holy Spirit is the Father is playing on word usage and not an exegetical argument.
Another example would be an argument such as: The Holy Spirit came in Jesus name; therefore the Holy Spirit is Jesus. This plays with the authorial intent of "in Jesus name". I agree that at least 1 passage in the book of Acts is using "in the name of Jesus" to refer to a baptismal formula recited in that act. However, in the Gospels it is clear that these quoted texts are referring to the Holy Spirit being sent *by the authority of ----* (as in, 'stop, in the name of the law'). For example, Jesus is being sent by the authority of the Father ("in my Father's name"). This is not referring to an identity statement.
Lastly, the Trinity that is presented here seems to be primarily a modern quasi-tritheistic articulation by men like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert, and Finnis Dake. Those articulations, while popular today, do not represent the vast majority of Trinitarian's worldwide today - not to mention historical Trinitarianism.
Another example would be an argument such as: The Holy Spirit came in Jesus name; therefore the Holy Spirit is Jesus. This plays with the authorial intent of "in Jesus name". I agree that at least 1 passage in the book of Acts is using "in the name of Jesus" to refer to a baptismal formula recited in that act. However, in the Gospels it is clear that these quoted texts are referring to the Holy Spirit being sent *by the authority of ----* (as in, 'stop, in the name of the law'). For example, Jesus is being sent by the authority of the Father ("in my Father's name"). This is not referring to an identity statement.
Lastly, the Trinity that is presented here seems to be primarily a modern quasi-tritheistic articulation by men like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert, and Finnis Dake. Those articulations, while popular today, do not represent the vast majority of Trinitarian's worldwide today - not to mention historical Trinitarianism.
June 3, 2012
People actually believe this? It is too bad that a lot of people do. I have actually spoken to Bernard one on one concerning the issue of the Trinity and Oneness theology; I pointed out he had fallen into Nestorian error and he just denied it and didn't want to talk anymore...without any explanation back. I deconstructed his points one by one as he made them and he was like a gunner trying to spray his next point at me without trying to validate the point that I deconstructed. It's not that Bernard is Oneness that is so bad (though I strongly disagree), but that he is Anti-Trinitarian.
March 14, 2013
I read this book when I questioned the doctrine of the Trinity. After finishing it, I was completely a Trinitarian. Bernard's writing style is easy to read and follow, yet I believe that he uses the Bible and other scholarly research to support his point-of-view and fails to truly interact with church history and some challenging passages in the New Testament. Further, he also uses modern definitions to attempt to explain 3rd, 4th, and 5th century explanations, which is not good scholarship, IMHO.
I do not recommend this book.
I do not recommend this book.
August 3, 2024
I read this when I was a Oneness Pentecostal. I had high regard for David Bernard at that time as the leader of the UPC. After studying scripture, my husband and I left the UPC and came to recognize through God's Word and the Holy Spirit that the doctrine of Oneness is false teaching. Those who perpetuate it are ignoring many key texts of scripture and reading their own views into the text.
April 27, 2016
No estoy de acuerdo con esta doctrina pero en question de formato y contenido, este libro es un 4. La informacion esta bien organizada y el contenido es completo y claro. Es un excelente libro para aprender en detalle de que se trata la unicidad de Dios.
July 26, 2013
A triumph!
December 27, 2013
I disagree with David but enjoyed reading his arguments.
February 23, 2015
The definitive apologetic volume on the revelation of the Mighty God in Christ! It's a fact that God and Christ are One!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews