An Overview of Bernard's The Oneness of God: Difference between revisions
Created page with "{{Top of Page}} = Overview: ''The Oneness of God'' by David K. Bernard = David K. Bernard's ''The Oneness of God'' is the most thorough and carefully written defense of Oneness Pentecostal theology available. It takes the Bible seriously, defends the full deity of Jesus Christ, and calls readers to a Christ-centered faith. For these reasons it deserves a serious response rather than dismissal. But serious engagement reveals that the book's central claim — that Jesus C..." |
|||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
== Why This Constitutes False Doctrine == | == Why This Constitutes False Doctrine == | ||
1. False doctrine is based on scripture. | |||
William Branham used proof texts to back up his doctrine. A proof text is a biblical statement or citation that [purportedly!] doesn’t require a context to be coherent and meaningful.[i] It’s a scripture intended to show the basis for a particular theological assertion. The danger in proof-texting is well known: proof-texts can be misused and their contextual meaning distorted to use them to support teachings they don’t really support.[ii] This is exactly what William Branham did. | |||
In addition, contrary to 2 Peter 3:15–16, he twisted the meaning of scripture to suit his own purposes. We see this clearly in Revelation 10:7. We will examine this further in Chapter 16. | |||
2. False doctrine is plausible. | |||
On the surface, Branham’s doctrines appear plausible, but they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. | |||
3. False doctrine is self-centered and self-focused. | |||
William Branham encouraged people to stay away from other churches: | |||
Now, stay away from those denominations, they’re leading you to death.[iii] | |||
Message churches, the fruit of Branham’s teaching, are insular and self-focused. | |||
4. False doctrine is reductionist. | |||
In the Message, the gospel is reduced to “God sent a prophet; you must believe what he taught.” Failure to believe that means that you have not received the Holy Spirit. That is the heresy of the Message. | |||
5. False doctrine is divisive. | |||
William Branham was a source of division. He created division within the church: | |||
How contrary is denomination to God’s Word. He never had one, never dealt in one, and never dealt with one. I want some historian to show me where ever a prophet ever come out of the church. Show me where God ever blessed the church after it was organized. She went on the shelf and died with intellectual wisdom from the devil by their leaders and refused the Word of God as it growed up into the perfect stature of Christ. Now, it’s at the head. How contrary … Separate from that unbelieving Eve, you children of the evening light.[iv] | |||
The Message calls for a separation from people in other churches, a characteristic of false doctrine. | |||
All five characteristics of false doctrine are present in the Message. We must, therefore, conclude the Message constitutes false doctrine. | |||
----[i] Michael R. Emlet, Crosstalk: Where Life & Scripture Meet (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2009). | |||
[ii] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987), 197. | |||
[iii] 65-1127B, Trying to Do God a Service without It Being God’s Will, para. 139. | |||
[iv] 65-0801M, The God of This Evil Age, para. 67. | |||
The ancient church identified the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are not genuinely distinct persons but are the same person appearing in different modes, as a heresy. This wasn't a political decision made for convenience. It was a theological judgment that this view misrepresented what the New Testament actually says about God. | The ancient church identified the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are not genuinely distinct persons but are the same person appearing in different modes, as a heresy. This wasn't a political decision made for convenience. It was a theological judgment that this view misrepresented what the New Testament actually says about God. | ||