Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 13
he concluding chapter summarizes the book's argument and presents five specific ways Oneness differs from Trinitarianism. It closes with a pastoral appeal to seek truth through prayer and Scripture rather than tradition.
1. THE JOHN 8:24 CLAIM CONFLATES TWO DISTINCT PROPOSITIONS
Bernard closes with John 8:24: "If you believe not that I AM, you shall die in your sins." He argues that egō eimi identifies Jesus as YHWH of Exodus 3:14, therefore one must believe "there is one God and that Jesus is God" to be saved.
The Trinitarian fully agrees that Jesus's "I AM" sayings identify him with the divine YHWH. The full deity of Jesus Christ is non-negotiable orthodoxy. But Bernard moves from "Jesus is God" (which Trinitarians affirm) to "Jesus is the Father" (which is distinctively Oneness) without any logical bridge. John 8:24 requires that one acknowledge Jesus's divine identity — his full deity — not that one hold a modalistic view of the Godhead. The Trinitarian believes everything in John 8:24 demands. Bernard has presented his own specific doctrinal addition (Father = Son = Spirit = Jesus) as if it were simply the doctrine of Jesus's deity — obscuring the actual point of disagreement. 2. THE FIVE SUMMARY POINTS — EACH FAILS EXEGETICALLY (1) "The Bible does not speak of an eternally existing 'God the Son.'" This claim was refuted most decisively by John 17:5 (analyzed in Chapter 8), Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, and the consistent protos ("before all things") language applied to Christ throughout the NT. The Word's pre-existence in John 1:1-2 is explicitly prior to creation and described in relational terms (pros ton theon — "with/toward God") that presuppose personal distinction. Bernard's denial of eternal Sonship requires a reading of these texts that the Greek will not sustain. (2) "God is one being with one personality, will, and mind." This is a false characterization of the Trinitarian position. Trinitarians do not claim God has three personalities (in the modern psychological sense), three wills (in the sense of competing volitional centers), or three minds (in the sense of three cognitive centers with separate knowledge). They claim three hypostases (subsistences or personal modes of being) within one ousia (being/essence/nature). Bernard has substituted the tritheistic caricature for the actual doctrine and then refuted the caricature. (3) "There is no essential threeness about God." This is the bare assertion of Bernard's entire thesis, stated again without argument in the conclusion. By this point in the book, the reader has seen extensive NT evidence that the Father, Son, and Spirit are genuinely distinct — they love one another, address one another, send one another, and are simultaneously present and distinct at the baptism and the Upper Room Discourse. Bernard's conclusion simply restates what the entire book attempted to prove without adding anything to the argument. (4) "Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." This is the book's culminating distinctive claim. The argument rests on onoma (singular) in Matthew 28:19 and on the Acts baptismal practice. As analyzed in Chapter 6, the singular "name" in Matthew 28:19 follows the normal grammatical pattern of referring to the authority under which baptism is administered, not to a single personal name. The onoma is singular because there is one authority (one God), not because all three titles share one personal name. The Acts baptisms "in the name of Jesus Christ" are not contradictions of Matthew 28:19 but emphatic declarations of Jesus's Messianic identity within the trinitarian formula — addressing Jewish audiences who needed to affirm that Jesus was the Messiah. (5) "Jesus is the incarnation of the fullness of God — of the Father, not just 'God the Son.'" This is the Oneness claim stated as if it were simply the conclusion of the Colossians 2:9 argument. But Colossians 2:9 says "the fullness of deity (theotētos) dwells bodily in him." Trinitarians agree that the fullness of deity — the complete divine nature — is in Christ. The dispute is whether that means the Son is the Father incarnate or whether the Son, as the second person of the Trinity, fully possesses the divine nature (which all three persons share fully). "Fullness of deity" in Christ is entirely consistent with the Son being a distinct person who fully shares in the one divine nature — which is exactly what the Trinitarian says. 3. THE CLOSING COLOSSIANS 2:8 APPEAL — USING ANTI-GNOSTIC TEXT AGAINST TRINITARIANISM
Bernard closes the book with Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The implicit identification of Trinitarianism as the "philosophy and vain deceit" being warned against is the book's final rhetorical maneuver. But Paul was warning the Colossian church against Gnostic syncretism — a system that denied the full deity and humanity of Christ and interposed angelic intermediaries between God and matter. Trinitarianism affirms the full deity of Christ and opposes all forms of Gnostic subordinationism that would make Christ less than fully God. The movement Paul feared most was the exact thing Arianism represented centuries later — and Nicea's affirmation of the Son's homoousios with the Father was the Church's decisive anti-Gnostic, anti-Arian stand. Bernard has appropriated Paul's anti-Gnostic, pro-Christ-deity warning and redirected it against the doctrine that most explicitly affirms everything Paul was defending.
Footnotes