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

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

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

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

Bernard presents 26 supposed "contradictions" in Trinitarianism, argues the doctrine is nonbiblical in both terminology and content, provides a comparison table of Trinitarianism vs. Oneness, and asks what the average church member "really believes." 1. THE 26 "CONTRADICTIONS" — OVERALL ASSESSMENT Bernard's list is rhetorically effective but is predominantly composed of either (a) questions the Trinitarian tradition has answered in detail using Chalcedonian Christology, or (b) genuine puzzles that Trinitarians acknowledge as mysteries without claiming them to be logical contradictions. A systematic Trinitarian can answer every item. Bernard presents them without engaging standard Trinitarian responses — a sustained straw man argument. Selected items with responses: Items 3-6 (Prayer, knowledge, power subordination): The Trinitarian answer is Chalcedonian two-nature Christology: the Son's limitations in knowledge (Mark 13:32), power (John 5:19), and prayer (Matthew 26:39) belong to his human nature, not his divine person. The divine person of the Son, united with human nature, voluntarily submitted to genuine human limitation in the Incarnation. This is not a contradiction — it is the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum (properties of the natures communicated to the one person). Bernard acknowledges this answer exists but dismisses it with "Are there two Sons?" (item 12) — which is precisely what the Trinitarian denies: there is one divine person of the Son with two natures, not two Sons. Item 1 (Two fathers): Bernard asks whether Jesus had two fathers (the Father and the Holy Spirit as conceiving agent). The Trinitarian answer: the Father is Jesus' eternal Father in the immanent Trinity (the relation of eternal generation); the Holy Spirit is the agent of the virginal conception in the Incarnation. The conception does not constitute another "father" in the same sense — the Spirit acted as God's power overshadowing Mary, not as a second parental origin. The Father and Spirit are not two competing fathers but one God whose first person is Father and whose third person acted instrumentally in the Incarnation. Item 7 (Can God die?): Bernard asks: "Can God die? Can part of God die?" The Trinitarian answer: the divine person of the Son died in his human nature. Divinity as the divine essence did not cease to exist — the person of the Son, in the Incarnation, became capable of death through his human nature. The communicatio idiomatum means the death is properly attributed to the divine person (which is why it is saving — "the Lord of glory was crucified," 1 Corinthians 2:8) without the divine nature itself undergoing ontological cessation. Bernard's question imports a category that orthodox Trinitarianism does not accept — that the divine essence or nature died. Item 11 (The Son's reign ends in 1 Corinthians 15:28): This is Bernard's most substantive point and deserves acknowledgment as a genuine exegetical puzzle. The Trinitarian response distinguishes the mediatorial kingdom (the Son's redemptive role as the God-man, which is temporal and economy-bound) from the eternal person of the Son (who remains the Son forever in the immanent Trinity). 1 Corinthians 15:28 describes the completion of the economy of redemption — after which the Son's function as mediator is completed and God is "all in all." This does not mean the eternal person of the Son ceases to exist or ceases to be the Son; it means the temporary soteriological order is superseded by the eternal state. Item 21 (Blasphemy of the Spirit vs. Son): The Trinitarian answer: blasphemy against the Son in his earthly humiliation can be forgiven because the Son was veiled in human flesh, and ignorance of his identity is possible (Acts 3:17: "I know that you acted in ignorance"). Blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgivable because it involves a deliberate, final rejection of the Spirit's convicting and witnessing testimony — the very mechanism of repentance and faith. To reject the Spirit's witness is to foreclose the only path to forgiveness. 2. THE "MYSTERY" CRITIQUE — BERNARD'S IRONIC SELF-REFUTATION

Bernard argues that Trinitarianism's appeal to "mystery" is an evasion and that God "never contradicts true logic." He insists God's oneness is "no mystery." The irony: Bernard's own system is equally full of profound mystery. How can the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus speak from heaven while simultaneously inhabiting a physical body in the Jordan River without those being two locations of one indivisible Spirit? How can Jesus be "forsaken" by the Father-Spirit while the same Father-Spirit never departed his body until death? How can the Son have genuinely prayed "not my will, but yours" if the Son is the Father — whose will was he submitting to other than his own? Bernard's system involves mysteries at every turn — it simply claims not to, which makes it epistemically overconfident rather than genuinely clearer. The Trinitarian does not say the Trinity is irrational or self-contradictory — that would require demonstrating that "one God in three persons" contains a logical contradiction of the form P and not-P simultaneously. The claim is that it is transrational — exceeding the categories of finite human experience without violating the law of non-contradiction. As Grudem notes, the Trinity is defined precisely to avoid formal contradiction: not "one person who is three persons" but "one being who subsists in three persons." 3. THE "AVERAGE CHURCH MEMBER" APPEAL — A POPULIST FALLACY

Bernard argues that most ordinary Christians "instinctively think in Oneness terms" — praying to Jesus, expecting to see one God in heaven, rarely praying to the Spirit as a distinct person. This is an appeal to popular intuition that proves nothing theologically. Sophisticated doctrine is not determined by how naturally it comes to the theologically untrained. Furthermore, the behaviors Bernard cites are entirely consistent with standard Trinitarian devotional practice: directing prayer "to Jesus" is consistent with Christ's role as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and with his divine person; expecting to see "one God" (Jesus) in heaven is consistent with Colossians 1:15's identification of Christ as "the image of the invisible God" — the visible presence of the one God for human perception; seldom praying directly to the Spirit is explained by John 16:13's self-effacing role of the Spirit. 4. THE COMPARISON TABLE — TERMINOLOGICAL ASYMMETRY

The Trinitarianism vs. Oneness table (pages 167-169) is deliberately asymmetric. Bernard's Trinitarian column consistently describes the doctrine in its most vulnerable or least carefully qualified form. For example, item 8: "We will see the Trinity or the Triune God in heaven. (Many trinitarians say we will see three bodies, which is outright tritheism. Others leave open the possibility that we will see only one Spirit being with one body. Most trinitarians do not know what they believe about this.)" The parenthetical characterization of Trinitarians as predominantly confused or tritheistic while Oneness believers clearly "will see Jesus Christ in heaven" is rhetorically powerful but uncharitable misrepresentation. Standard Trinitarian theology (e.g., Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 262) is unambiguous: in heaven we will see the glorified body of Jesus Christ — the human nature of the eternal Son — as the visible locus of divine presence. This is not confusion; it is the standard Trinitarian teaching on the beatific vision and the glorified Christ as the image of the invisible God.

Chapter 12 is a concentrated attack piece. Having established (to his own satisfaction) that Trinitarianism is historically and theologically questionable, Bernard now compiles 26 alleged contradictions and biblical problems with the doctrine. The chapter's rhetorical power comes from sheer volume: 26 problems create the impression of overwhelming evidence even if many individual items are shallow or self-defeating. The chapter also includes the key Trinitarianism vs. Oneness comparison table and closes with the argument that average church members are closet Oneness believers. All three components have serious problems. SECTION 1: THE 26 CONTRADICTIONS — PAGES 164–166

The 26 questions range from genuine theological puzzles to logical fallacies to questions that implode symmetrically under Oneness theology. The most significant require detailed examination. Questions 1–2: The Two Fathers and One Spirit Problems

   "Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (1 John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)."

   "How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit."

Trinitarian theology's answer: the Father and Holy Spirit are not two separate agents — the incarnation was the act of the one triune God; the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, not a second agency alongside the Father. There is one Spirit shared fully by Father, Son, and Spirit within the one divine being. But these questions apply more acutely to Oneness theology. If Jesus is the Father incarnate, and the Father conceived Jesus through the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20), then the Father-God conceived the Father-God through the Father-God's own Spirit. How can the Father be the Father of a Son if the Father is the Son? Bernard's standard answer — "Son" refers only to the human nature — still requires an agent of conception (the divine Spirit) to have fathered the human nature. The agent of conception and the conceived party must be distinct, or the incarnation becomes a logical impossibility. Oneness theology faces exactly the same question Bernard is posing to Trinitarianism, just at a different location in its system. Questions 3–6 and 12: The Inequality Problems and Their Resolution

   "If Father and Son are coequal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father?" (Matthew 11:25) "How can the Son not know as much as the Father?" (Matthew 24:36) "How can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him?" (John 5:19, 30)

Trinitarian theology's answer is the two-nature Christology established at Chalcedon (451): Christ's human nature prays, lacks omniscience, and receives power from the Father. Christ's divine nature is coequal with the Father. The one person possesses both natures; functional limitations are proper to the human nature.

Bernard anticipates and attacks this answer in Question 12: "If in answer to questions 3 through 11 we say only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can we speak of 'God the Son'? Are there two Sons?"

But this objection destroys Oneness theology with equal force. Bernard himself affirms that Jesus has a human nature (the Son) and a divine nature (the Father-Spirit). His own formulation in Chapter 5 was that "the man Christ was subordinate to the divine Spirit." In Oneness theology, there is also a human component that prays, lacks knowledge, and defers to the divine component within Jesus. If this creates "two Sons" for Trinitarianism, it creates an equally incoherent "two natures bundled" problem for Oneness theology by the same logic. Bernard's Question 12 is self-defeating — it applies symmetrically to both positions. Question 7: Can God Die?

   "Did 'God the Son' die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?"

This is the classical Patripassianism concern. Bernard addressed it in Chapter 10 — the modalists' defense was that the flesh died but the eternal Spirit did not. Trinitarian theology gives the identical answer: the divine nature did not die; the human nature of the Son died. Bernard's critique of the Trinitarian position here is indistinguishable from the critique Trinitarian opponents made of the modalists, and he uses the same defense. The question creates no asymmetric problem for Trinitarianism that it does not equally create for Oneness theology. Question 8: The Eternal Son Problem

   "How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning?" (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5–6)

This is a genuine exegetical challenge. Trinitarian theology's answer involves the distinction between "eternally begotten" — the eternal generation of the Son within the immanent Trinity, not a temporal beginning — and "born" — temporal incarnation. Whether "eternal generation" is philosophically coherent is a genuine debate among Trinitarian theologians, including Grudem, who has questioned certain formulations. Bernard is right that the concept requires careful argument.

However, Bernard treats Hebrews 1:5 as straightforwardly proving that the Son had a temporal beginning, when the text is a Messianic application of Psalm 2:7 to the resurrection/exaltation of Christ — about the Son's official appointment as Heir, not about his eternal origin. Most Trinitarian exegetes read Hebrews 1:5 as referring to the exaltation of the incarnate Son. Bernard treats the text as unambiguously establishing a temporal beginning for the Son, when the text's primary reference is to the Son's messianic appointment in the economy of redemption. Questions 13, 16–17: The Worship and Throne Problems

   "Whom do we worship? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60)." "There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it?" "If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God?"

These are genuine puzzles from the texts. Trinitarian theology's answer: we worship the one triune God; there is one throne because there is one God; Christ is at the Father's right hand in a relational sense expressing honor and authority, not a spatial location.

But Oneness theology has equal or greater difficulty with Revelation 4–5. If Jesus is the Father incarnate and the only God, and if Revelation 4 shows the One on the throne while Revelation 5 shows the Lamb standing before the throne, Oneness theology must explain why the Lamb is spatially distinct from the One on the throne. Bernard's answer — the glorified body (Lamb) standing before the divine Spirit (the One on the throne) — introduces a real spatial distinction between the human and divine natures of Jesus, which is precisely the kind of distinction Oneness theology claims to have eliminated by identifying Jesus with the Father completely.

Furthermore, if Jesus "sits at his own right hand" (Acts 2:33 — "God has made him... sit at his own right hand"), then in Oneness theology the Father is at his own right hand, which is spatially incoherent unless the language is entirely non-locative. But if the "right hand" language is non-locative, then the distinction it marks is relational, not spatial — and a relational distinction between the one on the throne and the one at the right hand implies two genuinely distinguishable entities, which is the Trinitarian position. Questions 25–26: The Procession Logic Problems

   "If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?" "If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?"

These questions reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what "procession" means in Trinitarian theology. "Procession" does not describe a biological or genealogical relationship — it names the eternal relation of origin within the immanent Trinity. "Generation" (the Son's relation) and "procession" (the Spirit's relation) are technical terms for two different eternal relations of origin that do not generate additional members by analogy with human family relationships.

Questions 25–26 assume that "proceeding" works like "begetting" in the biological sense, which then produces the absurd "grandson" conclusion. Trinitarian theology has never held this, and the questions attack a caricature the doctrine explicitly rejects. These are the logical equivalent of arguing that because God "speaks" in the Bible, God must also have lungs and a larynx. Question 14: The Additional Persons Problem

   "Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses, we could teach a fourth person."

Bernard's argument here requires assuming that any distinguishable divine referent constitutes a "person" in the Trinitarian technical sense. But Trinitarian theology does not operate with this assumption. The three persons are identified specifically by their eternal relations of origin within the Godhead, not by every instance of divine activity or address. Bernard's hypothetical multiplication of divine persons by applying "trinitarian logic" to additional texts only works if one assumes the unqualified Trinitarian premise he is attacking — that every distinguishable divine referent is a distinct person. The argument is circular. SECTION 2: THE "AVERAGE CHURCH MEMBER" ARGUMENT — PAGES 169–170 Bernard's Argument: Four questions whose affirmative answers indicate "a leaning toward Oneness or functional acceptance of it":

   Do you usually pray directly to Jesus?
   Do you expect to see only one God in heaven, namely, Jesus Christ?
   Do you seldom or never pray directly to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person?
   Is the doctrine of the Trinity confusing to you or a mystery?

Bernard concludes: "many, if not most, Bible believers instinctively think in Oneness terms." Critical Problems: a) The Questions Are Designed to Produce False Positives

All four questions are constructed so that a sincere Trinitarian can answer "yes" without committing to Oneness theology:

   Praying to Jesus is not specifically Oneness. Trinitarian theology affirms that Christ is fully God and a proper object of prayer. Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59). Revelation 22:20 is a prayer to Jesus.

   Expecting to see Jesus in heaven is standard Trinitarian doctrine. The Nicene Creed affirms Christ "will come again in glory." That Christ has a glorified human body visible to created vision does not mean the Father and Spirit are invisible non-entities.

   Not praying directly to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person is consistent with Trinitarian practice. Prayer is addressed to the Father (Matthew 6:9), through the Son (John 14:13-14), in the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18). Trinitarian practice does not require allocating prayers three ways.

   Finding the Trinity mysterious is entirely consistent with fully orthodox Trinitarianism. Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin all affirm the incomprehensibility of the Trinity. Finding something mysterious is not evidence of Oneness conviction.

b) The Argument Is Circular

Bernard has defined "Oneness thinking" so broadly that it includes any Christocentric piety, any emphasis on divine unity, and any discomfort with speculative Trinitarian theology. He then surveys which church members exhibit these characteristics and concludes they are "functionally Oneness." The categories are so elastic that the conclusion is predetermined. Any Christian who emphasizes Jesus "thinks in Oneness terms." The argument classifies all sincere Christianity as closet Oneness — which proves nothing except that Bernard's definition of Oneness is too broad. c) The Argument Backfires Apologetically

If average church members "instinctively think in Oneness terms," and if Oneness is the original apostolic truth, one would expect Oneness Pentecostalism to attract the overwhelming majority of Christians who encounter it. In fact, the vast majority of Christians who encounter Oneness theology reject it, even those who answer Bernard's four survey questions affirmatively. This is evidence against the claim that their instincts are already Oneness. Bernard attributes the majority rejection to historical suppression and the power of tradition — but if the instinctive impulse is Oneness, tradition's grip must be extraordinary indeed, far exceeding the grip it seems to have on virtually every other doctrinal question. SECTION 3: THE COMPARISON TABLE — PAGES 167–169

Several items in the table reveal more than Bernard intends. Table Item 8 — What We Will See in Heaven: Bernard characterizes Trinitarianism's position as: "Many trinitarians say we will see three bodies, which is outright tritheism. Others leave open the possibility that we will see only one Spirit being with one body. Most trinitarians do not know what they believe about this, and some frankly admit they do not know." This is the straw man at its most explicit — presenting the weakest and most confused popular Trinitarian positions as representative of the doctrine. Orthodox Trinitarian eschatology has a clear position: we will see the glorified humanity of Christ, which is the one visible "face" of the triune God to created vision. The Father and Spirit, as pure Spirit, are not separately visible. The glorified Christ is the revelation of the triune God. Bernard does not engage this position — he engages the confused popular positions and attributes them to the doctrine. Table Item 9 — Mystery: Trinitarianism Column: "The Godhead is a mystery." Oneness Column: "God's oneness is no mystery to the church."

The claim that Oneness is "no mystery" relocates, rather than resolves, the theological difficulties:

   How can a being who is purely divine (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) become genuinely human (limited, mortal, growing in knowledge — Luke 2:52) without ceasing to be omnipresent?
   How can Jesus pray to himself in John 17 ("the glory I had with you before the world existed") without engaging in a theatrical monologue, if "you" and "I" are not genuinely distinct parties?
   How can the Son "not exist" before the incarnation as Son (Bernard's position) while John 1:1-2 describes the Word as "with God" — using pros (toward, face-to-face) — in a personal relational construction?
   How can the Father be "at" his own right hand (Acts 2:33) if there is no real distinction between the Father and the glorified Son?

Bernard's "no mystery" claim suppresses all these difficulties rather than answering them. The mystery is not eliminated — it is relocated into the incarnation doctrine and left there, unexamined. CHAPTER 12 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

The 26 questions range from legitimate exegetical puzzles to logical fallacies to questions that self-destruct symmetrically under Oneness theology. The chapter's structural problem is that virtually every question about the Father-Son relationship has a parallel problem in Oneness theology — Oneness does not dissolve the theological difficulties, it relocates them. The "average church member" survey is circular and built on questions that any sincere Trinitarian can answer affirmatively. The comparison table presents Trinitarianism's position from its weakest popular expressions rather than its strongest theological articulation. The "no mystery" claim for Oneness is asserted, not established, and suppresses genuine difficulties in Oneness Christology.

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