Jump to content

Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 12

From BelieveTheSign
Revision as of 16:27, 15 June 2026 by Admin (talk | contribs)


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



This is our series of articles analyzing David Bernard's book, The Oneness of God. You are on the page that is in bold. Click on the links to go to a particular chapter:

A Critical Analysis of Chapter 12 of The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard

"Trinitarianism: An Evaluation"

"Did Jesus Christ have two fathers?" That's the first question in Bernard's list of twenty-six supposed contradictions in Trinitarian theology. By question twenty-five we've arrived at whether the Holy Spirit is a son of the Father, and by question twenty-six, whether the Spirit might be the Father's grandson. The questions range from genuinely challenging to comic absurdity, and Bernard presents them as a comprehensive case that the doctrine of the Trinity is not only unbiblical but logically broken.

Chapter 12 is where the cumulative argument of the book lands. Bernard has spent eleven chapters building toward this: a direct evaluation of Trinitarianism as a doctrine that fails on biblical, historical, and logical grounds. What he doesn't adequately reckon with is that most of the problems he raises apply equally to Oneness theology — and that the question of what the Trinity actually adds to the Christian faith is the one question that most decisively weighs against his position.

What Bernard Gets Right

Some of the challenges in Bernard's list are real challenges, not just rhetorical maneuvers. The questions about the Son's limitations — his not knowing the day of his return (Mark 13:32), his dependence on the Father (John 5:19), his genuine prayer life — do require a careful Trinitarian answer. They're not embarrassments to be waved away. The Trinitarian tradition has always maintained that the Son, in taking on a full human nature, genuinely took on genuine human limitations, and the careful distinction between Jesus's divine nature and human nature is theology's answer, not a retreat.

Bernard is also right that the doctrine of the Trinity is a paradox — that holding together three distinct persons and one God stretches human language past its limit. Trinitarians have always admitted this. The question is whether admitting mystery is an evasion or simply an honest recognition that God's inner being exceeds what human minds can fully comprehend.

The Mirror Problem: These Contradictions Belong to Both Views

The most significant problem with Bernard's list of twenty-six contradictions is that most of them apply with equal or greater force to Oneness theology. If they were genuine logical problems with the Trinitarian position, you would expect Oneness to solve them. Mostly, it doesn't.

Take question 7: "Can part of God die?" Bernard asks how "God the Son" could die if God cannot die. But Oneness theology has exactly the same problem. Bernard himself states in the research paper in Chapter 10 that "the flesh died but the eternal Spirit did not" — meaning in Oneness terms, the human nature of Jesus died while the divine Spirit within him did not. That is structurally identical to the Trinitarian answer: the Son in his human nature died; his divine nature did not cease to exist. Both views need to distinguish between what died and what didn't. Bernard hasn't solved the problem — he's just relocated it.

Take question 2: "How many Spirits are there?" The Father is Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord is Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition — yet there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4). Bernard says this is a Trinitarian problem. But in Oneness theology, the Father, the Spirit of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same one Spirit. That's exactly the Trinitarian answer: one Spirit, fully present in each person of the Godhead. The verse Bernard uses to challenge Trinitarianism ("the Lord is the Spirit") is itself a verse he uses elsewhere as evidence that Jesus is the Spirit — which means he's affirming the very kind of identity statement that he claims is a Trinitarian problem.

Take question 20: "Who raised Jesus from the dead?" Bernard lists the Father (Ephesians 1:20), Jesus himself (John 2:19-21), and the Spirit (Romans 8:11) and implies this is a contradiction. But this isn't a contradiction in Trinitarianism — it's a demonstration of Trinitarian cooperation. Each person of the Godhead fully acts in every work of God, with distinct but coordinated roles. And in Oneness theology, the same one divine Spirit simultaneously raised Jesus and was raised — which raises the same question. Bernard's challenge proves too little to be a contradiction of either view.

Questions 25 and 26 — asking whether the Spirit is the Son or grandson of the Father — apply biological family-tree logic to the inner life of God. Trinitarians have never used "proceeds from" to mean biological generation. These aren't theological objections. They're jokes that only work if you insist on reading divine relationships through human family structures, which is exactly what both Trinitarian and Oneness theology explicitly refuse to do.

The "Two Fathers" Confusion

Bernard's opening question — did Jesus have two fathers, since the Father is the Father of the Son but the Holy Spirit conceived him — sounds like a real problem. Boyd identifies the flaw directly: it takes the words "Father" and "Son" as if they describe a literal biological relationship, when they're describing something far deeper — a relationship of love, authority, and sending.

When the Bible calls God "the Father" and Jesus "the Son," it's not describing biological reproduction. Boyd says the argument "makes the same mistake that Mormons make in their understanding of the Trinity; namely, it understands the 'Father-Son' language of Scripture far too anthropomorphically" — meaning it reads God through the lens of human family biology when the Bible itself doesn't do that. The Father-Son relationship doesn't mean God physically fathered Jesus. That view, Boyd notes, is "common among pagan mythologies" but "completely foreign to the biblical revelation."

The Holy Spirit's role in the conception was the miraculous act by which the eternal Son entered human history through the womb of Mary. The Father's relationship to the Son is eternal and relational, not biological. Once you understand that "Father" and "Son" describe a real but non-biological relationship within God, the apparent contradiction vanishes.

"Can God Pray to God?" — The Question That Backfires

Bernard's third question — if Father and Son are co-equal, why did Jesus pray to the Father? — is meant to show an internal contradiction in Trinitarianism. But Boyd argues it actually reveals a serious weakness in the Oneness position.

The Trinitarian answer is that the eternal Son, having genuinely become a man in the Incarnation, genuinely prays to the Father as Son. This isn't God asking another God for help. It's the Son expressing, in a fully human life, the relationship of loving dependence and deference that characterizes who the Son eternally is within the Godhead. When Jesus says "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), that's not an admission of inferior deity — it's the Son expressing his relationship to the Father within the one God, just as a son can genuinely honor his father without being less of a person.

But Boyd makes a stronger point: the Oneness framework cannot actually affirm that Jesus's prayers were real. In Oneness theology, the Father (the divine Spirit) dwelled within the man Jesus. When Jesus prays, it's the human nature asking something from the divine Spirit within the same body. Boyd writes: "To affirm with Scripture that 'the Word became flesh' either means that what the man Jesus experiences, God experiences — or it means nothing at all." If the divine Spirit within Jesus is not actually experiencing the prayer but merely receiving it from outside, then God didn't genuinely become a man. He moved into one.

The Incarnation — "the Word became flesh," not "the Word took up residence in flesh" — requires that the person doing the praying and the person being prayed to are both genuinely involved. That requires genuine personal distinction. Trinitarianism preserves this. Oneness, by identifying the praying Jesus exclusively with his human nature while the divine Father remains above and within, actually ends up with a less complete Incarnation than it claims.

"The Son Didn't Know" and "The Son Had No Power of His Own"

Several of Bernard's questions (4, 5, 6) focus on the Son's limitations: he didn't know the day of his return, he could do nothing of himself, he came not to do his own will. Bernard presents these as problems for a "God the Son" who is supposedly co-equal and co-eternal.

These passages are not problems for Trinitarianism — they're the content of the Incarnation. The Trinitarian confession is that the Son who is fully God also genuinely became fully human, and that in his human nature he took on genuine human limitations. This was understood clearly enough by the fifth century that the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) formally affirmed that Jesus was "fully God and fully man" — one person with two natures, neither confused with the other nor separated. The Son's lack of certain knowledge "in his day" (Mark 13:32) is the human nature operating as genuinely human. The Son's deference to the Father's will is the eternal Son expressing within human life the eternal relationship he has with the Father.

Bernard's alternative is to say these limitations belong to the "Son" (human nature) while the "Father" (divine nature) within Jesus remains unlimited. But this runs into the very problem Boyd identified: if the human Jesus sometimes "acts as man" and sometimes "acts as God," what exactly did the Word become? The divine Spirit dipping in and out of different modes of self-expression is not a genuine Incarnation. A God who became a man doesn't sometimes act as a man — he always acts as a man, because he has genuinely become one.

The Mystery Bernard Cannot Escape

One of Bernard's most repeated charges against Trinitarianism is that it hides behind "mystery." He writes that it's wrong to call the Godhead a mystery when the Bible has clearly revealed it. God is one. That's simple. Why complicate it with incomprehensible talk of three persons?

Boyd's response to this is the most incisive argument in the whole book. Oneness theology, when followed consistently, requires exactly the same mystery it claims to have solved.

Oneness affirms that the one God exists fully as the transcendent Father, fully as the incarnate Son, and fully as the indwelling Holy Spirit — simultaneously, personally, and completely. Each "mode" involves the complete God, not a third of him. That is a genuinely mysterious claim. How can the whole God exist in three fully distinct and simultaneous ways without being three Gods? Boyd writes: "It is in one sense as mysterious to maintain that a unipersonal God temporarily exists fully, personally, and simultaneously in three distinct ways, as it is to maintain that a tripersonal God eternally exists fully, personally, and simultaneously in three distinct ways."

The mystery that Oneness theology claims to have resolved is still there. You haven't escaped paradox by labeling the three persons as "modes" or "manifestations." You've just called them something else. What you have escaped is the acknowledgment of mystery — but that's not a theological achievement. It's papering over a question that can't be fully answered.

Bernard writes that "the Bible clearly teaches that God is one in number." But the Bible also clearly describes the Father speaking to the Son at the baptism of Jesus, the Spirit descending upon the Son from outside, the Son praying to the Father, the Father sending the Son, the Son interceding for us at the Father's right hand, and the Spirit interceding for us within us. That's not the description of a single person playing roles. It's the description of real, personal interaction between distinct divine persons. The Trinity doesn't invent this complexity. It just takes it seriously.

"Trinitarianism Detracts from the Deity of Christ"

Bernard argues that Trinitarianism diminishes Christ's deity because it "denies that Jesus is the incarnation of the Father and the Holy Spirit." By limiting Jesus to being "God the Son" rather than the fullness of the Father and Spirit, Trinitarianism sells Christ short.

This argument misunderstands the Trinitarian claim. Trinitarians affirm that in Christ "the whole fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Colossians 1:19) and that "in him the whole fullness of deity lives bodily" (Colossians 2:9). Colossians 2:9 doesn't say that one-third of the Godhead lives in Christ — it says the whole fullness does. Trinitarianism doesn't divide God into portions. God is not quantifiable. Wherever the Son is, the full being of God is present. The Son is not a fraction of God; the Son is fully God.

What Trinitarianism refuses to do is collapse the genuine distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit into a single identity. But refusing to say "Jesus is the Father" doesn't diminish Christ's deity — it honors the actual structure of what the New Testament says. John 1:1 says the Word was with God and the Word was God. Those two statements together describe what Trinitarianism is trying to preserve: genuine relationship (with God) and genuine divine identity (was God). Oneness collapses the first statement into the second and loses the relationship.

The Average Church Member Argument

Near the end of Chapter 12, Bernard argues that when you ask ordinary Christians how they pray and what they expect to see in heaven, most of them functionally think in Oneness terms. He offers four diagnostic questions: Do you pray directly to Jesus? Do you expect to see one God in heaven? Do you rarely pray to the Spirit as a separate person? Is the Trinity confusing or mysterious to you?

Bernard concludes from this that most believers are "closer to Oneness belief" than they realize.

This argument proves nothing about which doctrine is true. What Bernard is observing is that many Christians are deeply Christ-centered in their devotion — they love Jesus, pray to Jesus, and think of God primarily in terms of Jesus. That's Christocentric Christianity. It is not Oneness theology. Trinitarians pray directly to Jesus constantly; the New Testament shows Stephen doing exactly that (Acts 7:59-60), and no Trinitarian finds this strange. John's Revelation ends with the prayer "Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:20) — addressed to Christ personally. None of this indicates that the person praying believes Jesus is also the Father.

Bernard's four questions are loaded in his favor. "Is the doctrine of the Trinity confusing to you?" Probably yes — but that would be true of almost any careful Trinitarian scholar. Admitting that God's inner life exceeds what we can fully comprehend is not a concession to Oneness. It's intellectual honesty. "Do you expect to see one God in heaven?" A Trinitarian would say yes — one God in whom Father, Son, and Spirit eternally exist as three persons. That's not the same as expecting to see Jesus alone with no Father and no Spirit.

"Trinitarianism Adds Nothing to Christianity" — The Biggest Miss

Bernard's conclusion is striking: "Without the man-made doctrine of the trinity we can still affirm the deity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the Atonement, justification by faith, the sole authority of Scripture, and any other doctrine that is essential to true Christianity."

This misses what the Trinity actually contributes to every one of those doctrines.

Start with God's nature. The Bible says "God is love" (1 John 4:8, 16). If God is a single person with no internal relations, then before creation there was no one to love. God's love would have been a capacity with no object — a disposition that needed creation to become real. That means creation was not a free choice by a God who was already complete and self-sufficient. It was a necessity for a God who needed something to love. Grudem puts it plainly: "If there is no Trinity, then there were no interpersonal relationships within the being of God before creation, and without personal relationships, it is difficult to see how God could be genuinely personal or be without the need for a creation to relate to."

The Trinity is what makes God's love eternal and his creation genuinely free. The Father has loved the Son from before the foundation of the world (John 17:24), and that love is not dependent on having a world to love. God is not lonely. Creation flows from the overflow of love that already exists in infinite measure within the Godhead, not from divine need.

Move to the atonement. Grudem writes that modalism (the theological category for Oneness) "loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement — that is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied." If there is no genuine distinction between the Father and the Son, then there is no genuine sending, no genuine giving, no genuine bearing of wrath in our place by someone who is genuinely other. Boyd goes further: "the poignancy of the gospel proclamation that the sacrificed Jesus was the Father's 'one and only Son' is completely lost. 'One and only Son' has no personal connotation in Oneness theology! And thus there cannot in this thought be any appreciation for the Father's infinitely intense anguish over the hellish death of his beloved Son. Indeed, nothing personal is even touched on the cross."

The cross of the New Testament is the cross where a Father gives his Son — where the beloved, eternally loved Son endures the weight of human sin and the real withdrawal of the Father's favor so that we can be reconciled to that same Father. That story requires two genuinely distinct persons. If Jesus is the Father wearing a human costume, the sacrifice is God giving himself. That's a very different story, and it loses the most costly part: that the eternal love between Father and Son was itself interrupted at the cross on our behalf.

Bernard says the Trinity adds nothing. It adds everything that makes the Gospel what it is.

The Real Logical Problem

Bernard's twenty-six questions read as if Trinitarianism is drowning in contradictions while Oneness floats serenely above them. The problem is that Oneness can't actually provide cleaner answers to most of these questions than Trinitarianism can. Both views need to distinguish between what died and what didn't. Both views have to explain how the whole God exists in three simultaneous modes of being. Both views have to deal with the language of the Father speaking to the Son as to a genuinely distinct person. The difference is not that Oneness solves the problems and Trinitarianism doesn't — the difference is that Trinitarianism names the mystery openly and Oneness hides it under different vocabulary.

And on the one question where the two views genuinely differ — whether the Father-Son relationship is real and eternal, or a temporary mode God assumes for the purpose of salvation — the New Testament's language consistently points in the Trinitarian direction. The Father loved the Son before the world was made (John 17:24). The Son intercedes for us now, at the Father's right hand (Romans 8:34). The throne in the new creation belongs to "God and the Lamb" (Revelation 22:3) — two distinct persons present, distinguishable, and worshiped together throughout eternity. That's not a picture of a single God who temporarily assumed a human mode and will eventually dissolve it back into undifferentiated oneness. It's the picture of an eternal relationship that creation and redemption have made visible.

A Word to the Reader

Bernard's twenty-six questions will probably feel like a lot if you've grown up being told the Trinity is simply what Christians believe and haven't spent much time asking hard questions about it. Some of the questions are genuinely interesting. They deserve real answers, not dismissal.

But read the questions carefully and ask yourself: does Oneness theology actually solve them, or does it just frame the same problems differently? When Bernard says the human Son prayed while the divine Father heard, he's distinguishing two natures in one person — which is exactly what Trinitarianism does. When he says the divine Spirit within Jesus never died but the human body did, he's making the same distinction between natures that Trinitarians make about the Son. When he says God simultaneously exists as Father in heaven, Son in the flesh, and Spirit within believers — he's affirming the same mystery of God's simultaneous distinct existence that he charges Trinitarianism with hiding behind.

The difference that remains is real and important: Trinitarianism says the Father-Son-Spirit relationship is eternal and genuine. Oneness says it's temporary and modal. And on that difference, the weight of what the New Testament actually says — about love, about the sending of the Son, about the cross, about the throne of God and the Lamb — falls on the Trinitarian side.

Footnotes


Navigation

Retrieved from "https://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Bernard%27s_The_Oneness_of_God_-_Chapter_12&oldid=27836"