The Oneness of God (Series in Pentecostal Theology, Vol 1)

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book that Proclaims BIBLICAL TRUTHS
Review: "...Straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that go in thereat." The majority of Christendom has yet to discover the truths written in this book, but it does not make them any less true. It is a scholarly, well-written book that proclaims the truth that the Bible teaches. I am glad that I have it in my collection!!!

Rating:
Summary: If you buy one book, make sure it is THIS book
Review: David Bernard provides a wonderful resource for both Oneness Pestecostals, and those who would like to know more about the truth of the Oneness message. He shows very well that the name of the Father is Jesus, and that there is only one person in the godhead. He cross-references scriptures throughout the text, so it is very easy to find his explanations on various troubling scriptures. A must for any bible student.

Rating:
Summary: Bernards books are awsome!
Review: David K. Bernards book on oneness is a relatively short overview of the "Oneness" theology, rebutals/answers to obvious and popular trinitarian dogma. It is a short synopsis on the different core beliefs of Oneness Pentecostal theology. Bernard explains in very layman terms the explanation of their core beliefs as well as the origin of the trinity and so on and so forth and visa versa. I read a reviewers comments somewhere on one of these reviews that said that the Oneness groups use an outside source other than the Bible...lol...that is an interesting discovery, I cannot say that the Oneness movement has every been accused of that before. David K. Bernard is a higly respected theologian who has never "ran" or "ducked" questions/critics or anyone who has ever approached him in a CHRISTIAN/gentlmanly manner. I would suggest to anyone to listening and or purchasing such debates between Dr. Bernard and Gene Cook(despite Cooks belegerance, Bernard gently refutes Cooks entire perspective and in the end leaves Cook agreeing with Bernards answer to Cooks own questions...in the end Cook states, "...I need to study the matter out more..." also recommended is a more gentlmanly debate between Dr. Bernard and respected trinitarian theologian Dr. Robert"Bob" Morey. With all this being said, it's probably time in my opinion for Dr. Bernard to revise/update his work with more contemperary arguments and info. Perhaps even a more highly detailed and exhaustive work. Regardless a good buy

Rating:
Summary: A thorough exposition of the Oneness of God
Review: Do you have questions like: Are there really three persons in Heaven? If the Father is Spirit, is the Holy Spirit another Spirit? If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are co-equal and co-eternal and separate beings, why did we not always have the baptism, the gifts, and the power? If you have trouble praying because you do not know who you are praying to any longer, please read this book. If you think you will be led down the wrong path, I can tell you that the author basically quotes scriptures...when I read it my whole being was at peace. I could hardly grasp how I felt to be reading something that was so sound. This book will help you to explore your Bible in a way you may never have imagined. Allow the Lord to show you Truth, pray, and turn to the Lord...let Him reveal His Truth to you in His Word...I am confident to say that parts of the Bible will no longer be a mystery, and everything will become quite clear as the Lord leads. May the Lord richly bless you and give you His peace.

Rating:
Summary: Bernards books are awsome!
Review: I have alot of David Bernards books and I think there great! I maby have a few differances of opinion but these books are great and in my opinion right on the mark! good book containing Biblical truths about God and the Godhead...I also read some of the reviews that seem to knock the book, David Bernard and his Church the United Pentecostal Church. come on people give me a break! (how low)
one reveiw claims that they reject "correct biblical teaching"
(the trinitarin theory - and thats all it is A THEORY) it looks like to me that all those reviews (the ones that bash Bernard and the UPCI) are not really relevent reviews ...its just that they dont like the Doctrine of the Oneness and obviosly have a problem with the UPCI ...they are not book reviews but just emotional bable because someone dis-agrees with there theory -there book review shows there true colors and intelegence as they go into almost a rageing hate rant against the United Pentecostal Church there was one review which seemd like real review..even thou the wrighter didnt agree with it that was at least a review ppl should save there personal feelings agains the UPCI for something other that a book review - I like the book

Rating:
Summary: Please... Better than most defenses of Oneness
Review: Mr. Benard follows the Classic Oneness distortion of the Triune view of God. On Matthew 27:46 he basically says that the Spirit of God really didn't leave him. He doesn't ever explain this passage. Other Oneness folks I have talked to simply say that the Spirit of God left Christ this is Arianism. Saying at death Jesus was ONLY a man. He never answers this. He simply denies the the Spirit of God left until death.

On has scripture proofs on God being One he simply quotes part of Scripture or radically takes it out of context. One issue with this work has to do with his honestly of various Theological views. Even this most biased theologians that are honest will either ignore or try to explain passages that refute their viewpoint. Bernard simply applies Oneness and then twists the Scriptures to suit him, even to the point of only quoting HALF of verses. Like 1 Cor. 8:6 in Chapter 1.

In an unusual move he does NOT say that the Trinity started at Nicaea he does seem to take aim at Pre-Nicene father Terullian. He points to Iraneus as a Oneness believer. He points to several church father many of whom used the term person to label each member of the Trinity and state THEY were ONENESS. The Oneness believers of today are not even like the ones in 1914! He even says that Matt. 28:19 may NOT be valid scripture. Mind you ZERO variants of Matt. 28:19 have even been found in any manuscript. 2nd Century Church father Justin in 150AD quotes Matt. 28:19 in the form we see it today. He also describes the members of the Godhead as persons.

Same old revising of History to suit his False Beliefs. It is sad you have to create ALTERNATE history to support your views. This should be under Fiction and not with the likes of C.S. Lewis, Spurgon, and James White.

Rating:
Summary: The error of Oneness
Review: Oneness adherents of today are, for the most part, united in what they believe. Modern Oneness theology has been defined by David Bernard as Modalistic Monarchianism. Bernard's book "The Oneness of God", and "The Oneness View of Jesus Christ", have been heralded by the United Pentecostal Church and other Oneness groups as an accurate statement of Oneness doctrine. Unlike modern Oneness adherents, Oneness believers of the past were not so quick to embrace Modalism. As a matter of record, the well known Oneness author John Paterson, who's book on the Godhead was used as a textbook in Oneness Bible schools of the 1920s, condemned Modalism as heresy. On page 50 & 51 of his book, "God In Christ Jesus," Paterson rejects Modalistic Monarchianism as unbiblical. This is a glaring inconsistency in the development of Oneness theology in this century. Andrew Urshan, one of the most respected Oneness pioneers, made no mention of the compatibility of Oneness with Modalism in his book on the Godhead. Other well known Oneness authors include Kenneth Reeves and David Campbell. No mention of Modalistic Monarchianism is found in their writings. Bernard is the first Oneness author to label Oneness theology as Modalism. It is evident that almost all Oneness churches of today have received Bernard's Oneness theology with open arms, at least in the United Pentecostal churches.

Until the publishing of Bernard's works, Trinitarian critics of Oneness Theology had little to go on. Prior to Bernard, no Oneness author had denied the preexistence of Jesus Christ. While they refused to call the preexistent Christ the "Son," they did refer to Him in His preexistence as the "Angel of the Lord," as do Trinitarians. Bernard not only denies Christ's preexistence, but denies that the Angel of the Lord Who is called "Yahweh" is anything but a theophany. In addition, Bernard is the first Oneness author to define the relationship of the Father and the Son as a relationship between the Divine Nature and the human nature. In recent years these peculiar beliefs have drawn much attention and criticism from Trinitarians.

In this century Oneness believers are divided basically into two groups. The first, whose views are expounded by John Paterson, believe that Jesus Christ is the preexistent personal WORD of God and they hold to the doctrine of the dual Natures of Christ. On page 47 of his book Paterson says, "...Jesus of Nazareth, Who was perfect man in one nature, was, at the same time, perfect God in another!" The preexistence of the person of Jesus Christ is explained as "...the WORD...the invisible God embodied in visible form...nothing less than the Eternal God Himself...". (page 9) Paterson continues on page 47, "...before the creation spoken of in Genesis 1:1, God, the Eternal and invisible Spirit, chose to make know His Eternal power and invisible Godhead by centering all authority and Lordship in a visible form", and indicates something "akin" to an incarnation..." This "visible form" is referred to as the "Angel of the Lord." This group of Oneness believers has been accused of teaching Arianism, to which Paterson replies, "The finite mind cannot comprehend, let alone explain, "how" God became man--but this does not deter...students from believing that which Scripture teaches...neither does this acknowledgment of the created nature of the Babe of Bethlehem detract in any way from His essential Godhead. However, when we acknowledge a parallel situation in respect to the PREEXISTENT Christ, we are accused of teaching Arianism, THIS IS NOT SO! Arianism denies that Christ is, or ever was, God in any real or supreme sense..." (page49). In regard to the Holy Spirit, this group of Oneness believers maintains that the Holy Spirit is the Father Himself, and not a distinct "person" from that of the Father or the Son.

The Modalists of today, on the other hand, believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are but distinct offices or roles filled by the One God as He deals with humanity in the history of salvation. They deny that the Father and the Son are distinct in any real "personal" way and believe the Holy Spirit to be the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, with no personal distinctions in God. It should be easy to see that Paterson's view is more Biblical, even though it strays from "Orthodoxy" in many areas.

Modern Modalism, in my view, is similar to two heretical theologies, Arianism and Modalism. Arius taught that "there was a time when the "Son" (Jesus Christ) was not." In other words, Arius did not believe that the Person of Jesus Christ was eternal. He was created by God the Father sometime in eternity past. Modern Modalism agrees with Arianism in the sense that it teaches the "Son" did not exist until His birth in Bethlehem. Arius also taught that the "Son" was NOT God. Modern modalists claim to disagree with this view. However, modalists hedge on this by teaching that the Man Christ Jesus was God only because the Spirit of God dwelt in Him, and not because He was by nature God the "Son." The term "Son" applies only to the "flesh" of Jesus according to modern Modalism (see Bernard). In addition, these modalists teach that Jesus Christ is none other than God the Father Himself by virtue of the fact that Jesus said to see Him was to see the Father and the Father dwelt in Him. It is easy to see why modalists are confused on this point since they fail to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth. Obviously, to "see" Jesus cannot mean that Jesus is the Father. In the context of John 14:1-11 Jesus refers to His Father as One "other" than Himself ten times. "My Father's house," "no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me," etc. Jesus could not have been referring to Himself when He spoke of the Father for He says in verse 10 "...I speak not of "Myself," but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." In context, Jesus is simply saying that because of the indwelling power of His Father men could see in Him all the characteristics of God the Father. The writer of Hebrews says it best in Heb.1:1-3. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; Who being the brightness of His Glory, and the express image of His Person..." It is in this sense that John 14 should be understood. Therefore, Hebrews 1 contradicts Modalism on at least two counts. #1--It shows that Jesus Himself is not the Father, and #2--It verifies the preexistence of the "SON." The worlds were created by the "SON." Obviously, if the Son of God did not exist before Bethlehem He could not have created the worlds. But to this fact the Scriptures plainly testify. (Jo.1:1-3, 10; Colo.1:15-18; Eph.3 :9; Heb.1:1-3, 8-10)

The views of this modern modalists theology DO NOT reflect classic Oneness doctrine. Almost all modern Oneness preachers have a biased view of Church history and have little respect for the original languages of the Scripture. The reason for this is that most Oneness modalist preachers do not attend Bible college having reached the position of Pastor or preacher by being faithful to a local Pastor and Church. As a result they believe what their Pastor taught or something close to it. Recently, I had a Bible discussion with a local modern modalist minister. When I made a point in regard to the original Greek and how it contradicted modern Oneness doctrine, I was told that "I just could not do that." This is typical.

Modern Oneness has for the most part strayed away from what it's pioneers of this century believed and taught. When Oneness ministers left the Assembly of God in 1914, they did not believe that the brothers and sisters they left behind were lost because they believed in the Trinity and were not baptized in "Jesus" Name, that is, by having the Name of Jesus spoken over them at baptism. When the United Pentecostal Church was formed in 1945, some 30+ years later, Howard Goss was elected as the first General Superintendent. He stated that salvation was received when a sinner repented, and not at baptism. As the years went by, however, zealous ministers in the UPC and others saw to it that the UPC put as much distance between itself and the doctrines of Orthodox Christianity as possible. As a result, we have today a group of people who, for the most part, consider all who profess Orthodox Christianity to be lost and on their way to a devil's hell. This is most unfortunate.

It is my prayer that those who have been deceived by the error of Modalism will see their error and turn again to true Christianity. As Jesus declared, "I and my Father (we) are One."

Rating:
Summary: Please note:
Review: People,

Please remember that David Bernard is a heretic that denies the revealed Trinity of God. His abuse of Scripture is to be admired as the point where human reason fails to understand revealed truth.

Mr. Bernard should submit himself to revealed Scripture through thorough exegisis and hermenatical principles, repent before God, and accept Him for His revealed Godhead.

Rating:
Summary: This, you call theology?
Review: Well, I was a bit surprised that a presumably educated man takes such little interest in crafting an intelligible sentence. Ah, the beauty of self-publishing! Now, as for the content of the book, theologically, it falls short of even a rudimentary Biblical exegesis. The problem is, the entire underlying premise and doctrine is nonsense, certainly not Christian! The book is full of inconsistencies with its own position. For example, the author is a strict oneness type, yet he makes the statement that when in Hell following his death, it was God who rescued Jesus. Oops! I don't think that works my friend. Hell exists in the spiritual dimension, therefore when and if Christ visited, he had to have done so in spirit. So, if you are suggesting that God (a spirit) rescued him, then aren't you saying there were two spirits at that same time? Unfortunately the book is full of such contradictions, and proves once again that theology is not something you should attempt to do at home kids!