Godhead and Baptism

[Ian Boyne, host:] Thanks for joining us for Religious Hard Talk. I am Ian Boyne. Today we return to the issue of the Godhead. I mean, this is an issue that has exercised the intellectual energies of the church for the 2,000 years almost of its existence. It is still raging: How do we define the Godhead? How do we define God? Is God a unitary person? Is God two persons, as the Binitarian view? Or is God three persons in one — that is the most common view in Christianity?

Well, there is also a view that is very well-known in Jamaica and that has staked out its own position in the field of theology. That is a view called Sabellianism — well, more popularly known as "Jesus only." And that view is that there is one God, and that one God is Jesus; that Jesus is revealed as Father, as Son, and as the Holy Ghost. So whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, and most Christians believe that Jesus is God but is not the Father — is distinct from the Father — the Jesus only people believe that when we read about the Father in the Scriptures, that is Jesus; when we read about the Holy Spirit, that is Jesus; and of course the person who was born to Mary in the flesh — God in the flesh, Jesus Christ — that's the same person being described in these three terms. And they believe that this is a fundamental issue; it is not a minor issue. In fact, large numbers of Oneness believers believe that this is a salvific issue — that those who do not believe in this Oneness view are outside the scope of salvation.

Well, we're very privileged today to have with us the leading scholar in the United Pentecostal Church in this area of Oneness theology. David K. Bernard is the author of nearly 30 books and booklets — 22 full-length theological books and a total of thirty booklets. One of his most well-known books is this one, which I've had for quite a number of years: The Oneness of God. In this book he sets out a defense of the view that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that the Trinitarian doctrine is a false doctrine, borrowed from paganism and strongly influenced by Greek thought. David K. Bernard holds a doctorate in jurisprudence and a master's degree in theology from the University of South Africa. He is a former college professor and a member of the State Bar of Texas. He got his doctorate in jurisprudence with honors from the University of Texas, and his bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in mathematical sciences and managerial studies from Rice University. He is the founder and pastor of New Life United Pentecostal Church of Austin, Texas, and president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology. He has been involved in dialogue with Trinitarian theologians, and in fact this fall there will be published the results of a five-year dialogue in which he was involved with Trinitarian scholars, and that will be published in the Pentecostal scholarly journal Pneuma.

We are very happy to have Professor Bernard with us. He was brought here by the Pentecostal Tabernacle on Wildman Street to hold a series of studies, and we really must commend the Wildman Street Pentecostal church for its farsightedness in bringing this top Pentecostal scholar to interact with the Jamaican people. And they owe me the contact with me, and say, you know, we want Dr. Bernard to be on — to have him answer any tough question you might have. We certainly want him to expound Oneness theology. We won't be debating him, because this is a critical issue in theology, and he is the leading scholar in the United Pentecostal Church. We think that it will be useful for you to be exposed to the best arguments put forward by this leading scholar in the area. On Religious Hard Talk we do try to get the best, the brightest, the most exciting and stimulating persons to interact on theology. Dr. Bernard, so good to have you in Jamaica; so good to have you on Religious Hard Talk.

[Dr. Bernard:] Thank you very much. It's a privilege to be here.

[Ian Boyne:] Good. First, why is this issue important? There are many Christians who hold a view, Dr. Bernard, that what is important is our relationship with the Lord Jesus; what is important is our experience with the Lord; it is the conversion that comes about through the new birth. Why do we divide ourselves over our doctrines? There are so many problems in the world, so many issues that people in the world have to wrestle with, that Christians have to wrestle with. Why don't we combine our energies — it is often said — to tackle the real problems, to deal with issues of abortion, other issues of pressing social concern, the homosexual agenda, the threats to the fabric, the moral fabric, of society? Why don't Christians combine their energies on these areas, Dr. Bernard, rather than spend time, you know, writing books about divisive issues as to who is God? How do you respond to that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, first of all, on issues that we do agree with — I think certainly abortion, the homosexual agenda, these kinds of problems in our society, the practical problems of human suffering — we can and should unite. And our local assembly, as well as our international organization, we do partner with Trinitarians, with other Christians. We're not opposed to that. But why spend time —

[Ian Boyne:] Why spend this energy?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes — oh, no, because this is foundational. It does relate to our understanding of God, our faith in God, our experience with God. And restoring the power of the apostolic church — you've got to go back to the foundation. So I would say it's not either/or; it's both/and.

[Ian Boyne:] Give us your best arguments. Begin the defense of the view that Trinitarianism is false, and that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that God is one unitary person, not three persons in one.

[Dr. Bernard:] All right, thank you. Let me give you a foundation. And first of all, I want to define a little bit more clearly what we teach. First of all, we like to call ourselves Oneness Pentecostals, or Apostolic Pentecostals — meaning, like the apostles. We don't really like the term "Jesus only," because it implies we do not believe in the Father, which is not true. And even the historical term Sabellianism — this view is similar to that of Sabellius, but we're not following him; there's no historical connection. We would rather be judged by our own statements, not by what some historian thinks about someone who lived in the third century. But having said that, there are basically two points that we emphasize. First, God is one; He is absolutely one. Second, Jesus Christ is the revelation of the fullness of God; God is incarnated in Jesus Christ.

[Ian Boyne:] Trinitarians accept both of those.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, yes, but with qualification. When we say God is one, the —

[Ian Boyne:] Leading Pentecostal scholar David K. Bernard is with us on Religious Hard Talk, expounding the view commonly known as "Jesus only" — the view that Jesus is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that the Trinity is a false doctrine. He defends this view, and he does so when we come back after our first break on Religious Hard Talk.

[Ian Boyne:] Welcome back to Religious Hard Talk. The leading scholar in Oneness Pentecostalism, David K. Bernard — the author of this book, The Oneness of God, as well as 30 other books, and the president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology — is defending what is commonly known as "Jesus only," but in scholarly circles known as Sabellianism. He's given the arguments as to why the view that God is one in three persons — three persons in one being — why that is false. That is the common teaching; that is the orthodox teaching of the church. The church says, if you don't believe this, you're a cult. This is why the United Pentecostal Church is seen as a cult by evangelicals, because they do not accept what is called the historic Christian position, that God is three persons in one being — one in three. Well, Dr. Bernard is here to defend his view. He feels that his view is the historic Christian view; that the church went astray, the church apostatized, the church picked up pagan concepts, the church began to use Greek ways of explaining the Godhead, and that it is the church which has corrupted things — beginning with the Roman Church, the Pentecostals and the Apostolic believers see. So David K. Bernard is defending the view that God is a single person, and that person is Jesus Christ. So, contrary to the view of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say that Jesus is not God at all, the Oneness Pentecostals say that Jesus is all that there is of God. Dr. Bernard?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes, thank you. We do emphasize the oneness of God. And obviously we don't see ourselves as a cult. We ask to be judged according to the teaching of Scripture. And by the way, many evangelical scholars and Pentecostal scholars that I've interacted with — they now agree, while they may not agree with my teaching, they agree that we're not a cult, but we should be judged as people who believe in Jesus Christ, who love the Lord, and who are faithful to the Scriptures according to our understanding. And that's what I would ask to be tested by, or judged by: what does the Bible say?

Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD." We start from there, as well as many other passages throughout the Bible. And especially we see in the Old Testament the emphasis that God is absolutely one. The book of Isaiah — it says God is alone. He says, I'm by Myself; none like Me; none beside Me; no one is My equal; I will not give My glory to another. And so when we take these statements that God is one very seriously, we say there cannot be any divisions, or separations, or distinctions of persons in the Godhead. Actually, the word "persons" is not in the Bible related to God, and certainly not "three persons," or the word "Trinity" is never found. I would not say that we're divisive if we're trying our best to go back to Scripture, but those who would use foreign terms have the necessity of justifying why these terms are so important. Obviously, we use terms that are not found in the Bible, but when doing so you must justify them: why is this term essentially biblical, or consistent with the Scripture? When you cannot find any of the terms that define the Trinity in the Scripture, you have a high bar of proof that you must meet.

And I would say, when the Bible says God is one, that means one personal being. When you go to heaven, you expect to see one visible manifestation of God. God has one center of consciousness, not three centers of consciousness. God has one divine will, not three wills. And so I would challenge Trinitarians: if they believe God is a plurality of persons, define what they mean. Do they mean three bodies? Do they mean three centers of consciousness? Now, if they mean three manifestations, then perhaps it's just terminology. I would agree that God has manifested Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit; in that sense, I would not call myself "Jesus only." I do believe God's Spirit is omnipresent. When Jesus walked on earth, the Spirit of God could not be confined to a physical body. So we're not saying that outside of the physical body of Jesus there is no God. But we are saying all of God's character, personality, presence, power, and authority is fully revealed in Jesus Christ.

And that would be the second point. Colossians 2:9 says, in Him — speaking of Jesus Christ — dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And so we would say, in contrast to Trinitarianism, every name and title of God can be properly applied to Jesus Christ. He is the revelation of the full, undivided God — not merely the incarnation of one of three persons, but the incarnation of the one God, the total God. He is the revelation of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God.

To elaborate: when the Bible speaks of the term "Father," it's speaking of relationship — God in a relationship with the human race. When the Bible speaks of the Son of God, it speaks of God as He has manifested in the flesh. When the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit, it speaks of God in spiritual action in our lives. And of course I can give you Scripture for all of these, but I'm giving you the overview now. And so we're saying that God has revealed Himself as our Father; God has come in flesh as the Son of God; God reveals Himself in our lives as the Holy Spirit. But these three manifestations are necessary not because there is an inherent threeness in God, but these are necessary for the work of salvation in our lives. And the fullness of God's work of salvation is in Jesus Christ. In fact, "there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved," according to Acts 4:12.

Therefore, we can say that Jesus is the Son of God, meaning He is God's manifestation in flesh. "The Son of God died" — we mean by that, His humanity died; He died according to the flesh. We do not mean that God ceased to exist. We could not imagine that there would be multiple persons, and one of those persons ceased to exist, or went unconscious, or whatever the case may be. So when we say the Son died, we mean according to the flesh He died. But Jesus was more than flesh; He was also Spirit. And in that sense, we can say Jesus is God.

John chapter 20, verse 28: Thomas confessed to the resurrected Christ, "My Lord and my God." Now notice, he was speaking from a Jewish context — the Old Testament context of there's one Lord and one God. So Thomas was not confessing, you are a new Lord, a second Lord, a second God, or a second person of God. He was saying: the God I have learned to worship and love all of my life — You are the manifestation of God. And that's the basic Oneness position: that you cannot limit the term "God" to a portion of the divine revelation; it must always relate to the totality of the divine revelation. Therefore, when we go to heaven, we are going to see Jesus Christ as the revelation of the fullness of God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We're not going to see two bodily beings, or three bodily beings. We're going to see one personal being: God incarnate, God manifested in the glorified human body of Jesus Christ.

[Ian Boyne:] How do you deal with Acts 7:55? Stephen looked into the heaven of heavens, and we read in Acts 7, in verse 55: "He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Doesn't this suggest two persons — Jesus at the right hand of God, the right hand of power? You probably see — isn't this two persons?

[Dr. Bernard:] No, it's not referring to two persons at all. If you notice carefully, it does not say he saw two persons or two bodies. He saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand.

[Ian Boyne:] Right. So let's try to imagine: what did Stephen actually see? Yes, he says in verse 56: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." So doesn't that suggest — if I am standing beside David K. Bernard, can I be the same person as David K. Bernard? I'm standing beside —

[Dr. Bernard:] But here's the point: God is a Spirit (John 4:24). You cannot see a spirit. "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:18). So Stephen did not see one body called God and another body called Jesus. [caption track garbled — a brief exchange here is unrecoverable from the captions]

[Ian Boyne:] If God is a single, unitary being, why would there be the need to make any kind of distinction? Once you would have seen the Son of man, you would have seen all that there is, God-wise. You didn't need to say you were standing at the right hand of God if there were not distinctions in the Godhead.

[Dr. Bernard:] However, here's the point. Yes, when the Bible speaks of God and Jesus, it is making sure we understand that Jesus Christ was an authentic human being, a genuine human being. But to say that Jesus is on the right hand of God, that is not speaking of a physical position of two bodies. If it were, are we saying that Jesus is standing on top of a giant right hand? Are we saying he's sitting? Is he standing? My point is, God is a Spirit; He has no physical right hand. The right hand of God signifies the power of God. Exodus 15:6 says, "Thy right hand, O God, is glorious in power." In Matthew 26:64–65, Jesus said you will see the Son of man coming in the clouds at the right hand of power. Are we going to see two persons coming in the clouds? No, we're going to see one person. But here's the point: we are going to see Jesus as a human being — but more than human. We are going to see him invested with all the power and authority of God.

[Ian Boyne:] Stephen, yes — verse 56: "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Why not say, if your position is correct — it would seem more natural to say, "I saw the Son of Man," or "I saw God"?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes, well, here's why. Because just to say "I saw the Son of Man," it would be, well, just like I saw Jesus while he walked on earth. But there is a difference: when he saw Jesus in this vision, he saw him with the glory of God, with the power of God he had — where he was on earth, you know, the glory was not visible. For example, John leaned at his breast at the Last Supper; but in Revelation 1, when John saw the ascended Christ, he fell at his feet as dead. So I think that's what Stephen is saying: I see the Son of man, but I see him in glory; I see him in power; I see him with the authority of God. This man is more than a man. Now notice, it does not say he saw a second person. And in fact, in verse 60, when he prays to this one being, he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." In fact, verse 59: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." If he saw two, it's very amazing that he ignored one and focused only on Jesus. I think when you read the whole passage, you see he only saw one body — but he saw that body surrounded by divine glory, to the point that he could say he is in the right-hand position. That is a metaphor. You can go back through the Old Testament: "The Lord is at my right hand," David said — well, God wasn't a physical body walking around.

[Ian Boyne:] No, yes, you see. So I'm persuaded that there was no physical body of God that he saw except Jesus Christ, but he was emphasizing: I see him not merely as a man, as we saw him before his resurrection; I see him in the position of power. This is a glorified Jesus, exactly. And Stephen was emphasizing that — yes, indeed, he had asked for the glory in John 17, which he had with the Father, right? And Stephen is now attesting to the fact that he did receive that glory, because he saw him in that glorified —

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes. This is how Oneness Pentecostals will explain this. We're giving you an exposure to Oneness Pentecostalism. I'll be asking some questions which will lead David K. Bernard to explain to us how Oneness Pentecostals would answer these issues put to them, which Trinitarians think are problematic for Oneness Pentecostalism. This is Religious Hard Talk. We take another break.

[Ian Boyne:] Welcome back. The leading United Pentecostal Church theologian, David K. Bernard, president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology, is defending the view that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to the standard orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a member of the Godhead — a Trinity of persons. Explain to us, Dr. Bernard: when Jesus came into existence — you see, as the humanity of God, he had no actual pre-existence, the man Jesus. Explain to us how you see Jesus in relation to pre-existence, as the Son, and then at exaltation.

[Dr. Bernard:] All right. We believe that Jesus is both God and man at the same time. As God, he is the revelation of the one eternal Spirit. So in his deity, in his spirit, Jesus is the eternal God, and as such has pre-existence as the one Spirit of God. But we believe that his humanity did not come into existence until the baby was conceived in the womb of Mary. And when the Bible speaks of the Son of God, it is speaking of that incarnation. Therefore, we teach there is no eternal Son. And what we see here in Luke chapter 1, verse 35: the angel Gabriel speaks to Mary and says, the Holy Spirit will overshadow you, and therefore that holy child that is going to be born of you shall be called the Son of God. So here's a scriptural definition of the term "Son of God." It's not the name of a pre-existent, different person; but because the Spirit of God would miraculously cause the conception in the womb of Mary — and not an earthly man caused that conception — Jesus is literally the Son of God, rather than the son of Joseph or some other human being. And so, as to his flesh, the Son of God has a beginning in Bethlehem, in the womb of Mary.

[Ian Boyne:] Yes. Philippians 2 — you have argued with well-known theologians, so you would expect any passage... A natural reading of Philippians, Dr. Bernard, would suggest that one is reading about two persons. The apostle Paul is trying to encourage a spirit of humility, trying to encourage a spirit of modesty, and he says in verse 4 of Philippians 2: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" — or, some scholars like Ralph Martin and others say, to hold on to — "but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him." We seem to be talking about two persons. And the example is drawn of this one being who could have held on to the divinity, but rather he emptied himself — kenosis — took on the form of a human being; and afterward God the Father, as it is understood in Trinitarian and Binitarian theology, exalted this being. If we're only talking about one, it is felt that the example would not be drawn, because the lesson of humility is in relationship to persons. How do you explain Philippians 2?

[Dr. Bernard:] All right — let me give you a general statement, and then I'll address this one. And that is: in the New Testament we do find a distinction between God and Jesus, or Father and Son. But Oneness theology does acknowledge that distinction. But here's the thing: we say it is not a distinction of two divine persons. Rather, this distinction is to protect the authentic humanity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus — remember what you said, that humanity — only came... yes, if you were right in the cognition sense... And I believe this is pre-incarnate — well, let's look at it and see. But let me make sure that we understand: if Jesus was going to take our place as our kinsman redeemer, our substitutionary sacrifice, he had to be just like us in every way except for sin. Yes. So in every way that we relate to God, we speak to God, we pray to God — Jesus had to do the same. That does not prove he was a second person. If it did, it would prove he was an inferior second person. But rather, it proves that he was an authentic human being. So notice what's going on here: we are supposed to have that same mind of humility that is relating to Christ in his humanity. If there were a second person of the Trinity, he wouldn't be more humble than the first person of the Trinity; he would be equal. No — what he took, he never kept... It always says, he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," or to be held onto. More accurately, he emptied himself.

[Ian Boyne:] Well, it was this emptying, this kenosis, which constituted — yes, the human. But that is referring not to the pre-incarnate state; that is the incarnation, the life, the ministry, the death, the burial, the resurrection. This is what it says: he emptied — yes, Isaiah 53:12 said he poured out his soul unto death. That's different, is it? This emptying, this kenosis, is not the crucifixion; it's all of it.

[Dr. Bernard:] No — the incarnation represents this humiliation.

[Ian Boyne:] Here's again, Dr. Bernard, verse 6: "Christ, who, though he was in the form of God" — when was this? When he was born? — "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," or to be held onto — the Greek is [harpagmos] — "but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." The emptying was not the crucifixion; the emptying was the incarnation. And therefore what has been described is the pre-incarnational status of Jesus — the kenosis — and hence this wonderful lesson of humility. He was this person — but who [inaudible] his divinity in the flesh. And this shows the love of the members of the Godhead, or the God family. Well, certainly, the only escape [is to say] that this is pre-incarnational, and therefore these two beings existed as distinct, though not separate, persons.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, I would say it is a beautiful lesson in humility, yes. But if you try to make a member of the Godhead humbling himself before the other member of the Godhead in emptying himself — it is by taking on the flesh, that is the humiliation. Okay, here is the practice of what it is: the incarnation. See, if I would paraphrase the thought: Jesus Christ in the incarnation was the same as God before the incarnation, but Jesus in his incarnation did not insist upon the prerogatives, and the divine prerogatives were veiled. Yes, surely — yes, that is the point, right? But it doesn't require two persons. All it's saying is: Jesus in the incarnation is equal to God before the incarnation. But then it says, "Therefore God has highly exalted him" — right? But according to your view, he would have exalted himself. Well, wait a minute: Jesus is God. Yes, he is God. And then we have to come back to what Oneness is. When it says "therefore God highly exalted him" — Jesus — that may seem to be talking about two. We're talking about God — distinct? Not persons; we're talking about God, and we're talking hypostasis. You're assuming that God equals Father, whereas you're changing the definition of God, because Jesus is God. Yes — so I'm saying: whatever your position of God, if you say God is the Trinity, then you have a distinction between the Trinity and the second person.

[Ian Boyne:] We're speaking to Apostolic Pentecostal scholar David K. Bernard. We're looking at the matter of the Godhead — this matter that has exercised the attention of the church now for so many centuries. The discussion goes on; it continues on Religious Hard Talk. We take a final break.

[Ian Boyne:] Welcome back. Leading Pentecostal scholar David K. Bernard is on Religious Hard Talk, and we are looking at the matter of Oneness. We had just spent some time in Philippians 2, so: "Therefore God has highly exalted him" (Philippians 2:9) "and bestowed on him a name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue" — verse 11 — "confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." We seem to be talking about two distinct persons. But the main error of Oneness Pentecostalism is this misunderstanding of "one," I understand. Where we are — the kernel of this area is: the Bible does reveal God as one; it also reveals Jesus as God. And you reason, commonsensical, that if God is one — and we understand "one" to be this — and Jesus is God, and we hear the Father is God, then God must be Jesus. But this is a failure to understand how the Bible itself uses "one." You see, in Genesis, "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one" — Oneness Pentecostals always make it seem so irrefutable that "one" must be unitary. Yes, I take your figure: what the Bible's use — Jesus' prayer, John 17: "I pray that they may be one, even as [we are one]" — these were twelve disciples, twelve individuals, "that they may be one, even as we are one." So how can you come and say that the Trinitarians are just necessarily illogical, unbiblical, when you see that God can be one but more than one person? Because that contradicts the many passages of Scripture Jesus said... Do you interact with the view that the Bible does present oneness not just in unitary, singular terms? Do you admit that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, in the Genesis 2 example, in the case of husband and wife — notice, we know they are two persons. So when it says they become one, we know it's in a sense of union. All right. So we directly see an instance where the Bible talks about "one" when it does not mean singularity. Do we see that the Bible speaks about "one" when it means more than one? In John 17 we see it also — the oneness of the disciples. We see it also in the book of Ephesians, Ephesians 2 and verse 14, where "one" is used not in a singular [sense]. But if that is going to be applied to the Godhead, it proves too much — because then you have your Trinity as being three separate individual persons, also separate. But husband and wife are two separate individuals; the twelve disciples are twelve separate individuals. So if you use that analogy, you go beyond Trinitarianism into explicit tritheism. So I don't think Trinitarians can use that. But in the case of Jesus, in the doctrine of God, we have explicit statements to the contrary in Isaiah and throughout the Old Testament — "alone," "by Myself," and "none beside Me" — excluding the concept of one beside another.

Now let me give the example of husband and wife becoming one. John 14: Jesus said, "You have seen the Father." You know, Philip says, "Show us the Father; it will be sufficient for us." Jesus said, "If you've seen Me, you have seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?" Now, I'm married; my wife is here in the studio. We are one flesh. But I cannot say, "If you've seen me, you've seen my wife."

[Ian Boyne:] A son could well say that — no, David, we're not — [Boyne interjects; the exchange overlaps]

[Dr. Bernard:] No — I take it as Jesus took it. For example, if we go to heaven, I think we'll all say we'll see Jesus — Trinitarians, Oneness. When we see Jesus, if we were to ask Jesus in heaven, "It's so good to see you; now take me to your Father" — His word is forever settled in heaven — he would have to tell us the same thing he told Philip: "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?"

[Ian Boyne:] And it is one of your strongest texts, yes, of course. You hadn't mentioned that before. But just to establish the point, that "oneness" doesn't always mean that singularity — and that the Bible itself — you know, it's not just Trinitarians who concocted this notion that oneness can somehow mean more than one. Then you have Genesis 1:26, where God is introduced: "God said, Let us make man." You're going to say, you know, plural of majesty, or whatever. How do you explain Genesis 1?

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, Genesis 1 — that's very easy. The first thing is, verse 27 goes back to the singular: "So God created man in His own image." Isaiah 44:24: God said, "I spread abroad the heavens alone" — alone; "spread forth the earth by Myself." So we cannot think of two co-creators. The simplest way to understand, I think, this passage is: it is a plural of deliberation. God is expressing that the creation of humanity was not an accident, an afterthought, a last-minute idea. God was communing within Himself. Just in English, we might say, as we're planning this program, "Let us see..." — it is how we speak, because we speak that way. No, no, it's a good analogy, because human nature is the same in every language. Human beings do deliberate with themselves, and they use the plural to express their deliberation. That is not confined to the English language. And the Jews to whom — and I'm not talking about modern Jews; I'm talking about the Old Testament believers — they never thought of a Trinity. Obviously Genesis 1:26 was not apparent [to them as a Trinity text]. [A Jewish writer] — in his book on eternity — quotes Jewish sources, that they wrestled with that passage; they wrestled with that passage; they tried to go around that passage, because they were seeing the force of it: the Elohim is in plural. It is not just the English translation; the Elohim is a plural form. Yet you have to understand, the plural form signifies intensity, or greatness, and sometimes it is used in references — yes — and the way that you know that it's not referring to a plurality of persons is, it uses the singular verb form. So if you study Hebrew, Elohim is paired up with a singular verb. It would be like in English saying "I am" — if you saw "we am," you know something is wrong. So Elohim is not being used in the plural sense; it's being used in the sense of greatness or majesty, and we can see that because it's matched up with singular verbs. So the reference is a singular God. If you try to use that to mean plurality — well, it is the false gods that were spoken of as Elohim with a plural verb. You are not just going to the Trinity; you're going to tritheism. Don't you know, He is using Genesis 1:26 — oh yes, and that is in reference to the true God. Yeah, but don't say that the false gods — no, what I mean is, it is also used in reference... Yes, yes. But here is the difference: when it is used for the true God, it's a singular verb; when it is used for the false gods, it's a plural verb.

[Ian Boyne:] No, I don't think you can establish that by the language.

[Speaker uncertain:] Oh yes — I respect your training, but that is certainly a novel view.

[Ian Boyne:] However, we have to pick up this subject. We can't have someone of the stature of David K. Bernard and have just one program, so we're going to have him back. We want to touch on matters of baptism in Jesus' name — the Oneness Pentecostals believe that all of you who are not baptized in Jesus' name need to be rebaptized. We want to touch on that topic. We want to also touch on the matter of speaking in tongues, as well as to wrap up this discussion. So we're going to have Dr. Bernard again with us. We thank you for your company on Religious Hard Talk. Until next week, Ian Boyne, on behalf of the team, wishing you a very pleasant evening. Religious Hard Talk, brought to you by Digicel, the bigger, better network.

[Ian Boyne:] Thanks for joining us for Religious Hard Talk. I'm Ian Boyne. Dr. David K. Bernard is back with us on Religious Hard Talk. He is the leading Pentecostal scholar in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology, and a man who holds a doctorate in jurisprudence with honors — his first degree at the University of Texas... he got [a] magna cum laude degree there in mathematical sciences and managerial studies — no, that was from Rice University, and the doctorate was from the University of Texas. He is doing his doctorate now from the University of South Africa; he already holds a master's degree from the University of South Africa. He is the author of 22 full-length books and about eight booklets. This is one of the well-known books that he has written: The Oneness of God — a very fine work, defending the best work I have read from Oneness Pentecostals defending their view. In this book, I would suggest this book for all of you who do not believe in Oneness theology — for all of you who don't believe in what is commonly called "Jesus only," I would strongly recommend that you read this book, because in this book Dr. Bernard explains, or attempts to explain, the major texts which are used to dismiss Oneness theology, and he also gives the major arguments which are given in defence of the view that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — that He is manifested in those terms.

Last week we dealt mainly with the issue of Oneness — Oneness Pentecostalism, the oneness of God. Today we want to look at baptism in Jesus' name, also as well as the matter of speaking in tongues. But we do have some little matters to wrap up. Dr. Bernard, welcome back. On this matter of the Oneness: as I said last week, the Bible does not present a view of oneness that is solely in terms of a unitary oneness. What we do find is the concept of composite unity in the Scriptures, and there are examples which abound. But there are some other issues raised by Oneness Pentecostalism. One of the more significant ones, I think, is this issue of love. We read that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish. So we get the idea this was a sacrifice on God's part — yes — that this was a demonstration of giving on God's part. Now, if Jesus — if the [humanity] of Jesus as a human being were merely the self-creation of God to facilitate a purpose, just the creation of a body to facilitate salvation, how would that have represented some major cosmic sacrifice? And before you respond, look at Romans 8. Here Paul is developing an argument for God's overwhelming love of us, His care of us, and he says in Romans 8, in verse 31: "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son" — notice the language, Dr. Bernard — "He did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all." One gets unmistakably, it would seem, the idea that the Son was with Him; the Son existed as a person, and God gave up [His Son]. One does not get the impression that it was this one God, the Spirit, who just caused to come into existence the body. How do you deal with that text? And John 5:20, which you know, because you touch on it here — I think inadequately — "The Father loves the Son"; the Son loves the Father. That's a relationship, Dr. Bernard. You can't have relationship, actually, unless you're talking about narcissism.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, you've actually addressed one of the key points of Oneness theology. This is one of our strong points. Because what we're saying is, the Bible does not teach an eternal Son. That word is not in Scripture — that phrase. Yes, it speaks of "the only begotten Son"; "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee"; "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to Me a Son" — Hebrews chapter 1, verse 5. The Son refers to the baby born of Mary, the Son of God — Luke 1:35. So what we're saying is: in order to die for our sins, there had to be a sacrifice — a sinless human being. There was no one who could do that work for us. So what we could not do, and no one could do for us, God Himself did for us. God so loved the world that He gave of Himself. It is not very compatible with Trinitarian theology, because they would have one person sending another person to do the work. Are we really saying that God so loved the world that He gave someone else, or He sent someone else? Actually, the love of God is fully shown: God so loved the world that He gave of Himself. He laid down the human life that He had assumed — the Son of God.

[Ian Boyne:] What sacrifice was that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Jesus Christ was a true human being, living a human life, and died for our sins: real suffering, real agony, real death, the feeling of being totally forsaken.

[Ian Boyne:] Hear the language of Romans: "He did not spare His own Son" — which would suggest that there was this intimate relationship. But you're saying there was that intimate relationship, but it was only in the incarnation?

[Dr. Bernard:] In the incarnation, yes, exactly. And what I would point out is: everything that we could say of ourselves in relationship with God, Jesus as a true human had to be able to say the same thing. So when the Bible says the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, that would be perfectly analogous to us: God loves us; we love God. There's a real human relationship between humanity and God. But we're not speaking of two divine persons, because that is excluded by the entire Scripture. And you do say that "one" can be used in a composite sense in Scripture, but never in relationship to God. It is never spoken of God as a composite of several persons. You cannot have persons in the Godhead. The Godhead is personal: God is a personal being — an actor, someone who acts and loves and lives. So we cannot think of God as an impersonal, abstract substance that different persons can be in, or can compose. The abstract Godhead — but God is one personal being. And so when the Bible says God gave His Son, we understand that to mean: God assumed true human life, lived that human life, and laid down that human life for us. So that is the ultimate, that Jesus Himself said: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." That's what God did for us, according to the flesh.

[Ian Boyne:] But all He did was to facilitate a human being coming into existence. How hard was that? And what sacrifice was that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, now transpose this to the Trinitarian context: it's the same thing. Or, if you are saying that there's a sacrifice of more than human life — are you actually saying that one member of the Godhead was deceased, or went out of fellowship? Can we really say that one-third, or one-half, of the Godhead was non-existent, even for three days — was incommunicado? That would have some profound implications for the nature of God, being able to be altered or transformed.

[Ian Boyne:] Very good response to that point. One sees the sharpness of David K. Bernard. I must give him high marks for a very good question posed. Of course, to me — Trinitarians, of course, agree that God could not die, and that God in fact did not die; and that is regarded as part of the mystery of the incarnation. We are talking to David K. Bernard. We're looking at the matter of the Godhead. It's an important subject, and we are giving you the best arguments from one of the finest scholars in Oneness Pentecostalism. We take our first break.

[Ian Boyne:] How is the Godhead really constituted? Are there three persons in one being — is God one in three, and three in one? Is God just the Father? There are Unitarians who believe that God is a single person, but it's just the Father — that the Son is not God. There are persons called Socinians who believe that the Father alone is God, that Jesus only came into existence when he was born of the Virgin Mary. There are Arians who believe that Jesus pre-existed as a person with the Father, but that he is inferior to the Father — he is not God. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the most popular of the Arians; they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. There are Binitarians who believe that the Godhead consists of the Father and the Son — that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is the spiritual extension of the Father and Son. And of course the Sabellians, commonly called "Jesus only" — they like to call themselves Oneness believers, or Apostolic believers — they believe that Jesus is represented as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is what — could be more basic than who or what is God? This is foundational. That's why we are discussing these issues. And David K. Bernard is here with us.

Dr. Bernard, there is a text which poses some problems, some would believe, for the view that Jesus and the Father are one in terms of singularity. And this is John 8, which talks about the witnesses — in John 8, verse 14: Jesus said, "Even if I do bear witness to Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going." Verse 15: "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, My judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and He who sent Me." And this draws upon the Old Testament passage, Deuteronomy 17:6, which says that a thing must be established by at least two witnesses. Here Jesus says, "It is not I alone." In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true: "I bear witness to Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness to Me." Here Jesus draws upon Jewish law, which mandates that there be two distinct persons. Did He deceive, or are Oneness Pentecostals in error?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, certainly He did not deceive. And we are dealing with a unique situation — the incarnation — which I think we will all agree, and even the Trinitarians or Binitarians have to be cautious here, because they don't want to make the Father and the Son so separate, like two human persons. So we're all dealing with analogy, and we're all wrestling with a unique situation that we've got to be very careful of, lest we over— in our own right. But in practical terms, Oneness people would say: whenever you see distinction between Father and Son, what is going on here is trying to protect, or emphasize, the genuine, authentic humanity of Jesus Christ. He was not just God in a body; he was a real human being — God manifested in the flesh. And I think if we can paraphrase what's going on here: the people that looked at him that day, they just saw him as a man. And if he were to say, "I am the Messiah, I am the Son of God, the Savior of the world," they would have easily written him off. If he would have said, "I'm Jehovah, I Am" — which the Trinitarians would agree with that statement — but if he would have simply said, "I am God; I am your God; I am your Jehovah," they would have said, nonsense; we know that God is an invisible Spirit; there's no way you can be that. So what he was trying to say: through My own works — watch Me do miracles, watch Me raise the dead, watch Me forgive sin (who can forgive sin but God only?) — but lest you think I am simply, as a man, exalting self — which would be one of the proofs that he could not be God, if he were, as a man, trying to glorify, exalt himself — he says, set aside that: even if you don't believe Me, there is yet another witness, and that is the Spirit of God, the eternal God. And I would use the example of Saul of Tarsus. He denied Jesus. But because his heart was open to a supernatural visitation, when God struck him, he was open to that. And he said, "Well, who are You, Lord?" And then the Lord said — not, "Well, here's a second One up here" — but, "I am Jesus." So I guess what I'm saying is: the two witnesses would be God coming in the flesh as a man. Jesus could attest to his true identity, but that alone would not have been convincing. But God, separate apart from the incarnation, could also attest to the reality of Jesus and the incarnation — as we see in Acts chapter 9. But when it's all said and done, even that witness comes back: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." And so the two witnesses become the two manifestations: God in the incarnation, and God transcending the incarnation. In both dimensions, God will bring people to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

[Ian Boyne:] There are some popular arguments used which Trinitarians feel it would be hard for you to answer, but for which plausible answers have been given, I believe. One of the common ones is that when Jesus was on the cross, what was he praying to, if he and the Father are one? When he was calling out, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" — many believe that you guys can't answer this. What's your response to that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, yes. Once again, this is the true humanity of Christ. If we imagine ourselves at the point of — or in some other situation — we can feel forsaken by God. If we can feel that forsakenness, Jesus had to have that same capacity, as a human, to feel that. This is actually a quotation from a psalm.

[Ian Boyne:] Yes.

[Dr. Bernard:] David felt forsaken.

[Ian Boyne:] Now, I would argue that's not the point. The point is that the Father clearly was a distinct person from him.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, but because he felt forsaken by — what I would [say to] Trinitarians... Yes, but the point I would make there is: David was not actually forsaken by God; he only experienced the feeling.

[Ian Boyne:] Not [that he was] a separate — yes, distinct person from the person from whom he felt the alienation. Yes, that's the point.

[Dr. Bernard:] But okay, let's take a look more closely. What I think is happening is: Jesus was taking the place of sinners, and actually suffering the punishment of the sins of the world at that time. So he had to take, in essence, the punishment of a sinner in the lake of fire — to feel forsaken. But actually, that is dealing with his human identity. In the same sense he said, "I thirst." Well, God cannot get thirsty. But what I would say is: the Spirit of God was in him, but the Spirit of God did not shield him from that human experience of thirst. Likewise, the Spirit of God within him did not shield him from that human experience of forsakenness, or punishment for sin. And really, the Trinitarians would have a similar issue: did Jesus — was he separated from the second person of the Trinity, the Spirit of that second person? Well, you would say no. So it's really the same kind of argument, because we're both talking about the true human experience of Jesus Christ. And that explanation would also cover the other instances in which he's praying to the Father — yes, he's making references to the Father; yes, many references in the New Testament, in the Gospel accounts, where there's a distinction. And I would argue — at the baptism, where the Father says, "This is My beloved Son" — yes, and Trinitarians, you know, a number of Trinitarians say, this is a strong point: here is the Father now saying, "This is My beloved Son." How can you say the Father and the Son are the same, when the Father is speaking and the Son is down here? Yes. Actually, we're not saying the Father equals the Son. We're saying the Father is in the Son — because "Son" refers to God as He's manifested in the flesh. The Son was born; the Son died. Well, even Trinitarians have a problem here, because they don't believe the second person of the Trinity was born or died. We are dealing with human flesh. So I would say the prayers of Christ are a greater problem for Trinitarians, if they try to use that to prove the Trinity — because if their second person is inferior, seeking help, seeking guidance, it proves too much; it proves he's not co-equal. But rather, this is dealing with the incarnation, showing that Jesus, as an authentic human being, related to God just as we relate to God.

[Ian Boyne:] You're saying something very significant, Dr. Bernard: that the Trinitarian exegesis itself is quite treacherous.

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes, because if they are very careful, a lot of it proves too much.

[Ian Boyne:] Yes, and [it] contains the seeds of its own destruction.

[Dr. Bernard:] That's right, exactly — which lets you know they're on the wrong track, in my view, that they need to rethink on the—

[Ian Boyne:] The problem with internal consistency?

[Dr. Bernard:] In Trinitarian theology, you would say yes, definitely, yeah.

[Ian Boyne:] In your view, what would be among the most deadly arguments against the Trinitarian position, if you were to summarize?

[Dr. Bernard:] First of all, understanding the doctrine: Who is God? In the Old Testament, God is revealed as Jehovah, the Father, and so on. Colossians 2:9 says, in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So the question is: Is Jesus in the Godhead? Trinitarians would argue that Jesus is one of three persons in the Godhead. But actually, this Scripture turns it around and says the Godhead is in Jesus, fully. Yes, John 14:9 — which I alluded to: "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." So you cannot see the Father separate and apart from Jesus. Revelation 22:3–4: in eternity, we will see one God on the throne. It says there is the throne of God and of the Lamb, and His servants shall serve Him. The Lamb is Christ in His sacrificial role. And so if you take a look at it, in a sacrificial role — yes, the Lamb died. Now, when we go to heaven, we don't expect to see an animal, but it's a representation of Christ in His humanity, the One who died for us. But Revelation 22:3: "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne" — the throne, singular — "of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him: and they shall see His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads." So in eternity to come, we're going to see one divine throne in heaven, one on that throne, with one face, one identity. He will be called simultaneously God and the Lamb. That's obviously Jesus Christ; He's the only One who's both Deity and the sacrifice for sin. That leaves no room for a distinct or different personality of Father and Spirit. And so that's another point that I would make.

And I think I would go to the Trinitarians and say: all right, if you are trying to demonstrate three persons, you will have to define: what do you mean by "persons"?

[Ian Boyne:] Yeah, but the more sophisticated ones will say that "person" does not accurately capture God, and they would say [as much]. So they admit that that is problematic, so we wouldn't use that against them. How do you deal with the Colossians text which talks about God creating the world through Jesus — Christ — which seems to suggest that Jesus existed distinctly before the incarnation?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, God created the world — yes, by the Son, or through the [Son]. That's right. I would say, in dependence upon the Son. I do not think there are two persons side by side at creation, because Isaiah 44:24: "I alone," "by Myself." That is consistent. But here's the beautiful — [in] Colossians, there is a profound truth. That is: when God created humans, He knew that humans would sin, and they would not fulfill His purpose in creation. So you might imagine: why would God go through the exercise of creating humans to have fellowship with Him, when He knew it would all be destroyed? Because the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world — as it were, in Revelation 13:8, and so forth. That is: God looked forward to the incarnation, to the Son of God being born and dying. And so all of creation is predicated upon the Son of God. It's actually a beautiful depiction, that the incarnation and the atonement is at the center of human history — creation was. Exactly what it says: that God created the world through the Son — not only in anticipation, but in reliance upon the atonement. Creation itself was predicated [on] that — that He created the world through Jesus.

[Ian Boyne:] Well, yes, but Jesus exists not as a human being. Doesn't "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" sound like the Lamb was there, pre-existent?

[Dr. Bernard:] But no, not at all, right?

[Ian Boyne:] But doesn't that take some [explaining in] your theology, in a great way? It seems that Colossians text — it seems—

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, I think it's very powerful, because it is saying all of human history is centered on Jesus Christ. He is the fullness of the Godhead revealed. He wasn't a Son in [eternity past].

[Ian Boyne:] So He was a kind of [Logos], as a thought in God's mind?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, I would say, more than a thought. I would say: the mind of God, the plan of God, very literally existing as a [foreordained reality].

[Ian Boyne:] We're looking at the matter of the Godhead. We take a break.

[Ian Boyne:] Welcome back to our feast of theological delights. We have a leading Pentecostal scholar, certainly in the area of Oneness theology, David K. Bernard. And he's presently doing a doctorate — a doctorate in theology from the University of South Africa. He already has a doctorate — a master's, rather — from the University. And you also studied theology — was it Wesley? Wesley Biblical Seminary. And you're also founder and pastor of the New Life United Pentecostal Church in Austin, Texas, where he resides. And he's president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology. And also superintendent — I didn't talk about your administrative work — of the South Texas District of the United Pentecostal [Church], and that district has experienced significant growth in the last few years. Tell us about that growth, in terms of a number of churches.

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes. Five years ago we had 160 churches; we now have right around 220 churches. In fact, we're experiencing good growth.

[Ian Boyne:] And you are superintendent. And your local church — you started 16 years ago; you have also started 16 churches out of that church that are presently functioning. And what's your present membership in your particular congregation?

[Dr. Bernard:] If you add all of those up, about 1,500 or so in active attendance.

[Ian Boyne:] Yes, yes. So quite a bit is being done. One of the things you hold very strongly is baptism in Jesus' name, and you think it really makes a difference, Dr. Bernard, what words we ought [to use] when we're putting people under the water. It's about to say — you are a highly intelligent man: magna cum laude graduate, doctorate in jurisprudence with good honors; you have studied mathematical — you've done mathematical studies, managerial studies, theological studies. You really believe that —

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, yes. It's the name of Jesus that is the only name given for our salvation — Acts 4:12. So certainly we can [emphasize] the name of Jesus.

[Ian Boyne:] And if I sincerely express faith in the substitutionary death of Jesus, I decide to follow my Lord, to accept His sacrifice, and the pastor says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" — God is not going to [honor] that baptism? Or, I would need to be baptized —?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes, you would need to be rebaptized. However, I do want to say: I'm not God — and obviously we're all glad that I'm not. So I think I must be very humble in saying: you don't have to follow what I say, but you're accountable to God. If you have faith in Him, then you follow Him. He is the One who judges your faith. Having said that: in the Scripture, our faith issues forth in obedience. And I do believe it's a process. I believe God appreciates every step of sincerity that we make toward Him. But I do not believe that once we have a good understanding of truth, we can just stay where we are and say, well, I understand more, but I'm content with what I've already done.

[Ian Boyne:] Give us the best arguments for baptism in the name of [Jesus].

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, the name of Jesus: every example of New Testament baptism is always done with the invocation of the name of Jesus. There are five examples in the New Testament church of an actual baptism where a name or formula is mentioned. In every single case, it's the name of Jesus. Acts 2: the Jews were baptized in Jesus' name. Acts 8: the Samaritans, who were part-Jew. Acts 10: the Gentiles. Acts 19: people who had already been baptized under John's baptism — which was a step of faith that God honored for its time — yet they were commanded to be rebaptized, the only difference being their new understanding of Jesus and the invocation of His name. Acts 22:16, Paul's conversion: the name of Jesus was invoked — orally invoked. And then, if you go through the epistles, there are a number of references that all go back to the name of Jesus. In fact, the only verse in the entire Scripture that would lead to my thinking otherwise is Matthew 28:19, which we can look at in a little more detail. But just to summarize, I would say: it speaks of Father, Son, and Spirit — all the fullness of the Godhead — but we know from the New Testament that that is revealed in Jesus. And the key point is this: the apostles heard that command of Jesus, and they went out and consistently baptized in Jesus' name. We should understand and obey the command the same way that the apostles understood and obeyed the command.

[Ian Boyne:] And that also would back up — even using Matthew 28 — your view of Oneness?

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, yeah — the disciples saw Jesus as Father, Son, and [Holy Spirit]. Oh, yes. So it all fits together very well — the two doctrines.

[Ian Boyne:] Explain to us Matthew 28:19.

[Dr. Bernard:] All right. Jesus spoke of baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." In the context — if you allow me to paraphrase — He says: "I have all power. So, since I have all power, I'm sending you out. I want you to make disciples unto Me; teach them all of My commandments; I will be with you." Now, in that context, it leads us to expect a christological formula — which many scholars have noted, even to the extent of questioning whether that threefold reference is original or not. Now, I don't question that. But I say the interpretation — the context — leads us to expect a christological formula. When He said "in the name," it was not three names of three different persons, but "name," singular, that represents the fullness of God. The Father is revealed to us in the name of Jesus — John 5:43. The Son was given the name of Jesus at birth — Matthew 1:21. The Holy Spirit comes to us in the name of Jesus — John 14:26. So I would say, the fullness of God is revealed in the name of Jesus, so that when we invoke the name of Jesus, we are actually invoking the name that represents God in all of His fullness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This corresponds to Mark's account, which says "in My name" — the same Great Commission account, in different words: Mark 16, "in My name." Luke — the same Great Commission account, Luke 24: "in His name." When you match the parallels, the name that's consistent across the Gospel accounts, as well as the fulfillment of the book of Acts, is in fact the name of Jesus.

[Ian Boyne:] So the formula is important — or what is important is the authority? As you know, the scholars point out that "name" means authority: "in the name of the prophet" — the authority of the prophet. If one is invoking the authority of Christ, the authority of the Christian God, isn't that sufficient? Let's think about that while we take our final break. Religious Hard Talk, dealing with some pretty important issues. We hope you've been following the discussions since last week. We take our final [break].

[Ian Boyne:] Welcome back. Leading Pentecostal scholar David K. Bernard is here for a special series of studies through the Pentecostal Tabernacle on Wildman Street, under the leadership of John Mark [surname garbled in the caption track]. He speaks to us on Religious Hard Talk again. I must commend the Pentecostal Tabernacle for its farsightedness in bringing its leading scholar to Jamaica to share — and to decide to share him with all of us on this popular program. Through this program you can speak to hundreds of thousands of persons, and it's good to spend time with you. I've read you over the years. I myself have written a small book on Jesus, and I certainly consulted with your work, among others, in writing this piece. I recommend this book to everyone — the local Pentecostal bookshop, I think on Reddy's Road and so on, has it, and perhaps others would have it, too: The Oneness of God, David K. Bernard. If you really want a single volume that puts forward the best arguments for Oneness Pentecostalism, you have to have David Bernard's book. It has been a constant companion for a number of years.

So, the arguments for — and I'd posed the question at the break on this issue — it escapes me, but [it was] the authority: that the emphasis is on the authority, and therefore the particular formula is not important.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, I would say both. Certainly the authority is represented by the invocation — but that does not mean you should not invoke the name. That's the strongest argument to invoke the name, because that is how you represent authority. It's like signing your name to a cheque: you have the authority, but the bank just doesn't go by your authority; they expect the name that executes the authority. And I would say, if you study the Greek texts especially, and you study the Greek prepositions, the scholars are unanimous in saying the apostles actually invoked the name of Jesus.

[Ian Boyne:] Does it matter — does it matter, the exact words? Not the exact [words], because the [records] — there are passages, when you actually look at the examples — yes, they do not have the exact words. In fact, you know a fellow, Gino Jennings, and he believes that except you call the Lord — I think "the Lord Jesus Christ" — he makes a big thing of that. Because when one looks, for example, Acts 2:38, where Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" — yes. Which does UPC use?

[Dr. Bernard:] I think the name of Jesus is the key — the name of Jesus. We don't call you [to a fixed form]. We do typically say "Jesus Christ," or "Lord Jesus," or "Lord Jesus Christ."

[Ian Boyne:] Well, if it is a formula, you must follow it.

[Dr. Bernard:] No — here's the point: we are using these titles to identify Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the historical person who is God manifested in the flesh.

[Ian Boyne:] Suppose I say, "I baptize you in the name of the Lord" — is that okay?

[Dr. Bernard:] No, I don't think so, because the name is Jesus — Matthew 1[:21]. But look at this: in Acts 10:48, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." And we would ask: what is the name of the Lord? The name of the Lord is Jesus. And by the way, if you read other translations based on the Greek text, you will actually find them putting "Jesus Christ" in that particular passage. Yes, it's very interesting. But I think in Acts 22:16, "calling on the name" — which literally means invoking. Ah — what, the person who is calling on the name is the person who is being baptized? Well, studies are done — I think [it] can [be either]. You don't normally do that; it is usually the person who is baptized [who] puts [the name on] the person in the water? Ah, yes — it's not generally the person who is going under, though. But it can be both.

[Ian Boyne:] You practice it — well, because when I baptized someone, I don't want to leave it to any doubt; I want to make sure that the name— What is it? Don't insist that the person, following Acts 22:16 — you would insist on the person calling upon [the name]? Anyone — because they've already done so; they have [called on the name in faith]. Even — you don't literally [require it]. Yes, I understand that: one follows the sense of Scripture, rather than just the [letter of] application.

[Dr. Bernard:] But if you study the Greek text, as well as, of course, the natural meaning of the English, the name is actually invoked. Now let me give an example — it's not just my supposition. The New Testament: Jesus talks about healing — to heal in His name, "in My name." How did they do it? Well, how did they exercise it? In Acts 3:6, the lame man: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." They actually invoked the name. And then, when they were asked how they did this — in Acts 3:16, Peter said: it was not our doing, not our power, not our holiness, but "His name, through faith in His name, has made this man whole." And then in Acts 4:7, the council asked, "By what name, or what authority, did you do this?" And they said — quoting actually Acts 4:10 — the very words: "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." So obviously, calling the name does represent authority — but the way that you do that: if you baptize, if you pray for healing in His name, you call His name. If you cast out demons in His name — I challenge anyone to say, well, I'm going to cast out demons [by] some [vague] authority and I'm not going to use the name. The name is important!

[Ian Boyne:] Well, it's faith in His name. How do you understand Colossians 3:17? "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus."

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, you've got my text! Ah, well — first of all, it's saying that everything that we do should be under the authority of [Christ]. However — what, you don't have to phonetically mention [the name in everything]? Is this [about] making love, or you'll do everything—? Well, with one qualification: when it comes to a definite spiritual act that requires an invocation, it's obvious that would be the name of Jesus. So water baptism is part of Christian initiation. You've got to distinguish it from Jewish proselyte baptism, pagan baptism, whatever. So you're not going to be silent at that crucial moment. So when — if you are going to use a name, then Colossians 3:17 does tell you which name would be appropriate — and important — for word and deed combined.

[Ian Boyne:] Do you realize that that contains the seeds of the refutation of your own argument? That in the original context in which the disciples were baptizing, where there are names of other gods — and yes, a multi-religious context — that it was [important] to call the name; it might not be so in our Christian [context], which you might not [find] as urgent to call the name, to make that kind of distinction linguistically.

[Dr. Bernard:] I think you're helping me out, because our day is even more pagan, perhaps — certainly not less pagan. There's a multiplicity of gods.

[Ian Boyne:] And what about other than in the Christian West, largely — would we still need to be rebaptized?

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, yes. Acts 19 is an actual example.

[Ian Boyne:] A lot of these Christian churches, Dr. Bernard — are you going to say all of us need to be rebaptized?

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, yes. I would say it's always important to obey God's Word — just as the Baptist would take someone who is sprinkled and baptize them by immersion. Yes, I would say, for example: should we take communion with cake and ice cream? No. Well, isn't it symbolic? Isn't it just faith? Well, it might be, but it's always important to obey what you know to obey. It's never irrelevant to actually obey what the Scriptures have laid out.

[Ian Boyne:] Do you see Oneness Pentecostalism as the fullness of the gospel?

[Dr. Bernard:] I would say that it is the full response to the gospel. This is the restored gospel, yes: of repentance and water baptism in Jesus' name, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We didn't have time to speak on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, even though — because the two matters that we brought up were so significant, and so full, that we couldn't touch that other matter.

[Ian Boyne:] Would [you] prosper — you come back to Jamaica, we can talk about the matter of speaking in tongues. Let's do it. What a great opportunity it has been to chat with you these past two weeks. Leading scholar in the Pentecostal movement, David K. Bernard, spending time with us on Religious Hard Talk, dealing with the issues of Oneness and baptism in Jesus' name. Stay tuned to us every week; we have something that is interesting, something that will be of use to you. Next week I'll be back. Until then, Ian Boyne, on behalf of the crew, wishing you a very pleasant evening.