The Oneness of God

[Jonathan Moore, host:] My name is Jonathan Moore, and I'm the Director of Communications for the United Pentecostal Church International. I'm so glad you've joined us today for a very special broadcast. The oneness of God is the foundational doctrine of the Bible, and it's one of the pillars of the Oneness Pentecostal presentation. We are going to explore this very important biblical doctrine and its ramifications for modern-day believers. I believe this discussion will increase both your faith and your understanding of the Bible.

Joining us are two well-known and highly regarded Apostolic scholars, both of whom have written and taught extensively on the topic of the oneness of God. Our first guest is no stranger to most of you. Dr. David K. Bernard is the General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, and he's the founding president of Urshan College and Urshan Graduate School of Theology. Dr. Bernard is the author of 37 books, including several that explored today's topic. One of Dr. Bernard's most popular works is The Oneness of God, which is an in-depth look at what the Scriptures say about the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ.

Our second guest also is a prolific writer and speaker who also has written and taught extensively on the topic of the oneness of God. Dr. David Norris is a professor of theological studies at Urshan Graduate School of Theology. Dr. Norris also is the author of I Am, a book which explores Christology from a Oneness Pentecostal perspective. Both The Oneness of God and I Am are required reading for all ministers who are seeking credentials with the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe both books should be part of every believer's personal theological library.

During the unusual and uncertain times in which we live, I believe it's very fitting that we are having a conversation about the Godhead. Current events have forced us to try different methods, but the message of the Scriptures never changes, regardless of the circumstances. The writer of Hebrews wrote, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." In these uncertain times we can take great comfort in knowing that our God, who never changes, is with us always, even to the end of the age. May God bless you today. Gentlemen, we're glad to have both of you here.

[Dr. Bernard:] Thank you. Glad to be here.

[Dr. Norris:] I'm glad to be here as well, from the confines of my home during this pandemic. These certainly are unusual times, hence the reason why we're coming to you from our homes this afternoon rather than from the studios of the United Pentecostal Church. But wherever you are, we are very glad that you've joined us for this discussion, and believe you're going to be blessed and benefit both spiritually and in knowledge from what you're going to learn this afternoon.

[Jonathan Moore:] To begin our conversation today about the oneness of God, I would first like to start by defining what we mean by that term — by that phrase — for maybe those who are not familiar with what Oneness Pentecostalism is, or what "oneness of God" is. Dr. Bernard, could you start by just giving us an explanation of what is meant by those terms?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes. Oneness Pentecostalism, or Apostolic Pentecostalism as it's sometimes called, is a branch of the larger Pentecostal Christian movement. The term "oneness" focuses on two main points. The first point is: we believe there's one God, with no distinction of persons. He's indivisible in His nature and substance, and that is based on Deuteronomy 6:4 — "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD" — and of course it's stated throughout Scripture. The second point that we emphasize is that Jesus Christ — Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in the first century — He is the one true God manifested in the flesh. He's the one God incarnate, or the human personification of God, so all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him, and that's stated in Colossians chapter 2 and verse 9. So those two points identify the distinctive view known as the doctrine of the oneness of God.

[Jonathan Moore:] Of course, both of you are aware — and I think probably most of our viewers are also aware — that there are a number of viewpoints, many of them contradictory, on Jesus Christ, on the nature of God. Can you just recap for us: what are the predominant viewpoints of Christianity as a whole, and what does the Bible say about this topic, about the identity of Jesus specifically? Dr. Norris, would you lead on this?

[Dr. Norris:] Absolutely, and I appreciate you allowing me to be a part of this. It's a great opportunity. Of course, there are a couple different ways to define what we know about God and what we know about Jesus Christ. One way is the Bible; another way would be history. I remember I was in West Bend, Wisconsin, starting a church. I went to the Ministerial Association, and there was a man who I got to be friends with, and he called me a little bit later and he said, "Dave, I heard something about you." And I said, "What was that?" He said, "I heard you don't believe in the Trinity." And I said, "Well, I certainly believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit as is defined in the Bible, but the language — much of the language of the Trinity — didn't come from the Bible. It actually came from certain church councils and was very much influenced by philosophy." Then he asked me a question. He said, "Well, what do you do with Chalcedon?" What he meant was: what do you do with the anathemas in the various church councils that would say that if you don't believe this, you're lost, essentially. And I responded to him, I said, "Well, you're Protestant, right?" He said, "Yes." "Isn't that one of the tenets of the Protestant faith, of the Reformation, where Martin Luther said sola scriptura — that is to say, our faith should rest in Scripture alone?" So of course there's many different views of the Trinity, but in their genesis they come from a number of church councils that actually are very much invested with a certain thing called Platonism. It's the Platonic view of God. And there's a scholar by the name of Harry Wolfson, a Harvard scholar, who tracks this — the ways that the church moved away from the biblical text and came to a confession that was distant from it. Well, how do we define God? As Brother Bernard just said, you have to start with the Bible. There's a big word in theology in the Old Testament that talks about this unique oneness of God; it's called unity: God is God, and God alone — and that is the God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

[Jonathan Moore:] So what you're saying is that the predominant viewpoint of Christianity today on God and the identity of Jesus Christ is not necessarily influenced primarily by what the Scripture says, but by philosophy. We're not against church history, but if we have to choose — if a choice must be made — we would rather choose the biblical text than a confession that came along later.

[Dr. Norris:] Of course.

[Jonathan Moore:] And this has been referenced already in the conversation: the New Testament does use these titles — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. I'd like to know: what does the Bible mean by these terms? I think these terms perhaps are part of what caused confusion for some people.

[Dr. Bernard:] Well, I'll respond to that. Of course, we certainly do believe that God is our Father. That is a biblical term for God, although it's predominantly used in the New Testament in the context of defining the Incarnation. So let me give you a brief definition. There's one God, no distinction of persons — that's established from the very beginning in the Old Testament, which is the foundation that sets the parameters, that gives us the definitions. Then the New Testament elaborates on that and likewise states there's one God, such as First Timothy 2:5. So that one God is known to us as Father. "Father" is a term of relationship, so Father indicates particularly His relationship to humanity: He is our Creator, He's the source of life, He's our authority. And then you have the biblical phrase "Holy Ghost," or "Holy Spirit," or "Spirit of God." A person's spirit is not thought of as a different person from himself or herself, but that is the invisible essence of the person. So God's Spirit — it's not a different person from God, but is God Himself in His spiritual essence, His spiritual presence, His spiritual action. So when we pray to God and He responds to us, we feel His presence; we say, "That's the Holy Spirit." We don't mean it's somebody different than who we just got finished praying to. We mean that's God in extension in our world and in our lives. So it's the same God we pray to — we say, "Our Father who is in heaven" — we then feel His presence, we say, "Oh, that's God's Spirit." And then the term "Son of God": significantly, the Bible never uses the term "God the Son" or "eternal Son," but it's always "Son of God" or "only begotten Son." The term "Son" has reference to the Incarnation. In other words, it means God manifested in the flesh. And you can see this, because the very word "son" indicates a beginning and an ending. In the Scripture, the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, so we don't think of the eternal God suddenly popping into existence. But the Bible says the Son of God died on the cross; we don't think of the eternal God suddenly ceasing to exist. So when we say "Son," we're referring specifically to the Incarnation — the true human being who was God manifest in the flesh. So the one God: we know Him as our Father in personal relationship; we know Him in the Son, meaning God manifest in the flesh, Jesus Christ; and we know Him as the Holy Spirit in His spiritual action and presence in our lives.

[Jonathan Moore:] I think another thing that sometimes throws people off, besides these terms that the New Testament uses like Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is some of the imagery that New Testament writers use. For example, I think of in the book of Acts where Stephen says that he looks up into heaven and he sees Jesus at the right hand of God. In fact, several of the New Testament writers use this sort of imagery. What does the Bible mean by that? How do you explain that?

[Dr. Norris:] Perhaps the most important scripture quoted — in fact, the often-quoted scripture from the Old Testament — is Psalm 110, verse 1. And that is the scripture that says, "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Now, some people think, well, the cross is the most important event in the New Testament — it's certainly important — or that the resurrection is important, and that's certainly important. But it all comes together in this verse itself. This is the verse that speaks of the ascension of Jesus Christ, when a man is in heaven for us. When it says "the LORD said to my Lord" — it's capital L-O-R-D, that is to say, Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, said to my Lord, and that's the word that can refer to a man, Adonai — and He said, "Sit at My right hand." This is the royal moment of ascension. This is, as Brother Bernard explained, in First Timothy 2:5: there's one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. This is when the man Christ Jesus begins His mediatorial role in such a way that we can come to the Father through Him. Now, as F. F. Bruce rightly says, this is not a literal thing. This is not ever meant to be literal. It's only meant to demonstrate a man in the divine power and place, the highest place that a man can be. So Stephen didn't see God and the Son of God. He saw the glory of God, and Jesus — and then here's the idiomatic phrase — standing at the right hand of God. That means in the place of power, in the place of authority, in the place where He can be the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. Rather than being something that we should explain away, this is something that we celebrate. Dr. Bernard, anything you'd like to add to that?

[Dr. Bernard:] Yes, I agree with all of that, and I would like to just pick up from that point. So it's not meant to be a literal positioning of two bodies. As F. F. Bruce, a prominent evangelical scholar — even Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation — said: the heretics are mistaken if they think this is talking about Jesus sitting in some golden chair in heaven next to someone else. God is a Spirit; God is invisible; God is [uncircumscribed — word unclear in caption track]; He fills the universe. So to think of two different bodies of God is already a mistake. The Old Testament indicates that "right hand" signifies power. Go back to Exodus 15:6: "Your right hand, O God, is glorious in power. By Your right hand..." — He's talking about Israel being delivered from Egypt — "You defeated the Egyptians." When Jesus was standing on trial, in Matthew 26:64, He told the high priest, "You will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds at the right hand of power." Was He saying that when He came back in the clouds there would be two bodies that everybody would see, and they would say, "Oh, the guy on the right hand — it's got to be Jesus, because he's on the right hand"? Of course, then you have to wonder from which perspective — from North America, Asia, you know, which one is the right one? But He wasn't saying that at all. You're only going to see One coming in the clouds: Jesus, the visible image of the invisible God. By the way, that is Colossians 1:15, and in Second Corinthians 4:4, that Christ is the image of the invisible God. So we're going to see one Person, but He is going to be, as Dr. Norris said, in the position of power. So what Stephen actually saw: he did not see a vision of two beings. He saw one vision of Jesus Christ. But he remarked that Jesus didn't appear as He did with the disciples on earth, as a humble man; He appeared with glory, the glory of God. He appeared at the right hand of God — that is, with the power and authority of the invisible Spirit. And you can see that very obviously, because as you conclude Acts 7, he says, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." So his prayer was directed to only One — the only One he saw. If he saw two, my question would be: well then why, in Acts 7, was the third one absent? And if he saw two, my next question is: why did he ignore the one and completely focus on the other? The truth is, he saw One: his Mediator, the One who was a man, but more than just a man — vested with all the authority of God, because He was God manifest in the flesh.

[Jonathan Moore:] Another question that people have that's somewhat related to what we just talked about, that throws people when they read the New Testament, is these scenes where Jesus is praying to the Father — notably one example in John chapter 17. Can you explain how, from a Oneness perspective, [we understand] these passages?

[Dr. Norris:] We say that Jesus is God, and that's an important confession to make — absolutely important. But there's one thing that is just as important to say as well: that Jesus truly, absolutely was a man. And so when we think about Jesus as a man — the Bible says in Psalm 65, verse 2, as the psalmist David said, that He was coming to the Lord, "to Him all flesh would come." So if you're a human being, you're going to pray. If you're a human being, you're going to be in communication with God. Now, there's something that God cannot do: He can't die. And that's why Jesus had to die. Jesus was a man who listened absolutely to the will of His Father. Hebrews 4:15 says He was "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." He had a commission, a mission, to do a certain thing in this world. When I teach freshmen, I ask them a question. I say, "Now, God told Adam, 'In the day that you eat, you shall surely die.' But Adam didn't die. Was God lying?" And of course you try to leave them hanging a little bit, and they'll say, "Well, it was the mercy of God," or something like that. That's all true. But it's also true that from the beginning, before the foundation of the world, according to First Peter chapter 1, verses 18 to 20, God had a plan, and that the plan was that there would be, quote, "a lamb slain" — and the language is "from the foundation of the world" — that Jesus would give His life for us. And so of course Jesus prayed. Of course Jesus listened to God. As a man, He was totally in submission and obedient to the will of God, even to the point of going to the cross. Dr. Bernard, would you like to add to that conversation?

[Dr. Bernard:] Sure. So the prayers of Christ prove that He was a genuine human being in every way, just like us, except for sin. What would be shocking — it would be if He didn't pray, because how could He be a righteous man and refuse to submit? The prayers of Christ say nothing about supposedly internal divisions or conversations in the Godhead. What they simply say is: Jesus was an authentic human being, and out of His human identity He prayed. At the same time, we realize the Spirit of God was fully incarnate in Him, and that's part of the mystery of the Incarnation. Positing a Trinity of different persons doesn't solve the problem of discussion; it makes it even worse. Because then, if you have one person of God praying to another person of God, then one is inferior, the other is superior. Then you do not have co-equality, as the doctrine of Trinitarianism teaches. You only have one who's really God; the other is a subordinate being, which cannot truly be God — if he's not all-powerful, he's not really God. And then if the response is, "Well, that's just according to the flesh" — well, that's what we're saying. And if you have three divine persons, the idea is that one of the three came in the flesh. Well then, you still have the same problem: how did that human man relate to that second person that was inside of him? That's the mystery of the Incarnation. Then you would have to ask: well, how did that human person relate to the three different persons of the Trinity, and how did each member of the Trinity relate to the others? Then you'd have six relationships to explain, instead of one. And the dilemma becomes more obvious when you study Trinitarian theology carefully, because they will say in prayer: when you pray to one member of the Trinity, you pray to all three, because all three share in all the work of God. So technically, that means when Jesus Christ, as the human, was praying, He was praying to the Trinity. So the human Son was praying to the eternal Son. Sometimes when you talk to Trinitarians, they will say superficially, "Well, there have to be two wills." Obviously, Jesus prayed at the Garden of Gethsemane: "Not my will, but Your will be done." What could be more obvious? The second person's will versus the first person's? But say, wait a minute, that's too obvious. It's not: if it's two wills of two different persons, do you mean inside of God there could be a conflict of the wills? So in what way could you have one God, if you could actually have two different persons who disagree with each other? And of course, Trinitarian theology says there is only one divine will throughout the Trinity. So even informed Trinitarian scholars will say: no, it's not the will of the second person submitting to the will of the first person; it's the will of the man Christ submitting to the one will of the Trinity, or of the Godhead. And so my response to that would be: okay, now we're back to Incarnation. You don't need three persons to explain it. Actually, adding the three persons makes it more complicated. What you really have is First Timothy 3:16: "Great is the mystery of godliness." How is this possible, that Jesus as a man could pray to God, and yet God be incarnate? Well, that's the mystery that every Christian faces. How could that baby in Mary's arms be God? How could that little boy, walking around playing in the yard, be God? How could that teenager be God? How could that 33-year-old man on the cross be God? But it's so: "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." And that's the truth that we espouse — that Jesus was an authentic human being. When He prayed, He actually took our place. He had to be at least as human as we are to pay the price for our sins. If we can pray, He could pray. If we could address God, then He could address God. And so, as a human being, He prayed.

[Jonathan Moore:] I think that — I'm glad you brought the humanity of Jesus up, because I think that's a sticking point for a lot of people. I think we all read about the person of Jesus in the New Testament, and we see the miracles that He performed, and the fact that He walked on water, and He raised the dead to life. And at the end of His life, He rises from the dead, and He ascends into heaven. And I'd like to hear you comment on this, because it's hard for us to see any sort of similarity between ourselves and Him, yet you say Jesus was truly human. Do you mind elaborating on that?

[Dr. Norris:] The amazing thing is: because He became like us, so we can be like Him. The idea of the fact that He's in heaven and that He's glorified is pretty incredible, and it's hard to conceive of Him. But there's the promise that's made, that because of what He did, not only will that be His state, but that'll be our state as well. In fact, that's what Jesus was thinking about on the cross. The Bible says in Hebrews chapter 12, verse 2 — it says, "Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame." "Who for the joy that was set before Him..." If you read that John 17, the prayer of Jesus for His disciples was that they could be where He was going to be. Philippians tells us that we're going to have a body like His glorious body — this is First John 3:2 and Philippians chapter 3 — "will change our lowly body, that it be conformed to His glorious body." The hope of every Christian is: because of what Jesus did, that's also what can be our state as well — that we can be forever with God, eternally with God in full and whole relationship. I'm not sure if that answered your question, but anything I left over, I'll leave for Brother Bernard to clean up. Go ahead, Brother Bernard.

[Dr. Bernard:] Oh, I appreciate what Dr. Norris has just said. Because think of it this way: God, without ceasing to be who He always was, became something He had never been before. He became a human being. And in doing so, He has forever identified with the human race. What amazing love, that the Creator of the universe would come into our world, become one of us! And as Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, He was a human being in every way, just like us — as I said, except for sin. Because after all, when God created Adam and Eve in the beginning, He did not create them as sinners. So the most authentic humanity is humanity without sin. Jesus did not come as a fallen human; He came as the original type of human. And notice: it's not just God in a body; it's God in human identity. Whatever we consider humans to be — body, soul, spirit, mind, will, personality — Jesus had all of that, but united in such a way with God's Spirit that we would not speak of two spirits in Jesus, but one Spirit, an integrated personality, who was truly God manifested in the flesh. And now He rules and reigns in heaven; in His glorified [state] He will always be God manifest in the flesh, in the eternal state. The very last book of the Bible, the very last chapter, Revelation 22: we will see God and the Lamb as one, sitting on one divine throne. We will see His face; His name will be in our foreheads. So we will see Jesus Christ as the visible manifestation of the invisible God throughout eternity. And that's what's so amazing to me: in order to redeem us, He became one of us, in such a way that throughout eternity He will forever be identified with the human race. And I think part of the amazement of that is: First Timothy again talks about "He was seen of angels." You know, God was manifested in the flesh, First Timothy 3:16 — but then it goes on to say "He was seen of angels." I think that captures some of the awe — that isn't this amazing, that the God of eternity, who fills the universe, who can be whatever He wants to be, but He's permanently identified with these lowly creatures that He made, because He loves us, and He wants all of heaven, for all of eternity, to know: I have identified with them. A wonderful mystery, in the sense that — how can we comprehend that? But the mystery has been revealed, so that we can know it and confess it. The Incarnation certainly is a miracle.

[Jonathan Moore:] I'd like to give both of you a chance to respond to my next question, because both of you, I know, have written extensively about church history and about the history of the development of thought about the identity of Jesus Christ. One of the arguments that Oneness Pentecostals often hear from those scholars is that the consensus — and Dr. Norris, you commented on this earlier, but I'd like you to elaborate on it a little bit — the consensus opinion of historic Christianity has lined up behind the doctrine of the Trinity. And in fact, some have even said that the doctrine of the oneness of God is little more than a recycled ancient heresy. How would you respond to those allegations?

[Dr. Norris:] How does somebody know what orthodoxy is? And of course, people can give different answers to that. Our answer would be simply this: well, you know, Jesus — He started the church in a very simple way. He chose twelve apostles, and He told them to start the church. Ephesians 2:20: we're "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ is the chief Cornerstone." And so if you want to know what orthodox is, if you want to know what is to be believed, then I would think that would be very simple: you have to go back and ask the question, what did the earliest church believe? What did the apostles believe? I remember sitting in an exegetical class on First John. Dr. Koch was the professor, and we came across First John chapter 2, verse 1, where it says, "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." And one of the students stopped — it just blew him away. He just asked, "Dr. Koch?" Dr. Koch said, "Yes." He said, "It says here we have an advocate with — it's paraclete." He says, "Yes." He says, "It's paraclete." He said, "Yes, I can see what it is." He said, "But paraclete in the creeds is the Holy Spirit." And he said, "Yes." He said, "Well, it's not a problem." Dr. Koch, who studied early church history at the University of Pennsylvania, just laughed. He says, "Hey, you're 200 years before the Trinity." I had one professor — the most conservative professor in seminary, who I had many discussions with, and he was from Germany, so I won't try to do his German accent, though maybe in another setting I'll try — but he said in one class, and again, he was the one who tried to get the closest to the truth of the Bible, he said: "I believe if Paul had lived another forty years, he would have come up with the Trinity." Okay, so what do I say? I'm saying: if you've got to choose what orthodox is, it seems like a slam dunk. We should believe what the Bible teaches, and what the apostles gave to us, as commissioned by Jesus Christ.

[Jonathan Moore:] Dr. Bernard, you've written very extensively on this topic as well, about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you mind adding to this?

[Dr. Bernard:] Sure. And I will tag into the first church: Acts chapter 2, the birthday of the Christian church. The first people to receive the Holy Spirit — Peter, along with the rest of the apostles, preached the first sermon. The first believers were added to the original company. When Acts 2:42 tells you what the church was at that time — and really, it's a model for all of us — "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship." So I would agree 100% with Dr. Norris that what's important is what the apostles taught, and that's recorded in the New Testament, and that of course is based on the Old Testament, which was their Bible. So what we get — our doctrine of God — needs to be based 100% on the Bible, and specifically on the preaching and teaching of the apostles. Now, in Christianity you have the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy that value tradition equal in authority with the Bible. Notice what they're actually saying: they go back to the Nicene Creed, which was in part from the fourth century, the Council of Nicaea. But actually, the original creed wasn't the full creed that it is today. You really have to go to the very end of the fourth century — the Council of Constantinople in 381 — to get the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity as it's known today. And then you really have to go into the fifth century to get the creeds that are used today. So notice the logic of that. What they are saying — and if you read the theologians and the church historians, they will admit this — you're saying that the church of the fourth and fifth century had a more sophisticated understanding of the Godhead than the apostles of the first century. And that's exactly what they're saying. "The apostles were naive; they were unlearned; they weren't theologians; they didn't understand the full implications of what they were saying. It took several hundred years to really put this all together in a comprehensible, consistent way," etc., etc. Now then, you have the Protestants, who say — as Dr. Norris already mentioned — sola scriptura, which means Scripture alone. So they shouldn't even be looking at the creeds for authority. And certainly, if they're going to evaluate us by the creeds and say we're heretics, well then they're violating the foundational premise of Protestantism. Because when Martin Luther began preaching justification by faith, that's exactly what the Catholic Church said. They said, "For the last thousand years we have defined doctrine contrary to what you just said. All the councils, all the creeds, all the popes are against you." And Luther said, "Scripture." That was his trump card. And I will give you another example: those same creeds that talk about the Trinity also say "one baptism for the remission of sins" — by which they meant it's essential for your sins to be remitted. Typically, most Protestants today will say baptism is not part of [salvation]. So they'll say, "If you don't accept the creed that defines the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are a heretic — but we don't accept that very same creed as it defines salvation, because we're going to go by Scripture." I'm just saying: let's be consistent. Let's go by Scripture all the way. And then labels — "heretic," "cult," "unorthodox" — are meant to shut off the conversation. What I say is: let's set aside the labels, and let's listen to each other, and then together let's go back and listen to Scripture. I have written some books on the development of doctrine, and you can trace how the doctrine develops stage by stage: my History of Christian Doctrine, volumes one, two, and three. And then I wrote some specialized books: one is on the Trinity, A.D. 100 to 300 [title as spoken; caption track unclear], and then I wrote The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century. So if you want to know all the details of the historical development — it's not a secret; Trinitarian scholars will admit it — there is no clear doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. You have to watch it develop over several hundred years.

[Jonathan Moore:] Thank you very much. I'd like to give both of you an opportunity to close this discussion out. My final question: one of the things that you hear people sometimes say is that it's all just semantics, that none of this debate really matters — we're all worshipping the same God. Obviously, the two of you wouldn't have devoted much of your lives to studying these doctrines and writing the books that you've written, preaching what you've preached, if you didn't feel like this was important. Why does the oneness of God matter? Why is it something that should be important — the identity of Jesus Christ, this debate — why should this be important to the average believer? Dr. Norris, I'll let you lead.

[Dr. Norris:] In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina happened — and it was such terrible suffering — President Bush got blamed, because there's a picture of him flying over the site. He was coming back early from his vacation, and he decided not to visit, because he didn't want to get in the way. But it was interpreted that he didn't care, because he didn't come himself. The high point, though, of his presidency is 9/11. And you can still see a lot of pictures of this: at Ground Zero, when everything was still smoking and the firemen were still rushing in and out, there's a picture of him in a hard hat. And that endeared the country to him, because he came himself. When I was at Temple University, I read a number of very caustic articles against Christianity, because they said God committed spiritual child abuse when He sent His Son. Now, I don't think that's right in the first place, because, you know, if God loved us enough to give up His Son, I don't think that was true spiritual child abuse. But the fact is: He didn't send another — He came Himself. This is very much related to baptism in Jesus' name, because when you are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, you're baptized into the name of that Man who died for you — and also who was God manifested in flesh. He didn't send another. He came Himself. Amen.

[Dr. Bernard:] And I would add to that Colossians 2:9 through 10: "In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Jesus was the one true God in all His fullness. We can't divide Him up or make Him a lesser deity. But He was also a true human being. Only as a man could He die; could He take our place; could He pay the price for our sins; could He shed the blood for remission. But only as God does He have the power and authority to forgive sins. Only as God can His one death apply to every human being, because it was of infinite worth. If He was just a man who died, maybe he could substitute for one other man. But because He was God, then His one death could apply infinitely to all humans, and in that short time of His death, burial, resurrection, could substitute for all eternity, for every one of us. So in other words, to be our Savior He had to be both: Son of God and God. He had to be both God and human at the same time. And then verse 10 of Colossians 2 goes on to say, "And you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." It makes a difference to understand, as Dr. Norris rightly explained, that God gave Himself; God came Himself. It also is important to understand that when we pray in Jesus' name, we have access to all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. That's why it is important to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's why we cast out demons in the name of Jesus. That's why when we lay hands on the sick, we pray in Jesus' name. That's why all of our prayers are in Jesus' name: because we have access to God through Jesus Christ. Think of it this way: as our heavenly Father, God created us; He told us how to live; He gave the law. And as humans fell into sin, we couldn't keep that law. God could have just destroyed us, but He didn't. He loved us so much, He came Himself, became our Savior. He showed us what a true human should be like, and set the example for us. But then today, as we apply that salvation to our lives, we're filled with God's full Spirit, and He enables us to live a holy life and to become what He wants us to be, and ultimately to be resurrected and glorified. So God the Creator became our Savior, and He's now the indwelling Spirit. The oneness of God explains that: from start to finish, our salvation is in the hands of the one true God, who is revealed to us as Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Jonathan Moore:] I think that's a great place to end today's conversation. I want to say thank you to both of you for taking time out to engage in this discussion. I want to say thank you to all of our viewers who've taken time to watch this. There's certainly much more to be said about this topic, and I would encourage you, the viewer, to pick up a copy of both Brother Norris's book I Am and Brother Bernard's book The Oneness of God. Both of those are available through the Pentecostal Publishing House. You can buy those online at pentecostalpublishing.com, and you certainly will be blessed, and your understanding will be deepened, by reading those books. Gentlemen, thank you again today for participating in today's discussion.