David K . Bernard

There is a substantial consensus for the emergence of a high or divine Christology very early and from a Jewish context. Based on insights from Oneness Pentecostalism, the New Testament evidence for early high Christology is best explained within the context of exclusive monotheism by a robust concept of incarnation and a duality of divine transcendence and immanence rather than incipient binitarianism or trinitarianism.

Page 1. Trang: 1 DUY MÄÜT JESUS CHRIST Oneness View of Jesus Christ DAVID K.BERNARD Page 2. Trang: 2 NÄÜI DUNG Table of Contents Tæûa 1. Quan âiãøm chè mäüt Chuïa Jãsus Christ . 2. Låìi tråí nãn xaïc thët . 3. Âæïc chuïa tråìi toaìn nàng laì täi tåï táöm thæåìng . ...

As Oneness Pentecostals, we have a distinctive theology, and thus we should develop our thought in every major area. Hermeneutics is foundational to all theology, yet we haven't given it adequate attention. Some Trinitarians have criticized our initial efforts as modernist and insufficiently Pentecostal. This paper addresses their postmodern critique and contributes to the development of a distinctive Apostolic hermeneutic. Its purpose is to further the construction and articulation of a biblical hermeneutic suitable for Oneness theology and to demonstrate its general validity and applicability, thereby helping to establish Oneness Pentecostals in their faith and lead others to the same faith. Review of Scholarship In 1992, I included a chapter on hermeneutics in my book God's Infallible Word, 1 based on my teaching at Jackson College of Ministries from 1981 to 1986. Drawing from evangelical scholars such as Bernard Ramm and Berkeley Mickelsen, I presented ten general principles and ten practical applications of grammatical-historical exegesis. 2 My purpose was to help Oneness Pentecostals use basic hermeneutical principles and exegetical methods while avoiding excessive spiritualization and allegorical interpretation. Daniel Segraves made another early contribution to Oneness hermeneutics in 1998, with a similar orientation and purpose. 3

Conclusion. 

We can identify at least three contributions of Oneness theology to global Christian theology: (1) it is a reminder that Christianity is truly monotheistic; (2) it has a strong incarnational Christology, upholding the deity of the historical Jesus; and (3) it bridges the dialogue with Jews and Muslims (Yong 2005, 227–28). Oneness theology further makes several mediating, soteriological contributions: (4) authority and power of Jesus’ name for salvation, healing, and deliverance; (5) water baptism as part of initiation (like Catholicism) but linked with faith and repentance (like Protestantism); (6) Spirit baptism as part of initiation (like Protestantism) but as a definite, empowering, transforming experience (like trinitarian Pentecostalism); and (7) justification by faith (like Protestantism) with the goal of transformation (like Catholicism) by the power of the Holy Spirit (like trinitarian Pentecostalism). In seeking to restore the apostolic faith, Oneness Pentecostals offer fresh insights for contemporary Christianity.

This book was written as David Bernard's PhD dissertation. But, unlike many dissertations, this book reflects the work of a mature author who has honed his theology over the years and can communicate it clearly. His is an exegetical work but one motivated by a theological issue that is core to the church's faith, namely, the identity of Jesus Christ. In particular, his question concerns how one reconciles Paul's recognition of Christ's deity with Paul's commitment to Jewish monotheism. This question is indeed potentially vast. But Bernard's approach to it is appropriately modest and suggestive. He seeks to approach it through the small window of one Pauline text: 2 Corinthians 3:16-4:6. His strategy in opening this window, however, is clear. He wants to defend the idea that Paul's Christology should be read through the lens of Paul's Jewish monotheism rather than through the lens of a nascent Trinitarian theology.

The status quaestionis established by the likes of Bauckham, Hurtado, and Dunn among others may be taken for granted by those working in the field of biblical studies but their reception by Oneness scholars is sure to demand rethinking of the paradigmatic Nicene tradition and its interpretive assumptions that will have reverberations not only for the next generation of theologians but also for anyone interested in the christologies of the earliest followers of Jesus the Messiah. Kudos to David Bernard for his encyclopedic research, cogent analyses, and painstaking and measured argumentation that marks the emerging maturation of the Oneness Pentecostal academy.

~ Amos Yong, Professor of Theology & Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary

To explore Christian origins we need to explore Christology, and to study early Christology Paul's Corinthian letters are indispensable. In them, Paul spoke of Jesus in various ways: fundamentally as a human who died and rose again; sometimes as Yahweh, the one God of Israel; and yet somehow in distinction from God. While there are various options for understanding Paul's discussion, the best explanation is that Paul viewed Jesus as the epiphany, manifestation, human personification, or incarnation of the one God. Paul's language was consistent with Jewish monotheism, used categories of thought available in both Jewish and Hellenistic circles, and did not explicitly delineate two divine persons or two divine centres of consciousness. Instead, he described one transcendent God who became incarnate. In short, for

The Protestant Reformation, which began with Martin Luther in 1517, initiated a revival of biblical scholarship and doctrine. Luther and the other Reformers asserted that Scripture alone, not tradition, is our authority for doctrine. As a result, the Protestants discarded many Roman Catholic beliefs. Curiously, however, orthodox Protestantism retained the doctrine of the trinity, although it is the product of philosophical speculation and historical development rather than the explicit teaching of Scripture. Did this important doctrine receive serious scrutiny, and if so, how could

There is a substantial consensus for the emergence of a high or divine Christology very early and from a Jewish context. Based on insights from Oneness Pentecostalism, the New Testament evidence for early high Christology is best explained within the context of exclusive monotheism by a robust concept of incarnation and a duality of divine transcendence and immanence rather than incipient binitarianism or trinitarianism. (For full discussion, see also my book "The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ."

A study of modalism in the second and third centuries is significant for at least three reasons. (1) It was one of two major ways in which early Christians articulated the distinctive Christian view of God. (2) It was the predominant Christian view of God for over a century. (3) There is some similarity to modern Oneness Pentecostalism, which has thirty million constituents. To study ancient modalism, we trace the doctrine of God in the second and third centuries, situate modalism within this historical context, and contrast it with early trinitarianism. First-century Christians embraced both strict monotheism and a high view of the deity of Jesus. Only later do we find significant modifications of monotheism in favor of binitarianism and trinitarianism. Instead of speaking of multiple divine persons, early Christians simply said God acted in Christ and was revealed in Christ. The major issue became how to reconcile Greek ideas of God’s transcendence with the New Testament depiction of God’s immanence in Christ. Subordinationists said the supreme God could not directly enter the physical world; thus, Jesus is the incarnation of a second, subordinate, divine person. Modalists maintained that Jesus is the incarnation of the one, indivisible God. Modern trinitarianism may be more compatible with modalism than with subordinationism. In other words, by modern trinitarian standards, modalism might be the best expression of orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Indeed, if measured by majority opinion, it was the orthodoxy of the pre-Nicene era. (For full discussion, see my books "The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ" and "Oneness and Trinity AD 100-300.)

Michael Burgos is a Bible teacher at Northwest Hills Community Church in Torrington, CT, and as of this publication has earned a Master's degree from Andersonville Theological Seminary. He has written a polemical book against Oneness Pentecostal theology from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical perspective. His title is possibly modeled after Against Praxeas by Tertullian, the first theologian to enunciate a clear trinitarian theology, although Tertullian was a heretic by Burgos's standards. General Observations Burgos's work is more credible than previous works in this genre (although Burgos cites some of them with approval). For example, unlike them he seeks to understand the Oneness position theologically and to present it accurately. He cites recent scholarly sources, such as Dr. David Norris, Dr. Daniel Segraves, and my doctoral thesis, although he sometimes relies on self-published or internet authors who are not well known. Burgos commendably begins with a presentation of hermeneutics and definition of terms, which is helpful in establishing a common basis for discussion. He then presents classical trinitarian positions and classical trinitarian exegesis of key passages of Scripture such as Genesis 1:26; Matthew 28:19; John 1; John 17; I Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1; and Hebrews 1. He engages Oneness exegesis and sometimes acknowledges when trinitarian scholarship supports Oneness exegetical points. Overall, this discussion is beneficial in advancing dialogue. For the most part, I thoroughly engage these issues in my books The Oneness View of Jesus Christ and The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ (the published version of my thesis, which wasn't available to him). Thus, I will address a key issue of hermeneutics and then respond only to some points that he misunderstands or that warrant further explanation, citing my books when relevant. Based on progressive revelation, Burgos argues that we must modify Old Testament monotheism in light of the New Testament (68, 145). This argument is necessary for him because it is impossible to establish the Trinity from the Old Testament itself. As Burgos acknowledges, I also accept progressive revelation, which results in doctrines such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, the gospel, and the new birth. However, when we study the most basic concepts in the Bible, such as God, truth, love, grace, faith, and repentance, we must start with Old Testament definitions, because God used this method to reveal truth to the apostles and the New Testament church. From the outset, Scripture consistently teaches the oneness of God, and as it reveals more about His identity, character, and work, it never contradicts this foundational revelation. As most scholars today, including trinitarians, acknowledge, the New Testament does not explicitly teach the Trinity but at most it provides data that was subsequently used to construct the doctrine. (See discussion of early Christology in The Glory of God.) What is now orthodox trinitarianism was not clearly defined, formulated, and widely adopted until the fourth century. Thus, Burgos starts with the definitions and creeds of the fourth century, which are based on Greek philosophy, and uses them to interpret the language of the New Testament. He then uses this theological reinterpretation to modify the foundation in the Old Testament. This is progressive revelation backwards-imposing post-biblical, philosophical developments upon the text of Scripture.

It is a polemical work against Oneness Pentecostalism from a Fundamentalist Trinitarian perspective. The author does not seek to understand Oneness theology on its own terms, but from the outset the book presents a flawed interpretation, which it then proceeds to attack as a straw man. Fundamental Misrepresentation of the Oneness Position This problem is evident from the "Abstract" at the beginning of the book. Here is the description of the Oneness doctrine, upon which the rest of the book is predicated: First, since Oneness doctrine asserts a unipersonal God without the distinction of three Persons, it sees Jesus then as the mere "name" of the unipersonal deity, who manifested as the modes or roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus denying the unipersonality of Jesus Christ. Second, since it asserts that only the Father is God (i.e., Jesus' divine nature/mode), the "Son" represents only Jesus' human nature/mode, thus denying the Son's deity. Third, since it rejects the idea that the Son is God, Oneness Christology denies (a) the Son's pre-existence, (b) the Son's active role as the agent of creation (the Creator), and (c) the Son's eternal and intimate relationship with the Father. Pertaining to redemption, Oneness doctrine maintains that Jesus as the Father took flesh, hence denying the incarnation of the divine Son.

It focuses primarily on my book The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983), and I have been asked to give a response. I do not feel a need to refute all his ideas, since in most instances I have already dealt with these concepts thoroughly in The Oneness of God (OG) and elaborated on them further in subsequent books. Nevertheless, I hereby present some observations concerning Ross's book.