David Bernard´s book on oneness

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have it and always thought it was an excellent book on the issue!

I have also enjoyed the book, ever since the first edition had come out.

Some of the criticisms about "Nestorianism" probably have more to do with the way Bernard phrases some things rather than with any "errant" beliefs he holds himself. Perhaps a newer edition is due, DKB?

The whole issue involving the "union" and the "distinctions" between Christ's human and divine natures has always been a problem area for the church. In fact, Nestorius of Constantinople was heavily criticized for not calling the Virgin Mary "Theotokos" or "God bearing." Nestorius didn't feel that the son born to Mary was "the divine nature" that Christ possessed.

This is actually something that most Oneness people also believe, though the Oneness camp doesn't go to quite the lengths Nestorius went to to establish this premise.

Still, overall, Bernard's work remains perhaps the best and most preferred published work on this subject.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have also enjoyed the book, ever since the first edition had come out.

Some of the criticisms about "Nestorianism" probably have more to do with the way Bernard phrases some things rather than with any "errant" beliefs he holds himself. Perhaps a newer edition is due, DKB?

The whole issue involving the "union" and the "distinctions" between Christ's human and divine natures has always been a problem area for the church. In fact, Nestorius of Constantinople was heavily criticized for not calling the Virgin Mary "Theotokos" or "God bearing." Nestorius didn't feel that the son born to Mary was "the divine nature" that Christ possessed.

This is actually something that most Oneness people also believe, though the Oneness camp doesn't go to quite the lengths Nestorius went to to establish this premise.

Still, overall, Bernard's work remains perhaps the best and most preferred published work on this subject.

Yes absolutely. It needs to be redone

Nestorius's major problem was attributing personhood to each nature within Christ, so that he essentially had 4 persons (he was a Trinitarian). Though I've heard this was actually a mistake and he denied having such a view (as would DKB)

[Praxeas]

Oh and there are some issues with some Oneness claims, made in the book too, that are suspect.

For example Jesus saying "I come in my Father's name" was supposed to prove the name of the Father is Jesus. But this is simply no different than someone saying "I come in the name of the law"

had he said "I have my Father's name" or "My Father's name was given to me", that would make more sense. But this looks more like a claim to authority than a claim to have the same identical name as the Father

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh and there are some issues with some Oneness claims, made in the book too, that are suspect.

For example Jesus saying "I come in my Father's name" was supposed to prove the name of the Father is Jesus. But this is simply no different than someone saying "I come in the name of the law"

had he said "I have my Father's name" or "My Father's name was given to me", that would make more sense. But this looks more like a claim to authority than a claim to have the same identical name as the Father

He did rehearse some of the often trite Oneness arguments. But, for someone looking for a book that covers the Oneness view rather well, DKB's is probably "the standard." That this "standard" doesn't rise to the level that you and many others want is another matter.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh and there are some issues with some Oneness claims, made in the book too, that are suspect.

For example Jesus saying "I come in my Father's name" was supposed to prove the name of the Father is Jesus. But this is simply no different than someone saying "I come in the name of the law"

had he said "I have my Father's name" or "My Father's name was given to me", that would make more sense. But this looks more like a claim to authority than a claim to have the same identical name as the Father

I agree. I think we OP's have misapplied John 5:43 to "prove" that the name of the Father is "Lord" (according to some) or that the Father's name is "Jesus" (according to some). In my opinion, I believe Jesus was saying, "I have come as my Father's legal agent and in His authority...."

P.S. I do believe that God's highest name and His saving name is Jesus and that Jesus is the single name shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He did rehearse some of the often trite Oneness arguments. But, for someone looking for a book that covers the Oneness view rather well, DKB's is probably "the standard." That this "standard" doesn't rise to the level that you and many others want is another matter.

Yeah unfortunately it is a standard. However one thing is good about that, I can quote David Bernard to show the Oneness view of the Son is that the Son is Deity and Humanity, the Creator incarnate. There are some claiming to be Oneness who deny the above despite the fact DB asserted it

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He did rehearse some of the often trite Oneness arguments. But, for someone looking for a book that covers the Oneness view rather well, DKB's is probably "the standard." That this "standard" doesn't rise to the level that you and many others want is another matter.

Hello all,

I do agree that DKB's Oneness of God is still a good "standard" treatment of Oneness theology for those not wishing to engage in technical, scholastic theosophy. However, because of certain phraseology he employed which appeared to posit a Nestorian Christ, his arguments were open to criticism from Trinitarianism. Although, in his defense, I do not believe he has ever held to a Nestorian Christ, nor even subconsciously reified Christ's two natures. Other Oneness believers knew what he meant; it was mostly Trinitarians who misinterpreted him!

As to the subject at hand, I think we can say that God is the only being who exists in multiple concurrent distinctions of existence: transcendent (Father), immanent (Holy Spirit), and incarnate (Son). It is the interaction between these which the human mind tends to interpret as interactions of multiple persons, and which ultimately gave rise to Trinitarianism. Oneness theology today seeks to understand the interactions between God's existential distinctions within the framework of classic monotheism (God is one in being AND person).

[seekerman]

Anytime you try to make God two or three anythings interacting with each other as if they're distinct and separate but really aren't you have problems, be it oneness or trinitarian.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Anytime you try to make God two or three anythings interacting with each other as if they're distinct and separate but really aren't you have problems, be it oneness or trinitarian.

Oneness doesn't have two things interacting as though they are separate. They do have two "things" interacting that are distinctm but not separate

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello all,

I do agree that DKB's Oneness of God is still a good "standard" treatment of Oneness theology for those not wishing to engage in technical, scholastic theosophy. However, because of certain phraseology he employed which appeared to posit a Nestorian Christ, his arguments were open to criticism from Trinitarianism. Although, in his defense, I do not believe he has ever held to a Nestorian Christ, nor even subconsciously reified Christ's two natures. Other Oneness believers knew what he meant; it was mostly Trinitarians who misinterpreted him!

As to the subject at hand, I think we can say that God is the only being who exists in multiple concurrent distinctions of existence: transcendent (Father), immanent (Holy Spirit), and incarnate (Son). It is the interaction between these which the human mind tends to interpret as interactions of multiple persons, and which ultimately gave rise to Trinitarianism. Oneness theology today seeks to understand the interactions between God's existential distinctions within the framework of classic monotheism (God is one in being AND person).

That second paragraph is exceptional, DaveC. That's the kind of thing that the "godhead ninjas" could cut-and-paste and be very well served in doing so.