IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS

By Elder Ross Drysdale

PREFACE

This book is written as a response to the arguments raised against the Oneness Pentecostal movement
and its distinctive doctrines. In particular, I have addressed the charges leveled against us by Dr.
Gregory Boyd, in his book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, published by Baker Book House.

My book serves as a secondary purpose also, for in it I have endeavoured to give a complete
exposition of all the major doctrines espoused by Apostolic Pentecostal believers. I have relied upon
the Bible as primary source in this endeavor, for it is written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they
speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa 8:20). I have also used
historical facts, early church writings, ecclesiastical history, and quotations from scholars, both
Trinitarian and Oneness. In addition to all this, I have also included personal incidents and experiences
which I feel have a bearing on the case.

My heartfelt prayer is that God will cause this book to be an instrument for the conversion of those
"outside the message" and an armory of evidence for those within it.

INTRODUCTION
October is a strange month, neither summer nor winter; it belongs to that twilight season we call
autumn. By the end of the month the first of winter's chilling winds sweep down from the great
northern forests. Change is on its way, and winter will soon be here. It was on just such an October
evening in 1963, with one of those premature winter winds blowing against me, that I made my way to
a small United Pentecostal Church. My spiritual quest was ending and I was coming home to the
original deposit of Faith; a Faith which the Apostle Paul called "the whole counsel of God." This
search for Truth had begun for me in the Baptist Church and would soon find its fulfillment within the
doors of that little congregation, Within moments I would hear the Pastor invoking the sacred name of
Christ upon me as he lowered me into the baptismal waters. I would then be part of a religious
movement that my ancestors did not know, and my family did not understand. For awhile I would
have to stand alone. That was thirty years ago and I am still standing for the same Truth I discovered
on that long ago October night.

Another young man, one whom I have never met, also claims an October evening as a turning point in
his life. For him, however, its significance is derived not by what he accepted, but by what he finally
rejected. Standing in a church parking lot on an October night in 1976 he claims to have received a
revelation taht caused him to leave the United Pentecostal Church and renounce its teachings. He feels
he heard from Heaven. If what he heard is "true" then what I embraced on an earlier October night is
not. The book you now hold in your hands is a Oneness response to that "Parking Lot Revelation" and
a defense of the Faith that was delivered to me in October of 1963, and for which I am prepared "to
give every man an answer for the hope that lieth within me."

1
 CHAPTER I
REVELATION IN THE PARKING LOT
CAN WE TRUST THE "PARKING LOT REVELATION" OF DR. BOYD?
IS "HALF A TEXT" BETTER THAN NONE?
WHY IS THE SECOND HALF OF ROMANS 8:1 OMITTED BY OPPONENTS OF HOLINESS?

TALE OF TWO TEENS / I MEET THE "HOLY ROLLERS" / BAPTISM OF THE HOLY
GHOST / THE "JESUS ONLYS" ARE HERE / BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME / "THEY WENT
OUT FROM AMONG US" / REVELATION IN THE PARKING LOT / THE MISSING
HALF / PATTERN OF HERESY / CONDITIONAL SECURITY / THE DOCTRINE OF THE
MASTER / PAUL / PETER / JOHN / JAMES / HOLINESS OR HELL

TALE OF TWO TEENS

This is the story of two teenagers, whose hunger for God led them on a search for the Truth that
eventually brought them into the Oneness Pentecostal Faith. Gregory Boyd was one of them and
I was the other. Both of us were baptized in Jesus' name and both of us learned the Apostolic
Doctrine and embraced it fervently. But from that point on, our stories head off in radically
different directions. For Gregory Boyd departed and I remained. He has told his story in
"Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity." Now I will tell mine.

I MEET THE "HOLY ROLLERS"

I was not raised in the Pentecostal faith. My family had all been members of the Baptist Church,
and I had assumed I would be a Baptist "til I die." But in the year 1962 a small Pentecostal
mission was opened in my neighborhood in an old abandoned Methodist Church. I was curious
about the new sign in the yard which announced the church as "Pentecostal," but did not give it
too much thought. In my high school PE class I met a young man named Tony, who witnessed to
me and invited me to attend his church - the aforementioned Pentecostal congregation. I asked
him if he was a "Holy Roller?" He smiled and answered yes! I began visiting his church on
occasion to see if all the Pentecostal rumors were so. I was not disappointed. I saw for the first
time people praising God in tongues, dancing in the aisles, slain in the Spirit, praying in concert,
and generally speaking, and having a wonderful time about "religion." I was an "onlooker" but
not a "partaker." Whenever it was prayer time they would remove my eyeglasses. When I asked
why, they would always respond that the Holy Ghost might fall on me, and I wouldn't want to
lose them in the excitement. Rather than argue, I acquiesced.

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST

On the 15th of September 1962, at about 7:30 p.m., I made my way to the Rehoboth Christian
Mission for what I thought would be my last time. I had absolutely no idea of the extraordinary

2
event which was to take place. When it happened, I could not have been more surprised if
someone had walked up and handed me a million dollars. I persuaded two of my friends to
accompany me that night, Billy Edkins, a Methodist, and Gene miller, a Baptist. I had Billy to sit
on one side of me and Gene on the other. We were in the first row and Tony was in the row
behind us. I figured with a Baptist on one side and a Methodist on the other, I would be quite
insulated and cushioned against any of the strange occurrences in this Pentecostal place of
worship. It was during the singing of the choruses that it happened. We were all singing, "I'm so
glad Jesus lifted me." They were singing it in English rather than Spanish, and I imagine this
was in deference to the visiting "American brothers," as they referred to us. I was not even
clapping my hands at the time. I was simply too Baptist for such things. Suddenly, my attention
was drawn to my right.

What I saw I shall never forget as long as I live, and indeed thereafter. Bill's face was a bright
red and it looked as if it were glowing. I wanted to ask him what was happening, but there was
not enough time. All of a sudden, he put his hands up to his face and began rubbing it as if he
had a washcloth in his hands. Quickly he began to rise out of his seat. Astonished at what I saw,
I immediately turned to my left where Gene was seated. Gene was already on his feet and
staggering under the power of God. Suddenly, I heard Tony behind me say something to the
effect, "I think I'm going up to Heaven," and with that he shot up into the air, heading in the
direction he had just announced. Then it happened. Dear reader, I am treading on Holy
Ground, but what I am about to relate is fixed in my memory and as fresh as the day it
happened, although it has been over thirty years. In an instant, I felt a hot cloud descend from
heaven and completely envelope my body. It seemed like a split second. It just surrounded me
with its intense warmth and I was completely aware of the presence of God. A voice spoke to my
soul and said, "Ross - receive the Holy Ghost." Immediately, I felt this hot cloud pass through
my body and take up residence inside me. The Comforter has come. He was now inside the
Temple! The glory of the moment is indescribable. As soon as the Spirit of God had entered me,
He lifted my helpless body off the bench into the middle of the air, unaided by human hands, but
accomplished by the same Great Power that translated Enoch and swept Elijah off the earth.

The Spirit then began to toss me high into the air over and over again, as the glorious billows of
love and power crashed over my body like the sweeping of ocean waves. I had absolutely no
control over my body at this time, but I was completely aware of the fact that I was totally and
completely being exercised by the Holy Ghost. It was as if I was on a giant invisible trampoline
that kept tossing me higher and higher. Just as I could never have started the experience,
likewise I could not stop it. It was as if every cell and fiber of my body was being inundated with
power, as indeed it was. I can remember thinking to myself that this was God in the most
convincing and real way imaginable. I would never doubt Him again. I could also hear myself
shouting and praising God , but it seemed like I was listening to my own voice from a distance.
My body, not under my control whatsoever , went in every direction, flipping, tossing,
ascending. How long this continued, I do not know. But as I began to come out of this blessing, I
noticed I was on the floor and there were feet all around me. The church had gathered to the
front to behold this thing that had come to pass. When I was finally together enough to speak, I
told those assembled that I received what the Apostles received on the day of Pentecost. they
agreed. Billy was still rejoicing and Gene was on the floor still speaking in a tongue. I was now a
Pentecostal according to Acts the second chapter and would remain so for life. And so I have.

3
At this time I did not have a lot of "doctrinal knowledge" about the Pentecostal experience. I
had spoken in the "unknown tongues" and realized this was "part and parcel" of this great
Baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, but beyond this I had little knowledge. Every thing had
come to me so quickly, and changes were still occurring in rapid order. I immediately began to
devour the Word of God. I searched its pages night and day. i started to hear terms I had never
heard before, words such as "rapture," "tribulation," "divine healing," "initial evidence,"
"spiritual gifts." I wanted to know what all these things meant. My sister also began visiting a
Pentecostal Church in another neighborhood. She brought me a copy of their magazine. Eager
for anything "Pentecostal" in the way of literature, I immediately began to study it. For the first
time I came across the term "Oneness Pentecostal." I pondered what this could mean. I knew
very well what a Pentecostal was, for I was one of those myself! But what on earth (or in
Heaven!) was a "Oneness Pentecostal?" I laid aside the magazine and di not give it much
thought. In less than a year, I would be very familiar with that term also; and in a way I would
never have imagined.

The months following my Baptism of the Holy Ghost were days of "Heaven on earth." I
attended church five or six times a week, prayed sometimes all night, witnessed at my high
school, fasted, and expected Jesus at any moment. Friends who opposed such sudden "change"
told me I was "brain washed." I response that my brain had been in need of serious washing for
a long time! Others said I had "lost my mind." I told them it was a small loss anyhow, and not to
worry, for now i had "the Mind of Christ." Being a "Pentecostal" was for me an exciting way of
life. I was glad i was "in."

THE "JESUS ONLY'S" ARE HERE

I continued with the saints at the Rehoboth Church for about a year. About this time I began to
hear of a strange sect of Pentecostals known as Jesus Onlys. On occasion they would visit our
church. I was instructed to shake hands , greet them, and leave. They had a "dangerous
doctrine." This only promoted my curiosity, so I began to investigate their teachings. I quickly
found out what the "danger" was. Our Pastor said they believed in "baptizing in Jesus' name"
and could "take you to the Bible study and prove it." I thought that was an odd remark. I
decided to become The New Defender of the faith and fight them single handedly. I fulminated
against them constantly, wrote tracts, engaged them in debate, even going to their homes to
"straighten them out." I visited the local United Pentecostal Church just to prove I could
"resist" their Apostolic influence. Yet deep inside me I had nagging doubts about my own
doctrine and baptism. At this time also Rev. Nathaniel Urshan was beaming into New York City
airways wit the Harvestime Broadcast. I would listen to it in solitude and ponder the
straightforward message he preached. Why don't our Preachers sound so Pentecostal, I would
ask myself? Why are we so reticent to mention water baptism, tongues and Holiness? Will the
Jesus Onlys wind up being the only true Pentecostals after all? All these thoughts swirled in my
mind, while I simultaneously tried to push out the ever mounting evidence for baptism in Jesus
Name. By October of 1963, it had come to a head. The die would soon be cast.

4
 BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME

It was October 29th, the year was 1963. i had a raging debate going on within me over the issue
of being baptized in Jesus' Name. Every time I read the book of Acts, I felt like I was half a
Pentecostal. I had the mighty Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in
tongues as recorded in the 2nd, 8th, 10th and 19th chapters, but I did not have the baptism in
water in the Name of Jesus recorded in the very same chapters. I had read every excuse devised
to explain away the Baptism in Jesus' Name and had even invented a few of my own. Nothing
seemed to satisfy me. I prayed that night that the Lord would show me and guide me into the
truth. I had no idea of the remarkable miracle that was about to take place. I will recount it
exactly as it occurred.

As I laid down on my bed to sleep an unusual sensation immediately began. The only way to
describe it is to say that a whirlwind began to swirl around me, starting at my head and working
towards my feet. I became absolutely immobile. Suddenly I felt my soul lift out of me and it
began to ascend. My body felt like a dead weight on the bed. I was convinced I had died.
Presently I arrived at a place where all was white and brilliant; a very relaxing feeling came over
me. This must be Heaven I thought. I sensed the presence of the Lord and asked Him why I
could not see His face? The response was immediately imparted to my soul: "Will you be
baptized in my Name?" Then the whole strange process resumed again, only in reverse. I felt my
soul descend downward to earth. Soon my body began to regain sensation and the whirlwind
effect left me. When I regained complete use of my body I sprang from my bed and went for the
Bible. I said, "Lord, I rejoice in signs and wonders, and I believe them, but I must have the word
for all that I do." I opened my Bible and there was Acts 2:38 staring at me in the face: "Then
Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." I did not seek this verse; it
sought me!

I called the Pastor of the local United Pentecostal Church and informed him that I had received
the "revelation" and wished to be baptized in Jesus' Name. It had occurred to me, as to the
disciples of old on the Mount of Transfiguration: "And when they had lifted up their eyes, they
saw no man, save Jesus only" (Matt. 17:7-8).

I requested baptism for Saturday night. The Pastor told me he had no service scheduled for that
night. I responded, "you do now!" So on October 31, 1963, a chilly Halloween night, I was
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. As I made my way home
that night amidst all the "goblins" and "ghosts" of the Halloween festivities, the words of the
Pastor kept ringing in my ears: "Upon the confession of your faith in the death, burial, and
resurrection of our Lord, I now baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins."

Like the Apostle Paul, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to
the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 26:9).

But on that long ago October night Christ stopped me and revealed himself to me, for the
purpose of making me "a minister and a witness both of these things which I have seen, and of

5
those in which He will appear unto me" (Acts 26:16). Whereupon, dear reader, "I was not
disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:17).

This was my experience on an October night in 1963. But there is another young man who also
had an October night experience, this one in 1976. His name is Gregory Boyd and he wishes to
tell his story also. It is recounted in his book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, published by
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

"THEY WENT OUT FROM AMONG US"

In his book, "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity," Gregory Body gives his unusual testimony
of why he left the Oneness faith. He views it as a deliverance of sorts from bondage - and he
wants to deliver others! How did this come about? He tells us: "My honeymoon with the
Oneness faith, however, was quite shortlived." I quickly discovered that the 'holiness standard'
(the community life style rules) which initially seemed freeing to me, became very burdensome. I
discovered that even the threat of hell, spoken of so often from the pulpit, was not enough to
motivate me to change permanently certain aspects of the sin-character that I had acquired in
my pre-UPCI life." (Boyd, p. 22).

REVELATION IN THE PARKING LOT

Whatever these "certain aspects of the sin-character" were, he does not inform us. But then
something unusual happened in a parking lot one October evening. He tells us, "standing in a
church parking lot one October Sunday evening in 1976, feeling hopelessly sinful and lost,
having just heard yet another powerful 'live-holy-or-go-to-hell' sermon, I 'happened' to open up
my Bible to Romans, chapter 8.

"As I read the first verse, 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus...' (KJV), my spiritual eyes were opened in a way they have never been opened before. The
words NO CONDEMNATION reverberate in my mind like a thousand church bells chiming at
once. That moment I knew I was saved, for I knew I was - because of Jesus' sacrifice alone -
loved just as I was. I was accepted unconditionally." (Boyd, p. 23).

This experience in the parking lot was the "beginning of the end" of his sojourn in Oneness.
Soon he repudiated the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues; and of course
Holiness, which he now classes as "legalism," lost it's grip on his mind. Next to be discarded was
baptism in Jesus Name for remission of sins. And the last domino to fall, with the aid of
"educated trinitarians" he met in seminary, was the Oneness of the Godhead.

Gregory Boyd's October night experience proved to be very decisive for him, even as my own
earlier one had been for me. And for this reason it deserves closer investigation. Though his
account is sketchy, and the details are omitted, there is still something very intriguing in his
recounting of the event. Something that I feel unlocks the mystery as to the real source of this
"revelation" which just "happened" when he opened up his Bible.

THE MISSING HALF

6
As I read Gregory Boyd's testimony, something I learned years ago came to my mind - when
anyone quotes half a verse you better look it up! There's usually something in the second half
they don't want you to know. Those three little dots... are a flashing signal that something has
been left out. I didn't have to look up Romans 8:1 for I knew it! Shall we hear the whole verse,
including the half Dr. Boyd failed to mention? "There is therefore now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Quite a difference
isn't there? the "no condemnation" promise is qualified; it only applies to those who are walking
after the Spirit, living holy. there is no promise of security for those who walk after the flesh. In
fact, there is another promise fro those who live after the flesh, or as Dr. Boyd puts it, not
sufficiently motivated "to change certain aspects of the sin-character." It's found in the 13th
verse: "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die." Why is this? Because , "they that are in the
flesh cannot please God" (v. 8). I wonder had Gregory finished reading his text, and the rest of
the chapter as well, if quite so many church bells would have reverberated and chimed in his
head that night? For the whole text says just the opposite of what he wants it to say. He was
looking for "unconditional" acceptance and approval without a change of "certain aspects of
sin-character." Paul was teaching on the other hand just the opposite: to be carnally minded is
death (v. 6) and that we should therefore "mortify the deeds of the body." In fact, mortifying the
deeds of the body is an absolute pre-requisite to live "but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the
deeds of the body, ye shall live.." If someone told me I had to take this medicine in order to live,
then I have a condition to meet if I'm going to live.

So Dr. Boyd's entire denunciation of the Oneness faith stems from half a text, taken out of
context, and made to mean the opposite of what it says. If this is the foundation, what will the
structure be like! Giving Dr. Boyd the benefit of the doubt, I will conjecture that perhaps the
wind was very strong in the parking lot that October of 1976 and blew the Bible shut before he
had a chance to finish the verse. Or maybe he was so pre-occupied with those thousand church
bells going off in his head that he forgot to read the second part -- The part which applied the
promise only to those who are living holy. But surely he has had time to read it by now? There's
plenty of condemnation in Romans 8 to go around for any and all who insist on walking after the
flesh, preferring to be carnally minded, which is death (v. 6).

"A half a loaf is better than none" was never meant to apply to the Word of God! Revelations
built on "half texts" are always dangerous. When Satan came to Jesus during the Wilderness
Temptation, he three times finished the text and silenced Satan's arguments (Matthew 4:1-11).
Dr. Boyd's so-called "deliverance" from Oneness began with just such a half text. It should be
apparent who the "real author" of such an "enlightenment" is.

PATTERN OF HERESY

Many heresies and departures into apostasy have started, not with a doctrinal objection, but
with an attempt to circumvent as requirement of the Word. Often times it is a moral failure that
leads a person to "discover" a marvelous revelation that turns that "failure" into a virtue, and
relives them of all responsibility for dealing with it scripturally. Charles Taze Russell, founder of
the Jehovah's Witnesses, feared because of his life style that he was going to Hell. Instead of
mortifying the deeds of the flesh, he got a "revelation" that there was no Hell! Joseph Smith was
caught with other men's wives, so he got a "revelation" about polygamy and celestial marriage.

7
Seventh-Day Adventists preached Christ was coming in 1844. When this was shown to be a lie
they wouldn't repent, but got a "revelation" in a corn field about the "investigative judgment."
And now we have Dr. Boyd's "revelation" in the parking lot of "no condemnation - no
conditions."

CONDITIONAL SECURITY

But there are conditions to remain in God's favor; and holy living is absolutely necessary,
whether your "aspects of sin character" were acquired in your pre or post UPCI life! Let's
consider what the Bible says on the subject, with or without reverberating church bells!

THE DOCTRINE OF THE MASTER

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

John 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words:

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;

Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of
the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by
their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 7:19-
21).

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
(Matt 16:24).

"but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matt 19:17).

There are certainly conditions to be met: deny yourself, take up the cross, keep the
commandments, do good, do what is commanded, bring forth fruit, be righteous, do the will of
the Father. All the "half texts" in the world can't set this aside. Now let us hear from the
Apostles:

PAUL

Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but
toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

8
1 Cor 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when
I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1 Cor 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is
holy, which temple ye are.

PETER

2 Pet 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of
the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter
end is worse with them than the beginning.
2 Pet 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

JOHN

1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the
truth is not in him.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever
doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

JAMES

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

The whole Apostolic Voice is united in the conviction that there are conditions to be met if the
child of God is to remain in a standing of "no condemnation." "Certain aspects of sin-
character" must be overcome or one will lose favour with God eventually. "Let us therefore
fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short
of it." (Heb 4:1). "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and
fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:26-27).

I have taken quite a bit of time to expose the fallacy of Gregory Boyd's Parking Lot Revelation,
for it must always be borne in mind that this was the motivation for his subsequent denials of
Apostolic doctrine.

If this can be shown to be false, and it has, then we can easily discern who it's author must have
been. For he has opposed holiness from the beginning, and he too "abode not in the truth" (John
8:44).

HOLINESS OR HELL

9
Holiness preaching is never popular. It's not designed to be. But it is necessary. The worldly,
powerless condition of today's churches prove that. Every sinful life style is overlooked or
glossed over in today's so-called "evangelical" churches. The preachers don't dare tell them to
"clean up their act." They'd be fired! Gregory Boyd says he was feeling the after-effects of a
Holiness sermon when he received his Parking Lot Revelation: "...feeling hopelessly sinful and
lost, having just heard yet another powerful 'live-holy-or-go-to-hell' sermon, I 'happened' to
open up my Bible to Romans, chapter 8." I have no way of knowing what was in that "live-holy-
or-go-to-Hell" sermon he heard way back in 1976. But I do know the contents of another one I
read, preached back in 33 A.D.: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be
quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee,
cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into
the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God
with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted
with salt." (Mark 9:43-49).

I wonder how Gregory Boyd would have felt if he had been in church with the Master the day
that "live-holy-or-go-to-Hell sermon" was delivered! It would take a pretty big Parking Lot in
which to find a text to set that one aside!

CHAPTER II
ENTER THE NEO-TRINITARIANS
WHO ARE THE NEO-TRINITARIANS,
AND WHAT IS THEIR "NEW UNDERSTANDING" OF THE TRINITY?
ARE ONENESS ADVOCATES GUILTY OF "MISREPRESENTING" THE TRUE
TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE?
WHAT DOES HISTORY SHOW?

NEW KID ON THE BLOCK / ROOTS OF NEO-TRINITARIANISM / HAVE WE

MISUNDERSTOOD THE TRINITY? / TRINITARIANS DEFINE THE TRINITY / COMMITTEE /
THREE CENTERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THREE WILLS / TWO OR MORE BODIES IN THE
TRINITY / THREE SPIRITS / UNITED GROUP OF GODS / THREE ADORABLE GODS /
ETERNAL BEGETTING / LIKE HUSBAND AND WIFE / NO JEALOUSY AMONG THREE
GODS / CONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE THREE GODS / AWARE OF EACH "OTHER"
AND TALK TO EACH "OTHER" / THREE BEINGS / "ILLUSORY SPEECH" OF THE
TRINITARIANS / NEO-TRINITARIAN DILEMMA / CLASSIC TRINITARIANS VS. NEO-
TRINITARIANS

NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

10
The Oneness movement is faced with a new challenge to its teaching of God-in-Christ. Having battled
for years against the twin enemies of Arianism, as exemplified in Jehovah's Witnesses, and Classic
Trinitarianism, with its "three divine individuals," we must now stand our ground against a new form
of Trinitarianism. This doctrine, which I have personally labeled Neo-Trinitarianism, shares aspects
with the old Trinity teaching with which we are so familiar, (Classical Trinitarian). In addition it has
several strange and innovative refurbishings, designed to polish up the traditional Trinity Dogma and
make it more appealing.

ROOTS OF NEO-TRINITARIANISM

The roots of the Neo-Trinitarianism can probably be traced to the Swiss-German theologian Karl
Barth. He taught that the word "persons" had become inadequate to describe the Trinity, substituting
"modes of being" instead. Karl Rahner another German theologian jumped on the band wagon with
"manners of subsistence." And Gregory Boyd, self styled champion of the Anti-Oneness Crusade,
offers up "personally distinct ways of existing" (Boyd, 169), "distinct fashion" (Boyd, 63), or by
human analogy, "aspects" (Boyd, 175). If the word person must be used, Boyd puts it in quotation
marks to indicate he doesn't mean a literal person.

HAVE WE MISUNDERSTOOD THE TRINITY?

Dr. Boyd says the idea of the Trinity as God existing in "three individuals," or having "three minds,"
"spirits," or "separate consciousness" is a "caricature" (Boyd, 174), and a "straw man" argument.
Notice: "the general Oneness portrayal of the Trinity is a rather crude portrait of three separate people
in Heaven" (Boyd, 171). So we Oneness are to blame for the "three persons in the Godhead" doctrine!
The "traditional" belief of the church he says, has nothing to do with three separate minds, wills,
spiritual forms, etc. (Boyd, 171), and the thoughts that God could be "horizontally conceived of as
some sort of committee" is against scripture. And we Oneness believers are "missing the point" when
we attack "this crude view of the Trinity" (Boyd, 172).

So not only do we Oneness believers invent this "Straw Man Trinity", (this crude caricature of 3
persons), but we have wasted nearly 80 years attacking it! How we misunderstood what they were
saying! Now we find out they really do believe in just One Spirit (Boyd, 164) and He has just "one
mind" or "consciousness." There never were three beings in the Godhead! "Trinitarians have always
agreed that the doctrine of 'God in three persons' cannot be understood to legitimize picturing God as
three literal divine people in Heaven..." (Boyd, 173). How dumb we were to think that's what they
meant these last 80 years! Why, all they were really talking about was God existing in three "ways" or
"fashions". Nothing wrong with that!

But something is wrong! How do they account for the thousands of sculptures found in all the great
churches of Christendom which show the Trinity as an Old man, a young man and a dove? How do
they explain the multiplied thousands of paintings, by Trinitarian artists, endowed with church funds,
which depict the Trinity in this "crude" manner? The museums are filled with paintings of the Father
as a real person. Funny, if this was never the "traditional teaching of the church," why would they
finance such a "misapplication of creedal language" in the field of art?

TRINITARIANS DEFINE THE TRINITY

11
Let us now examine some Trinitarian writers to see if we have been fighting a "straw man" of our own
invention.

COMMITTEE

"Perhaps we can compare the Godhead to a divine Committee of equals, but with specific areas of
responsibility" (Gerald Wheeler, Is God a Committee, p. 47).

THREE CENTERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THREE WILLS

"It is both reasonable and scriptural to say that there is one divine essence or nature which all have in
common and yet three mutually related and distinct centers of consciousness...and will" and "the fact
is that each one - Father, Son and Holy spirit - is conscious of Himself as a distinct person, in the
exercise of his will, use of personal pronouns, and association of himself with other persons" (Carl
Brumbach, God in Three Persons, P. 64).

TWO OR MORE BODIES IN THE TRINITY

"Deity sets on a throne seat in Heaven. In His hand is a book sealed with seven seals. Who is this One?
Is it Jesus? No, it is not Christ as we shall see. If it is not the Father, who is it? ...He (Christ) steps
forward and takes the book out of the hand..... It is clearly the son approaching the Father, and
He...takes the book out of His hand." (Gordon Lindsay, The Trinity of the Godhead, P. 43).

THREE SPIRITS

"The true God exists in the form of three divine Spirit persons." "Therefore if it was God's purpose fro
one of these divine spirit Persons at a certain time in world history to transfer his center of intelligence
and identity...to this earth" (Peter Barnes, The Truth About Jesus and the Trinity, P. 12).

UNITED GROUP OF GODS

"'Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord! (Deut. 6:4). The proper translation should be: The Lord
our Gods is a united Lord". "That Elohim means 'Gods' is further substantiated in Genesis 1:26"
(Henry H. Ness, Dunamis and the Church, p. 7,8).

THREE ADORABLE GODS

"Elohim is the plural of Eloah, and literally rendered, means, the Adorable Ones...in the beginning the
'Adorable Ones' created the heaven and the earth" (J. Narver Gortner, Water Baptism and the Trinity,
p. 57).

ETERNAL BEGETTING

"The Father from eternity begat and always begets and never will cease to beget his Son" (F.J.
Lindquist, The Truth About the Trinity, p.3).

12
 LIKE HUSBAND AND WIFE

"He is one in the same sense a husband and wife are one" (Ibid, p.21).

NO JEALOUSY AMONG THREE GODS

"There is no strict order of mention of the three persons of that Godhead...which emphasizes the deity
of each and underscores the fact that there is no jealousy there" (F. Donald, and Ronald A Harris, The
Trinity, p.27).

CONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE THREE GODS

"At that time the Father said, 'I will have to judge that man.' The Son said, 'Because we love him, I'll
go down and die for him.' The Father said, 'I'll send you.' And the Holy Spirit said, 'I'll go down
afterwards..." (J. Vernon Magee, How Can God Exist in Three Persons, p.23).

AWARE OF EACH OTHER AND TALK TO EACH OTHER

"Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three 'persons' in the sense that each is
aware of the others, speaks to the others and loves and honors the others" (Robert M. Bowman, Why
You Should Believe in the Trinity, p.13-14).

THREE BEINGS

"The witnesses of this sacred scene (Christ's baptism) and the readers of the four Gospel accounts,
were conscious of three distinct Beings." (Ibid. Brumback, p.47).

Apparently we Oneness believers didn't have our perception of the Trinity so wrong after all. In their
own Trinitarian literature, drawn from a popular cross-section we find: Divine Committees, Three
Centers of Consciousness, Three Gods, Three Wills, Separate Bodies, Three Spirit Persons, Three
Adorable Gods, eternal Begettings and Begottens, Conferences, Three Beings and Three Way
Conversations. Inspite of all this Boyd refuses to "wake up and smell the coffee" even while its boiling
out of its co-equal, co-eternal spouts! "Therefore, that Oneness Pentecostals think it is tritheistic is
more the result of their misunderstanding of what this doctrine is all about...." (Boyd, 50). If we have
misunderstood it, how much more so have they!

"ILLUSORY SPEECH" OF THE TRINITARIANS

After answering us that God is only One Spirit with one mind or center of consciousness, Neo
Trinitarians seem unable to control themselves and longer. Their obsessive love affair with "distinct
persons" in the Godhead seems to be something they just can't shake. We find these "ways" and
"fashions" are beginning to talk to each other, like individual persons. They are revealed as "bursting"
with love for each other (Boyd, 189). They have "loving communion," They socialize and have loving
"interaction." They have an "eternal triune celebration of love." These different "ways" are shown
having a very personal "I-Thou" relationship (Boyd, 192), and we discover this is possible because of
a sense of genuine "personal otherness" within God. Now this is all strange and very contradictory

13
behaviour to be going on in One mind, in one center of consciousness! And it is even more strange
that it is going on between "ways" and "fashions" and not individuals! No, there is definitely trouble in
the doctrinal Paradise of Neo-Trinitarians. They were doing so well and now this! For it is self evident
to anyone that for true and meaningful love to exist there must also exist two separate minds, two
separate centers of consciousness, two wills; otherwise you have a charade, - 'a transient illusion." This
applies equally well to conversation, communion, and personal interaction. If there is an "I"---Thou"
relationship in the Godhead then there are two minds also. Thus Neo-Trinitarianism is shown to be the
truest example of "illusory" speech we have yet encountered. After rousing our hopes that they might
finally have seen the light on the "three persons" heresy, they are right back where they started from,
and worse! For now they have to reconcile their "one mind" doctrine with their threeway love and
communion teaching. And that they cannot do. They are at the end of the line and the Cappodocian
Fathers can't help them now!

NEO-TRINITARIAN DILEMMA

No matter how they argue it, they are stuck, and stuck hard. If there is only "one mind" in the Trinity,
and just one "center of consciousness" as they maintain, then there cannot be that love that "bursts
forth" between the persons. Genuine and authentic interpersonal love requires two minds, at least, and
two wills. One mind must will to "burst forth" with love, and the other mind must will to receive these
loving "bursts" and return them! So when we hear talk of the "totally interpenetrating loving union of
the three 'persons' of the Trinity" - this is nothing more than a disguised way of saying "three separate
individuals." One solitary mind, or consciousness cannot have meaningful love or conversation; that
always requires more than one mind. And more than one mind means more than one individual! So all
this talk about God being defined as "ways," "fashions," and "aspects" is just a deceptive smokescreen.
They really mean three individual Beings. And all this talk about the Trinity having just one mind or
consciousness is absolutely incompatible with the socializing activities of the Trinity which they
describe. "I--Thou" relationships require two minds or more!

CLASSIC TRINITARIANS VS. NEO-TRINITARIANS

The Old Classic Trinitarians didn't have this problem. they freely talked about three Spirits, three
wills, three minds, and even three gods. Of course they had another problem just as serious - trying to
convince people this was somehow just one God! At least the Classic Trinitarians were consistent on
one point -- their three persons were always presented as three separate divine individuals, each with
its own mind and will. Not so with the "three persons" of Neo-Trinitarianism. They are always
"switching" them back and forth. One moment they are just three distinct ways in which the one God
exists; just three fashions or modes of the one mind. Sounds nice and Oneness. But then the next
moment these "fashions" are talking to each other, loving each other, etc. This is clearly three
individuals with three minds, not just three "ways" of one mind at all. They are the most flexible "three
persons" ever known in theological history. Our Oneness doctrine is ridiculed for "role switching" and
"transient illusion" by our Neo-Trinitarian opponents. They should keep silent, for they surely hold the
gold medal for that event!

14
 CHAPTER III
EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE
WHAT ARE THE REAL ROOTS OF "NEO-TRINITARIANISM"?
WHY IS THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST
BEING "CHANGED" BY "NEO-TRINITARIANS"?
DO THEY "DENY THE FATHER AND THE SON"?

DOCTRINAL ARTIFACTS / PATRIPASSIANISM / DEATH OF GOD / MONOPHYSITISM /

TRANSMUTATION / MODALISM / THE NEO-TRINITARIAN VIRGIN BIRTH / DENIAL OF
THE FATHER AND THE SON

DOCTRINAL ARTIFACTS

Neo-Trinitarianism has combined in its theology some of the strangest and mutually contradictory
heresies that have ever slept in the same doctrinal bed. Neo-Trinitarians hope by his synthesis to prop
up their Godhead belief on all sides, and like the sharecroppers old shack, "it leans mighty hard." To
prevent a complete collapse they have resorted to digging around in the graveyards of Christendom for
theological relics. They've exhumed the works of the Cappodocian Fathers, Aquinas, Augustine,
Athanasius, plus an assortment of other scholars, philosophers, heresiarchs and schismatics, both old
and new. They've shined and polished up these old doctrinal artifacts , relabeled them, and are now
serving them up to the faithful as "new" insights into the "real" Trinity teaching. Let us review some of
the components of this "impossible dream."

PATRIPASSIANISM

This is the ancient heresy that teaches the Father suffered with the Son on the cross (and died!). From
the Neo-Trinitarian camp we hear: "Thus Trinitarians would insist... that what Jesus endured, the
totality of the Godhead endured. For the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ" (Boyd, p. 188). Neo-
Trinitarians include the Father in this suffering: "Thus God can and did experience the foresakenness
of the cross, not only in firsthand personal manner as the Son, but He endured it from the equally (if
not more) painful perspective of Father as well" (Boyd, p. 188-189). So the Father experiences being
forsaken by the Father! What confusion! How does a person forsake Himself?

Tertullian, an ancient Church father and a favourite of Neo-Trinitarians, condemned such doctrinal
aberrations as this in his work entitled "Against Praxeas." He wrote, "We are not guilty of
blaspheming against the Lord God, for we do not maintain that he died after the divine nature, but only
after the human." The ancient Trinitarians believed that God was "impassable," that is, incapable of
suffering. And they so stated it in their creeds. Plowing ever deeper into error, Neo-Trinitarianism
reaches the ludicrous conclusion that God not only suffered, but that He died!

DEATH OF GOD

15
During the 1960's a radical group of liberal theologians proposed the idea that God had died, the so-
called "God is Dead" theory. I remember the New York Times ran an obituary for God on its editorial
page. I was in college at the time and recall how the student body was divided into two opposing sides,
based on their reaction to this novelty. Some felt it was blasphemous (myself included); others thought
it was humorous. No one thought it was factual. The Neo-Trinitarians, however, have their own "God
died" theory, and they loudly proclaim it as fact. In their desperate bid to maintain a separate deity for
Christ under the leaky umbrella of Trinitarianism, they have been forced into this sad and unenviable
doctrinal corner. Listen how they unfold "the message" -- "When Christ suffered, God suffered; when
Christ wept, God wept; When Christ experienced hunger, God experienced hunger, and when Christ
suffered a forsaken death, God suffered a forsaken death" (Boyd, p. 58). There it is in plain print --
God died. How God, who is immortal be definition, could "die" and yet remain the ever living God is
never explained. Contradictions in terms do not lend themselves easily to explanation. Dr. Boyd
attempts to cover himself on this one with a very short blanket by declaring it would be "fruitless" to
attempt to "psychologize what it is like for the divine Word to experience a human death" (Boyd, p.
88). A "fruitless" question? I personally think it would be very fruitful to probe this "God died" theory
a little further. I think the fruit that would mature under the heat of such an examination would be very
interesting. Seeing we are always being challenged for direct statements from the Neo-Trinitarian
camp, let's now challenge them! Where does the Bible ever say "God died?" We have been accused of
making doctrinal pronouncements that "sound so off." What could sound more "off" than this
absurdity that God, "who neither slumbers nor sleeps," managed to die? This whole nonsensical idea is
the direct result of another Neo-Trinitarian doctrinal acquisition...

MONOPHYSITISM

"This is a general name given to those early sects who only owned one nature in Christ and who
maintain that the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ were so united as to form only one nature,
yet without any change, confusion or mixture of the two natures" (Vincent Milner, Religions of the
World, p. 481). As a matter of practicality the monophysites viewed the human and divine natures of
Christ in such a way that they were virtually indistinguishable. In theory, they did not deny the two
natures; in practice, they did. Whatever was said of the man, was said of God. Anything less than this
they considered as "splitting Christ in two." This is exactly what Dr. Boyd and fellow travelers of the
Neo-Trinitarian school believe, though they would insist, no doubt, otherwise. For this reason we hear
them making such statements as "a belief in the incarnation means that everything Christ went through
and did, God went through and did... The one person of Jesus cannot be split into two..." (Boyd, p. 58).
And this, we have seen, includes their unscriptural theory that God died. In fact, a distinguishing
characteristic of Monophysitism was the doctrine that God died, known as Theopaschitism: "One
person of the Trinity was crucified, hence, the Godhead had suffered in the crucifixion and death of
the one natured Christ" (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1971 Ed. p. 747).

But this theory that everything Christ experienced, God experienced, leads to embarrassing
conclusions for them. For if Christ experienced a virgin birth through Mary, then God also was born of
Mary. Then do they call her "Mother of God" as the Catholic Church does? If not, why not? And if
Christ was tempted, was God also tempted? They have to answer, Yes. However, this contradicts the
Bible which says God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Now we have to choose, the Bible or Dr.
Boyd. Which shall it be? Even more perplexing is the fact that Christ did not know the day or the hour
of His return. He suffered and endured ignorance on this point, "for what Jesus endured, the totality of

16
the Godhead endured" (Boyd, p. 188). Therefore no one knew the day or the hour, not the angels, nor
the Son, not even "the totality of the Godhead." "What the man Jesus experienced, God experienced"
Boyd tells us (Boyd, p. 65). There is no way out for them; they cannot "pick another door." None of
these anti-scriptural conclusions would be necessary except Neo-Trinitarians believe in an
"incarnation" which is in reality, no incarnation at all, but a "transmutation."

TRANSMUTATION

During the Dark Ages men sought for a way to change, or transmute, ordinary metals into gold, in
hopes of becoming rich. Of course, it was a failure. Something akin to this is now occurring in the
very fertile imaginations of Neo-Trinitarians. For they would change the infinite God, who is Spirit,
into a man. This is a far cry from the Biblical doctrine of the true incarnation which says God dwelt in
a man. There is a tremendous difference between, "in a man," and "changed into a man." Actually
Neo-Trinitarianism teaches that only a portion of God, the Son (Second Person), was changed into a
man. Boyd writes: "For only one who admits that God exists within Himself in personally distinct
ways can affirm that God could truly humble Himself in order to become a real full human being --
while at the same time remaining the transcendent Father 'in Heaven'" (Boyd, p. 188). It's the same old
Trinitarianism we're used to, but with a new twist. God the Son is changed into a man, the Father
remains in Heaven: "Either God became a man, or He did not; if he did then everything that the man
Jesus does, God does" (Boyd, p. 65). Oneness believers are chided for their belief of "God in Christ"
with these words: ". . . so they (Oneness) must instead postulate a God who takes up residence in a
man, but does not become a man" (Boyd, p. 65). Did we postulate this doctrine? No! We learned this
doctrine from Christ who taught us God was residing in Him: "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works" (John 14:10). It was confirmed to us by Paul who wrote "God was in Christ" (2 Corinthians
5:18) and "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). Please note, The Apostle declared Christ
as God manifest in the flesh, not "as flesh." In Colossians 2:9 Paul says "All the fulness of the
Godhead" dwells in Christ. The Greek word for "dwells" means to "take up permanent residence." No,
we Oneness believers did not postulate a "God who took up residence in a man." We read it!

And we much prefer our Christ to this recently invented Changeling of Neo-Trinitarianism. They can
keep their pseudo-incarnation of Christ with its "Mother of God" spin off doctrines.

MODALISM

Modalism is the name often applied to modern day Oneness Believers by Trinitarians, (and they don't
mean it as a compliment!). Dr. Boyd repeatedly tars us with that brush throughout his book. Modalism
was an ancient teaching that explained God as existing in three modes or manifestations. Early
Trinitarians fought hard against it and condemned it at three Church councils. Dr. Boyd praises those
"early church fathers who first had to battle this modalistic heresy..." (Boyd, p. 178). He says it was
the last of his UPCI beliefs to fall. This occurred in his first year of seminary, after discussions with
"educated Trinitarians" (Boyd, p. 24). How strange it is therefore to hear him quote Karl Barth, a
modern day modalist, and refer to him as a "well respected Trinitarian." For this well respected
"Trinitarian" defines the persons of the Godhead as "modes of being" (Boyd, p. 173). Karl Rahner,
who did not believe that Jesus Christ was the "supreme God" - or "Ho theos" in Greek - (Bowman,
Why You Believe the Trinity, p. 91), is also cited as a "well respected Trinitarian." He would define
the "persons" as "manners of subsistence." Pure Modalism! Sabellius could not have asked for more.

17
Even Dr. Boyd himself uses modalistic language when he refers to the "persons" as "distinct fashions"
or "distinct ways" in which God exists (Boyd, p. 62-64). He compares them to "characteristics" as
found in light, and gives his final definition of the Trinity as a God who is "revealed in the manifested
activity of the Father, in the Son, through the Holy Spirit" (Boyd, p. 196). All modalistic terms
throughout! In fact, the dictionary defines a "mode" as "way of acting or doing; fashion" (Webster's
New World Dictionary). "Ways" and "fashions" are the same as "modes". Hence he believes in a God
who exists in three distinct modes, for that's what "fashions" and "ways" are!

How interesting! He leaves modalism only to return. "Educated Trinitarians" convinced him to drop it;
"well respected " ones led him to pick it up. He need not deny it, for his theology is a variant of Karl
Barth's, the Neo-Orthodox pioneer of such thinking.

Perhaps we can expect a new amplified translation of John 3:16 to be forthcoming from the Neo-
Trinitarians side, to wit:

"For one mode of being so loved the world that he gave another personally distinct way of existing
that whosoever believes in the manifested activity of this distinct fashion should not perish but have
everlasting life." Soli Deo Gloria!

So far we have witnessed the spectacle of very divergent doctrines being wed to each other in a highly
unlikely marriage. Monophysitism has gone down the aisle leaning on the arm of Modalism, to join
hands with the solemn Patripassian groom. Instead of the familiar Wedding March, we hear the
solemn dirge for a God who died due to injuries received from a transmutation: Yet there's more to
come.

THE NEO-TRINITARIAN VIRGIN BIRTH

The emphasis placed on the Virgin Birth of Christ is one of the distinguishing characteristics which set
fundamentalists and true evangelicals apart from their liberal and modernistic counterparts, who view
it as an "optional" belief at best, and an unnecessary one at worst. Wherever the Virgin Birth is
minimized apostasy will soon appear. The first doctrine to come under fire by religious liberals is the
Virgin Birth. The Oneness movement is historically known for being very strong on the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth. For it not only shows us that the Holy Spirit was the Father of Christ (Matthew 1:20), it
also proves that the Sonship of Christ is a direct result of His Virgin Birth and had its beginning at that
point in time (Luke 1:35). There's no "eternal" son in the Bible, but, one was "begotten" in the womb
of Mary, who is the Son of God. Of course, these two texts relative to the nativity of our Lord have
always been a problem for Trinitarians. In order to escape being impaled on the twin horns of this
awful dilemma, Neo-Trinitarians have taken to minimizing the Virgin Birth. Shirley Guthrie, a Neo-
Trinitarian writer, whom Dr. Boyd recommends in his notes, discusses the Virgin Birth in his book
entitled "Christian Doctrine". He mentions that one can reject the Virgin Birth and still be a Christian.
Furthermore, he states that Jesus being the Son of God is not necessarily dependent on the Virgin
Birth, for this would be similar to pagan mythology (see, Shirley Guthrie, Christian Doctrine, p. 227-
230).

I do not know Dr. Boyd's exact views on those positions but it is obvious he opposes our Oneness
belief in the literal Virgin Birth of Christ. He classifies our view of Luke 1:35 as "quite

18
anthropomorphic" and "biologically oriented interpretation" (Boyd, p. 111-112). He further says,
"such crass literalism mistakenly attributes to God the human characteristics of sexuality. Such a view,
though common among many pagan mythologies, is completely foreign to the Biblical revelation"
(Boyd, p. 63). Therefore, to literally believe the angel's announcement to Mary that "The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee" is "quite anthropomorphic,"
too "biologically oriented," and "attributes to God human characteristics of sexuality" that really
belong among "pagan mythologies." If this is not an attack on the Virgin Birth, what is it? I consider it
a disgraceful frontal assault on our Lord's nativity. It is all brought forward in an effort to offset the
last half of Luke 1:35 which says, "therefore that Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God." Theologians who believe in an "eternally existent Son" do not like to be reminded of
his origin. It is plain to anyone who reads it that this verse teaches that Christ is the Son of God as a
direct result of his Virgin Birth. The Scriptures offer no other explanation for that title. To characterize
this verse as "anthropomorphic," "biological," and "pagan" in order to avoid that conclusion and prop
up some "co-eternal second person" is positively wicked.

Guthrie goes on to argue in his book that the Virgin Birth doctrine was only meant to state that Christ
had no natural father, not necessarily that God became his father through the Virgin Birth (Guthrie, p.
229).

Boyd apparently feels the same way for he writes: "When the Bible speaks about 'the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ' and Jesus as the 'Son of God' it is not referring to God as the literal progenitor of
Jesus, or Jesus as the literal progeny of God the Father..." (Boyd, p. 63). "When we, following
Scripture, call God 'the Father' and Jesus 'the Son" we are speaking analogically, not literally. We are
saying that the loving relationship that exists between God and Jesus is like that of a father and son..."
(Boyd, p. 63). And he adds, "But of course devoid of the physical Characteristics that are present in
human father-son relationships." Did you hear it? The Father is not a literal father ("progenitor") and
the Son is not a literal son ("progeny")! It is all "analogy", not literal. Boyd uses the words
"progenitor" and "progeny" to soften the blow; but it means the same. God and Jesus are not really
Father and Son, the relationship is just "like that of a father and son." They act like Father and Son ,
but they are not "literally"!

But, if He is not "literally" the Son of God, why is he called by that title? Dr. Boyd has an explanation
for he writes: "I find nothing to suggest that Luke was thinking in primarily biological terms when he
records the angel as connecting Jesus' divine conception with the title 'Son of God.' The title 'Son of
God' was primarily a moral and theological title throughout the ancient Semitic world, and throughout
Scripture. Heard in this context, it is clear that the angel was simply telling Mary that she was going to
miraculously conceive a supremely holy child who will be called the Son of God. Nothing more can
be read into this" (Boyd, p. 111).

But, a lot has been "read out of this"! The Title Son of God is nothing extra special; something
common throughout the "ancient Semitic world" we are told. It's a "moral and theological title," not a
result of being begotten by God! In fact, the angel was simply telling Mary that she would give birth to
a supremely holy child who could also be referred to by that moral and theological title of the "ancient
Semitic world" -- Son of God. The whole thing sounds almost "routine" to hear Dr. Boyd describe it.
Quite a rearranging of facts here, I would like to say! The Bible has the real explanation for the title
Son of God, and it's not what Dr. Boyd says. The angel specifically informed Mary that it was because

19
the Holy Ghost would come upon her that the child would be called the Son of God. "Therefore, that
holy thing shall be called the Son of God." The angel did not say it was because of a "moral and
theological title" circulating in the "ancient Semitic world." The Holy Ghost, who is God, begat that
child, and that is why he is the Son of God. "For that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Ghost"
(Matthew 1:20).

DENIAL OF THE FATHER AND THE SON

The Apostle John wrote: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-christ,
that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). This is a solemn warning: To deny the Father and
the Son is anti-christ. Yet, this is exactly what Neo-Trinitarians have done. There is no real Father and
Son to them. It is all analogy, not literal. God is not literally the Father; Jesus is not literally the Son.
Boyd tells us that the loving relationship that exists between God and Jesus is only "like that of father
and son" for they are not really Father and Son ; no literal "progenitor or progeny." It's just literary
"analogy." That's why he describes God's participation in the "devastating nightmare" of the cross as
"something like a perfectly loving parent, as Father" (Boyd, p. 186). They are always "like" Father and
Son, but never are; that would be literal, and they are only analogous. If I told you: "Mr. Jones treats
Bobby just like his own son," you would know one thing for sure, Bobby is not Mr. Jones' real son. So
when Neo-Trinitarians talk about Jesus being "like" a son, you know they mean he is really not a son.
They are, therefore, denying the Father and the Son; and "he is anti-christ that denieth the Father and
the Son."

Dr. Boyd would have done well to have stayed in that parking lot on that windy October night. He
wouldn't be in this predicament now. Neo-Trinitarians, in their efforts to overturn Biblical Oneness,
have plunged much deeper into heresy than their Classical Trinitarian predecessors ever dreamed of.
They boldy go "where no man has gone before." They have crossed the Rubicon however with this
"non-literal Son" doctrine. There's no turning back. Like MacBeth, they are "so steeped in blood tis
easier to wade on than to return." Where will this anti-scriptural obsession lead them next? They have
already trod the paths of Patripassionism, Modalism, Death of God, Neo-Orthodoxy, Modernism.
Where next, we can only wonder?

Now they have their new message of the hour, no literal Father or Son. This is where all their
reasoning has led them. The cat is finally out of the bag. All hell is rejoicing at this development. They
imply that we are sexually obsessed, crass, anthropomorphic, and biologically oriented for believing in
a Biblical Virgin Birth. They believe Christ was an eternally existing "Fashion" therefore Luke 1:35
becomes a most "unfashionable" verse for them. They try to "back burner" verses referring to Christ as
Son of God by saying it was a "moral and theological title throughout the ancient Semitic world, and
throughout the Bible." Funny, I don't remember anyone else being referred to as the Son of God
"throughout the Bible." Do you? Is Dr. Boyd thinking of Adam? No teaching so obnoxious has ever
reared it's head in Church History. It was all conceived in spiritual darkness and midwifed into
existence by German theologians. It is no part of the Word of God, and will damn anyone to hell who
believes it.

20
 CHAPTER IV
POISONED WELLS, EMPTY CISTERNS
HOW "TRUSTWORTHY WERE THE THEOLOGIANS WHO PRODUCED THE TRINITY?
IS THERE A "CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE"?
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE SO-CALLED "ECUMENICAL COUNCILS"?

THE ROLE OF CHURCH TRADITION IN TRINITARIANISM / ORIGEN / ST. ATHANASIUS /

ST. BASIL / GREGORY OF NYSSA / ST. AUGUSTINE / ST. THOMAS AQUINAS / SPIRITISM /
BROKEN CISTERNS / WHAT ABOUT THE EARLY CHURCH COUNCILS / TRINITARIAN
IRONING DAY AT NICEA / COUNCIL OF ROBBERS

THE ROLE OF CHURCH TRADITION IN TRINITARIANISM

Martin Luther, the Great Reformation Champion, had his battle cry -- "Scripture and Scripture Only."
He viewed the Catholic Church as Babylon the Great, mentioned in Revelation 17, and placed little
confidence in her Councils, decrees, and dogmas. He wasn't concerned with the confused peeps and
mutterings of Catholic Church "fathers" -- The Bible and the Bible Only! He abhorred the idea that the
church was the infallible "interpreter of the Bible," or that we are "to follow" the church as she
explained to us what the Bible really meant to say. For this stand he was excommunicated (and glad of
it!).

It therefore seems strange to Protestant ears, especially that segment known as Pentecostal, to hear
such statements as these:

"The Trinity, the church has always held, is not inconceivable by analogy"
(Boyd, p. 173).

"A far wiser methodology has been followed by the church throughout the ages, however"
(Boyd, p. 51.)

"When we, following the church, do this we discover that God can be truly one..." (Boyd, p.
52).

"There is only one problem with this portrayal of the Trinity: It has little to do with what the
church has traditionally believed..."
(Boyd, p. 171).

"The traditional doctrine of the Perichoresis or mutual indwelling..."

(Boyd, p. 171).

"They were the first to stand up behind church tradition"

(Boyd, p. 162).

21
 "This is, in fact, what the church has always done."
(Boyd, p. 162).

"For good reason the church has always interpreted the Father/Son distinction... as being at the
very heart of New Testament proclamation"
(Boyd, p. 191).

"As a number of the church's best thinkers have seen throughout the ages"
(Boyd, p. 191).

"And rather than tell Scripture what the deity of Christ must imply, the church has allowed
Scripture to tell us what this truth in fact implies"
(Boyd, p. 52).

What is all this talk about the church and church tradition? "The church has always held;" "wiser
methodology has been followed by the church;" "When we, following the church;" "What the church
has traditionally believed;" "the traditional doctrine;" "church tradition;" "church has always
interpreted;" "the church has allowed Scripture to tell" etc. etc. What church is this that we are "to
follow" because she has "always held" and "traditionally believed;" "the traditional doctrine,
"throughout the ages?"

All this has an odd ring to evangelical ears (or it should!). One expects to find this type of appeal to
church authority and church tradition in Catholic Apologetic works, not in evangelical writings.
Perhaps we get an idea of what church Dr. Boyd has in mind by the statement on Page 212: "The great
saints of the church - Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa..." To what
church do you belong? The Roman Catholic of course! A church which believes authority for doctrine
springs from the church and church tradition, as well as the Bible. Immediately after citing the
aforementioned "saints of the church," Dr. Boyd adds: "and the great Protestant Reformers: John
Calvin, Martin Luther..." (Boyd, 212). Subconsciously, or perhaps consciously, he has distinguished
between "the church," to which he often appeals to as an authority, and Protestantism. The "church"
ends with Mother Theresa, and Protestantism begins with Calvin!

Oneness Pentecostals will never follow Neo-Trinitarians in that direction. Our sights are set
"homeward," not "Romeward." We have no intention of exchanging our Biblically based Oneness-
Revelation, which emerged from the spiritual fire of the greatest Holy Ghost Revival since Pentecost,
for Esau's mess of pottage, no matter how many centuries he cooks it. Our doctrine was revealed to
God-fearing, holy living men, who took the Bible at face value. There was no bone worshippers or
necromancers among them. The light they received in 1914 came as fulfillment of Christ's promise:
"For when the Spirit of Truth is come, he shall guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). And he did not
guide into "consubstantiality" or, "Perichoresis" or "co-equal, co-eternal persons." Neither did He lead
us to "eternal generation theories." And the Spirit's guidance certainly never revealed to us "manners
of subsistence" or "personally distinct fashions!" What we did get however, was what was promised, a
revelation of the Father, in the Son, and Christ in us! (John 14:20).

22
However, in Dr. Boyd's book, Catholic "saints" and "fathers" are constantly appealed to for support,
such as the Cappodocian Fathers (St. Basil and the Two Gregories), St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Origen
and Justin Martyr (Boyd, p. 173, 161).

Now of course it is going to be argued that these are not really "Catholic" in the sense of holding
"Roman Catholic" dogmas and practices. Is that so?

ORIGEN

Let us take Origen for a starter. Boyd says of him that he had "unqualified Trinitarianism" that
"structured everything about his Faith." Origen, along with others, "understood himself to be simply
passing on the faith that had been handed down by the apostles. When anything new was
proposed...they were the first to stand up behind the church tradition" (Boyd, 161-162). If he was so
good at "handing down" the apostles' faith, why did the church find it necessary to excommunicate
him for false doctrine? He also taught the "pre-existence of human souls," as well as the
"Apocatastasis doctrine," which states that everyone, including the devil, will be saved in the end! He
also has to his credit the invention of purgatory, his "ascensions in corde," in which souls are purified
after death. Is this what happens when you "structure everything" around your "unqualified"
Trinitarian Faith? Where did the Apostles teach salvation of the devil, pre-existence of souls, and
purgatory? And these are the men Dr. Boyd tells us "were the first to stand up behind the church
tradition" when anything "new" was proposed! They would have done better to remain seated!

ST. ATHANASIUS

St Athanasius, another theologian of the Trinity (Boyd, p. 179), in his "Life of St. Anthony" did much
to promote monasticism. Think about it! Christ said, "Go ye into all the world!" and Athanasius,
founder of Trinitarianism says, "Hide in a cave!" An advocate of a totally masochistic lifestyle! And
yet he is supposed to be "handing down" the original faith! He also was one of the first to believe in
transubstantiation, the Roman practice of worshipping the wafer as Christ. Should we follow him in
this wafer worship also? Why not?

ST. BASIL

Now we come to St. Basil, one of the Cappodocian Fathers we hear so much about, and whom Dr.
Boyd cites on page 173. He was a founder of nunneries and monasteries. Is that Catholic enough? Pre-
adolescent boys were forced into unnatural existences, thanks to him.

"Boys at puberty were not allowed to sleep in beds beside one another, there was always an
older monk in a bed between them."
(Robert Payne, the Christian Centuries, p. 177).

Joy and happiness were out of the question for Basil's inmates:

"Under no condition must monks give way to laughter"

(Payne, p. 177).

23
He had an unChristlike arrogant spirit:

"Be mindful of the last day, and if you please, do not think of teaching me! We know more
than you, and we are not so choked up by thorns, nor do we have the advantage of being able
to mingle a few virtues with ten times as many vices"
(Payne, p. 178).

Basil's "charitable" spirit lampooned those who disagreed with him as: "lizards and toads," "animals of
the springtime," "unclean," "women-mad," "effeminate," "slaves of their bellies," "money hunters, and
"coarse oafs." (Basil, Epistoloe 95; Payne, 178). And it was this pleasant soul who was the "first to fix
the accepted formula of the Trinity: one substance (ousia) and three persons (hypostaseis)" (H.
Dermott McDonald, Basil the Great, p. 167).

GREGORY OF NYSSA

Then there is Gregory of Nyssa, another Cappodocian Father who had such marvelous insights into the
Trinity. He became a Universalist (like ) who believed that all men, and demons would be saved. And
of course, this included his friend the devil. If we follow him in that "tradition" we will eliminate the
need for preaching the gospel entirely!

Let us read about Gregory's "Conversion," so-called.

"Gregory woke up weeping, and made his way remorsefully to the garden, where the pickled
bones of the martyrs, gathered together in an immense urn, were being worshipped by the
faithful. A contrite Gregory watched the proceedings to the end. He became a practicing
Christian" (Payne, p. 182).

Practicing what, we wonder? Yet it is from this "bone bag" believer we are to be instructed on such
deep Godhead revelations as the Perichoresis Theory, and the "mutual indwelling of the three
persons."

He hated the God-given institution of marriage and believed "mortality and marriage were bedfellows;
death brooded over the marriage bed" (Payne, 183). Truly a morbid and sick individual. He said the
only way one could hope for "blessedness" was to live in solitude and have "no human entanglements"
(Payne, 18). Is that not deranged? Something is definitely wrong here. He did get into financial
entanglements however!

He was finally accused of embezzling Church funds and Gregory, the Bishop of Nyssa,

"was bound in chains and led off to meet his accusers, and at the same time during the journey
managed to escape"
(Payne, 184).

And of such, Dr. Boyd writes:

24
 "Indeed, the frequent Oneness portrayal of the early church fathers as sinister philosophers
preaching a 'seductive philosophy,' and therefore seeking to corrupt the apostolic faith with
pagan ideas, could not be further from the truth"
(Boyd, p. 60).

In addition to these "fathers," the Trinitarian understanding receives an additional boost from "a great
number of philosophers throughout history" who recognized "the they very idea of an absolute or
undifferentiated unity is incoherent" (Boyd, p. 176). And who might these "philosophers" be who take
it upon themselves to tell God how He must exist? For Jehovah tells us that He was "alone" and "by
himself" in eternity past (Isa. 44:24). But these great thinkers have concluded that He must be
mistaken, for such "absolute unity" is incoherent to them! So they invent "company" for Him, and
waste reams of paper writing about it!

Two to whom Dr. Boyd refers us, are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Much can be learned
from examining both of these leading Trinitarian theologians.

ST AUGUSTINE

Of St. Augustine we read:

"His mind was a crucible in which the New Testament was most completely fused with
Platonic Tradition of Greek Philosophy" (Encyclopedia Brittanica, Volume II, p. 754).
Of course Plato, the pagan philosopher of Greece, was famous for his "Platonic Trinity" invention.
Now we see exactly what it was St, Augustine "fused" to New Testament religion. This is exactly what
Paul warned us about in Colossians 2:8- "philosophy," "vain deceit," and "tradition of men." Things
which would "spoil us" and lead us away from Christ, "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Isn't it more than passing strange that the things which Paul warns us
against, namely "philosophy" and "tradition" are the very things Neo-Trinitarians recommend to us in
order to understand Christ better?

Aside from his philosophical infatuation with Plato, Augustine had other beliefs which bear
mentioning. He was an extreme predestinationist, believing only the elect were given grace to be
saved. He believed in purgatory naturally, and prayed for the repose of his mother's soul on every altar
where he offered up the "most holy and acceptable sacrifice of the mass." He believed in baptismal
regeneration for infants, and linked original sin with human sexuality! (St. Gregory would have liked
that). "To be sure," Dr. Boyd writes, "one might even follow the lead of such great thinkers as
Augustine and C.S. Lewis...(Boyd, p. 61). And where is it that Augustine and these other "great"
thinkers wish to lead us? "To a concept of God or ultimate reality as possessing a 'certain threeness'..."
(Boyd, p. 61). And should we also follow them into baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, and
purgatory and celibacy? Isn't it amazing how these great Church thinkers get everything wrong, except
the Godhead doctrine? At least it seems that way. For nobody but Catholics seem disposed to follow
their "lead" into these other teachings. Neo-Trinitarians use them like taxis; they get out at the stop
they want, and then let them drive on!

If these were the only nightmares that Augustine was guilty of bringing into the world it would have
been enough. But there is more. "One woe is past; and behold, there come two woes more hereafter."

25
Augustine was so eager to get heretics, like the Pelagians and the Donatists, back in the arms of Rome,
that he invented a theological justification for physical persecution that has over the centuries resulted
in the deaths of millions! he is virtually dripping in the blood of martyrs!

"It was one of the darkest hours in the whole history of Christian thought when Augustine...set
forth the terrible principle: "Cogite intrare - 'compel them to enter' The greatest of the Fathers
of the Church had almost committed treason against the Gospel...the sword had been drawn
from the sheath. All those instrumental in the ferocious suppression of the heretics in the
Middle Ages could call upon the authority of St. Augustine - could and did. The violence and
cruelty unleashed by this one man was beyond measure" (Walter Niggs, The Heretics, p. 116-
117).

While giving the church of Rome a justification for "making martyrs" out of disbelievers, he
simultaneously fostered the pagan cult of worshipping the bones and corpses of Catholic martyrs!

"Competition for saintly corpses soon degenerated into a superstitious search for relics...the
cult arose among the people, but was approved by the Great Christian leaders of the age -
Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine" (Richard A Todd, Constantine and the Christian Empire, p.
67).

And yet we hear: "The earliest Christian fathers cared about nothing more than preserving intact,
without any alteration, 'the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'..." (Boyd, p. 61). Did that
"preserving intact" include pickled bones and festering cadavers? It seems so.

ST THOMAS AQUINAS

We have saved the worst till last (although that would be difficult to judge in this "leper pageant") - St.
Thomas Aquinas. Dr. Boyd conjures up this saint also for our edification on page 173 of his book. But
he could have spared us; for this thorough going Papal stooge can add nothing to our understanding of
God. Aquinas' forte was mixing Aristotle's pagan philosophy wit the Romanism of his day. Naturally
he gave it all a unique turn and "developed his own conclusions from Aristotelian premises"
(Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol II, p. 162).

Is it any wonder that a church which "mixes and matches, and picks and patches" would come up with
such a doctrinal oddity as the "Three Persons" Godhead?

Aquinas was a Catholic, a Dominican, and a loyal subject (read "lackey") of the Pope. Mariolatry,
Transubstantiation, Papal Primacy, Purgatory etc., were all staple fare in his theological diet. But even
that was not enough for this dead of saints, he had to dabble into spiritism!

"On another occasion St. Paul came quietly into his room to explain a problem of
interpretation. Toward the end of his life he spoke frequently of seeing the Virgin" (Payne,
370).

Who are these "spirits" that are impersonating Paul and Mary? We shall soon see.

26
 "When he described the appearance of the Virgin in his cell, he said she was like the brightest
of bright mirrors, more polished and pure than the Seraphim, of such purity that nothing purer
can be imagined, except it were God" (Payne, 371).

The Bible itself explains these "visitors" in 2 Corinthians 11:14,

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great
thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness."

One can only imagine how many Trinitarian insights Aquinas received in this manner from his "spirit
visitors," insights that Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians want to pass on to us, second hand, from
the "great beyond" (Boyd, 212).

SPIRITISM

The best we can hope for is that Aquinas' addled brain suffered from dementia, rather than "spirit
concourse." The whole thing degenerates into outright seances, with Aquinas seeing all kinds of
shapes and specters.

"He spent the remaining years of his life at Naples..seeing visions and talking to the dead. he
once saw the devil as a negro... A more convincing vision occurred when he saw Father
Romanus, the man to whom he had vacated his chair at the University of Paris. Romanus was
dead. Seeing him, Thomas said, 'How do I stand with God, and are my works pleasing to him?'
'Thou art in good state' Romanus replied, 'and thy works are pleasing to God'" (Payne, 371).

What a busy night that was!

What does God think of such a person, who makes contacts with the supposed spirits of the dead?

"Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I
am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:31).

Who were these spirits Aquinas entertained nightly? Paul calls them "seducing spirits," to whom, those
who have "departed the faith," will give heed (1 Timothy 4:1-3). The result of this consorting with
spirits is always the same - the issuing forth of doctrines of devils! So when our Trinitarian friends
recommend insights from "teachers" like Aquinas, or use reasonings he developed, we must keep in
mind God's warning:

"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards
that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto God?" (Isaiah 8:19).

Pentecostal people will never be impressed with arguments drawn from such "authorities" as we have
just surveyed. And evangelicals should not be either. No enlightenment can come from those who
worship bones, kill with the sword, embezzle money, and consult familiar spirits. How could these
men develop a true doctrine of the Godhead while advocating just as vigorously , Purgatory,

27
Mariolatry, Wafer Worship, and a host of other bizarre and blasphemous teachings? "Doth a fountain
send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" (James 3:11).

BROKEN CISTERNS

Would Dr. Boyd, or any Trinitarian, explain to us how a church which has gotten every other Christian
doctrine wrong, managed to deliver the central most important truth, namely the Godhead, in perfect
purity and accuracy? They are wrong as to baptism, for they "regenerate" infants through sprinkling,
pouring and even spitting! Wrong as to salvation, for it is works from the first rosary bead to the last
lighted candle. Wrong as to the Virgin Birth, for they have Mary, their "Mother of God" also
miraculously conceived and sinlessly pure. They distort Christ's resurrection wit the fantastic doctrine
of Mary's bodily assumption, as "Queen of the Universe," into Heaven (without even having to wait
three days !). The work of the cross is diminished horribly, because Mary is also Co-Redemptrix and
Co-Mediatrix, even ordering her son around in heaven! Their doctrine of the Bible is wrong due to the
addition of the uninspired, non-canonical Apocrypha, with its stories of lying angels. And yet with a
track record like this, we are asked to trust their teachers like Augustine, Aquinas, Basil, Gregory,
Athanasius, as they unfold the Trinity to us.

The Trinitarians will have to excuse us if we decline to drink from these wells. They are polluted and
poisoned. So they have hewn out Neo-Trinitarian cisterns to relive the situation, but these are also
useless.

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the Fountain of Living
Waters, and hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13).
Though they insist the cisterns' broken pieces are all "co-equal" and of the "same substance," they still
will not hold water.

For the more eclectic minded among their readers, Neo-trinitarians have something special to offer --
additional light on the Trinity, but this time from India and other human domains. For they too have
things to say, useful things, pertaining to the Trinity. Neo-Trinitarians venture timidly into this
perilous water at first, for they know how turbulent it can become. But once in, they begin to splash
about quite giddily.

"I'm not presently arguing that this view is or is not correct"

writes Dr. Boyd,
"I am only arguing that the presence of Trinitarian parallels outside of Christianity certainly
has no negative bearing on the truthfulness of this doctrine. If anything it supports its
truthfulness" (Boyd, p. 61-62).
This comes on the heels of a discussion in which Dr. Boyd denies that Christianity incorporated any
Trinity concepts from the pagans. "the claim is simply false" he says. Yet on page 150 he quotes
Ignatius (Mag. 7:2) who describes the Father as "The One." This word, "the One," was the Pagan
Platonic name for the first Person of their Trinity, which consisted of: The One, The Logos, and the
Wisdom. If Ignatius is not incorporating a pagan trinity, why is he using their vocabulary? Dr. Boyd
might have been afraid that we would catch this "one", so he writes later on:
"Hence they employed Stoic and Platonic categories when possible to help express their faith"
(Boyd, 161).

28
We see. Something like transporting the Ark of God in a Philistine Cart. That's fine as long as you
don't try to steady it!

St Augustine and C.S. Lewis, whose lead "one might even follow," were not so timid as Dr. Boyd on
this question. They thought the prevalence of pagan trinities was a further evidence that the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity was true. As far as the Oneness claim that these pagan trinities of Greece,
Babylon, and India have a casual link to the Catholic Trinity, Dr. Boyd feels we have "never
substantiated" that contention (Boyd, 45).

We will save ourselves some energy and let the Trinitarians themselves substantiate it.

I have before me as I write a popular polemic against the Oneness Doctrine by Charles Wm. Walker,
D.D., entitled "The Jesus Only Theory." On page 21 to 22 he writes:

"Using material in the pagan world would not necessarily convince us of the validity of the
doctrine of the Trinity, but, like Paul, we would use this as an argument ad hominen...Hence
we refer to the fact that even the heathen believed in a Trinity as set forth in the following
paganistic religions of the ancient world:

A. The Greek Triad Zeus Athena Apollo

B. The Egyptian Triad Osiris Isis Horus
C. The Trinity of the Vedas Dyaus Indra Agni
D. The Brahman Trinity Brahma Vishnu Siva (Source) (Supporter) (the end)"

What next! How desparate must Trinitarians be to seek support for their theory from Fire Walkers,
Rope climbers, and Snake Charmers of darkened India! These Fakirs are politely asked to contribute
their trinities to the common cause. How far afield Trinitarians are willing to go. They have now
crossed the Indian Ocean and are plundering the temple records of that sad, benighted land in hopes of
finding some Trinitarian gems that might have been overlooked. "Brethren, these things ought not to
be!" How empty must the Trinitarian arsenal be that they have to forage around in long exploded
shells of Hinduism for additional fire power. God have mercy on them and return them to the Bible!

WHAT ABOUT THE EARLY COUNCILS

Trinitarians often cite for support the creeds and doctrines that resulted from the early church
ecumenical councils. Dr. Boyd, while mentioning that Paul arrived at the "essence" of the Trinity
doctrine, remarks that:

"It would, of course, take several hundred years of believers and opponents asking questions to
iron out all the implications of this belief. This is what ultimately produced the fully developed
doctrine of the Trinity in the early Fourth Century." (Boyd, 122).
My! "The very inner being of the eternal God" took four hundred years of "ironing" before it was
"fully developed" as a doctrine. And what "ironing" it was!

TRINITARIAN IRONING DAY AT NICEA

29
The Council of Nicea is often pictured by Trinitarians as an illustrious gathering of persecuted
Bishops, replete with scars and wounds, calmly reasoning with each other over the nature of the
Godhead. Carl Brumback even remarked that we owe a great debt to these early fathers who defined
so carefully for us the doctrine of the Trinity (Brumback, p. 197).

This idealistic picture couldn't be further from the truth. The assembled bishops probably inflicted as
many wounds as they brought with them! The historian H.G. Wells informs us that a fist fight broke
out between Arius and another bishop right before the astonished eyes of the Emperor Constantine
(H.G. Wells, Outline of History, p. 552). At one point the delegates plugged their ears with their
fingers and ran out of the building screaming like spoiled children (Wells, p. 552). The Emperor
Constantine presided and controlled the whole council, even though he was unbaptized and not even
eligible to take communion! Not a single Bishop protested this usurpation!

"Diplomacy was wielded like a weapon and intrigues often replaced intelligence. There were
so many ignorant Bishops that one participant bluntly called the Council 'a synod of nothing
but blockheads.' Constantine who treated religious questions solely from a political point of
view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of
Faith. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed would be instituted solely on the
authority of the Emperor, who as a Catechumen was not even admitted to the mystery of the
Eucharist. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing" (Walter Nigg,
Heresies, p. 127).

The delegates were about as "intelligent" as they were calm.

"The conference was now open and at once it became evident that the Arians and the Orthodox
were at each others throats. Denunciations and angry accusations flew across the hall.
Everyone was suddenly arguing, 'it was like a battle in the dark,' wrote the historian Socrates.
Hardly anyone seemed to know the grounds on which they culminated one another!
Constantine did his best to restore order, regarding himself as the presiding judge empowered
to intervene. In all the debates, he rebuked those who spoke too angrily and sternly silenced
those where arguments seemed to him fallacious" (Robert Payne, The Christian Centuries, p.
109).

And it is to this fist-fighting, ear-plugging, screaming match that we owe such a "debt" for "ironing
out" the Trinity doctrine!

COUNCIL OF ROBBERS

Shall we take a trip to another Trinitarian Council? This one was dubbed "The Council of Robbers." I
am quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The assembly turned into a riot. Imperial troops and bands of fanatical Egyptian monks
attempted to force the 135 bishops present to a sign a condemnation of the doctrine of the two
natures in Christ. Bishop Falvian, severely beaten in the melee, died a few days later. The
papal legates, though managing to escape, had also been badly mistreated. The Pope annulled

30
 the proceedings at Ephesus describing it as a Council of Robbers" (Catholic Encyclopedia,
1965 ed., Volume VII, p. 312).

Quite an "ironing", wouldn't you say!! If this is the tree, how corrupt is the Trinitarian fruit which
hangs from its branches? Of course, Apostle Paul, though not having the benefit of these "Councils"
did arrive at the "essence of this doctrine" according to Dr. Boyd (p. 122). Too bad poor Paul could
not have lived four hundred years longer so he could have enjoyed the "fully developed doctrine" that
these theologians "ironed out" for us! (Or perhaps Paul was spared all this, having had enough
beatings from the Jews!)

Oneness Pentecostals are quite satisfied that Christ himself brought to earth the "fully developed
doctrine" of the Godhead. It was without spot or wrinkle, and therefore needed no "ironing out" in
order to be perceived more clearly. What can four hundred years of fist-fighting add to the revelation
of God's nature contained in Christ's words: "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." Paul didn't
feel a need for any further development of the "essence" he "arrived at"! For he boldly proclaimed: "I
have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). And that included his
doctrine, "fully developed," I might add, that in Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily," (Col. 2:9). I'd rather have Paul's "counsel" than Nicea's "Council."

CHAPTER V
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
ARE THE WRITINGS OF THE SO-CALLED "EARLY CHURCH FATHERS" RELIABLE FOR
DOCTRINE?
DO THESE WRITINGS CONTAIN THE "FABLES" AND "HERESIES" OF WHICH PAUL
WARNED US?

THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY FATHERS / ONENESS AND THE CHURCH FATHERS /
HOW SOON DID APOSTASY SET IN? / PAUL'S WARNING (AD 60) / JOHN'S WARNING (AD
90) / JUDE'S WARNING (AD 60) / NO OBJECTIONS? / THE NATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE
WRITINGS / TAMPERED WITH AND FORGED / LETTERS OF IGNATIUS / FIRST LETTER OF
CLEMENT / THE DIDACHE / SECOND LETTER OF CLEMENT / FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
/ PASSING DOWN THE FAITH / PAGAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS / APOSTOLIC
SUCCESSION / SACRIFICE OF THE MASS / TRANSUBSTANTIATION / PRIMACY OF
ROME / BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY FATHERS

Dr. Boyd makes sweeping claims concerning the early church Fathers and their supposed
Trinitarianism. These men wrote after the death of the Apostles and their writings span a three hundred
year period. Dr. Boyd is convinced not only that they were Trinitarians, but that "each of these figures
understood himself to be simply passing on the faith that had been handed down by the apostles from
the beginning" (Boyd, 161). And he feels this Faith was an "unqualified Trinitarianism." As far as

31
Oneness is concerned, he will tell you they were the first to oppose it and "stand up behind the church
tradition" (Boyd, p. 102). But is all this really so?

ONENESS AND THE CHURCH FATHERS

I am not going to devote much time to the discussion of the Early Church Fathers for two reasons.
Primarily it would require more space than the limitations of my present book would permit. But
secondarily, and more importantly, such a discussion is not really necessary at this point. Oneness
scholars such as Bernard, Weissner, and Chalfont have thoroughly researched the writings of these
Fathers and disclosed their findings in several excellent volumes available through the Pentecostal
Publishing House. They have sorted the fact from the fiction and arrived at the Truth which lay buried
beneath centuries of "vain tradition" and "holy forgeries". I find their evidences to be unanswerable on
all counts. When the true facts about the beliefs of the sub-Apostolic Church and the subsequent
Trinitarian innovations are carefully sifted, no unbiased researcher would care to claim that the Early
Fathers held an "unqualified Trinitarianism." And perhaps even more significant, it becomes
abundantly clear that not all of them were "passing on the Faith that had been handed down from the
Apostles." A catalog of all that they were actually "passing on" leaves very little left for the
imaginations.

HOW SOON DID APOSTASY SET IN?

Trinitarians like to create the impression that for about three hundred years after the death of the
apostles all was well. The Church held the true faith , apostasy was kept at bay, and heresies were held
in check. This is the picture they paint for us, but an examination of their writings reveals the exact
opposite. One can find a cornucopia of strange and mutually contradictory doctrines nestled among
their writings. The seeds of every latent heresy were sown in the fertile furrows of their manuscripts.

PAUL'S WARNING (AD 60)

How soon did this departure form the truth begin? The Apostle Paul informs us in AD 60 that it was
well underway in his very own day. If the mice were that active while the cat was at home, how much
more so in his absence? Paul spent years weeping over the impending apostasy which he knew would
expand vigorously after his death:

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing
the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased
not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31).

Paul also said in II Thessalonians that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work."

The great apostle knew that the first doctrine to be attacked after his death would be the Godhead. And
he named the twin enemies in charge of it, namely, "vain tradition" and Greek "philosophy." Listen to
this echoing warning against the emerging Greek Trinitarian ideas which were trying to replace the
full deity of Christ:

32
 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9).

What specifically was Paul referring to when he mentioned a "philosophy" that was trying to get into
the Church, and which would spoil them? This Philosophy was Greek Platonism, which advocated a
system of Trinitarianism known as "The Timaeus." Using mathematics, the Greek Philosopher-
Mathematician Plato (427-347 BC) worked out a system in which God was conceived of as three
"coequals." He used the equilateral triangle as both symbol and proof of this new Trinity-God.

"An equilateral triangle, one having all three sides equal, was Plato's Trinity, and he thought of
it also as the elemental earth form" (L. Hoghen, Mathematics for the Millions, pp. 26-27).

One of the "Early Fathers" Dr. Boyd mentions adapted this Greek Trinity for Catholic needs:

"The Catholic lawyer, Tertullian, plagiarized Plato's Timaeus and for the Catholic system he
twisted it into the famous, 'Trinitos.' Here is the foundation of Rome's Trinity" (Marvin Arnold,
Nicea and the Nicene Council, p. 6).

JOHN'S WARNING (AD 90)

The aged Apostle John also saw the creeping influence of false teachers in his day. He wrote:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are
there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (I John 2:18).

That is why he admonished them to remain in the original apostolic faith and to resist these new
Godhead innovations:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son
hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning.
If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in
the Son, and in the Father. (I John 2:23-24).

He also stated that, "many false prophets are gone out into the world," and we should therefore "try the
spirits." (I John 4:1) The assault against truth was already in full swing when John penned these words
in 90 AD. he fearlessly declared that "many deceivers are entered into the world" who did not have the
true "doctrine of Christ" (II John 7-9). These false subverters of truth were not even to be allowed in
the house! (II John 10). And what was this "doctrine of Christ" that this invading army of false
prophets were already tearing down? John defined it for us:

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (II John 9).

The doctrine that in Christ one has both the Father and the Son, was the target of attack. And John
knew it!

33
 JUDE'S WARNING AD 60

Jude recognized the same theological nightmare that was beginning to unfold in his day. In AD 66 he
wrote

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful
for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were
before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3-4).

The focus of the attack by these heretics was the same as Paul and John mentioned. It was a denial of
the full deity in Christ. Jude's last clause could be translated: "denying the only Lord God, even our
Lord Jesus Christ." In the light of John 20:28, where Christ is called "Lord and God," this is really the
only proper translation.

NO OBJECTIONS?

Dr. Boyd says on page 162:

"Finally, even if such an overhaul of Apostolic doctrine were possible, how could it occur
without leaving one shred of evidence of anyone's objecting or even questioning it?"

The objections and "shreds" Dr. Boyd fails to see are plainly recorded for us by Paul, John and Jude,
so that even "He that runneth may read." They vigorously warned and protested the invading attempts
to divide up Christ. Dr. Boyd's problem is that he is looking for "objections" within the "objectionable"
writings themselves. he needs to search the New testament where protests and warnings abound!

THE NATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE WRITINGS

These early writings, known as the Apostolic Fathers, or the Ante-Nicene Fathers, were not inspired of
God. These authors were not "holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God." Their writings
are utterly uninspired They were not "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, or instruction in
righteousness," because they were not given by "inspiration of God." They are not "thus saith the
Lord." their promises are not "yea" and "amen." No Holy Spirit conviction attends their reading. We
are never commanded to search these writings. And what's more, we will not be judged by what's
written in these books. (Thank God!) They were filled with errors, mistakes, contradictions and
outright myths. However, they are of historical interest, and provide us with insights into church
development and early Christian influences. Beyond this they are of no value.

TAMPERED WITH AND FORGED

We do not know exactly what the Nicene Fathers originally wrote, seeing the first autographs have
been lost to history. We have only copies of copies. The manuscripts that we possess have been
altered, reworked, amended, interpolated, redacts, rescinded, and outrightly forged. The Catholic
Church is a past master at forging and "reworking" historical documents. The greatest forgery of all

34
time (and believed genuine for centuries) was the so-called "Donation of Constantine." This was a
product of the Catholic Church, as were the Isodorian Decretals and a host of other false documents.
So it should not surprise us if these writings were "fixed up" by scribes "here a little, there a little," in
order to bolster the Trinitarian concept.

LETTERS OF IGNATIUS

Cyril C. Richardson says concerning the manuscripts of Ignatius' Letters:

"We possess no pure manuscripts of the original Corpus, for in the Fourth Century, the letters
were interpolated and six additional ones added... The aim of these forgeries was to gain for the
diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr. Finally, in the Middle Ages,
perhaps around the Twelfth Century, which saw a new development of the cult of the Virgin --
a correspondence between Ignatius and Mary, as well as two letters of Ignatius to John, was
fabricated in the West." (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p. 81).

FIRST LETTER OF CLEMENT

Concerning the earliest Ante-Nicene writing, The First Letter of Clement, written AD 96, we read:

"Here we see a version of the gospel which, while reflecting Paulinism, is more strongly
influenced by Hellenistic Judaism, and which, in several ways, foreshadows the leading
emphasis of later Roman Catholicism" (Richardson, p. 33).

Hellenistic (Greek), Judaism and Roman Catholic Emphasis! And that is to be found in the "earliest"
of the writings!

THE DIDACHE

Even the dating of these writings is often open to question. Take the much touted "Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles" (Didache) for example:

"At one time this tract was viewed as a very ancient product -- as early as AD 70 or 90. Recent
study, however, has conclusively shown that, in the form we have it, it belongs to the Second
Century. There is nevertheless, no unanimity among scholars about its exact date or purpose. It
has appropriately been called the 'spoiled child of Criticism'" (Richardson, p. 161).

Concerning the forgeries and alterations of this ancient(?) document we read:

"It is not possible to tell how much of the Church Order he has faithfully preserved or how
much he has altered" (Richardson, p. 165).

"We should assume, then, that some scribe in Alexandria about 150 AD edited two ancient
documents which came into his hands... He made some changes in them -- how many we shall
never know" (ibid, p. 165).

35
 SECOND LETTER OF CLEMENT

The Second Letter of Clement does not fare any better.

"The document that goes under this misleading name is neither a letter nor a genuine work of
Clement of Rome" (Richardson, p. 183).

It is tinged with "Gnostic speculation," uses "semi-Gnostic phrases" and quotes for authority an
apocryphal "Gospel of the Egyptians" (ibid, p. 183, 186). This "Gospel of the Egyptians" was even
considered heretical in its own time!

FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

The First Apology of Justin, much quoted by Trinitarians, introduces Christ as a "second divine
entity." Justin actually used the Greek phrase "deuteros theos" which means a "second god." he boldly
admits worshipping and adoring an "army of good angels" whom he lists ahead of the Holy Spirit in
order of dignity! (First Apology of Justin, 6). No wonder Dr. Boyd is forced to admit:

"One can clearly see that the question one ought to have regarding the Apologists is not
whether or not they thought of God as possessing a triune nature, but whether they pushed their
understanding of the threeness of God too far" (Boyd, p. 159).

Worshipping and adoring an "army of angels" is certainly going "too far!" What do you think, dear
reader? But we need not fear, for Dr. Boyd informs us that the Council of Nicea did a splendid job of
rescuing us from the unorthodox ideas of the Early Apologists:

"This sort of language in any case, would two centuries later be banned as unorthodox by the
Council of Nicea" (Boyd, p. 158).

Why call up these apologists as witnesses in the first place if they are "unorthodox" and require
"banning?" Why call to the stand witnesses known to be in error? This is absurd to the point of
hilarity.

PASSING DOWN THE FAITH

If the Early Fathers were all just "passing down the Faith as they received it from the Apostles, then
we are going to have to "redefine" what constitutes the "True Faith." For we find many things being
"passed on" that were anything but Apostolic! The seeds of Romanism and ritualism were even at this
early date beginning to bear fruit. This is not surprising in the light of the warnings the Apostles had
sounded. Grievous wolves were very busy.

PAGAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS

The First Letter to Clement, chapter 25, offers up the ridiculous story of the mythological Phoenix as a
proof of Christ's resurrection.

36
 "Let us note the remarkable token which comes from the East, from the neighborhood that is
Arabia. There is a bird which is called a Phoenix. It is the only one of its kind and lives five
hundred years. When the time for its departure and death draws near, it makes a burial nest for
itself from frankincense, myrrh and other spices: and when the time is up, it gets into and dies.
From its decaying flesh a worm is produced, which is nourished by the secretions of the dead
creature and grows wings. When it is full-fledged, it takes up the burial nest containing the
bones of its predecessor, and manages to carry them all the way from Arabia to the Egyptian
City called Heliopolis. And in broad daylight, so that everyone can see, it lights at the altar of
the sun and puts them down there, and so starts home again. The priests then look up their
dated records and discover it has come alive after a lapse of five hundred years."

I have quoted this utterly fictitious nonsense in full, so that the reader may be completely aware of the
type of things these Fathers were "passing on." Things, Dr., Boyd informs us, "had been handed down
by the Apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, p. 161). Clement uses this absurdity as his theological
climax in arguing for the resurrection:

"Shall we, then, imagine that it is something great and surprising if the Creator of the universe
raised up those who have served him in Holiness and in the assurance born of a good faith,
when he uses a mere bird to illustrate the greatness of his promise?"

Can you imagine the Apostle Paul resorting to such pagan drivel to prove the resurrection? And yet
from such sources as Clement we are to receive confirmation of the Truth of the Trinity!

Such nonsense as this fable of the Phoenix precisely fulfills Paul's warning:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (II Tim 4:3-4).

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The Roman Catholic Church dogma that the office of Bishop was to be passed on in an unbroken line
of succession, similar to Kings, emerges in the Ante-Nicene Fathers very early. This doctrine of
"Apostolic Succession" is the foremost argument used by Rome in her claims to being the "One True
Church," as opposed to Protestantism which lacks it.

"Now our apostles, thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that there was going to be strife over
the title of Bishop. It was for this reason... that they appointed the offices we have mentioned.
Furthermore, they later added a codicil to the effect that, should these die, other approved men
should succeed to their ministry" (I Clement, 44).

I'd like to see that "codicil" they added, wouldn't you?

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

37
Instead of a memorial of Christ's death, the Last Supper is being explained as a "sacrifice." This is the
heart of Romanism, and a direct contradiction of the Bible which says:

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the
right hand of God;

And also we are told:

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In I Clement 44:4 we read of a "sacrificing" priesthood for the first time:

"For we shall be guilty of no slight sin if we eject from the episcopate men who have offered
the sacrifices with innocence and holiness."

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Catholicism is known far and wide for its insistence that the Communion bread wafer and wine are
literally and actually changed into the very substance of the Lord's flesh and blood. Catholics believe
they actually eat the real flesh and blood of Christ at Mass. It is only "disguised" under the appearance
of bread and wine. The priest has really changed its substance by the words - "This is my body" and
"This is my blood." This is the foundation for the "sacrifice of the Mass."

The Early Fathers had departed sufficiently from the Truth to also teach the "flesh eating, blood
drinking" doctrine. Actually they "borrowed" it from the Mithra cults and the pagan Gnostics which
surrounded them. They were all busy eating up their gods, flesh and blood, in order to acquire their
"powers."

Ignatius says:

"What I want is God's bread, which is the flesh of Christ... and for drink, I want His blood: an
immortal love feast indeed" (Ignatius to the Romans 7:3).

Drink the blood of a god, gain his immortality. Pure paganism! He gets worse:

"They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit
that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1).

Justin in his First Apology, chapter 66 is even more explicit:

"So also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of Prayer which comes
from him, from which our flesh and blood and nourished by transformation, is the flesh and
blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Justin is very clever however. He realizes he has "borrowed" from the pagan Mithra cult (not from the
apostles) so he adds this "cover up" statement:

38
 "This also the wicked demons in imitation handed down as something to be done in the
mysteries of Mithra for bread and a cup of water are brought out in their secret rites of
initiation, with certain invocations which you either know or can learn" (First Apology of
Justin, 66).

Who's borrowing with "whom" is the question. And seeing the Mithra religion had "transubstantiation"
first, the answer is quite obvious. Justin seems to know an awful lot about what takes place in Mithra's
secret rites of initiation.

PRIMACY OF ROME

The dogma that the Church of Rome has authority to rule the other Churches of Christendom is the
very definition of Roman Catholicism. This supposed right to meddle and rule has long been known as
the "Primacy of Rome."

Clement, Bishop of Rome, instructs the Corinthians to "bow the neck and adopt the attitude of
obedience" and to give up their "futile revolt." He further writes:

"Yes, you will make us exceeding happy if you prove obedient to what we... have written..."

Clement also sent "delegates" from his See, "trustworthy and discreet persons," whose job it was to
"mediate between us" (I Clement, 63). Who gave him the right, sitting across the Mediterranean Sea in
Rome, to take authority over the Church at Corinth? No wonder Paul said in his day: "The mystery of
iniquity doth already work".

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

The Early Fathers taught "baptismal regeneration." They believed the mere contact with the water,
coupled with the newly emerging Trinitarian formula, remitted sin automatically. Justin says:

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of
rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are washed in the water in the name of
God the Father and Master of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" (First
Apology of Justin, 61).

Justin blasphemously censors out the truth of Jesus' Name being the Name of the Father by saying:

"There is named at the water... the name of God the Father and Master of all. Those who lead
to the washing the one who is to be washed call on God by this term only. For no one may give
a proper name to be ineffable God, and if anyone should dare to say there is one, he is
hopelessly insane."

Thus according to Justin, anyone who believes that God the Father has a name is "hopelessly insane."
Jesus said: "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43), and also, "I have declared unto them thy
name, and will declare it" (John 17:26). Justin the blasphemer wants none of this, in spite of what

39
Christ has said! Here we see our choice is real clear: The Early Fathers or the Everlasting Father
(Isaiah 9:6).

In spite of all this heresy and mythic adaptations, including the censoring of God's name, by these so-
called Fathers, Dr. Boyd writes:

"They are inherently conservative and resistant to change. Hence it may be safely assumed that
the less time the tradition of the apostolic teaching had to be corrupted, the less likely it is that
it was corrupted. This assumption is especially warranted in light of the fact that the early post-
apostolic Fathers were all self consciously trying to preserve and protect the apostolic
teachings" (Boyd, p. 147-148).

And, as we have seen, that included protecting such "teachings" as transubstantiation, Papal primacy,
Sacrificial Mass, Baptismal Regeneration, Apostolic Succession, Angel Worship, Second Gods, and
500 year old birds and worms!

ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM DEPENDS ON NO "CHURCH COUNCILS" OR "EARLY

FATHERS" FOR THEIR DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION. THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE
SOURCE OF ALL TEACHING IN THIS RESTORED APOSTOLIC FAITH.

CHAPTER VI
TRINITARIAN POLYTHEISM
DR. BOYD CLAIMS ALL TRINITARIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN JUST "ONE GOD".
BUT WHAT DO HIS FELLOW TRINITARIANS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?
IF TRINITARIANS BELIEVE IN JUST ONE GOD, WHY DOES CENTURIES OF ART DEPICT
THREE?

DO TRINITARIANS BELIEVE IN ONE GOD? // ARE WE MISTAKEN? // "SAME SUBSTANCE"

EXCUSE // TRINITARIAN MODELS // THE TRINITY IN COMMITTEE // TRINITY LURKING
IN THE DARK // BIBLE TESTIMONY TO ONENESS // DEUTERONOMY 6:4 // PURE UNITY
VS. TRINITY IN UNITY // ELOHIM - THE GODS // ISAIAH 44:24 // THE OLD SHELL GAME //
THE LONELY GOD // ISAIAH // THE GOD MAKERS // NEW TESTAMENT ONENESS -
CHRIST'S TEACHING // PAUL'S TEACHING // JAMES BELIEVED IT ALSO // JOHN
BELIEVED IT LIKEWISE // ALSO PETER

DO TRINITARIANS BELIEVE IN ONE GOD?

Trinitarians always make a hasty claim to believe in One God. Their books and sermons usually start
off with a reference to the "Shema" In Deuteronomy 6:4, which reads

40
 "Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

This is followed in rapid fire by some references from Isaiah, and a few New Testament quotes. They
do not dwell on these verses, indeed they can't; they have work to do! They are a people on a mission;
a mission to divide God into three individuals, distinct and co-equal. For this task, which God did not
ordain, they must race through the Bible for every scrap of evidence that talks of "three" and then re-
interpret it and inflate it to mean "three persons". At any verse that has to do with "three" you will be
sure to find them already there, and waiting for us when we arrive! Though they have to go around
Mountains of Oneness, they'll make it. Like the mailman, nothing stops them from their "appointed
rounds." To help them in this labor they invent new vocabulary: "person," "persons," "distinct," "co-
equal," "God the Son," "compound unity," "perichoresis," "Trinity," "triune," "substance," "essence,"
"consubstantial," - the list is endless and ever accommodating new additions like "fashions," "ways,"
"aspects," "modes," "manners," and "subsistence" (favorites of Neo-Trinitarians).

Dr. Boyd insists we are mis-interpreting Trinitarians. he says:

"Any belief in three gods has always been understood to be heresy from a Christian
perspective" (Boyd, p. 50).

He also states,

"To say there are 'three persons in the Godhead' has never been meant to mean that there are
'three separate people who are God' or that 'God is a committee' as Oneness believers
mistakenly accuse Trinitarians of believing" (Boyd, p. 50).

ARE WE MISTAKEN?

Are we really mistaken? Let us hear what Ron Rhodes has to say concerning the "three persons of the
Trinity." He has a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary and associated with the Christian Research
Institute. Certainly a "well educated Trinitarian," the kind from whom Dr. Boyd prefers we get our
information. In his book, "Christ Before the Manger," he writes:

"Nevertheless, the personalities involved in the Trinity are expressed in such terms as 'I' 'Thou'
and 'He'. As well the persons of the Godhead address each other as individuals and manifest
their individuality, in personal acts. ...In summary, then, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
persons in the sense that they are personal attributes of mind, emotions, and will. Each of the
three is aware of the others, speaks to the others, and carries on a loving relationship with
the others" (Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger, p. 266).

If that's not "three gods" what is it? Each is God, each has his own "consciousness," and is a "self
aware subject." Furthermore each is aware of the other two? They are "individuals," and manifest their
"individuality." Each one "talks to the others," carries on a "loving relationship with the others." No
matter how you slice it, in the end you have three individual gods talking and carrying on interpersonal
relationships. There is absolutely no difference between this concept and what the Greeks had going
on atop of Mt. Olympus, and all other pagan polytheisms of antiquity. Trinitarians try to distance
themselves from the ancient polytheists by quoting the Athanasian Creed which says:

41
 "for as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctly to be both God
and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords."

The only thing that prevents them from outrightly having "three gods" is that the Catholic Religion
prohibits it! Roma locuta est, causa unita est! But the facts are on the ground and that's what's truly
important -- not what the Catholic Church prohibits. And here are those facts, stubborn things though
they be: You have "three persons," each is God in His own right, knows the other two, talks to them as
individuals, yet remains distinct from them. They love each other! How "educated" do we have to
become? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these three "individuals," as Dr. Rhodes calls
them, are actually "three gods." Trinitarians hate to say it, so I am saying it for them. I don't mind.

"SAME SUBSTANCE" EXCUSE

Another escape hatch often used to evade the obvious conclusion of "three gods" is to say they all
share "the same substance." Somehow "sharing the same substance" is supposed to eliminate the
problem. Now this phrase, or even the idea behind it (three persons sharing one substance), is not
found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus never mentioned it, the apostles never heard of it. It was produced
by the fist-fighting screaming match at Nicea, three hundred years later. That's where it first come
crying and kicking into the world, cradled in the Imperial Creeds and swaddled in Gnostic diapers. But
of what use is the argument anyhow? Were not the pagan gods composed of "divine substance" also?
Of course they were! Human beings are also composed of the same "human substance," yet there are
six billion of them existing on one planet as distinct individuals. Does that make one man? So what
does it prove? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It is a diverting tactic from the real issue: they have three
gods!

TRINITARIAN MODELS

Dr. Boyd is fond of quoting St. Augustine, especially his "psychological model" of the Trinity in
where he compares the Godhead to the intellect, heart and will found in a human being. But Dr. Boyd
is a little shy to quote the Cappodocian Fathers model, in which they compared the Trinity to a Father,
a Mother and her child -- three persons, but "one" because they all share the same "human substance."
(H. Dermott McDonald, Basil the Great, p. 167). That "model" would certainly prove embarrassing
because everyone would realize that even though they share the same "human" substance they are still
three separate human beings. The obvious corollary being: even though the three divine Persons share
the same "God substance" it does not prevent them from being three separate gods! No the "substance"
argument is a dangerous escape route. It is "as if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him"
(Amos 5:19).

THE TRINITY IN COMMITTEE

Oneness believers are also to suppose to be "mistaken" when they characterize the Trinity as a
"committee." Trinitarians balk at this primitive notion. Gleason Archer, a Trinitarian Bible Scholar of
no mean reputation, commenting on Gen. 1:26 says:

42
 "The one true God subsists in three persons. Persons who are able to confer with one another
and carry their plans into action together -- without ceasing to be one God" (Gleason Archer,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 359).

So They are not a "committee" after all! They are a "conference!" They confer together; carry on
their plans into action, together! And they do all this without ceasing to be One God (Something
neither Mr. Archer or God explains!).

Dr. Boyd needn't try to distance himself from his Trinitarian colleagues, as "educated" as they are. For
he has talked of God's "personal otherness;" of "I-Thou" relationships; of loving communing and
socializing between the two persons in eternity past (Boyd, p. 189-192). Its all cut from the same cloth,
and history tells us who did the weaving.

TRINITY LURKING IN THE DARK

Benjamin Warfield characterizes the Israelites as fumbling around in a dark room:

"The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the
introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but brings out into clearer
view of what is in it, but was only dimly or even not all perceived. The mystery of the Trinity
is not explicitly revealed in the Old Testament, but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old
Testament revelation, and here and there comes into view..." (Benjamin Warfield, Biblical and
Theological Studies, p. 30).

So the poor Jews thought there was only one person of Jehovah in the house until somebody turned the
"lights on" for them at Nicea, and lo --- two other "divine persons" were found lurking in the shadows
of this "dimly lighted chamber." Two other persons that God could not even tell them about, lest they
misunderstand. And to such a race was given the oracles of God! Why? I do not know where in the
Old Testament the Trinity, dimly "here and there comes into view," as Dr. Warfield puts it. But I do
know where the Oneness clearly lights up the whole chamber with a most bright flood light, and its all
focused on Jesus:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6).

That's light enough to read by! The whole life of Christ, in detail is revealed in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 53 alone outlines His ministry, death and resurrection. Yet, when it comes to the Trinity,
suddenly all is dim. The problem is not with "lighting" in the Jewish age, but with "fighting" in the
Church Age!

BIBLE TESTIMONY TO ONENESS

A careful (an even casual) review of the Old Testament verses that deal with the subject will reveal a
strict monotheism that will admit of no other "divine persons" intruding into its unity. The strongest
and most qualifying language is used to emphasize the absolute Oneness of God. If words mean

43
anything at all, the Trinity of "three persons," each one of them God, is forever precluded and
excluded from scripture revelation.

Let us consider some:

DEUTERONOMY 6:4

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

This is known as the "Shema." Jesus called it the greatest of all the commandments (Mark 12:29). It is
the foundation of Jewish and Christian monotheism. It was the first words whispered into the ears of a
newborn Jewish baby, and the last words whispered unto those same ears before he died. They nailed
it on their doors; bound it on their foreheads, and hid it in their hearts. "Jehovah Our God is One
Jehovah." Nothing said of three persons, a "Trinity in Unity." No mention of "substance" or "essence,"
so important to third century idolizers of Plato. Just One God, One Jehovah. Boyd himself admits:

"Thus, first of all, Oneness Pentecostals are absolutely correct in emphasizing that the Bible
uniformly and unequivocally teaches that there is only one God. Certainly it was the
proclamation, 'Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One' (Deut. 6:4) that formed the
cornerstone for everything that was distinctive about the faith of God's people in the Old
Testament......The message of God's uniqueness and singularity is driven home literally
hundreds of times throughout the pages of the Old Testament..." (Boyd, p. 26).

PURE UNITY VS. TRINITY IN UNITY

The message of God's "singularity" may have been "driven home" hundreds of times, but in Dr.
Boyd's case it never got out of the car! For he spends the next 200 pages trying to prove a plurality! In
fact by the time he gets to page 190 this "cornerstone" of God's "singularity" that he praised so on page
26 is sent packing! Its a nuisance doctrine and has to be gotten out of the way, put on a side track, so
the plurality express can come barreling through! He writes:

"The bottom line is this: When one rejects what a text of scripture plainly says for the sake of
an assumed ideology (such as 'God is absolutely One'), one loses the message and passion of
the text" (Boyd, p. 190).

So, what was a "cornerstone" on page 26, "strict monotheism" which Oneness Pentecostals were
"absolutely correct in emphasizing," is now just an "assumed ideology" that must be sacrificed to
make way for the Trinity! And we must not keep Augustine and Cappodocian Fathers waiting. The
sooner the better! Though we Oneness were previously praised for "emphasizing that the Bible
uniformly and unequivocally teaches that there is only one God" (Boyd, p. 26), by the time we arrive
on page 190 we have suddenly become stubborn heretics who reject scriptures "for the sake of
preserving some preconceived pseudo-concept of the 'pure unity of God' " (Boyd, p. 191). our new
crime is trying to preserve the "pure unity of God." Does Dr. Boyd think we should change our minds
to adopt an "impure unity of God?" Or perhaps a "pure" disunity of God? What other choices are
there? I'd like to know.

44
How forgetful Dr. Boyd has become. On page 27 he classed our "strict monotheism" with the faith of
the ancient Jews."

"This cornerstone to ancient and contemporary Judaism and the first foundation stone to
Oneness Theology."

Thank-you. Now he calls it a "pre-conceived pseudo concept the pure unity of God." Well which is it?
The suspense is killing us. Do we have a pseudo-concept" or an ancient Judaic "cornerstone"? Is this
idea of God being "absolutely one" just an "assumed ideology" or is it the "cornerstone for everything
that was distinct about the faith of God's people in the Old Testament?" Or maybe it just depends on
what page we happen to be reading. In any case we would like to ask Dr. Boyd not to toss any more
bouquets if he's planning to take them back so soon. He may keep his flowers, we'll keep our
"preconceived ideology."

Actually Dr. Boyd's attitude toward Deut. 6:4 and other verses that teach "strict monotheism" is fairly
typical of Trinitarians. They have to accept them and say nice things, but it doesn't go down well. They
have "yes, yes" on their lips, but "no, no" in their eyes. Their "three persons," each of whom is "God"
and "distinct" from the "others," does not fit well into this mold. And they know it. Easier to put the
tooth paste back in the tube, then to squeeze their Greek inspired plurality into the narrow and rigid
passages of Old Testament monotheism. But they always give it a "college try."

ELOHIM - THE GODS

In the past, classical Trinitarians have tried to batter down the walls of Deut. 6:4 with two cardboard
battering rams, both of which were vain attempts to teach the Jews what their own language really
means! They would insist that the word for God (Elohim - Heb.) is in the plural and signifies the three
persons of the Trinity. And furthermore, that the word for one (Echod) really means "compound
unity." I once heard one of these "lesser lights" expounding how Deut. 6:4 should properly be
translated "Hear O Israel Jehovah our Gods, is a united Jehovah." Of course such drivel parading
under the banner of reason impresses no one, especially the Jews. Dr. Boyd himself rejects these
arguments as unsound. For as he points out, while the word Elohim is plural, it is always used with a
singular verb when referring to God. This indicates that it is what grammarians call a "plural of
majesty" (as when the Queen of England refers to herself as "we" in her speeches). In addition, Christ
Himself is called "Elohim" in the Old Testament prophecies. Who would be ludicrous to believe this
meant there was a plurality of Persons in the Son. And as for the Hebrew word for one (echod), this
simply means what its English equivalent does - "one!" There is no mysterious "compound unity"
attached to it. These two failed attempts by Gentile Trinitarians to give Jews lessons in Hebrew, show
to what lengths Trinitarians will go to avoid a "head on" with the Truth. Both of these inane arguments
are found in almost any exposition of the Trinity. We are glad to see Neo-Trinitarians abandoning
them. Boyd considers the argument from "Elohim" as weak, and the one drawn from "echod" as "even
weaker" (Boyd, p. 47). We have been trying to show them this for 80 years! Now they finally admit
we are correct! How they fought us on these points for eight decades in sermons, tracts and books.
Now they take it all back. Must we wait another 80 years till they discover that the "weakest" theory of
all was the concept itself? Weak, weaker, weakest!

45
We will now look at some other interesting texts that furnish proof of God's absolute Oneness ("pre-
conceived" or otherwise!).

ISAIAH 44:24

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD
that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth
by myself;

We see here just one speaker, described as "I," who declares he is "alone" and "by myself." How could
the singular speaker ("I") declare he was "alone" and "by myself" if two other divine persons were
with Him -- His "personal otherness"? Dr. Boyd and Trinitarians throughout the centuries have a
problem with God being alone:

" 'Pure unity' is equivalent to 'nothingness' and therefore is neither pictureable nor conceivable.
It is in short meaningless" (Boyd,p. 191).

In other words, if the feeble mind of man can't "picture" it or "conceive" it - then it is meaningless and
nothing! God's existence has to be "picturable" by us or else it isn't true. This type of pride which
exalts the "creature above the creator," had an author in the far removed ages of the past! But how
quickly Trinitarians reverse themselves on this line of reasoning when it is convenient for them. For
when we ask how the "three persons" can yet be "one" in this "Trinity in Unity," they are quick to
inform us that it is beyond human reasoning, and mere creatures like ourselves could never adequately
conceive or picture it!

THE OLD SHELL GAME

On page 63 Boyd writes in defense of the incarnation and Trinity:

"Yes, it is certainly paradoxical, for we cannot understand how it could be. But it is not
nonsense. If the anti-Trinitarian Pentecostals agree on this point (and they do), why do they
then find the Trinity to be so illogical?" (Boyd, p. 63).

This is the old "shell game" and your eye must be quick, for his writing hand is quicker still... Note, on
page 63 we are told just because a doctrine can't be "understood" is no reason to classify it as
"nonsense" and reject it. Then, as the shells go moving rapidly about, we are told on page 191 that if
we cannot "picture" a doctrine or "conceive it" then it is "nonsense" and we must reject it! He says
God is not "illogical." Agreed! But it is not God's logic we are concerned with, it's Dr. Boyd's!

THE LONELY GOD

The Trinitarians are also quite worried about God being "alone;" they feel He should have "company!"
We read,

46
 "Second and more important, the notion that God is in his essence alone, that apart from and
before creation God exists in total solitude, is completely incompatible with Christian
understanding..." (Boyd, p. 191).

Dear reader please note that God's declaration through the inspired prophet Isaiah that he existed
"alone" is classed by Dr. Boyd as a "notion." Well, it may be a notion, but it's one of God's notions!
And again, God just can't exist "alone" and "in total solitude" (even if he said so!), because its not
compatible with "Christian understanding" that "God is essentially love or even essentially personal"
(Boyd, p. 191). Well I have news for him. God was "alone" and in "total solitude" long before the first
"Christians" (actually Church Fathers) ever saw the light of day! God doesn't need any Church Council
to let him know what is, and what isn't "compatible" with His essential love. As we see, Trinitarianism
is much involved with the sin of pride, for in this teaching mortal man attempts to analyze and psycho
analyze God, and then inform Him of their results! Let us hear some more of God's Self Disclosures
(regardless of their compatibility with Trinitarian-Platonistic concepts!)

ISAIAH 41

Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah
41:15)

God calls Himself the "Holy One" over 50 times. He never once calls himself the "Holy Three." Why
not? If there is a "Trinity in Unity" why didn't he balance this statement with a "Holy Three"
reference? The answer is found in the next chapter of Isaiah.

ISAIAH 42:8

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to
graven images.

But in Trinitarianism the glory is equally distributed to two others, as they say -- "There is one glory of
the Father, another glory of the Son, and another glory of the Holy Ghost, yet there are not three
glories" etc. In Trinitarianism the glory is "equal." In the Bible it is "exclusive" and that's quite a
difference.

ISAIAH 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know
and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall
there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Why is there never a reference in which the Trinity says "We are they?" It should say that at least
sometimes. It is always "I am He" and "beside me there is no other." How could any member of the
Trinity say that if two other "divine persons" were beside Him?

THE GOD MAKERS

47
Notice also that he says that there was "no God" formed. He is not the source of any other divine
Person. But Trinitarians from time to time toy with the idea that the Father may have "produced" the
other two divine Persons. Clarence Larkin, whose books have sold in virtually every Christian
bookstore, and are studied by millions, has this to say:

"The finite mind cannot grasp the thought that there was a time when there was absolutely
nothing but God, whether the Father existed at first alone, and the Son and the Holy Spirit
proceeded from Him, thus making the Divine Three, is not clear. If the expression 'only
begotten of the Father' (John 1:14) as applied to Jesus, refers to His eternal origin, then He was
not co-existent with the Father." (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, P. 47).

This represents no more than a return to the early roots of Trinitarianism which we found in the
writings of Origen, who espoused a doctrine of the Son being generated before all time. And from that
doctrine the miscreant offspring of Arianism was birthed. But God is not in the business of producing
other Gods, whether we call them "co-equal persons" or not.

ISAIAH 44:6

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first,
and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

This should effectively silence the argument of a First, Second and Third or Last Person in the Trinity.
God says he's the First and the Last.

ISAIAH 44:8

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are
even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Trinitarians seems to assert more than God, for they insist two other "divine persons" are beside Him
in Heaven. But this should not surprise us coming from people who would teach Jews the meaning of
their own language, and instruct God what is "compatible" for Him and what is not! If the verse read,
"Is there a God beside us," the Trinitarians would have their case. But it says "me" and that is a first
person singular pronoun. Trinitarians needn't dismiss the argument as worthless grammatical quibble,
for they are the ones who brought up the necessity of God having an "I-Thou" relationship in eternity!
They are also the ones who describe the Trinity as an "I, Thou, He" subsistence. Well now, God says
"I" and "me" and there is no one else. What will they do with that? How can there be room for a
"Thou" and a "He" when God declares it is only "me"? (Excuse the poetry, but not the point!)

ISAIAH 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou
hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that
there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

48
God says this should be understood in the East as well as the West. Church history is full of Councils,
eastern and western; and Trinitarian divisions between the church, both Eastern and Western! Yet they
weren't listening to God, when He spoke to both East and West, saying, "I am the Lord, there is none
else."

ISAIAH 45:21-22

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from
ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else
beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved,
all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

God said, "Let them take council" and they did! Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus, Antioch
-- and they're still having them! But God's message is not to listen to these confused and rambling
creeds produced by these councils of carnal reasoning, but to go back to the ancient declarations. The
declarations that God himself made, like: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." The result of
hearkening to this will be the revelation of One God who is also Saviour - "a just God and a Saviour"
-- instead of a Saviour who is "Just a god" among three!

ISAIAH 46:9

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there
is none like me,

The so-called church spent time, money and blood arguing for hundreds of years whether the
substance of the 1st and 2nd persons was the "same" or "like". Here's the answer, but they wouldn't
have it. "There is none like me."

God spoke through Moses, the message He gave Isaiah:

DEUTERONOMY 4:35

Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else
beside him.

DEUTERONOMY 4:39

Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven
above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

DEUTERONOMY 32:39

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound,
and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

49
How could any one member of the Trinity say this with two other "divine persons" who are each
"God in their own right" existing alongside Him? This verse alone destroys the Trinity concept. "All
the king's horsemen and all the king's men" can't put this teaching together again.

The other prophets of the Old Testament unite their voice in "absolute Oneness" and "Pure Unity."

1 SAMUEL 2:2

There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like
our God.

2 SAMUEL 7:22

Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God
beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

1 KINGS 8:60

That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

2 KINGS 19:15

And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest
between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth;
thou hast made heaven and earth.

2 KINGS 19:19

Now therefore, O LORD our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the
kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD God, even thou only.

(They may not have been "Jesus Onlys" back then, but there were plenty of "Thou Onlys").

PSALM 86:10

For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

HOSEA 13:4

Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for
there is no saviour beside me.

JOEL 2:27

50
 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none
else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

ZECHARIAH 14:9

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his
name one.

There may be doctrinal disputes now, but there won't be in that glad Millennial Day. The Oneness
Doctrine will be the only religion, and Jesus' Name the Only Name. Oneness Pentecostals are just
ahead of their time!

MALACHI 2:10

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every
man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Just before the Old Testament "signs off" for that long 400 years of silence that lies between the Old
Testament and the New Testament, Malachi leaves us with the reminder that all deity is restricted to
the Father, who is God, the Only God. No wonder the next time we hear from the Jews they are
saying, "We have one Father, even God" (John 8:41).

NEW TESTAMENT ONENESS -- CHRIST'S TEACHING

The New Testament does not introduce any plural concept into the Godhead question. Rather it
reaffirms God's "strict monotheism."

MARK 12:29

Jesus confirms the Shema as the greatest of commandments:

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our
God is one Lord:

And a "greater than Moses" is teaching this time!

JOHN 17:3

Jesus declared the Father to be "the only true God." And this was the same Father who was also
incarnate in Christ (John 14:10).

PAUL'S TEACHING

Paul believed it also, and preached it consistently. His doctrine was the same as Christ's.

51
 ROMANS 8:3

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through
faith.

1 CORINTHIANS 8:4

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

1 CORINTHIANS 8:6

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, ...

All deity is restricted by Paul to the Father (who was also incarnate in our Lord).

GALATIANS 3:20

...but God is one.

And this statement takes place in a discussion about persons. "Now a mediator is not a mediator of
one." One what? One person! But God is One! One what? One Person! Unless God is considered as an
absolute one, the argument makes no sense.

EPHESIANS 4:6

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 TIMOTHY 2:5

For there is one God,

JAMES BELIEVED IT ALSO

Apostle James, believed to be the brother of our Lord, believed in Oneness and gave us this interesting
insight concerning some other "fervent believers."

JAMES 2:19

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

If the devils tremble at the thought of the "pure unity" of God, is it therefore surprising to that human
unbelievers get "nervous" and have to make creeds, etc.? There's a lot of "fidgeting" going on outside
of the Oneness fold over this doctrine.

52
 JOHN BELIEVED IT LIKEWISE

John Believed the same ancient message that Moses and Isaiah proclaimed and that he heard from the
lips of Christ Himself:

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. (1 John 2:20).

If there had been a change in doctrine to a "Holy Three" now would have been the time to declare it.

ALSO PETER

Peter also believed in the Holy One, Acts 3:14:

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just,

He never mentioned, or suggested, the existence of a "holy three."

This is a scriptural overview of the Oneness of God. We see the strongest language used. Language
that could never apply to "three distinct divine persons" co-existing together, each one God, and
talking to the others.

God is said in the Bible to be "alone," by "himself," and no one "with him." He announces Himself as
"I" and "me", never "they" or "them." His prophets refer to Him as "He," never "they." Singular verbs
are always used with Him. He says he "knows" no other divine persons, and has never "created" or
"formed" any. He takes to Himself the title "Holy One," never "Holy Three." He sets aside and annuls
any councils that disagree with the fact that He is God all by Himself. There is no other "divine
person" beside Him, before Him, or after Him. His unity is always described by the number "one."
"Three" is never used as a designation of his unity. His glory, majesty, and power he gives and shares
with no other divine Persons. His name is one, not three. He rebukes and challenges anyone who
disputes this.

I ask, If God wanted to describe Himself as absolutely and purely One, what other language could He
have used? How could anyone draw a conclusion of "three divine, co-eternal persons" after hearing all
that? Anyone who can deduce a "Trinity of Persons" from those statements will have no trouble
hearing a Beethoven Symphony in the croakings of a frog pond!

CHAPTER VII
THE SON OF GOD
DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A "BEGOTTEN" OR AN "ETERNAL SON"?
WHAT IS THE ATHANASIAN CREED OF THE TRINITARIANS?
IS IT IN CONFLICT WITH THE BIBLE?
IF THE SON OF GOD WAS THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY, WHY DID HE SAY
HE COULD DO NOTHING?

53
 SON OF THE LIVING GOD // THE NEO-TRINITARIAN SON OF GOD // TRINITARIANS
BECOME SUSPICIOUS // RONALD F. HOGAN // ADAM CLARKE // WALTER MARTIN // A
DIVIDED HOUSE // THE BEGOTTEN SON OF ONENESS // "UNBEGETTING" THE
BEGOTTEN SON // WHAT DOES MONOGENES MEAN? // SCHOLARSHIP AND
MONOGENES // ABOLISHING THE SON // WHAT ARE TRINITARIANS LEFT WITH? // THE
SON OF GOD AND HIS ORIGIN // THE PLACE // THE TIME // HIS MOTHER // HIS FATHER //
TRINITARIAN DILEMMA ABOUT CHRIST'S FATHER // WHO WAS BEGOTTEN? // ADAM
CLARKE AND THE ETERNAL SON // NATURE OF THE SON OF GOD // INFERIORITY OF
THE SON // CONCLUSION

SON OF THE LIVING GOD

"Whom do you say that I am?" was the question Jesus asked long ago. "Thou are the Christ, the son of
the living God" was Peter's divinely revealed answer (Matt. 16:15-18). It was upon this revealed truth,
that Christ was the Son of God, that the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18-19). Without a proper
understanding of the doctrine of the Son of God it is impossible to lay a true foundation. And without
a true foundation every other stone is out of place also. Oneness light is a return to the true and biblical
teaching concerning the Son of God.

THE NEO-TRINITARIAN SON OF GOD

Neo-Trinitarians and Classic Trinitarians commit their first error in defining the Son of God. From this
original heresy springs forth in rapid order all the other distorted teaching of the Trinity. From the start
everything is radically out of focus, and they prefer it that way. The plumbline has been moved from
Apostle Peter's simple confession to endless futile debate about consubstantiality, eternal generation,
perichoresis, and Logos theology. They just can't seem to accept clear and simple Bible truths at face
value. Everything must be invested with an aura of confusion and mutual contradiction , over which
they throw the blanket of "divine mystery." But this blanket is getting rather thread bare from centuries
of "cover-up" tactics. Let us first examine the "Son of God" doctrine that Trinitarians insist one must
"hold" if he "wishes to be saved" (Athanasian Creed).

To Trinitarians, the Son of God is eternal. He never had a beginning. he always existed alongside the
Father and Holy Spirit as a distinct person. He is co-equal with the other two in every respect.

"The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal, and yet there are not three
eternals, but one eternal."

"The Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, the Holy Spirit is Almighty. Yet there are not
three who are , but there is one who is Almighty."

"For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Holy Spirit is still another."

"For just as we are compelled by Christian Truth to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be
God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Christian religion to say there are three Gods or

54
 three Lords"

(Athanasian Creed, as quoted in Theodore G. Tappert, the Book of Concord, Mahlenberg

Press, Philadelphia, Pa. 1959).

So the Son is one of the three distinct Person, each of whom is fully God, yet at the same time there
are not three gods. So they tell us! The Son always existed as one of the three "Almighties," yet of
course there are not "three Almighties" (even though each of the three distinct Persons is an
"Almighty")!

Yet the Bible speaks of the Son as having an origin, being "begotten." So this must be "explained
away." The Creeds are equal to the task. They insist that the Son is "eternally begotten." In other
words the Father is always and perpetually "begetting" the Son.

"He is a derived representation of God the Father...a derived copy by eternal generation of God
the Father."

"He proceeds by eternal generation from the Father as the Son, and because eternal, that birth
never took place, it always was."

"Father and Son come into being at the same time, and since God never come into being, then
Christ never did either."

(As cited in "The God of Glory," by Ronald F.Hogan, Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, N.J. 1984,
p. 60).

To all of the above Dr. Boyd as of necessity must subscribe, for he not only endorses Athanasius (for
whom the Creed is named), but also endorses those "earliest Christian Fathers" who "cared about
nothing more than preserving intact, without any alteration, 'the faith that was once for all entrusted to
the saints' " (Boyd, p. 60-61). And that, of course, includes the creeds which they composed. In fact,
he warns us to be careful in our understanding of these Creeds lest we be guilty of

"a misapplication of the creedal language" (Boyd, p. 173).

Oneness believers are chided for having

"traded the mystery of the Trinity for the nonsensical notion of God as an undifferentiated
unity" (Boyd, 176).

Thus the Creeds, which set forth the "mystery," are more important than the Word, which sets forth
God as an "undifferentiated unity" in numerous passages (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 43:10-11, Isa. 44:24, Isa.
46:9, Deut. 4:35, Deut. 4:37).

Dr. Boyd is in perfect agreement with the Trinitarian Creeds (though not with the Bible) when he sets
forth his faith in the "eternal pre-existence of the Son." He writes on page 114:

55
 "If Jesus was indeed the 'Word,' 'image,' 'form,' 'Son,' and 'expression' of God the Father in
time, so he must in some sense always have been."

And he states further that he finds:

"...the truth of Christ's eternal pre-existence to be a firmly grounded teaching of Scripture"

(Boyd, p. 114).

And by this he means Christ's eternal pre-existence as "God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity."

TRINITARIANS BECOME SUSPICIOUS

The Trinitarians themselves are beginning to become suspicious of their own creeds as respects the
definition of the Son of God. And is it any wonder with such inane concepts as eternal begetting,
births that never took place, births that always were, derived copies, eternal generations, beings that
come into being while never coming into being, etc. etc. Bedlam itself could not have produced such
rantings. We should be praised, not rebuked, for "trading in the mystery of the Trinity."

RONALD F. HOGAN

Listen to what Ronald F. Hogan, leading Trinitarian, has to say about all this "creedal language"
concerning the Son:

"The sources of all the above remarks, and of numerous similar ones, emanating largely from
traditional formulae hammered out at frequently unharmonious and commonly acrimonious
church councils, quite likely would repudiate imputation to them of the doctrine that the Lord
of glory was a created being. Notwithstanding, their adoption and espousal of such theological
phraseology (e.g. 'derived,' 'copy,' 'created,' 'proceeds,' 'birth that always was,' 'creature,' 'born
before creation') cast shadow, rather than light, upon the fundamentalist conviction that co-
equality and co-eternity characterize nondispensational Godhead condition" (Hogan, p. 60).

Dr. Hogan continues in his expose of this "creedal language" with specific focus on the term "eternal
generation." He writes:

"In this regard, theologians have coined the expression 'eternal generation' in an attempt to
reconcile the title 'only begotten Son' with the truth of the Lord's uncreated essence as a divine
Person. Such an expression as 'eternal generation' is unfortunate, not on the grounds that it does
not occur in Scripture... but because it is composed of two diametrically opposite and mutually
exclusive English words. To purport to meet a theological dilemma...with a mystical
expression which is both self-canceling and also unilluminative is an unsatisfying solution, to
say the least."

Thus the Trinitarians doctrine of the "Eternal Son" begins at a "dilemma" (and a self-imposed one I
might add) and ends with "self canceling" and "unilluminative" solutions, unsatisfying ones at that!

ADAM CLARKE

56
Adam Clarke, whose monumental 6 volume commentary, is available in every Christian library and
recognized universally for its renown scholarship, had much to say in opposition to "eternal
generation" and "eternal sonship." In commenting on Luke 1:35 he has this to say:

"To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase 'eternal
Son' is a positive self contradiction: Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in
any reference to time. Son imposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to
such generation. Therefore, the conjunction of these two terms, son and eternity, is absolutely
impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

WALTER MARTIN

Walter Martin, prolific author and exposer of cults, had this to say regarding the same Trinitarian
definition of the Eternal Son:

"Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical 'eternal Sonship' or
'eternal generation' theory of the Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some
aspects of Protestant theology. Finally, there cannot be any such things as eternal Sonship, for
there is a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact that the word Son predicates time
and the involvement of creativity" (Walter Martin, Jehovah of the Watchtower, Bethany
House, Minneapolis, MN., 1974, p. 161).

A DIVIDED HOUSE

Seeing the Trinitarians cannot agree among themselves as to the correct definition of the Son, why
should they attempt to teach anyone else? By their own admission it is a "dilemma," "illogical,"
"absolutely impossible," "self canceling," and a "contradiction of terminology." And yet this is the
"eternal Son" doctrine Dr. Boyd would urge upon us instead of the Oneness explanation which he says
creates "a multitude of insuperable difficulties" is in radical need of trash removal. For it is littered
with contradictions, impossibilities, and dilemmas, as reported to us by his own Trinitarian
neighbours!

Let us leave the divided and squabbling house of the Trinitarians as they "eternally" fight over the
definition of the Son of God. We shall examine what Oneness and the Bible have to say on this
subject.

THE BEGOTTEN SON OF ONENESS

Christ is called "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14), the "only begotten Son" (John 1:18, I
John 4:9), "His only begotten Son (John 3:16), and "the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). The
Angel told Mary that her Son was begotten of God (Luke 1:35), and God Himself told the Son that he
was begotten : "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Hebrews 1:5). What more is needed?
The Son is not "eternal," he was begotten!

57
The term begotten is an earthly term, not celestial or eternal. It is used to describe human beings who
are brought into existence through reproduction and born of a mother. Webster's dictionary states
under "begotten" the following:

"beget, begotten: to bring into being as offspring; to produce or cause."

The terms Son, likewise is humanly and earthly connected:

Son - "a male offspring, male child born of a woman."

So we can see from this that the Son "Came into being" hence He cannot, as the Son, be
eternal. Neither could He have existed from all eternity in heaven, for He was a "male child,
born of a woman." And such contradictions do not obtain in Heaven!

"UNBEGETTING" THE BEGOTTEN SON

Neo-Trinitarians in their desperation to sustain their untenable theory have begun toying with the text
of Scripture. Frantic to get rid of the idea of a "begotten" Son (which they realize is fatal to the Trinity)
they have "discovered" something that had been overlooked for nearly 2,000 years. And what is this
marvelous discovery? "New light" on the Greek, they say, shows that the word "begotten" is a
mistranslation! The Greek term "monogenes" should be rendered "unique," "one of a kind" or just
"only". No thought of generation is implied, they maintain. Thus Dr. Boyd writes:

"First as is widely recognized by contemporary biblical scholarship, the Johanine Semitic

phrase 'only begotten' (monogenes) is not a biological term. Rather, the term specifies
uniqueness. 'Mono' means 'one' and 'genos' means 'kind.' Jesus is therefore, not God's only born
Son (in contrast to all his nonbegotten sons?); rather, he is, as the NIV rightly translates it,
God's 'one and only' Son" (Boyd, p. 113).

WHAT DOES MONOGENES MEAN?

It seems Neo-Trinitarians will stop at nothing, even altering the Word of God, in their frenzied efforts
to keep their leaky theological raft afloat. Instead of bailing out however, they have just added a curse
to their sin of heresy, "for is any man shall take away from the words of this book" we are informed,
"God shall take away his part out of the book of Life" (Rev. 22:19). Dangerous work this
Trinitarianism.

The "New Translation" for monogenes is a Trinitarian fiction and flies in the face of 2,000 years of
scholarship. The ancient church fathers always translated it as "begotten." they always understood it as
"begotten," and so wrote of it. These men lived 1,700 years closer to the original manuscripts. They
not only knew the ancient Greek, they spoke it as their mother tongue! The Council of Nicea was
conducted in Greek! Surely they would know their own language. They did. And that is why they
included the word "begotten" repeatedly in all the ancient creeds. They never once substituted
"unique" or "one and only." Seventeen hundred years later some "johnny-come-latelys" would teach
them their own language! We have seen previously how disastrous it turned out to be for Trinitarians
when they attempted to teach the Jews the fundamentals of Hebrew regarding such terms as Elohim

58
and "yachid." Their attempt to teach the ancient Greek Fathers their own Greek tongue will prove
equally embarrassing. The Trinitarian Fathers tried to circumvent the idea of a "begotten" Son by
postulating an "eternal" begetting; they didn't dare try to change the meaning of the word. Indeed, they
couldn't, for they would have been "laughed out of court." Everyone knew what monogenes meant.

Besides, other things weigh in against the Neo-Trinitarian case. What can they do with such texts as
Matt. 1:20 where Joseph is informed "that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Ghost" (margin). Are
we to translate this as "that which is 'uniqued' in her is of the Holy Ghost?" Or how about Hebrews 1:5
which reads, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Are we to now render it: "Thou art my
Son, this day have I 'one and onlyed' thee?" Dr. Boyd unbelievably explains it away by linking it to
Solomon's Coronation Ceremony!

"The Old Testament passages the author is quoting speak of an ideal king's relationship to the
God of Israel and have nothing to do with the biological birth of the king. Rather they simply
speak of God's openly declaring (probably during the coronation ceremony) his special
relationship to the king, and through the king to all of Israel" (Boyd, p. 112).

In other words, any interpretation will do, except the one which scripturally relates the "begetting" to
the child who was "begotten!" he starts with the premise that the verse cannot means what it "says," so
anything is possible after that. Such "reasoning in chains" will never arrive at correct conclusions.

In Hebrews 1:5, as a matter of fact, the writer is bringing forth the argument that Christ is better than
the angels because he has a better title, Son of God. And the reason he has this better title is grounded
in the fact that he was "begotten." For angels are also called "sons of God (Job 2:10), but they are
never said to be "begotten Sons." Only to Christ belongs the unique privilege of having been
"begotten" directly to God; something that could never be said of angels. Therefore, to remove the
"begetting of the Son" from this passage is tantamount to destroying the whole argument!

If the correct translation is God's "one and only son" that means there can be no more sons of God at
all! Adam will be surprised to find out he was not a son of God (Luke 3:38). Angels will be surprised
to find out they were not either (Job 2:1). But most surprised of all will be the multitude of Christians
who have been told they too were sons of God (I John 3:1-2). For if Jesus is the "one and only" Son of
God, then there can be no room for others, whether they be created, or adopted. And of course this
flies in the face of Scripture which does indeed call both angels and Christians "Sons of God." One
Neo-Trinitarian denial of Scriptures seemed to have spawned others! On contrast however, if one
accepts the correct translation that Jesus was "God's only begotten Son" then there is plenty of room
for angels, who (like Adam) were "created" sons, and Christians who are "adopted" Sons (Rom. 8:15).
Christ is still the only Son who was ever "begotten by God." Dr. Boyd brushes aside the whole
embarrassing issue of God's other "sons" by stuffing the entire concept into a parenthesis and tacking a
question mark on the end of it:

"(in contrast to all of his nonbegotten sons?") (Boyd, p. 113).

But its not dismissed that easy. God does have other sons, created and adopted, which would render it
impossible for Jesus to be God's "one and only" Son as Neo-Trinitarians would like to call him. Unless

59
Jesus is God's "only begotten Son" then we Christians cannot be sons at all according to this Neo-
Trinitarian linguistic Charade.

SCHOLARSHIP AND MONOGENES

The Greek word for "only begotten" is, as we have seen, "monogenes." It comes from "mono"
meaning "only," and "ginomai," a root word meaning "to generate," "to become (come into being)."
This is the definition defined for us by Dr. Strong in his Exhaustive Concordance. E. Robinson, in his
Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, also defines it as:

"only born, only begotten, i.e., an only child."

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says:

"Monogenes, means of sole descent, i.e., without brothers or sisters."

Kittel also goes on to state:

"The relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation
of the only begotten to the Father."

The same Greek word, monogenes, is used to describe Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" in
Hebrews 11:17. There can be no question that Isaac was generated by Abraham and born of a woman.
He did not pre-exist with Abraham before his birth. George Ricker Berry, who was a professor of Old
Testament and Semitic languages at Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, and who held a PhD from the
University of Chicago, consistently rendered monogenes as "begotten" in his monumental work,
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Even Dr. Vines, who loves to weave Trinitarian
interpretations around everything he writes, was forced on page 822 of his Expository Dictionary of
the New Testament, to list under "only begotten" the Greek word "monogenes" and to give five
references in John's writings where it was used. If he could have honestly gotten out of it, he would
have!

And to all these authorities can be added the names of Dr. Boyd's favorite historical figures, namely
Augustine, Aquinas, the Cappodocian Fathers, Calvin, etc. For they all believed the correct translation
of "monogenes" was "only begotten." Their writings are full of it. They would never have
countenanced this new and novel mistranslation. The old Trojan had it right, "beware of the Greeks
bearing gifts." Especially if those linguistic "gifts" are attempts to supplant the Word of God in the
interest of Platonic speculation!

Why anyone who is a Christian would even attempt to remove the begetting of the Son is beyond me.
The battle is hopeless from the onset, for two whole chapters of the New Testament (Luke 1 and
Matthew 1) are devoted to giving the entire story of this glorious event. How can they hope to remove
this? What strange and mysterious compulsions must drive them. Like the strange and mysterious
lemmings of Scandinavia they race blindly and irresistibly to their own death.

ABOLISHING THE SON

60
Feeling satisfied with having "settled" the "begotten issue," Neo-Trinitarians proceed to abolish the
"Son issue" in the same manner. For they have discovered that the title "Son of God" is no big deal
after all. Dr. Boyd writes:

"The title 'Son of God' was primarily a moral and theological title throughout the ancient
Semitic world, and throughout scripture" (Boyd, p. 111).

It sounds almost mundane. Christ seems to have somehow (for it wasn't through the Virgin Birth they
argue!) picked up this rather well circulated, and previously used, "moral and theological title." And
the Virgin Birth is described in equally ho-hum fashion, for

"the angel was simply telling Mary that she was going to miraculously conceive a supremely
holy child who will be called the Son of God. Nothing more can be read into this" (Boyd, 111).

"A supremely holy child" who is invested with an apparently shop-worn "moral and theological title"
that had been making the rounds in" the ancient Semitic world." In fact, Dr. Boyd finds

"nothing to suggest that Luke was thinking in primarily biological terms when he records the
angel as connecting Jesus' divine conception with his title of Son of God" (Boyd, 111).

Nothing "biological" in a woman giving birth to a male and that child being called Son?! Are we to
suppose that Christ arrived here by means of a celestial stork?

And as we have pointed out before, the final coup de grace arrives when Dr. Boyd informs us that
Jesus is not really a literal son after all!

"When following Scripture, call God 'the Father' and Jesus 'the Son,' we are speaking
analogically, not literally. We are saying that the loving relationship that exists between God
and Jesus is like that of a father and a son, but of course, devoid of physical characteristics that
are present inhuman father-son relationships" (Boyd, 63-64).

The Son of God is not "literally" a son. It is all an "analogy." He is "like" a Son but of course he isn't,
not "literally" that is, for that would be too "human" you see! He further states that the title "Son of
God" is not to be taken to mean that we should view "Jesus" as the literal progeny of God the Father
(Boyd, p. 63). That would be "crass literalism" and would connect us with "pagan mythologies."

WHAT ARE TRINITARIANS LEFT WITH?

Trinitarians start with a scriptural designation of Christ as the only begotten Son of God. It was in the
Bible in five places for all to read. But they toyed with the Greek until their linguistic sleight of hand
caused the word "begotten" to disappear. Next they worked on the word "Son." They made it "non-
literal" and just an "analogy." So it too, for all practical purposes, has also disappeared. It was not such
a great loss however, for you must remember, it was only a "moral and theological title" of the
"ancient Semitic world." So what are they left with? Absolutely nothing! They have joined the ranks
of other deniers of the Father and the Son which Apostle John cursed as Anti-Christs in 1 John 2:22.
But they can fellowship with the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church, which insists on

61
dropping use of the word "Son" and replacing it with "offspring" or "child." For they will have none of
this "sexist literalism" which calls Christ "Son," and God "Father," lest it offend their lesbian
feminists. They too feel such "Father/Son language" (as Dr. Boyd calls it on page 63) is too
"anthropomorphical." And they are also in agreement with Dr., Boyd that it "attributes to God the
human characteristics of sexuality" (Boyd, p. 63). That's their argument exactly! God should not be
viewed in "sexist" terms, and "Father" and "Son" are definitely "sexist" terms. How long will it be
until Neo-Trinitarians also opt in favour of "sexually neutral" terms such as "Parent," "child,"
"offspring," "heir," instead of "Father" and "Son?" Some Trinitarian denominations, like the United
Methodist Church, are already rewriting their hymnbooks (again!!) to eliminate references to God as
"Father" and Jesus as "Son." Although Dr. Boyd and fellow Neo-Trinitarians positively do not
advocate (at least not yet) such gross rewriting of the divine revelation, nevertheless, their doctrinal
premises are the same ones used by these "rewriters" of Scriptures and hymns. For if God is not
literally a "Father," they say, and if Jesus is not literally a "Son," and its all "analogy" why not
"update" things and use "politically correct" neutral terms that are not sexually biased? Certainly the
tradition that produced such terms as first, second, third, person, Trinity, and "Light of Light" and
"God of God" will not consider it any great "quantum leap" to call the Godhead "parent and offspring"
or "Sovereign and Heir." They might even follow Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Scientists and
call God "Father-Mother." That would please everyone! When you start down the road of "analogy"
there's no telling where you will wind up, except ultimately it will be in Hell!

THE SON OF GOD AND HIS ORIGIN

The Scriptural record is quite clear concerning the Son of God and His origin. There is no "mystery"
that shrouds these facts. While Trinitarians try to explain Him in terms of "births that never were" and
"eternal generations," the Bible record offers no such nonsense. Let us now review what Scripture sets
forth concerning our Lord and how he was begotten.

THE PLACE

The place where the Son of God was begotten was not "up in Heaven" during "eternity past," but
rather right here on earth, in a city of ancient Israel called Nazareth. In Luke 1 the Bible records a
marvelous event, namely the begetting of the Son of God:

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named
Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and
the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art
highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him,
she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:26-31.

It is right here in Nazareth that the conceiving or begetting occurred. Mary was not transported to
Heaven for this glorious act. You may search your Bible from cover to cover, you will find no other
location or setting mentioned for the "begetting" of the Son. Neither will you find a prior "celestial"
begetting that antedates the one described here. When Mary's espoused husband Joseph found out that

62
she was pregnant, he was of a mind to put her away. But the angel appeared to him in a dream and
explained in unambiguous words, and not only to him but to every succeeding generation, just what
had transpired there in Nazareth. :

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a
dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that
which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:20

THE TIME

The Bible says the begetting occurred on a particular day.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 1:5

Seeing it occurred on a "day" and not in "eternity past," we must search the calendars of earth's history
to locate this specific time. This begetting, as we have seen, occurred at Nazareth to a virgin named
Mary. This event, according to the marginal date of the Bible, took place in the year BC 4. If this
dating system is reliable, and many scholars believe it is, then the begetting of the Son of God
occurred in the year 4 BC. No other begetting is described for Him in the Bible, so we must conclude
this is the time referred to in Heb. 1:5.

HIS MOTHER

The mother of the Son of God, as we have seen, was a virgin named Mary, of the lineage of David.
Mary is called the mother of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:18, and it is universally conceded by all that
she is indeed his mother. The Trinitarians in formulating their "Creed of Chalcedon" invested Mary
with the title "Mother of God." This she is never called in Scripture! This blasphemy is a direct result
of Trinitarianism, the matrix from which it sprang, for in the Trinity Jesus Christ is the Second Person,
God the Son. Therefore Mary would indeed be the "Mother of God." In Oneness however we are not
forced into such an anti-biblical position. For we recognize Mary as the Mother of the man Christ
Jesus, the Son or flesh. She is not, nor even could be, the mother of his divine indwelling nature, the
Father or Spirit. Now we approach the shore of controversy, who is the Father of the Son of God?

HIS FATHER

The One who begat Jesus in the womb of Mary was the Holy Ghost:

...before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:18.

...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matt 1:20

63
 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

Nothing could be clearer. Three times in Scripture the Holy Ghost is declared to be the Father of Jesus.
The Holy Ghost is another title for the one infinite and undivided God. For God is Holy (John 17:11),
and He is a Spirit (John 4:24), hence God is the Holy Spirit. By this act of begetting a Son, God
became something he never had been before, namely the Father of a human child through procreation.
The second half of Hebrews 1:5 is now fulfilled:

And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son

Heb 1:5

The Father and the Son relationship comes into existence at this point. On the day the Son was
begotten, God became Father. God has been called Father before in the Bible, but never in relationship
to a begotten Son. He was the Father of Creation, and a Father to the nation of Israel. But it is on this
day in Nazareth 2,000 years ago that He became Father of the Son of God. This is why we do not read
of "Father and Son" in the Old Testament (except in prophetic reference). At that time the "day" had
not yet come. After the birth of Christ, the references to God as Father multiply dramatically.

TRINITARIAN DILEMMA ABOUT CHRIST'S FATHER

Trinitarians have a real serious problem with all this. For in their theory God the Father (First person
of the Trinity) is a distinct person from God the Holy Ghost (Third Person of the Trinity). Therefore
how did God the Father (First Person) ever get to be the Father of Christ, if the whole begetting was
done by the Holy Ghost, or "Third Person?" In short, the Third Person is the one the Bible says
"begot" the Second Person (Christ) instead of the First Person, who is supposed to be the real Father!
Carl Brumback seeks to escape this dilemma by comparing the virgin birth to some sort of surrogate
act or artificial insemination theory. But this is all desperation, and borders on blasphemy. Dr. Boyd
seeks to solve the problem by declaring there is none! Seeing Jesus is not "literally" the Son of God,
but only in an "analogous" sense, it doesn't matter who "begot" Him! He writes:

"When we understand this, we see no problem whatsoever in affirming that the one who
miraculously created the human seed that the Word of God became (John 1:14) was the Holy
Spirit, even though the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct 'persons' in the Godhead" (Boyd,
p. 64).

No problem who the father was because there wasn't any "literal" Father anyhow! That's all relegated
to "crass literalism" and "pagan mythology" even though God thundered from Heaven, "This is my
beloved Son, Trinitarians in the crowd would have whispered, "not really, you know."

WHO WAS BEGOTTEN?

64
The Son of God came into existence as a direct result of the Virgin Birth. He did not exist as the Son
of God before that time. Nothing is plainer in Scripture than this. Numerous scholars, including
Trinitarians, attest to this fact. A reading of the passage makes this crystal clear:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35

The word "therefore" in this text is very important. It is because of this begetting by the Holy Ghost
that the child would be called the "Son of God." There is no other reason offered in Scripture for
Christ being called the Son of God other than the fact that God was His Father in this birth! Naturally
when Dr. Boyd cites Luke 1:35 on page 111, he uses a translation which omits the word "therefore." It
is very damaging to their theory of the angel "simply telling Mary she was going to conceive a
supremely holy child" who would also be known by a "moral and theological title" common in the
"ancient Semitic world," namely, Son of God! They ground none of it in the Virgin Birth! The Bible
grounds all of it in that event. Dr.,. Boyd grudgingly concludes that "Son of God" might somehow be
related to his Birth, but adds:

"Still, even if one persists in this biologically oriented interpretation of the verse, this could
only be shown to give us one of the New Testament reasons why Jesus is called the Son of
God. It cannot be used to prove the only reason Jesus is the Son of God" (Boyd, 112).

However, Dr. Boyd neglects to give us any of the "other reasons" Jesus is called the Son of God. the
explanation for this is simple. There are none!

ADAM CLARKE AND THE ETERNAL SON

Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians pretend as if Oneness was the only group that taught the Birth
related Sonship doctrine. The fact is many Trinitarians have seen the fallacy of the "eternal Son"
theory and abandoned it. Hear what Adam Clarke, a Trinitarian commentator, had to say:

"To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase 'eternal
Son' is a positive self contradiction:"

He goes on, waxing ever hotter:

"The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who would
value Jesus and their salvation abide by these scriptures. This doctrine of the 'eternal Sonship'
as has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and
do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has
terminated in Socianism, and that is Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abettors, may
God save His church! Amen!" (Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, p. 360-361).

NATURE OF THE SON OF GOD

65
The Son of God is a reference to our Lord's human nature exclusively. The Son of God is a man,
howbeit a perfect and sinless man. The title Son of God is not a reference to our Lord's divine nature
(which He revealed as Father), but rather a reference to the fact that he was a complete man. Christ
had a man's body, as well as soul and spirit. He possessed a man's mind or brain, and therefore had a
human will. The Son of God was not just merely the "body" or the "flesh" God dwelt in . No, Christ
was the Man in whom God was incarnate. He is called Son of God, because on His Father's side he is
of course, God's Son. God was His Father, hence, he is the Son of God. He is also called Son of Man;
man being used in the sense of "humanity" or the "human family." He is thus called because on his
mother's side his ancestral line is in the human family. Mary was human, or "man," of "mankind."
Christ was her son, therefore he was Son of mankind. Those two titles show both sides of his "family
tree." They are not given to indicate two natures, one divine (Son of God), and one human (Son of
Man). When Jesus wished to identify His divine nature, he referred to it as the Father (John 14:10), not
the Son.

INFERIORITY OF THE SON

The proof that the title Son refers to Christ's humanity, dependent nature comes through clearly and in
many places in John's Gospel. We shall consider a few.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do
nothing of himself,...
John 5:19

If the Son was the Second Divine Person of the Godhead why did he say he could do "nothing?" The
answer is obvious: "Son" does not refer to a "divine" person, but to a human "person," who in his own
power can do nothing. Christ implies however that there is another "self" or "power" in him when he
says, "Can do nothing of himself." Then who or what is doing these works? The answer we already
know is the Father, who is resident in Him.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: ...

John 5:30

The Son, being a man, did not have eternal immortal life dwelling in him inherently. It is not the
property of men to have divine and original God-life in them. But the Son of God "was given" to have
this divine life in him through the incarnation. For this "life" is property of, and characteristic of, the
Father. The Father now dwells in the human Son as His Temple, and has thereby "transferred" this
"life" to the Son!

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John 7:16

The Son claims He is not speaking from his own nature:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I
speak of myself.
John 7:17

66
He speaks from the Father nature, and thereby brings forth the Father's doctrine. He disclaims
speaking from his own nature, that of the Son.

...the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he
doeth the works.
John 14:10

When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing
of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
John 8:28

Nothing could be more direct. The Son is not the real source of the words or works, fro the Son can of
Himself do nothing! It is the Father that is doing it all out of the human temple of His Son. And where
does the Son indicate the Father is? Up in Heaven at this time? Absolutely not!

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;
John 8:29

A short time afterwards the Son states it even more specifically:

...believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 10:38

CONCLUSION

From Scripture we see that the Son of God was a perfect sinless man, begotten by God Almighty in
the womb of the Virgin Mary. He was born in Bethlehem of Judea around 4 BC, and named Jesus
Christ. In his human body was also incarnated God the Father, the Great Divine Spirit. Thus the Son of
God was also that Temple in which God dwelt. It is in this way, and this way only, that Jesus derives
his deity as the God-Man. the scriptures do not reveal an eternally past existent Son dwelling alongside
His Father up in Heaven through ages past.

CHAPTER VIII
JESUS IS THE FATHER
IN HIS DIVINE NATURE, IS CHRIST "GOD THE FATHER" OR "GOD THE SON"?
IF CHRIST IS THE FATHER, DID HE EVER SAY SO DIRECTLY?
ARE TRINITARIANS CORRECT WHEN THEY SAY THE ONENESS DOCTRINE IS
"OPAQUE" OR "WHOLLY ABSENT" FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT?

INDENTIFYING THE DIVINE NATURE // REVELATION OF THE PARABLE //

CORNERSTONE OF ONENESS // ONE PLAIN STATEMENT PLEASE // ISAIAH 9:6 //
"FATHER" AS A STANDARD TITLE // TURNING THE TABLES // THE FATHERHOOD OF
CHRIST IN JOHN'S GOSPEL // JOHN REMAINED ONENESS TO THE END // ON WHAT DO

67
 WE STAND? // JESUS IS THE FATHER BY COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE //
WHO RESURRECTED CHRIST? // WHO ANSWERS PRAYER? // SENDING THE SPIRIT //
DRAWING POWER // RAISING THE DEAD // JESUS AS FATHER IN THE BOOK OF
REVELATION // ANCIENT OF DAYS // ALONGSIDE THE THRONE OR ON THE THRONE? //
ALHA AND OMEGA // TWO ALPHA AND OMEGAS! ! // CHRIST, THE TABERNACLE OF
GOD // THE LAMB WITH THE BOOK // SUMMARY // AN EX-JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
NOTICES SOMETHING // THE USE OF KAI // JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD

IDENTIFYING THE DIVINE NATURE

When Jesus began his public ministry, the Bible records that mysterious and miraculous
manifestations emanated from the Him. He could read what was hidden in the human heart, knew the
thoughts of the mind, could see people at distances impossible for human vision, and even walked on
water (Mark 2:8; John 4:17-18; John 1:48; John 6:19). There was something within Him that enabled
Him to do these things. Once, a woman touched Him and that Power went out from Him to her (Luke
8:46); on another occasion, that same supernatural Power shone from within Him and illuminated His
body and "hew was transfigured before them and did shine as the sun" (Matthew 17:2. What was it
that was in Christ, working through Him in supernatural power? Christ Himself gave the answer in
clear unmistakable terms:

"...The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

The only divine nature that Christ ever identified as dwelling within Him was the Father. This is the
biblical explanation of how Christ is said to be God, for "God was in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19).

Three hundred years after Christ identified his divine nature as the Father, men would set aside His
statement and look for other explanations. Explanations that were more compatible with Greek
Philosophy and pagan culture.. They would postulate that it was a "divine logos" or "the second
Person of the Trinity" that dwelt in Christ. Some would say that it was a "Celestial Christ" that dwelt
in the human Jesus and so forth. The Oneness of the Godhead teaching is a return to the original
explanation that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave to the world:

"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." (John 14:11).

To the further expansion of this truth the next few pages are dedicated.

REVELATION OF THE PARABLE

Jesus told His disciples he had hidden the doctrine of the Father beneath a veil of parables:

"These things have I spoken unto you in parables (margin): but the time cometh when I shall
no more speak unto you in parables, but I shall show you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).

This making "plain" the doctrine of the Father would require a special revelation to the believers:

68
 "...no man knoweth who the Son is, but he Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and to he
whom the son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22).

Without this "revelation" this knowledge of the Father and the Son is "hidden" from the wise and
prudent of this world (Luke 10:21). Those who fail to see that the Father is dwelling in Christ as God
and seek to find him somewhere else are in the same pitiful condition as Phillip who asked Jesus
"Shew us the Father," while staring at Him! (John 14:8). Such thinking shows a lack of revelation, and
a dependence on speculation.

CORNERSTONE OF ONENESS

Trinitarians are correct when they refer to our teaching concerning the Fatherhood of Christ as the
"Cornerstone of Oneness Theology." No one is truly in the message until they acknowledge Christ as
Father. A person may proclaim Jesus as Lord from the "rising of the sun to the going down of the
same," but until they can say, like Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), they have made only
half a confession. And to call Him God, and not mean God the Father, is a distorted confession, "for to
us there but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor. 8:6). The chain cannot be broken. If He is Lord, then He is
God. And if He is God, then He is Father. And He is! This is the line drawn in the sand, and the true
litmus test of Biblical Christology. Anything else is a contradiction of Christ's own statement.

ONE PLAIN STATEMENT PLEASE

We are asked by our opponents to produce some direct statement that Christ is actually God the
Father. And before we answer, they answer us by saying

"...of course such language is completely absent from the New Testament" (Boyd, 69).

And as a result of this they declare that

"UPCI exegetes have to strain to find...far-fetched cryptic references to Jesus alleged

identity..." (Boyd, 69).

ISAIAH 9:6

We did not have to "strain" so hard or "fetch" so far to find direct statements calling Christ the
"Father." In fact, one has been on record now for 2700 years. I am referring to Christ's prophetic Birth
Announcement in Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

That is as plain and direct as language can make it. "A son" who is "the everlasting Father." Does this
satisfy our opponents? No! Like spoiled children they seem never to be satisfied, no matter what we
toss into their play pen. They always cry for more! Dr. Boyd himself starts to back pedal by saying

69
 "...even if we were to concede that such esoteric interpretation were possible, there are yet
several basic considerations that immediately render it more improbable" (Boyd, 72).

He then begins to enumerate no less than eight different alternatives to believing what it actually says.
One more "esoteric" than the next. We are told it could mean:

"Father-forever," "Father for all times," "he will not be a despot," "Messiah's paternal role,"
"Father over his children," "good shepherd," "Father of all ages," "Lord of Time and History"
(Boyd, 71-73).

Theologians from everywhere are recruited in this effort: Leupold, Herbert, Alexander, Mauchline,
Young, Wainright, Barnes, and Bowman (Boyd, 71-73). Think of it. Eight different interpretations,
eight different theologians, nearly seven hundred words, all mustered up in battle array to explain
(explain away, that is) just one word - "Father." It seems like an awful lot of firetrucks for such a small
fire! And still it won't go out! There is nothing they can do with it no matter how hard they try. The
more they chew it, the bigger it gets. they can't swallow any of these interpretations themselves, and
they want us to. None of these so-called explanations satisfy them. I read these more and more when I
was a Trinitarian, so I ought to know! They will quote and cite anyone, no matter how far afield, to try
and thwart this verse's impact. It doesn't matter who they are, "Catholic, Protestant or Jew; Eskimo,
Hottentot or Sioux." As long as they have something to say. Any alternative is better to them than
believing what it says - Jesus is the Father. They have no qualms about changing "Father" into
"Shepherd," "Lord of Time," or "Messiah's Paternal Role." And they accuse us of "straining" and
"fetching far." What could be further fetched or more strenuously strained than that?

Trinitarian theologians are not even consistent in this effort. For they will freely admit that the
reference to son in Isaiah 9:6 is speaking to his Godhead position, but will deny us the same privilege
concerning the reference to him as Father. What will they allow themselves in the first half of the
verse, they deny us in the second half!

"FATHER" AS A STANDARD TITLE

In a desperate bid to blunt the force of this verse, we are told that the word "Father" was not a
"Standard title" for God in the Old Testament; hence the reference to Christ as Father in Isaiah 9:6
couldn't mean "God the Father" (Boyd, 72).

But let's not take Dr. Boyd's word for it on this point. We shall consult Isaiah Himself. We read in
Isaiah 63:16:

Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us
not: thou, O LORD (Jehovah-Hebrew), art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from
everlasting.

And furthermore in Isaiah 64:8

But now, O LORD (Jehovah-Hebrew), thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our
potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

70
We have thus so far heard two "our Fathers" from an Orthodox Jew, and both referring to God as
Father. Malachi bears witness to the same:

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every
man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Malachi 2:10

David said,

Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be
thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.
1 Chronicles 29:10

God commanded the children of Israel to call Him "Father" in Jeremiah 3:19:

But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly
heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn
away from me.

King David was to cry unto God:

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
Psalm 89:26

And yet we are told "Father" was not a standard title for God in the Old Testament. By the time of
Christ, the Jews were already recognizing Father as a standard title for God, based on this Old
Testament precedent:

...we have one Father, even God.

John 8:41.

Thus Malachi, Jeremiah, David, and Isaiah himself bear witness that the reference to Christ in Isaiah
9:6 as "Father" is a reference to Him as "God, the Father." Leupold. Mauchline, Wainright et.al not
withstanding!

TURNING THE TABLES

Seeing we have produced a direct statement in which Christ is called Father, would it not be fair to ask
our opponents to do likewise as respects their doctrine! We would like them to produce one direct
statement which calls Christ the "Second Person of the Trinity" or even "God the Son." Seeing this is a
concept they wish to impose on us, is it unreasonable that we should ask for at least one reference to
that effect? And seeing Dr. Boyd likes to define Christ as a "Personally Distinct Way" or a "Personally
Distinct Fashion" in which God exists, would he care to give us chapter and verse for those two
appellations? Certainly they would not demand of us, what they themselves are unwilling to do!

What if, instead of calling Christ the everlasting Father, Isaiah said:

71
 "His name shall be called God the Son"

or ...

"His name shall be called Distinct Fashion?"

Our opponents would wear out the verse from use, and demand that we accept it "just as it is written"
with no quibbling over interpretation! But Father He is, and Father He shall remain for "everlasting"
means just that!

THE FATHERHOOD OF CHRIST IN JOHN'S GOSPEL

The Gospel of John furnishes abundant proof that the divine nature resident in our Lord was God the
Father, and not some other "person." In reading John's Gospel, one must always bear in mind Christ's
definition of God. He said in John 4:24:

"God is a Spirit."

He did not say God was "three Persons" or even "One Person". God is a Spirit, and as such he no
material or corporate parts (Luke 24:39). He is therefore capable of indwelling the body of His Son,
Jesus Christ, and using that body as his own and manifest itself within the body of Christ, thus making
Christ "God manifest in the flesh." We will now examine the texts from John which establish Christ as
the embodied Father.

JOHN 10:30

The Jews demanded that Christ tell them plainly who he was. And he did. "I and my Father are one"
(John 10:30). He did not state, as Trinitarians teach, that he and the Father were two distinct persons,
co-equal in one substance. Rather he proclaimed identity with the Father in this verse.

Trinitarians have always used this verse in a contradictory fashion. When arguing with Arians, like
Jehovah's Witnesses, they gladly parade it out and say, "you see, Jesus is God - I and my Father are
On." But when engaged with Oneness opponents they reverse themselves saying, "the word 'one' is not
absolute. It means something like a husband and wife being one." Thus they never seem to be able to
make up their minds. I might mention in passing, even though a husband and wife are one in a sense, it
is not the same sense as Jesus and he Father. For no husband can say, "He that hath seen me hath seen
my wife!"

Dr. Boyd advances some of the traditional arguments against this verse when he says,

"...to be one with someone is hardly the same as being identical with that person..."

And he uses the example of the Church being "one." He also makes the utterly astonishing assertion
that Jesus clearly distinguished Himself from the father in the verses immediately preceding and
succeeding John 10:30 (Boyd, 76). This invites examination which will prove the exact opposite of
what Dr. Boyd contends.

72
In the verses immediately preceding John 10:30, Jesus referred to his sheep, the true believers, as
being in his hand (v. 28). Then he said the very same sheep were actually in His Father's hand (v. 29).
The Jews began to wonder within themselves how the sheep could be simultaneously in Christ's hand
and also in the Father's. What was Christ asserting? Was His hand the same as the Father's hand?
Christ, reading their thoughts, "for he knew what was in man," responded "I and my Father are one"
(John 10:30). Instead of denying the conclusion forming in their minds, he confirmed it. The Jews
understood the significance of this and picked up stones to stone Him, saying, 'Thou being a man
makest thyself God." (John 10:31-33). Now when Trinitarians are able to establish a "personal
distinction" between a man and his own hand, they will have proven their "separate identity theory"
also. And this is as impossible to do as to establish a "personal distinction" between a man and his own
breath, something which they also must do to prove their theory that Christ is not the Holy Ghost, for
"he breathed on them and said: receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:28). These tasks are herulean.
They cannot accomplish them. They would have to sever from Christ His very hand and stop His own
breath. Things they would not do, even if they could, which they can't. Thank God!

Oh, but they say, the hand is used here in a figurative sense, it is not literal. Fine. We were hoping they
would say that. Figurative speech always has as its goal the teaching of a literal truth. So if Jesus is
using hand in a figurative sense, what is the truth he is trying to illustrate? Just this, a man and his
hand are identical as to person. Therefore, if Christ's hand is the Father's hand, they are identical as to
person. Therefore, if Christ's hand is the Father's hand, they are identical as to person. When a man
asks "figuratively" for a girl's hand in marriage, he is expecting a complete person to come down the
aisle, not just five fingers. The reality is always greater than the figure used to portray it.

As far as the verses succeeding John 10:30 distinguishing Christ from the Father, they prove equally
devastating to the separate identity theory. For Christ's concluding statement is:

"...that ye may know and believe, that the father is in me, and I in Him" (John 10:30).

Some distinction that!

In One last effort to thwart the impact of this verse, Dr., Boyd has found something truly unique while
rummaging around in the basement of Church History - something used by the "ancient champions of
the Trinity" (Boyd, 75). Christ, he maintains, cannot be claiming identity wit the Father, because if he
had, he would have said: "I and my Father am one." he says the use of the plural verb (are) indicates
plural persons. But what about John 3:11, where Christ uses plural pronouns and plural verbs in
referring to Himself alone? Is there a "plurality" also in the Son, just because Christ says:

"We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen and ye receive not our witness?"

Or would Dr. Boyd prefer we re-translate it: "We speak what we knows, and testifies what we sees?"

"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you" (Job 12:2).

JOHN 14:7-10

73
 "Whom do you say I am,
From whence do you say I came?
Do you know the Father,
Can you tell His name?"

So runs a couplet in an old Oneness song. But it asks a profound question.: Do you know the Father?

Phillip wanted to know the Father and asked Jesus...

"Lord shew the Father and it sufficeth us?"

Jesus immediately identified Himself as the embodied Father when He responded...

"...yet thou hast not known me, Phillip?"

Then was immediately added,...

"He that hath seen me hath seen the father, and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father"
(John 14:8-9)?

What could be more direct? Phillip asked to see the Father and Jesus rebuked him saying "You don't
know me yet?"

Using the inquiry as a spring board Jesus unveils the doctrine of the Father's indwelling.

Believest thou that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I
speak not of myself: But the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works
John 14:10.

This is the incarnation of the Father in the Son. the Father, who is Spirit as to "essence," has taken up
residence in a man, His Son, by supernatural generation, and is operating through Him. God is
dwelling in Christ to such an extent that Christ has all the attributes and powers of God and can
honestly assert that the prerogatives and titles of Deity. Jesus is the human temple (John 2:19) of the
otherwise invisible Father. The Father is therefore Christ's divine nature.

The sheer power of these verses force Dr. Boyd to say something. He comments that ...

"In a sense, of course, these verses do imply that Jesus is the manifestation or 'embodiment' of
the Father. The main intent of John 14:7-10 is to assure us that the 'Father' is not a different
'God' than the God revealed in Christ. One does not, and cannot, look someplace else to 'see'
and 'know' God the Father" (Boyd, 73).

What an admission! Jesus is the "embodiment" of the Father! Webster's Dictionary, or any dictionary
for that matter, defines the word "incarnation" as ...

"being clothed upon with human flesh, an embodiment in human form."

74
Thus Dr. Boyd has admitted, wittingly or unwittingly, that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Father;
for "embodiment" and "incarnation" are synonyms. We are even warned not to fall into the trap of
picturing the Father (or Spirit) alongside Jesus, or what he dubs a ...

"sort of horizontal tri-embodied Trinity" (Boyd, 74).

Unfortunately he ignores his own warning, for we find him saying just one page later that...

"...Christ is the one who is at the Father's side and the one through whom we must go to get to
the Father" (Boyd, 75).

Sounds rather "horizontal" to me this "side by side" doctrine. A little later he starts to tone down what
he had previously said about Jesus being the "embodiment" of the Father, by stating that He ...

"makes visible ('infleshes' John 1:14) the love of the invisible Father, which otherwise would
not be visible. But he is not himself the invisible Father" (Boyd, p. 75).

Well this is quite a change. Now he just infleshes the "love of the invisible Father." That could be said
of Mother Teresa! We are getting used to Dr. Boyd making bold Oneness sounding statements,
thinking them over, then taking them back!

JOHN 8:19-30

Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father?

John 8:19.

The Pharisees demanded to know the location of the Father that Jesus repeatedly referred to. This
question, meant to be a slur on his nativity, prompted a very enlightening discussion. Where was the
Father while Christ walked the earth? Most Trinitarians would answer that the Father was watching
and waiting up in Heaven. Listen how one well read Trinitarian writer describes the return of Christ to
heaven after His resurrection:

"He enters into the presence of His Father. He points to his wounded head, the pierced side, the
marred feet...the Father's arms encircle the Son, and the word is given: 'Let all the angles of
God worship Him' " (E.G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 834).

This type of childish, divine homecoming scene is exactly what results from over 1600 years of
preaching the "distinct persons" theory.

How did Christ respond to the question, "Where is thy Father?" He answered:

Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father
also.
John 8:19

He further states:

75
 Ye are from beneath; I am from above:
John 8:23

And we have learned that

"he that cometh from above is above all"

John 3:31

And he that is above all is none other than God the Father (Eph. 4:6)! In the next verse Christ says,

...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:24

At this point, now that His identity is a matter of life and death, the Pharisees demand to know who he
is:

"Who art thou?" they cry (v. 25).

Jesus responds:

Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
John 8:25

And who was He talking about in the beginning when they first raised the question? The Father, of
course (v. 19)! Did they finally understand? No, for we read:

They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

John 8:27

Though he had provided them the answer to their question by divine inspiration (v. 26), they still could
not see beyond the veil of flesh. He finally says:

When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing
of myself;... (v.28).

"Ye shall know that I am He."

-- that He is the very Father they have been discussing.

"I do nothing of myself"

-- As a Son, or human, He can not do these signs and miracles. It is only through the indwelling Father
that these works are done, for

"the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

76
The next verse is one of the most astonishing statements we encounter from the lips of Christ, for in
one sentence He completely sets aside the entire Trinitarian scheme of things:

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;
John 8:29.

This is contrary to the traditions of centuries which picture the Father up in Heaven, sending the Son to
earth. He was not sent alone to do this great work. If the Father was with him, then where was he?
This He answers later when he says "the Father is in me" (John 10:38). Now all falls in place. The
Father is with Him, inside Him as the divine nature; and this is the "I am he" the Pharisees failed to
perceive, the one who came "from above," even God the Father, who is above all!

Not willing to recognize the Power operating in Christ as the Father, the Pharisees blasphemously
accused Him of having a devil. Jesus met the accusation by saying,

I have not a devil, but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

John 8:49

He was not demon possessed. He was Father possessed! And they dishonoured Him. And

he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him
John 5:23

A Father that not only "sent him" but was "with Him" and "in Him."

Jesus climaxed his discussion with them by saying:

Before Abraham was, I am.

John 8:58

He here the used the Jehovahistic "I am," drawn from the Old Testament. For it was Jehovah who
identified Himself as the Great I Am (Ex. 3:14), and is further revealed as the father (Isa. 63:16). This
assertion to supreme Deity was not lost upon his Jewish listeners for "then took they up stones to cast
at him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple..." (v. 59).

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
Isaiah 45:15

JOHN 12:44

He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

When you believe on Christ you are actually reposing all faith and trust in his interior divine nature,
the Father who sent Him and was in Him. Those who believe in Christ, are simultaneously believing in
the Father, for they are One.

77
 JOHN 12:45

And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

The invisible Father is revealed and made visible in the flesh of His incarnational Son. For "God was
manifest in the flesh" and "seen" (1 Timothy 3:16).

JOHN 13:20

he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Did you receive Christ as your personal saviour? Well, you received the father!

JOHN 15:23

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

When a person hates Jesus they are actually hating the Father that dwelt in Him and spoke through
Him.

thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,

Even in his prayer life Christ is ever conscious of the Father's indwelling and their mutual
interpenetration of natures.

JOHN 17:5

O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was.

In the resurrection Christ will be glorified with the Father's own self or nature dwelling in His
resurrected body. If the father's "self" is in Him, then he is the father Himself!

JOHN 14:11

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works'
sake.

If Christ is doing the works that only the Father could do, then the Father must be in Him, for the Son
can of Himself "do nothing" (John 8:28).

JOHN 14:24

The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

78
All these utterances of things beyond the normal human range spring from the Father who sent Him,
and dwelt in Him. No wonder He said:

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

They came from the great Eternal Spirit (John 4:24) and Original Life (1 John 1:2) that was indwelling
the Temple of the Son (John 2:19, Rev. 21:22).

JOHN 15:24

but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

When did the Pharisees se the Father and hate Him? When they saw Christ!

JOHN 14:20

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Here is a Creed to repeat if you have one

"I am in the Father" - This is the doctrine of the Father, for Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the
Father is in me." (John 10:38).

"And ye in me" -- This is the Doctrine of the Son. "For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have
put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27).

"And I in you" -- This is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which is "Christ in you the hope of glory"
(Col. 1:27).

This is the true confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and it is all Christ throughout - "I", "Me"
, "I". It all centers in Jesus!

JOHN 8:16

I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

You will note that this verse is rather curious, in that it seems incomplete. Stops abruptly. there is no
verb finishing it, simply "but I and the father that sent me." This is because he is describing his person.
He is not "alone," for he also embodies "the Father that sent Him." He concludes the thought two
chapters later when he says, "I and my Father are One." (John 10:30).

JOHN 5:43

I am come in my Father's name,

79
The name of Jesus (Jehovah-Saviour in Hebrew) is the Father's name. This is proven by water baptism
which the Apostles were commanded to perform in the Name of the Father (Matt. 28:19). They
consistently interpreted this to be baptism in Jesus Name, and so administered it (Acts 2:38; 8:16;
19:5; 10:48). If the name is one, then the Person is One, for there is One Lord and his name One
(Zech. 14:9).

JOHN 3:35

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Through the indwelling of the Father in the Son, Christ possesses all the attributes of the Father in the
Son, Christ possesses all the attributes and prerogatives of God. For by taking up residence in the Son,
the Father has transferred all his powers to him. They are now Christ's. That is what he meant when
He said:

All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall
show it unto you.
John 16:15

and...

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
John 17:10

Col. 2:3 calls these transferred attributes his "treasures." Only by God being in Christ could this be
possible, for the Son Himself said:

"I do nothing of myself" (John 8:28)

and...

"The Son can do nothing of Himself" (John 5:19).

Therefore:

The Father has omnipresence, the Son does also (John 3:13).
The Father has life in Himself, the Son does also (John 5:26).
The Father knows all things, the Son does also (John 21:17).
The Father has all power, the Son does also (Matthew 28:18).
The Father has divine nature, the Son does also (Titus 2:13).

Every aspect of His deity is the result of the incarnation of the Father in his flesh.

JOHN 2:19

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

80
How could Jesus raise His own body, the "temple," from the dead? the Son of God, the Messiah, was
the Temple. Jehovah, the Father, was the divine nature which dwelt in it.

and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
Mal 3:1

When Christ the Son was on the Cross, the Father withdrew from the flesh temple of his Son just
before He died (Mark 15:34). Three days later he re-entered it and raised it from the dead (Romans
6:4). Thus, the divine nature of Christ, the Father, raised his own body or "temple" from the dead and
glorified it. nothing but the doctrine of the Fatherhood of Christ can explain this verse.

JOHN REMAINED ONENESS TO THE END

As the Apostle John neared death, his vision of Christ as the Father and the Son did not change from
what he had written in his Gospel. He writes in Rev. 22:3 and 4:

but the throne 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.

God and the Lamb are described as a "him" with one "face" and one "name" - Just as God and the
Lamb constitute one Temple,

"For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it" (Rev: 21:22).

In his epistles he taught the same message:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son
hath the Father also.
1 John 2:23

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9

ON WHAT DO WE STAND?

Dr. Boyd has stated that aside from our "cryptic" and "far fetched" verses of Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:10
the Oneness Doctrine has

"simply nothing else to stand on" (Boyd, p. 69).

Two verses, nothing else! Something sounds a "little off" here, to borrow one of his expressions. If we
have just two verses and nothing else, why does it require a book of 234 pages to deal with it. It's an
awful lot of printers ink to refute a "two verse religion." "Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass"
(Job 6:5)? Or is this simply "the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind" (Job 6:26)?

81
As we have seen, far from standing on just two legs, this doctrine has enough legs to make a centipede
jealous!

The Scriptures we have considered are abundant in their testimony as to Christ being the Father. He is
declared to be the everlasting Father; He is said to be one with the Father; the Father dwells in Him;
He that sees Him sees the Father; He that hears Him hears the Father; He that receives Him receives
the Father; and he that hates Him hates the Father. He is said to be above all. he said whoever believed
on Him was actually believing on the Father. He announced he had the Father's own self dwelling in
Him. The words coming out of his mouth, were the Father's. he said He had the Father's name. All the
divine attributes of the Father are His. We are told that if you "have" or "abide in" , or "acknowledge"
the Son, you have the Father also. The Father and Son are said to constitute one Temple, have one
face, and one name. Six times Jesus said the Father was "in Him." The only divine nature He ever said
was in Him was the Father. No miracle was wrought by any other, only the Father who dwelt in Him.
The Son can do nothing of himself. It is the Father in Him that works and speaks. His glory is the
Father's glory; His honour is the Father's honour; His name is the Father's name; His self is the Father's
self.

Where is this so-called separate identity of the Father and the Son? They are not separate as to vision,
for "He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me." They are separate as to voice, for "the word that you
hear is not mine, but the Father's." They are not separate as to doctrine, for "whoever abides in the
doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and Son." And they are not separate as to number, for "I and
my Father are one." They are not separate as to location, for "I am in the Father and the Father in me."
Pray tell, in what way are they "separate?"

Did we have to "strain" or "fetch" so far to see this thing? Are these references so "cryptic" after all?
How many times in our investigation did we discover Christ saying "I and the Father are distinct?" Did
we encounter any text, even one, that said: "He that hath seen me, hath seen one of God's personally
distinct ways of existing?" Did Christ ever thunder forth, "If you believe that I am the Second Person,
ye shall die in your sins?"

Yet in spite of all this testimony of the Father incarnate in the Son we are told:

"not only is this teaching opaque in the Bible, it is wholly non-existent."

We have now been reduced from "two verses" to "wholly non-existent." One can only wonder, what
Bible is he speaking about?

JESUS IS THE FATHER BY COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE

In an attempt to censor honest study on the Godhead question, Dr. Boyd sounds a long and loud
warning against what he calls "cross references." Bold letters on page 85 warn us: "Beware Cross
Referencing Arguments." What, of course, He really means is, beware of cross referencing unless it
proves the Trinity doctrine. For he himself uses cross references, and incorrectly at that! He takes
references, that show Jesus Christ is God, and "crosses" them with other references that say Christ
died, to produce the hideous doctrine that God died! This bizarre monophysite conclusion would not
be possible without inappropriate cross referencing undergirded by the unscriptural notion that

82
whatever happens to Christ's human nature, must also happen to the divine nature. The fact that God is
"immortal" and cannot die, is never brought into equation. This type of "exegesis" become in reality an
"exit Jesus."

Dr. Boyd's faulty cross referencing, which he will not permit others to do, is also illustrated in his
discussion on being "filled with the Holy Ghost." He uses Old Testament, and Pre-Ascension
examples of people being "filled with the Spirit" and crosses them with references in the Book of Acts
(after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension) to the disciples being "filled with the Spirit," in order to
"prove" tongues are not a necessary evidence. This completely ignores the fact that the "fillings" in
Acts come as a permanent gift from the resurrected Christ, are quite different Old Testament and Pre
Cross times. So different, as a matter of fact, that the Bible says:

The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7:39

A worse example than this of cross referencing would be hard to find!

Cross referencing, when correctly done, is a very helpful too for Bible Study. In fact, how would one
study any subject in the bible without cross referencing? That's why the cross references are in the
margin, and why Thompson's Chain Reference Bible continues to be an enduring best seller! Jesus
Himself used cross referencing in Luke 20:37-38, when he "crossed" the reference about the burning
bush incident (Exodus 3:6) with a statement by Isaiah (Isaiah 38:18-19), to prove the immortality of
the soul and the resurrection of the dead. A clearer example of arriving at a doctrine from cross
referencing would be hard to find!

The Bible itself recommends the cross referencing method to obtain doctrinal truth. Isaiah wrote:
"Precept upon precept... line upon line..., here a little and there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-10). And this was
to be done in order to "understand doctrine."

To gain comprehension on any doctrine you must gather in all statements relative to it. All pieces are
necessary to complete the "puzzle" and see the whole picture. But just as Trinitarians prefer to leave
out the pieces from Acts which show baptism to be in Jesus' name, so likewise they want us to leave
out these verses that show Jesus to be the Father! Actually, any Bible student, oneness or not, should
resent this arrogant attempt to censor the Word of God by eliminating cross referencing as a valid
method. In plain English - it takes "nerve." Especially when the "censor" reserves the privilege to use
it himself! It seems inconsistent that a person would object on the one hand to bringing verses
together, while on the other hand have no objection to splitting them in half, as he did with Romans
8:1 to obtain his Parking Lot Revelation (which set a "thousand church bells chiming")!

I'm afraid the real reason Dr. Boyd, and others, object to our references is because they so effectively
get our message "across". The point driven home by comparing these scriptures ("splicing them
together" as Boyd puts it) is that not only is it completely unnecessary for two divine persons to
perform the same action, it is also mutually exclusive, and self contradictory. Let us consider some.

WHO RESURRECTED CHRIST?

83
The Bible says God the Father raised Christ from the dead (Galatians 1:1), yet John 2:19 says Jesus
raised Himself from the dead. Therefore Christ is the Father who raised that body from the tomb that
first Easter. But how could He do this? Christ's own divine Spirit nature, which was the Father,
withdrew from his body on the cross:

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mark 15:34)?

Three days later, the same Spirit (the Father) re-entered that body, raised it, glorified it, and indwelt it
as his permanent Temple. Thus Christ in his divine nature as Father raised his own body from the
dead.

But Dr. Boyd says "not so." Rather all three persons of the Trinity participated in this work, which was

"ultimately performed through the Son incarnate as a man" (Boyd, p. 89).

But Dr. Boyd apparently forgot his earlier teaching on page 58, namely that he "Son incarnate as a
man" was dead! For "when Christ suffered a forsaken death" he writes, "God suffered a forsaken
death." God is dead at this time! So how can a dead person ("the son incarnated") raise a dead person
("The Son incarnated")! What contradictions! First he has God dying (p. 58), then he has a dead man
raising Him (P.89)! Do the dead now raise the dead? Is it any wonder he declares further speculation
on this point a "fruitless question" (Boyd, p.88). How helpful of him to let us know what questions are
"fruitless" ones, so we don't waste our time trying to harvest anything out of them!

The point Dr. Boyd is trying to make, whatever it may be, mutates even further. For he says on page
188,

"What Jesus endured, the totality of the Godhead endured."

If Jesus endured death and died (which He did), then according to this premise "the totality of the
Godhead" also "endured" death and died! Who is left alive to do any raising of the dead? The whole
Godhead died in Christ according to this doctrine. They can't escape by saying just the "Second
Person" of the Godhead died, for that would not be the "totality" of the Godhead, because there are
two other persons in it! Perhaps if Trinitarians ceased, and started believing what Christ said, namely
that he was the "Father incarnated" (John 14:10), the problem would disappear. Where does the Bible
ever say Christ was "the Son incarnated?"

When Trinitarians are asked where they obtained such teachings, they always give the same answer
that deceiving Jacob gave to Isaac on that long ago day when goat meat was being passed off as
Venison:

"The Lord thy God brought it to me!" (Gen. 27:20).

WHO ANSWERS PRAYER?

Its basic to any religion to identify who ultimately answers prayer. For thereby we ascertain who God
is. In John 14:14, Jesus said he answered prayer:

84
 "If ye ask anything in my name I will do it."

The Greek is even better:

"If you ask ME anything in my name I will do it."

Yet in John 15:16 the Father (a supposed "distinct person" from the Son in Trinitarianism) is said to
answer prayer. The Bible conclusion is obvious, Jesus taught that He Himself was the prayer
answering Father in his divine nature. This is confirmed by the verse which reads:

The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:10,

...and that certainly includes answering prayer. This is also proven by John 14:13 which says,

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the
Son.

Dr. Boyd's response to all this is just an echo of the standard old Trinitarian theory that the "two
persons" are in charge of answering prayer,

"both the Father and the Son in distinct capacities, answer prayer -- namely the Father performs
all activities through and in him" (Boy, p. 89).

In other words, the Father actually answers prayer; the Son is the instrument he uses -- the activities
are performed through him. Jesus flatly contradicted this theory when he said:

At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
For the Father himself loveth you,
John 16:26-27

It is all the direct work of the divine nature of Christ, which we have seen is the Father, and no one
else.

Dr. Boyd says what was true of the "incarnate Son" on earth, is true of the "incarnate Son" in Heaven
(Boyd, p. 89). Well, the incarnate Son on earth said that He could do nothing of Himself in Heaven
also! So who answers prayer? It has to be the Father. Yet Christ said that He Himself would answer
prayer; so the Father must be Christ's divine nature, his other "self." It is therefore the Father in the
Son who is answering prayer, and not "two distinct Persons," -- of whom one is on record as saying he
can do nothing!

SENDING THE SPIRIT

In John 14:26, Jesus says that the Father will send the Spirit,

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send...

85
However, in John 15:26 Christ says He will send the Spirit Himself:

when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you...

Therefore, Jesus is the Father who sends the Spirit. And the Spirit that he sends is His own divine
nature:

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:18

The Comforter then is the one Spirit, called the Father, when referring to Him as Source, come to
dwell in obedient believers as the Holy Ghost, who is also the divine nature of Christ, his human
Temple. The Spirit is said to "proceed" from the Father, just as a stream of water proceeds from a
reservoir or lake, as it's source. The water proceeding from the reservoir as a stream is not distinct
from its source, nor separate. It is an outflow of it. So the Holy Spirit is "an outflowing" of the Father,
from the Body of Christ, where He is "stored." God said:

I will pour out MY spirit upon all flesh;

Joel 2:28

And that is exactly what is happening. The Father is being poured out of the Body of Christ, His
vessel, and is falling on us as the Holy Ghost. This is what is meant by the Holy Spirit proceeding
"from" the Father in John 15:26.

Trinitarians teach the utterly absurd idea that the Third distinct Person, is proceeding from the First
distinct Person, at the behest of (and maybe also "through") the Second Distinct Person! But God is
not the author of this confusion. We have Nicene Fathers to thank for this and the subsequent
"Filoque" clause, which we shall read about shortly.

Dr. Boyd attempted to smear the canvas of this beautiful truth of Christ sending the Spirit by some
totally baffling discussion of a high school incident and his inability to understand the phrase "from
the Father" (Boyd, p.90). I hope this Biblical explanation has clarified that point for him, if somehow
late! Part of the problem is that Dr. Boyd, and may other Trinitarians take the position that the Holy
Spirit must proceed from the other "two" persons. He says Oneness people

"assume that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from One" (Boyd. p.90).

This "assumption" as he calls it, was the original doctrine of the Trinitarians themselves! All the early
church Fathers shared this assumption. It was the standard doctrine of the Trinitarian scholars. No one
in those first centuries denied it alt all. It was endorsed by all the ecumenical councils. It is still the
official position of Greek the Orthodox Church. The idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the
Father "and the Son" was unheard of until the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine and tried
to impose it on everyone, over a thousand years after Christ! The Catholics ADDED to the Nicene
Creed the words "and from the Son" ("filoque" in Latin). the Greek Orthodox refused to accept this
"double procession" theory and a split occurred in 1504 AD.

86
 "Over that one word (filoque) mighty debates were held, books in untold numbers were
written, and even blood was shed in bitter strife" (Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the
Christian Church, p. 126).

As we see, Trinitarian insights are seldom birthed without "much bloodshed." The Greek Orthodox
argument against the "double procession" theory is quite simple: Christ only mentioned one procession
(John 15:26)! The Greek Orthodox are much closer to the truth on this point than Dr. Boyd and Neo-
Trinitarians who prefer to follow the Roman Catholic dogma invented late in time.

DRAWING POWER

Jesus in one passage says the Father will draw men to Him:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
John 6:44

But in John 12:32 He says:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Christ is the drawing Father in his divine nature; there is no Trinitarian "tug of war" going on with two
distinct persons pulling sinners to Christ. Why not simply accept what Christ said:

the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:10

The Son, of Himself, can draw no one -- "I can do nothing by myself" -- is his testimony. But with the
Father, "who doeth the works" incarnate in him, Christ indeed can be said to "draw all men." His
human nature (the Son) can't do it; but his divine nature (the Father) can and does.

RAISING THE DEAD

It is clear that Christ is the one who raises the dead:

I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

Yet the Father is said to

"quicken the dead" (Romans 4:17).

And as always, it is not the Son, (the humanity) that does this, but the life-giving Father that dwells in
him.

And as we are used to by now, the Trinitarians insist that all "three persons" are involved in
resurrecting. Dr. Boyd devotes the least attention to this particular couplet, preferring instead to spend

87
time discussing the supposed Oneness doctrine of "voice switching" (something I had never heard of,
though I have been in Oneness over 30 years).

But let us not leave this issue quite so quickly. Haste makes waste, even in doctrinal matters. It was
precisely concerning the resurrection that Jesus brought out most clearly his dual nature. In John 5:19
He says the

"Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do..."

"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things..." (John 5:20).

The source of everything Jesus does is the Father; the same Father he said was incarnate in Him (John
14:10; 10:38). By Himself as Son, without the divine nature, he could do "nothing." But the Father has
empowered or enabled the Son, to do these things by placing his life or "essence" or "nature" within
Him, and operating through Him.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And
hath given him authority...
John 5:26-27

This is why Paul could say God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (1 Cor. 5:18). And
that reconciliation will include the resurrection performed by God in Christ, a work he could not do
unless the Father dwelt in Him.

It is not necessary to postulate "Three Distinct Persons" to understand any of these passages discussed.
The doctrine of God in Christ, -- "I am in the Father and the Father in me" -- adequately and
scripturally illuminates all of them.

Nothing that has ever been advanced by Trinitarians, and Dr. Boyd in particular, can overturn the fact
that the Father is the only divine nature ever identified by Christ as dwelling within him. Thus Jesus
Christ can properly be called the Father, as Isaiah prophesied would be the case (Isaiah 9:6), and as
Christ Himself announced (John 10:30). He is never called the "Son incarnated" as Trinitarians
assume.

JESUS AS FATHER IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

The last book of the Bible is properly entitled The Revelation of Jesus Christ. It does not claim to be a
revelation of seals, beasts, trumpets and bowls, although they are all there. But it is a Revelation of
Jesus Christ! Does it teach that He is the Father? We feel it does, clearly and repeatedly. Boyd and the
Trinitarians feel otherwise.

"It certainly is not the general view of the Book of Revelation" (P. 81),

and

88
 "This distinction between the Father and Jesus continues throughout the Book of Revelation
without qualification" (P. 81).

Let us see.

ANCIENT OF DAYS

The first thing Revelation "reveals" to us is a description of Jesus in his glorified body -

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of
fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;
Rev. 1:14-15

This is Christ who "was dead" and is "now alive" (v. 18). It is also the same exact description Daniel
gives us of the Father, the Ancient of Days, that he saw in vision.

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was
white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame,
and his wheels (i.e. eyes) as burning fire.
Daniel 7:9

Immediately, the Book of Revelation presents us a picture of Christ, as the Ancient of Days, even the
Father.

ALONGSIDE THE THRONE OR ON THE THRONE?

Jesus further states,

I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev. 3:21

Jesus is seated in the Father's throne, not alongside of it. But when John sees this throne e informs us

one sat on the throne.

Rev. 4:2

He does not say, "I saw the Father, one person, and the Son, another person, seated on the throne" --
only One. Yet Jesus says He is seated "with His Father" on the throne. The answer should be apparent
by now. When Christ, the visible Temple of the Father, sits on the throne, God the Father is also there,
because He dwells and resides in the Body of Christ.

"The Father dwelleth in me, He doeth the works" (John 14:10).

The Son is visibly seen, but the invisible Father is also there, incarnate in Christ. This constitutes an
unanswerable proof of God in Christ in the Book of Revelation.

89
Boyd says that Christ ...

"is portrayed as being at times, next to his Father's throne."

He cites Revelation 5:13, which says absolutely nothing about Christ being seated "next to the Father."
Next is not in the text! He says Christ is also portrayed as

"sitting on his own throne alongside the Father, who is sitting on His own throne."

For this he cites Revelation 3:21, which says Christ is seated on his Father's throne! No mention of
another throne alongside it! No wonder he doesn't quote the "references," merely citing them. Does he
hope we won't look them up? We have learned better. He refers to our "illusory" interpretation (p. 82).
If ours is "illusory" his is positively hallucinatory, for he sees thrones that aren't there!

ALPHA AND OMEGA

In Revelation 21:6-7 the Alpha and Omega, who is unmistakenly Jesus Christ (Rev. 22:12-13,16), tells
true believers that he will be their God and Father:

I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

If I'm his son, then he's my Father, and if he is also God, then He is God my Father!

In order to escape this clear declaration of Christ's Fatherhood, Boyd entangles himself again in
circular reasoning, a fallacy you learn about in first year logic. His argument, if you can call it that,
runs like this: If the Scriptures (which include Revelation) taught that Jesus was the Father then these
verses could be read as one further "reference to Christ as the Father." But seeing the Bible doesn't
teach it, it must therefore mean something else (p. 80-81)! Reduced and skinned to the bone, this is
what is being argued: The Bible can't teach that Jesus is the Father, because the Bible doesn't teach
Jesus is the Father! But how do we know the Bible doesn't teach Jesus is the Father? Because
Trinitarians keep telling us there are no references for it! But what about these verses we keep finding?
they just can't mean Jesus is the Father, we arc informed, because the Bible doesn't teach it! Circular
Reasoning!

TWO ALPHAS AND OMEGAS! !

After some convoluted arguments, Dr. Boyd concludes on this sad note (though he feels "very little at
this point hangs on this" - good thing):

"The fact that the One speaking here refers to himself as 'Alpha and Omega' does not prove the
point even though it is also true that there is only one who is 'Alpha and Omega' (CF Isaiah
43:10). In contexts that clearly distinguish him from Jesus, the Father is spoken of in similar
terms (1:4-5; 11:15-17)."

There is only one Alpha and Omega, which is Jesus, but the Father is also a separate Alpha and
Omega, we are told! And when you consider that the Alpha and Omega means the Beginning and the

90
End, we now have two Beginnings and two Endings! What nonsense! The references he cited to prove
this do not even contain the words Alpha and Omega, (though he covered himself this time by saying
it was only "similar" terminology).

In Revelation 1:8, the Alpha and Omega, who is Jesus, identifies Himself as the Almighty. This is the
name the Father used in identifying Himself to Moses, when he also received His Jehovahistic Name
(Ex. 6:3). It is also the term the Father used to identify Himself to Abraham saying:

I am the Almighty God; walk before me,

Gen 17:1

Furthermore, it is the term used elsewhere in Revelation to identify the Father (Rev. 21:22). How
many Almighties could there be? There's only One and that is Christ, who is also Alpha and Omega,
God the Father!

CHRIST THE TABERNACLE OF GOD

Revelation 21:3 says the "Tabernacle of God" is with men, and he will dwell with them. "Tabernacle,"
like "Temple," is a Bible term for "body" (2 Cor. 5:4). God's body will dwell with men. And in that
Tabernacle or body dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, including the Father, (Col. 2:9). No wonder
Revelation 21:22 says

"I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty (i.e. the Father) and the Lamb (i.e. Son)
are the temple of it."

The Father and the Son constitute One Temple! Not only that, but God the Father, shining gloriously
through the Body of the Lamb, in whom he dwells, is the Light thereof (Rev. 21:23). This is what
Peter, James and John saw in the preview on the mountain of Transfiguration when the Father shone
out of the Body of Christ (Matt. 17:1-2).

God the Father and the Lamb are said to have just one Throne, One Face and One name, because
Father and Son constitute a "him" and not a "they."

But the throne 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.
Rev. 22:3-4

No wonder the NIV renders it:

His name and his Father's name

Rev 14:1

The Lamb's name is in their foreheads, and Rev. 14:1 says this name is also the Father's Name! So the
Father's name and the Lamb's (or Son's) Name are one and the same name! Are we surprised therefore
that John called this Book the revelation of Jesus Christ and not a Revelation of the Trinity?

91
 THE LAMB WITH THE BOOK

A "proof" often raised (though Boyd does not) of the "two person" theory is one drawn from
Revelation 5:7, where the lamb takes

"the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne."

If Jesus is the One seated on the throne, then who is the Lamb that takes the book from him? In this
dramatic presentation (mini-play) that John witnessed, a strange creature with "seven eyes and seven
horns) (v.6), standing like it "had been slain," comes to the throne and takes the book. This seven-
eyed, seven-horned slain Lamb is not a Person, much less our Lord Jesus Christ. Who expects to see
Christ with seven horns and seven eyes when they get to heaven? We have a description of the risen
Christ in Revelation 1:12-15, and it doesn't include "seven horns and seven eyes." Then what is this
multi-eyed Lamb we read about in Revelation 5? It is a created symbol, a creature, which represents
the death of Christ, "the lamb that was slain." Because of His death and subsequent resurrection the
Seven-Sealed Book can be opened. John the revelator is seeing a symbolic performance in which
specially created "props" are used to portray spiritual truths. The seven-eyed, seven-horned lamb is
exactly that - a lamb. But it represents Christ, "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." At
the baptism of Jesus God used a dove to symbolize the Holy Spirit, but who would contend that the
Holy Spirit is a dove?

SUMMARY

So that we see that the Book of Revelation, rather than establishing a separate identity of the Father
and Christ, actually proves that Christ and the Father constitute the One Person who is seated on the
Throne, the Alpha and Omega, the only one we will ever see!

AN EX-JEHOVAH'S WITNESS NOTICES SOMETHING

Ted Dencher was a slave to Watchtower mechanizations for many years. God miraculously led him
out of it and caused him to write his marvelous testimony in a book entitled, "Why I left Jehovah's
Witnesses."

Even though a Trinitarian, Mr. Dencher has made the same startling "Oneness" discovery about Christ
in Revelation that I have brought forth in this chapter. I am quoting from page 241 of his popular
book:

"According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and Jehovah are to be thought of a s separate entities,
and to think otherwise about them would be error. The most startling texts of the entire Bible
which prove them to be wrong on this are Revelation 22:1,3,4. These should be read carefully
to receive the full impact of what is said therein. Verse 1 reads, using the right hand column:
'And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God
and of the Lamb...' Yes God and the lamb occupy the same throne, not two thrones, indicating
inequality of rank or nature, but One.

"Now to verse 3, right hand column: 'And no more will there be any curse. But the throne of

92
 God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will render him sacred service' Di you
ever see where both Jehovah and Jesus are referred to together as 'his' and 'him'? Could any
unity be more complete?

"Now note what verse 4 says: 'And they will see His Face, and His Name will be on their
foreheads.' Jehovah God and the Lamb together have but one face and in the finality one
Name! Jehovah's Witnesses, What is that Name? Whatever exalted name you choose applies
equally to both 'God and the Lamb.' God and the Lamb are not referred to as 'they' but as 'he.'
Perfect oneness of name and nature. Not 'faces' but rather 'face.' I ask any Jehovah's Witness to
face his congregation from the speaker's podium and read this passage to them! Do you realize
you might be escorted bodily from the platform?" (Ted Dencher, Why I Left Jehovah's
Witnesses, Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington, PA., 1985, pp. 241-242).

If an Ex-Jehovah's Witness, who was trained for years to see "separate throne," "separate persons" and
"Gods alongside of gods" was able to see "the perfect oneness of Name and nature" in the Book of
Revelation, why can't Dr. Boyd? It's there for any honest soul to read: one throne, one name, and one
face for God in Christ, who constitutes One Temple! If Mr. Dencher were to expound this truth from
the "speaker's podium" of a Neo-Trinitarian congregation he might be surprised that they too have an
"escort service" for such speakers and their doctrine!

THE USE OF KAI

Another interesting proof of Jesus' identity as the father is furnished by the New Testament salutations
found in the epistles. We read for example:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7

As it reads it presents no obstacle to Oneness doctrine. For we believe in God the Father, and also in
the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son. And this in no way detracts from the contingent New Testament Truth
that God the Father dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son. Paul is careful to remind his readers of
that truth also (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19). Biblically speaking, a belief in the Father and the
Son is also a belief in the Father in the Son (John 10:38).

But something else may be indicated in these salutations, for the Greek word "kai" (and) can also be
translated as "even" or "who is." And in fact is so translated in other texts. For example, "Kai" is
rendered "even" in 2 Cor. 1:3

Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God
of all comfort;

Also James 3:9

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after
the similitude of God.

93
And 1 Thess. 3:13

God, even our Father,

It should also have been translated "even" in Gal. 1:4 which mentions

the will of God and our Father:

and also Col. 3:17 which speaks of giving thanks to

"God and the Father by him."

For the meaning is clearly intended to be "God, even the Father" rather than "God and the father."
Even Trinitarians admit "god" and "Father" are one and the same individual!

This being true, then it is also possible to render "Kai" as "even" instead of "and" in Romans 1:7 which
would then read:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thess 1:2 would be

Grace unto you, and, peace from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ

And so forth throughout the epistles. This would be a great addition to the already substantial arsenal
of texts proving the Fatherhood of Christ. And there is not one grammatical or linguistical
impediment to translating it this way.

Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians, of course do not like any of this. He feels it would have confused
Paul's New Testament readers:

"Could anything be more confusing to Paul's readers than to have Paul changing the 'identities'
of Jesus from one sentence to the next" (p. 80).

Yes, something could have been more confusing to Paul's readers - the "Trinity in Unity," the "eternal
generation" and the "Perichoresis." But thank God Paul spared them that! Furthermore, Paul's readers
were not confused by the dual natures of Christ as God and man. Paul had taught them that doctrine
clearly. (Phillip 2:6-9; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Cor 5:19). It is not a question of "switching identities,"
whatever that is supposed to mean, but of recognizing two natures as being operative in one Christ.

Before the Introduction of the "Trinitarian Mysteries" early Christians were very "adept" at discerning
this distinction in Christ. Even St. Chrysostom was able to follow this "switchery" without being
confused, for he wrote:

"When thou hearest of Christ, do not think Him God only, or man only, but both together. For I
know Christ was hungry, and I know that with five loaves He fed five thousand men, besides

94
 women and children. I know Christ was thirsty, and I know Christ turned water into wine. I
know Christ was carried in a ship, and I know Christ walked on the waters, I know Christ died,
and I know Christ raised the dead. I know Christ was set before Pilate, and I know Christ sits
with the Father. I know Christ was worshipped by the angels, and I know Christ was stoned by
the Jews. And truly some of these I ascribe to the human, others to the divine nature; for by
reason of this he is said to be both together" (Was Christ God, Spiros Zodtheotes, p. 91).

The fact that Bible translators did not render "Kai" as "even" in the New testament salutations is not
surprising, seeing almost all of them were Trinitarians and worked from that bias: the KJV - all
Trinitarian translators; RSV - trinitarians and modernists; NIV - trinitarians; Phillips - a trinitarian;
Moffat - trinitarian, and so forth. In short we are being told that when the New Testament speaks of
"God and the Father" we should interpret it as "God, even the Father" for it is referring to one person;
but when the New Testament speaks of "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," we should not do
it, even though the conjunctive is the same in both cases - "Kai." And what is the reason we cannot
translate it as "even" in the second instance also? Because Trinitarians have more Trinitarian circular
reasoning: these verses cannot teach two distinct persons, because there are no verses that teach two
distinct persons! And finally Dr., Boyd tells us we are not permitted to do it, because to translate "Kai"
as "even" we

"must go against such a reputable tradition to do so" (Boyd, p. 80).

And we must be careful never to do that; for tradition must never be "gone against." Yet and fellow
Neo-Trinitarians, do not hesitate to "go against" nearly 2,000 years of tradition when they "unbeget"
the Son through their freakish mistranslation of "monogenes," which they insist on rendering "unique"
instead of the correct translation "begotten." Neither Greek lexicons, nor Irish leprechauns can deliver
them from that contradiction!

TRINITARIAN BIBLE TRANSLATORS HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT IN THEIR

TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORD KAI, THUS OBSCURING THE FATHERHOOD OF
CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD

The Maker of the Universe

As man for man was made a curse
The claims of laws which he had made
Unto the uttermost he paid.

His holy fingers made the bough

Which grew the thorns that crowned his brow
The nails which pierced his hands were mined
In secret places he designed

He made the forest whence there sprung

95
 The tree on which his body hung.
He died upon a cross of wood
Yet he made the hill on which it stood.

The sky that darkened o'er his head

By him above the earth was spread.
The sun that hid fro him it's face
By his decree was poised in space.

The spear which spilled his precious blood

Was tempered in the fires of God.
The grave in which his form was laid
Was hewn in rocks his hands had made.
The throne on which he now appears
Was his from everlasting years
But a new glory crowns his brow
And every knee to Him shall bow.

CHAPTER IX
JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT
WHERE DID THE IDEA OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A "THIRD PERSON" ORIGINATE?
DOES THE BIBLE REFER TO CHRIST AS THE HOLY SPIRIT, OR IS THAT A ONENESS
"INVENTION"?

IDENTITY CRISIS // NEO-TRINITARIAN SURRENDER // TRANSIENT ILLUSION AND NEO-

TRINITARIAN STYLE! // CHRIST AS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH // JESUS IS THE SPIRIT - CAN
WE PROVE IT? // 2 CORINTHIANS 3:17 // ROMANS 8:9-11 // COLOSSIANS 1:27 // WAS PAUL
CONFUSED? // NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES // SPIRIT BODY // REMARKABLE
TESTIMONY FROM ORAL ROBERTS // THE HOLY GHOST IS THE FATHER ALSO // THE
SPIRIT IN REVELATION // COMPARISONS PROVE CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT // TWO
TRINITARIANS SPEAK // SUMMARY

IDENTITY CRISIS

It has already been established that Jesus is the Father in his divine indwelling nature. It remains to be
discovered if the scriptures identify Him as the Holy Spirit; what Trinitarians call the "third person of
the Godhead."

NEO-TRINITARIAN SURRENDER

96
Neo-Trinitarians have all but yielded this point to us "en toto." For in their theology there is only one
divine Spirit. The idea of "three omnipresent divine Spirits" is classified by Boyd as "a very mistaken
view of the Trinity." Each "person" of the Trinity is said to be:

"The whole Spirit of God, existing in a distinct fashion" (Boyd, p. 64).

This being true then, the Son of God, being Jesus Christ, is the exact same Spirit as the Holy Spirit.
The Son and the Holy Spirit are the same Spirit! Neither can this conclusion be escape by claiming
they have "separate minds" or "consciousnesses" or even "wills", for that is denounced also as
incorrect and labeled as a...

"crude portrait" (Boyd, 171).

What a dilemma! Jesus and the Holy Spirit are supposed to be distinct Persons, yet they are the same
Spirit, the same mind and the same consciousness! This alone collapses the Trinity! It would be easier
to raise the Titanic, then to get this thing floating again!

TRANSIENT ILLUSION AND NEO-TRINITARIAN STYLE!

And yet after all that Dr. Boyd says the Oneness identification of Jesus with the Spirit is...

highly suspect".

Yet, amazingly enough, as if to confirm this "suspicion" we read:

"The Spirit is indeed the presence of Christ Himself" (Boyd. 128).

How can one "distinct person" be the presence of another "distinct person?" Can you be my presence?
Can I be yours? Of course not! The presence of a Person indicates exactly that - the person is present,
not a substitute. And why would the Holy Spirit have to be "the presence of Jesus"? According to their
Perichoresis doctrine, wherever one person of the Trinity is, the other two are also "fully present". No
need for a "substitute" presence if Christ Himself is present! Dr. Boyd now resorts to "transient
illusion" for which he so often condemns Oneness advocates. Commenting on a discussion where
Jesus plainly states he will be the Holy Spirit Comforter, (I will not leave you comfortless: I will come
to you - John 14:18), he writes:

"Jesus is simply saying: 'I'm not going to leave you like abandoned children, I'll be right back
(referring to the coming of His Spirit)' " (Boyd, 77).

Are we seriously asked to swallow this? I leave the room and say, "I'll be right back!" This is more
than "transient illusion". This is maniacal delusion. What could be further from what Christ meant?
We are being asked to believe that "I will come to you" really means "someone else will come to you."

It must be borne in mind that when Jesus says: "I will come to you" He is using the personal pronoun
"I" to identify Himself with the Holy Spirit Comforter, thereby eliminating the possibility of any

97
"personal" distinction between Himself and the Spirit. It is the equivalent of saying "I am the Holy
Spirit." And yet we are accused of teaching a "secret identity". Where is the Secret?

CHRIST AS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH

Christ further identified Himself as the Holy Spirit Comforter in John 14:17.

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The Spirit of Truth is a "he"; he is already "known" by the disciples, and "seen" by them; he is
"dwelling" or living along with them at the time. Who else is this but Jesus Himself, whom they knew,
saw, and with whom they dwelt? To forestall any misunderstanding the next statement is added:

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:18

Yet we are told it is:

"Only by a forced form of exegesis can these passages be made to mean that Christ and the
Holy Spirit are in every respect one and the same" (Boyd, p. 129).

No exegesis is necessary, "forced" or otherwise. All one has to do is read the passage. Its self evident!

Dr. Boyd says Christ and the Holy Spirit are not "one and the same" in every respect. Really? Then
why does He teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are the same Spirit, the same mind, the same
consciousness, the same will, and the same presence, and completely indivisible, being the same
substance!? Where are they distinct? The only thing that he seems to come up with is that the Holy
Spirit is God existing in a "personally distinct way" whatever that is supposed to mean. It is never
explained.

JESUS IS THE SPIRIT - CAN WE PROVE IT?

Again, demands are put on us, that the Trinitarians will not meet for themselves. For we are asked, by
implication, to show where the Bible says "Jesus is the Holy Spirit" (Boyd, 125). I would like to be
shown where the Bible says "The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead" or even "a personally
distinct way in which God exists" or at least where he is called an "aspect", "fashion", or "mode of
being". Like the Pharisees of old, "They laden men with burdens" and "touch not the burdens
themselves" not even with a "finger" (Luke 11:46).

Just as in their request for a verse calling Jesus the Father (to which we happily consented), we also
have what they demand in this case. Because when it comes to proving Jesus is the Holy Spirit, our
"burden is light."

2 CORINTHIANS 3:17

98
Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is that Spirit:

What could possibly be more direct? Is there more than One Lord? Someone other than Christ? Of
course not! ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM (Eph. 4:5). And if they are wondering who
this Lord is referred to in 2 Corinthians 3:17, Paul clarifies it beyond dispute in the next chapter:

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord;

2 Cor 4:5

Now they have what they demanded of us: Jesus Christ is that Spirit! The Trinity has collapsed at this
point, and they should admit it. But no, instead furious efforts get underway to divert the bulldozer
effect of this verse on their shaky theory. The first thing they start with is a massive contradiction:

"First, one must note that the verse does not say 'Jesus is the Spirit' " (Boyd, p. 125).

The only way this can be so is to deny that Jesus is Lord! And this he starts to do, as unbelievable as it
sounds! He states:

"As it stands the Oneness interpretation must simply assume that the reference to 'the Lord'
here is a reference to Jesus Christ" (Boyd, 125).

We are now guilty of assuming that Jesus Christ is Lord! To this we gladly plea "guilty" as charged!

no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
1 Cor 12:3

Now Dr. Boyd starts to get into "lords many and gods many," when he says:

"We must note that 'Lord' is used by Paul in two senses in the context of this passage"

and again...

"Paul we see is clearly making some distinction between 'Lord' and the 'Spirit of the Lord' who
is also 'Lord' "(Boyd, 125)

In short Paul is distinguishing between "Lord" and "Lord". If I may borrow a of Dr. Boyd's "all this
language is not only 'illusory' it seems blatantly nonsensical." I would not want the task of proving my
doctrine by having to establish the existence of two distinct Lords! But what other choice do they
have? What follows next (and it is hard to follow) is a discussion by Boyd which involves the Law, the
Old Covenant, Moses' face, veil, eyes of the Israelites, freedom, glory, external legal authority, the
heart, Covenants, and symbols. Hoping, I guess, he winds up back where Paul started, and the very
point we're trying to prove:

99
 "...'the Lord' to whom Moses turned is the same Lord, the same Spirit, to whom believers turn
today, to have the veil lifted" (Boyd, 126).

And who is that Lord, if it is not the Lord Jesus Christ "the same Spirit", even the Holy Spirit!? He's
the Lord who gave Moses the Law, the "Rock" who followed them in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4,9;
Heb. 12:24-26), and "The Lord is that Spirit!"

ROMANS 8:9-11

We are glibly informed that ...

"only in two passages is it possible to argue that the Spirit is in some sense identified with
Christ" (Boyd, p. 117).

Again he makes us a two verse religion. I take it he must consider all the other passages where Christ
is identified with the Spirit as beyond dispute, for he only mentions 2 Cor. 3:17 which we just
considered and Romans 8:9-11, which we shall now consider.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if
any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is
dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

How myopic must be the spiritual eyes that cannot see the Oneness in this passage! Its more than we
could have hoped for if we were writing the Bible ourselves! Believers are "in the Spirit" the supposed
"third Person." But this "Spirit" is defined as the "Spirit of God," the supposed "first person," and the
supposed "second person!" Then Paul closes the circle tightly by defining "Christ" as the "Spirit".
Thus "Spirit," "Spirit of God," "Spirit of Christ" and "Christ" are not only used interchangeably, but
more importantly, and what Dr. Boyd failed to mention, are used to define each other! Seeing Paul
taught there is just One Spirit (Eph. 4:4), to which Neo-Trinitarians agree, then where is any room for
distinct identities here!? All terms refer to the same Spirit, who is Christ!

COLOSSIANS 1:27

In Colossians 1:27 Paul speaks of "Christ in you, the hope of glory," equating it with the One Spirit in
us, and that Spirit is called Christ, then Christ is the One Spirit in us; or in other words, Jesus is the
Holy Spirit. If language means anything it means this, otherwise what good are words. Dr. Boyd
doesn't even cite Col. 1:27 - "Christ in you" - though it is a main proof of Christ's identity as the Holy
Spirit. The choice is simple, Christians either have three distinct divine Spirits in them, or Christ is the
Holy Spirit. There is no other alternative.

WAS PAUL CONFUSED?

The last "gasp" of Trinitarian rebuttal is breathed out for us in the following argument:

100
 "That Paul in the previous verse (Romans 8:9-10-ed.) refers to the Spirit of Christ as 'Christ' in
you cannot legitimately be used to qualify this. In this pre-polemic environment, this informal
use of language has no more significance than simply revealing how closely together Paul
associated the Spirit with Jesus" (Boyd, 128).

He implies we cannot legitimately use this verse of scripture, even though inspired by the Holy Spirit,
because it was written before the "polemics" of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc. Written before
the screaming matches, fist fights and murders that "ironed out" the truth for us! We must not rush in
and take the inspired Paul too seriously, at least not until the Cappodocian Fathers and Augustine have
clarified all this for us. For these scriptures of Paul have "no more significance" than simple simply
revealing "how closely Paul 'associated' the Spirit with Jesus." But isn't that the revelation we are
seeking? Only by denying the divine inspiration of Paul's writings could this argument have any
weight! Trinitarians are willing to teeter on the brink of that modernistic view of scripture in order to
escape Paul's "close" association of Christ with the Spirit; and "association" that is so close that Christ
is said to be that Spirit! It is not merely "association" - it is identification! I'm sure if Paul had referred
to the Holy Spirit as one of "God's distinct Personal ways of existing", or as a "fashion," "aspect" or
"third person" Trinitarians would find it quite "legitimate" to use polemics or pre-polemics
notwithstanding!

NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

The New Testament teems in references to Christ as the Holy Spirit, most of which Dr. Boyd has
ignored.

Paul refers to Jesus as a "Life giving" or quickening Spirit in 1 Cor 15:45:

the last Adam (Christ)was made a quickening spirit.

When did this occur? When he ascended:

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill
all things.
Eph. 4:10

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, ...
Acts 2:4

The ascended Christ is the Holy Spirit who fills all things!

the fulness of him (Christ)that filleth all in all.

Eph. 1:23

Jesus referred to this ascending and being made a "life giving Spirit" in John 14:28:

I go away, and come again unto you.

101
This would be a cause of rejoicing to the disciples,

"ye would rejoice."

Why? Because, ...

"I go unto the Father,"

(...i.e. returning to unlimited and unrestricted Spirit, the Father's original essence is omnipresent Spirit
John 4:24). For he says:

My Father is greater than I

John 14:28

(...Jesus coming to dwell in them by Spirit, or the Father, is much greater than his physical presence
with them in the flesh as Son).

...though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more"
1 Cor. 5:16

This does not mean that Jesus has "no physical body" up in Heaven. Of course not! But the body he
has now is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44).

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

He has a body, but now has a spiritual body. Christ first had a natural body, but now has a spiritual
body (1 Cor 15:46). The spiritual body does not limit, restrict, or hamper him in any way. His spiritual
omnipresence is now unimpeded by the flesh, therefore he can say:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matthew 18:20

Or...

lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Mat 28:20

This is the glorious New testament Truth of Christ as Holy Spirit. This is the "other comforter" which
would abide with us forever (John 14:16); not a different Person, but Christ in Spirit, rather than flesh,
"I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you" (John 14:18). This is the Spirit of Truth, who
proceeds from the Father (Christ's divine nature), as to source, and is therefore truly the Spirit of the
Father and the Son (John 15:26). The coming of the Spirit to dwelling the believers is called the
manifestation of Christ in John 14:21,

I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

102
...and yet it is also the coming of the Father and the Son to dwell and abide, as in John 14:23. No
contradiction - The Spirit of the Son is the Father, who is also known as the Holy Spirit.

SPIRIT BODY

One must not think that because Christ is now a "life giving Spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45) that we will
never be able to see Him. The following extract from Clarence Larkin's book, "The Spirit World,"
explains beautifully the nature of the spiritual body Christ now has. It is free from all flesh limitations
but still is capable of appearance.

Mr. Larkin writes:

"the resurrected body is endowed with the capacity of transforming itself at pleasure into a
physical body and back again into a spiritual body.

"This is the only solution of the miraculous appearances of Jesus to His disciples during the 40
days that elapsed between his resurrection and Ascension. Take His fourth appearance, the one
to Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus. Jesus assumed a physical body and
walked with those two, and talked wit them, yet they did not know him because 'their eyes
were holden,' but when He sat down to meat with them, they knew Him in the breaking of
bread, that is they recognized His physical body, probably by the pierced hands or by the voice,
and the next moment He VANISHED out of their sight. This is He changed His 'physical
Body' back into His 'Spirit Body' and disappeared from human vision.

"Take Jesus' fifth appearance, when He entered the closed room in Jerusalem. He entered it in
His 'Spirit Body.' That was why they were 'terrified and affrighted' and supposed that they saw
a 'spirit.' Luke 24:37-43. But when He spoke and said unto them, 'Why are ye yet troubled?' He
assumed His physical Body, and as proof called on them to behold His 'hands' and 'feet' (that
had been pierced), and to 'handle Him,' for said He a 'spirit hath not and BONES, as ye see me
have.' And as further proof that it was His physical body that they saw He called for something
to eat, and when it was handed to him, he ate before them. Then after He had talked with them
awhile, He breathed on them and said - 'RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST,' and then He
disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as He came" (Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, p.
122).

REMARKABLE TESTIMONY FROM ORAL ROBERTS

Oral Roberts, leading Trinitarian Pentecostal Evangelist, and founder of Oral Roberts University, is a
distinguished scholar in his own right. He has produced a definition of the Holy Spirit which is
theologically light-years in advance of His fellow-Trinitarians' understanding. He is to be commended
for his intellectual honesty in setting it down in print. Although Dr. Roberts considers himself a
Trinitarian, he definition of the Holy Spirit is in perfect agreement with Oneness theology. He is
another example of the many "Trinitarians" who define themselves by that label, but in their "heart of
hearts" (to use one of Dr. Boyd's terms) they are Oneness. Dr. Roberts writes the following:

103
 "Who is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the other 'Comforter' (John 14:16). He is the one
whom Christ said he would send back in His own invisible, unlimited form to (live) 'in' you
and to abide 'with' you forever (John 14:16, 17). You see, God is one God. 'O Israel: The Lord
thy God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). When we call Him father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Holy
Trinity - we are not saying He is three Gods. He is simply God.... God manifesting Himself as
the Father with a specific work to do, as the Son with a specific work to do, and as the Holy
Spirit with a specific work to do. As an example, let's take water. It can manifest itself in three
ways: as liquid, as ice, or as vapor. But it is still water. The same is true of God. As God loving
us, He came to earth as the Son to be born of a woman, to become a human being and to show
us what he (God) is like... After Christ divested Himself of His human body by being raised
from the dead and ascending back to heaven, He prayed the Father to send the Holy Spirit. So
the Father manifested Himself as the Holy Spirit... So Holy Spirit is God Himself, without the
limitations of the human body of Jesus which was limited to time, to space, and to death, as
each of us is. To be without these limitations He is now invisible (and in us) where they can
never crucify Him again. He is also unlimited so that time, space, or death can never touch
Him again. Therefore, the Holy Spirit in you is invisible; He is unlimited. This puts you into
miracle living. It makes all things possible to you (Matt. 17:20), Through the indwelling Holy
Spirit, who is Christ returned in His invisible, unlimited form in you, you are in position to
enter into miracle-living" (Oral Roberts, Three Most Important Steps to Your Better Health and
Miracle Living, p. 54-56).

THE HOLY GHOST IS THE FATHER ALSO

Some may challenge the statement that the Holy Spirit is the Father. But by doing so they challenge
the Bible record, for the angel told Joseph:

"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy
Ghost"
Matt. 1:20 Margin.

Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost. This makes the Holy Spirit the Father of Christ. Hence the
Holy Spirit is the Father. It is all one Spirit (John 4:24). The angel said the same thing to Mary:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35.

Because of the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary, Christ is the Son of God. The Holy Ghost is the
Father of the "Holy Thing" - "Christ the Lord". The Spirit is the Father in Matthew 10:20 is the Holy
Ghost in Mark 13:11.

THE SPIRIT IN REVELATION

In the Book of Revelation (a book which has already revealed Jesus to us as the Father) Christ asserts
his identity with the Spirit seven times in two Chapters (Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 and Revelation
3:6,13,22). Christ is the speaker exclusively throughout these two chapters, yet he says: "He that hath

104
an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches." He is the Spirit that is speaking to the
churches.

COMPARISONS PROVE CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT

Christ is said to provide believers with a mouth of wisdom in times of persecution (Luke 21:15);

For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to
gainsay nor resist.
Luke 21:15

... yet in the parallel passage in Mark 13:11 he says it is the Holy Ghost who will do it.

But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall
speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak
ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
Mark 13:11

Christ is the Spirit, or else Christians will be provided with two "distinct" attorneys for their court!
Why would two be needed?

Romans 8:26 shows us the Spirit is our Intercessor.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we
ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Yet Hebrews 7:25 says respecting Christ:

he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

We need but one intercessor, and we have him in Christ, who has come to us in his Spirit nature to
make intercession with "groanings which cannot be uttered."

The Bible says in John that Christ will be the one to resurrect believers:

The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live. ...for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice,
John 5:25-28

Jesus also said:

I am the resurrection, and the life:

John 11:25

105
No question He is the Resurrecting Power. Yet the Bible says it is the Holy Spirit who will "quicken"
or make alive the body of believers:

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit
Romans 8:11

Trinitarians are ever confused as to what "person" of the Godhead shall raise them from the dead, the
Second of the Third? But the Bible teaches that Christ became the Holy Spirit when He ascended,

The last Adam (Christ) was made a quickening spirit.

1 Cor 15:45

Thus it is Jesus Christ in His Spirit nature that will quicken us.

The same thing holds true for sanctification. The Bible says we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost
(Romans 15:16).

...being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

And Jude addresses His letter to ...

...them that are sanctified by God the Father,

This is all reconciled when we realize that Christ's divine nature is the Holy Spirit, which is also called
the Father. There is only One Spirit and it comes to us from the glorified Body of Christ in
sanctification. Trinitarians teach that all "three divine persons" sanctify us. Why would it take three?
Especially since sanctification means "set apart for God's use." Were we set apart, then reset apart, and
then re-set apart? Besides Hebrews 2:11 knocks a hole in the "three sanctifiers theory" when it says:

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one:

TWO TRINITARIANS SPEAK

What more is needed? It is the same over and over in the New Testament. the Holy Spirit is always
traced back to Christ, even the Father, come to dwell in us as the Comforter. I don't think anyone could
have expressed it better than William Phillips Hall did, a Trinitarian scholar, in his book Remarkable
Biblical Discovery:

"It would seem in the light of the Biblically revealed facts , that out from the risen, ascended,
and glorified body of the Lord Jesus Christ - who is the temple of the otherwise invisible God
the Father in Heaven... there proceeds or radiates (John 15:26) throughout the universe the
Spirit of God in Christ, who is the Holy Spirit..." (William Phillips Hall, Remarkable Biblical
Discovery, p. 30).

106
Contrast that beautiful and biblical description of the glorified Christ in His resurrection body, with the
Holy Spirit emanating out from him, with this strange doctrine advanced by Barry Wood, a Trinitarian
and graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Writing in his book, "Questions Non
Christians Ask Today" he says on page 38 concerning the resurrection body of Christ:

"This body was temporary. It was accommodated to our human senses as proof that Jesus was
indeed raised from the dead. Now what happened to His Spirit Body at the Ascension? It was
changed... Jesus, as God, has no distinct separate body now. He is God in God's pre-historical
form - 'absorbed' as it were, back into the Godhead."

To what lengths will men go - prehistoric, bodiless, absorbed Christ! All to avoid the Scriptural
Oneness message, God was in Christ, and in All His Fullness ( 1 Timothy 3:16, Col. 2:9). And of the
Fullness, we have all received (John 1:16). And that, dear reader, is the Holy Spirit!

SUMMARY

How simpler and clear it is: the fullness of the Godhead (the Father) is in Christ (the Son) and of that
fullness we have received (Holy Spirit). Jesus even gave a remarkable lesson after His resurrection to
prove that not only was His Spirit the Holy Spirit, but he was the Only dispenser of it:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost:
John 20:22.

His breath is the Holy Spirit. Both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament (ruwach) and the Greek of the
New Testament (pneuma) the word for "Spirit" is the same as "breath". Jesus' very breath, His Spirit,
is the Holy Ghost. Will Trinitarians now attempt to prive a "personal distinction" between a man and
his breath?! No wonder the Holy Spirit is called Christ (Col. 1:27), the Spirit of Christ (1 Pet 1:11), the
Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19), and the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6).

We have now shown from the Bible that Jesus is the Father in his divine indwelling nature; the Son in
his begotten manhood; and the Holy Spirit by emanation, or as Bishop S.C. Johnson of Philadelphia
would say on the radio:

"Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and beside Him there is no God and I
condemn everything else!"

CHAPTER X
JESUS IS GOD
WHO ARE THE "SECRET ONENESS BELIEVERS" AMONG THE TRINITARIANS?
DO THEY SHOW UP IN THE STATISTICS?
IS JESUS "GOD THE FATHER", OR "GOD THE SON" IN HIS DIVINE NATURE?

107
 WHAT ARE THE "MAGIC SPECTACLES" TRINITARIANS USE WHEN READING THE
BIBLE?

TRINITARIAN STATISTICS // BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND // JESUS AS GOD AND

FATHER // MAGIC GLASSES // REVIEWING JESUS AS GOD // MATTHEW 1:23 // LUKE 1:67-
68 // MATTHEW 19:16-17 // JOHN 20:28 // JOHN 1:1 // 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 // 2 CORINTHIANS
5:19 // ACTS 7:59 // ACTS 20:28 // HEBREWS 1:8 // 1 JOHN 5:20 // TITUS 2:13 // ROMANS 9:5 //
CROSS REFERENCES

TRINITARIAN STATISTICS

How many people over the centuries have seen the truth of Oneness, as opposed to those holding
Trinitarian concepts? This is an intriguing question. . Dr. Boyd feels he has the answer, for he states
bluntly:

"Yet according to most Oneness groups, Trinitarians are simply blind to the Oneness
Revelation and indeed more than 99.99% of all lovers of Christ who have ever lived have died
without hope of heaven because they, being Trinitarians, failed to pick up on the 'secret
identity' of Jesus " (Boyd, 71).

That seems to leave Oneness with only .01% of "all lovers of Christ" who held their position. These
are certainly remarkable statistics. One wonders who Dr. Boyd was able to analyze 2,000 years of
Church History on six continents to arrive at such a figure!

Even a cursory examination of history will show that his conclusions are not justified. Any
encyclopedia document will show how widespread the Oneness doctrine was by the Second Century.
It was known by various names, such as Modalism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Patripassionism
and so forth. Tertullian found it necessary to write a Treatise against it (Against Praxeas), in which he
states that Oneness was the established belief of...

"all the simple people... who are always the majority of the faithful..." (Tertullian, Against
Praxeas, Chapter 3).

Dr. Boyd tries to do something with this genuine statistic in order to get it out of the way fast. For it is
embarrassing to him that the "simple" and the "faithful" did not buy into Trinitarianism in those early
years. he comes close to calling Tertullian a liar when he says,

"One must then be cautious in taking him as always providing us with accurate history" (Boyd,
157).

However, this "inaccuracy" does not prevent him from quoting him on the next page when it is to his
advantage!

Indeed, one of the reasons it "appears" that Trinitarianism has held such a wide margin is the fact that
many Oneness believers through centuries thought they were Trinitarians and have referred to

108
themselves as such. In actuality they were "closet Oneness" and didn't know it! I remember explaining
the Oneness to a man I was acquainted with a number of years ago, while his friend, who was a dean
of an Episcopal school, listened in. At the end of my explanation, the dean surprised me by
exclaiming:

"That's the way I believe in the Trinity - One God in three manifestations, not three persons
trying to be one God."

He was thoroughly Oneness, but absolutely convinced he was a believer in the Trinity. Another
experience I had was with a young men who had converted to our church from the local Baptist
Church. He came into my office somewhat concerned because someone had told him we didn't believe
in the Trinity, -

"you know, one God in three manifestations!"

How many more of the "simple" and the "faithful" like that are "out there?" Millions I believe. they
attend Trinitarian Churches; they believe they are faithful Trinitarians; they have never even heard the
word "Oneness." But when you ask them to describe the Trinity, they paint you a word picture of the
Oneness doctrine that is word for word what we believe!

And there is no denying that even among the "intelligentsia" there is a good representation of Oneness,
harboring under the label of "Trinity". Even though Paul says "not many wise men after the flesh... are
called," we still find some.

I remember in my undergraduate days at college I had to take a course in religion. I attended a

Lutheran College and this was required. The professor announced to the class that the next day he was
going to lecture on the Trinity. My friends, knowing My Oneness beliefs, were overjoyed that I was
"going to get it." The next day, however, it was they who "got it." The professor immediately began by
explaining that the word "person" actually meant "mask" in the Greek. So God in Three Persons really
should be viewed as a single person appearing under different masks or roles, as in Greek theater
performances. He concluded by saying that there was One God in three manifestations. Yet this pure
Oneness Doctrine was taught under the heading of Trinity. Example are endless. Karl Barth the well
known Swiss-German theologian is essentially a modalist and not a Trinitarian, for he defines God as
existing in "three modes" rather than persons. Yet he is recognized as a Trinitarian, howbeit a
modalistic one! A century ago the Plymouth Brethren held a famous Bible Conference to expound
their "New Trinity." How did they define their "new Trinitarian understanding?" Pure Oneness! The
Father was explained as being the deity manifested in Christ and the whole Trinity was reduced to
"modes" and "manifestations". When the final count is taken Dr. Boyd may be surprised at how many
real Trinitarians are left!

BLIND LEADERS

Most Trinitarian theologians however are not as enlightened as the "simple, who are always the
majority of the faithful." That they are blinded, for the most part, we do not deny. It is self-evident.
But we are not the ones responsible for this, neither is our Lord. Their blindness is self imposed. They
prefer to see "men like trees walking." The reason they can't discern Christ's true identity is they are so

109
busy looking for Plato's Logos that they miss completely the Father in the Son. They are combing
haystacks looking for "substances" that are not there. They have a vast manhunt organized for three
missing persons and it consumes all their energy. By the time they have plowed through Gnosticism,
Platonism and Paganism and birthed such miscreants as Perichoresis and Hypostasia they have no
strength left "to search to see if these things are so." We try to make it easy for them by bringing the
Revelation to their doorstep, but they won't answer the bell. For they are again "off and running,"
racing through Greek lexicons in a frantic bid to "unbeget" the "begotten" Son, while at the same time
trying to "eternally generate him from the Father's substance."

Such people are too busy to see anything! And to make matters worse, if such is possible, they are,
everyone of them, wearing "specially designed" glasses to deflect the rays of the Son. For Trinitarian
theologians have trained themselves, and all who will listen to them, to automatically "re-translate"
many passages of Scripture into Trinitarian thought forms. This is done so adeptly that they
themselves become unaware of it! Allow me to illustrate.

JESUS AS GOD AND FATHER

The Bible has a number of references to Jesus as God. Scripturally, this is the equivalent of calling
him the Father. Every reference to Jesus as God is a reference to Him as Father. This is well
established in Old and New testament usage. The Old Testament restricts all deity to God the Father
(Isaiah 63:16; Mal. 2:10; Isaiah 64:8; Jer. 3:19). To the Jews of the Old Testament, God and Father
were synonymous. The Jews of Christ's day also recognized that all Deity was exclusive to the Father.
They had One God - the Father (John 8:41). Christ Himself confirmed that the only True God was the
Father when He prayed:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, ...
John 17:3

The New Testament Church believed the same way, for Paul wrote:

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,...
1 Cor 8:6

Let it be noted that this reference is exclusive - "but one God, the Father" - no one else is God. Over
and over the Bible presses home this truth. Therefore, when Christ is referred to as "God", it has to
mean He is the Father, for biblically speaking, there is no other God!

MAGIC GLASSES

But Trinitarians, who refuse to acknowledge the Fatherhood of Christ, must resort to "re-translating"
these references to Christ as God. On go the "coloured glasses." Now through their prismatic vision
they are able to see things with just the right distortion! Every place where Christ is called God, they
see "God the Son, Second Person." Thus they can come away from these texts proclaiming their
agreement with them, but with this disclaimer: "Of course He's God, but God the Son, not God the
Father." It does not occur to them that "God the Son" is an unscriptural title, never used of Christ.
They have their "glasses" on, and to them its as plain as printer's ink can make it. And they constantly

110
re-inforce their myopic vision with the comforting thought that there are "three persons" in the
Godhead, any of whom may be called "God." Its all so easy when you use the "glasses." How handy
are these "glasses" that so effortlessly "retranslate" all these verses from meaning "God the Father"
into this mysterious "God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity." Even Joseph Smith's magical
spectacles, with which he supposedly "translated" the Book of Mormon from golden plates, could not
have been as powerful as these Trinitarian lenses. For he took what wasn't there and said it was.
Whereas Trinitarians take what is there, and say it isn't! And these are the people who demand that we
produce more "Father references." Why? So they can make them disappear also?

REVIEWING JESUS AS GOD

Let us revisit the texts that refer to Jesus Christ as God. But let us keep in mind the true Bible
definition for God, i.e., "Father." Trinitarians have been so busy (wit the aid of their special lenses)
pushing out this true definition, and sliding in the catch phrase "God the Son," that they have missed a
tremendous amount of evidence of the Fatherhood of Christ. Then they complain His divine identity as
God the Father is "opaque" and "secret." If they would start reading the Bible, as it was written, and
cease "re-working" it to fit Plato's Trinitarian ramblings they would realize the Truth, the scales would
fall off their eyes; and they would see "no man, save Jesus Only" (Matthew 17:8).

MATTHEW 1:23

"And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

It would never have occurred to Isaiah, (who wrote the original prophecy) or Matthew, (who quoted it)
to ask "what person of God?" Isaiah knew that Emmanuel would be "the Father" and so wrote in Isaiah
9:6. Matthew has no "second person" in mind. That was not invented until three hundred years later.
The only God they knew, even God the Father, was coming to dwell "with them" in the flesh of
Emmanuel, their Messiah. Who would dare read anything more than this into it? Yet it is precisely
here, on the first page of the New testament, that Trinitarians and Neo-Trinitarians, begin their work of
"over hauling" the Scriptures in order to diminish the full orbed deity of Christ, and reduce Him to
some "Second Person."

LUKE 1:67-68

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people"

This is the prophecy of Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, concerning Christ. And who was this
"Lord God" that Zechariah had in mind, who would "visit and redeem His people?" Zechariah did not
have any Trinitarian "Second Person" concept in mind, that's for sure. He undoubtedly was thinking of
Isaiah 63:16:

Thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Zechariah's own son, John, was to be called the prophet of the Highest (which is a reference to the
Father) and would go...

111
 ...before the face of Jehovah to prepare his ways
Luke 1:76

Christ is the "Highest," for he who cometh from above is above all (John 3:31), and this is none other
than the Father (Eph. 4:6). His face is the "face of Jehovah" which agrees with Paul's statement that we
behold the ...

"glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ"

2 Cor. 4:6.

Finally Zecharias acknowledges Christ as the source and origin of everything when he says...

"the day spring from on high hath visited us"

Luke 1:78

If this is not the one infinite and undivided God in all His Fullness, then language has no meaning at
all and words are useless for transmission of thought. For surely there cannot be three "co-equal" day
springs from on high!

MATTHEW 19:16-17

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may
have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God...

"None good but God." What "God" was Jesus talking about? the Father of course. That's the only God
Jesus ever talked about. But is Jesus good? Yes, for He said,

"I am the good shepherd"

John 10:11

Hence He is the one God who is good, even the Father, who is the only God! And this fulfills Isaiah's
prophecy:

Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
Isaiah 40:10-11

JOHN 20:28

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus here is addressed as Lord and God. The Greek is even better -

"the Lord of me and the God (ho theos) of me."

112
Certainly Thomas didn't mean that Jesus was the Second of Three Co-equal persons, all of whom are
God. He had just heard Jesus address the Father as the "only true God." (John 17:3). Surely in the
space of a few days Thomas could not have found another true God, other than the Father. Yet this is
what Trinitarians would have us believe: that Thomas was referring to Jesus as God the Son, instead of
the Father, who is the only true God. No, Thomas was addressing the Deity in Christ, the Father that
dwelt in the Son. he became by that confession "Oneness Thomas" and no longer "Doubting Thomas."

JOHN 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That Jesus Christ is the Word, is universally recognized. Revelation 19:13 proves it beyond all dispute.
But the Word is God, the only God, for John never introduces another.

Trinitarians must do some track switching here to avoid derailment. SO they change the definition of
God within one breath and interpret the verse as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God the Father, First Person, and the Word was God the Son, Second Person." This not only is
not what the text says, but it also makes the sentence disjointed and contradictory, and violates the
Greek which uses the same word for God in both clauses. Dr. Boyd criticizes Oneness Theology
because it...

"requires that we view Jesus as switching back and forth between his supposed identities of
Father and Son, and doing so between sentences" (Boyd, 88).

But Trinitarians swap entire "Persons," and do so in the middle of a sentence! Surely that renders their
criticism of Oneness utterly null and completely void.

Brother Gordon Magee, in his excellent book "Is Jesus in the Godhead or Is the Godhead in Jesus,"
recounts a conversation between a Trinitarian and a Oneness believer about this verse. It goes
something like this:

The Oneness believer asked the Trinitarian who the Word was, and who God was, in this text. The
Trinitarian replied that the "Word" was Jesus, and "God" was the Father. The Oneness disciple then
asked him to repeat the text using those substitutes. The Trinitarian gladly complied: "In the beginning
was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father!" Somewhat embarrassed the
Trinity believer exclaimed he had made an error. God in that verse referred to the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, the whole Trinity. Again he was asked to repeat the verse, this time with his new
substitution. The Trinitarian began again: "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost and Jesus was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!" He stopped, even more
embarrassed than before.

You see, without their magic "switch'em up, mix'em up" glasses, Trinitarians simply cannot use the
language of Scripture as it is written. They have to "make it and mold it after their will."

Some may wonder, "If Jesus is the Father, how could he be said to be 'with Him'?" You will remember
that when Jesus was on earth as the Son, he also said the Father was "with" him. And we discovered

113
this was so because the Father "dwelt in Him" and he was therefore the Temple in which the Father
lived. The same situation occurs in the Old Testament. Christ was not the Son, but He was the Word,
or in other words God's image, or visible form. This glorious Word, the Christ, was known as the
"body of heaven" (Exodus 24:10) and as such was the Temple of God in Old Testament times. God
was "with" the Word, because He indwelt that visible form and used it to manifest Himself. When the
Word appeared in Old Testament times, it was called the Angel of Jehovah, but Jehovah was clearly
indwelling the Angel-Word at all times. (Exodus 3:2-6). Whether in the Old Testament as the Word of
God, or in the New Testament as the Son of God, Christ has always been God's body or Temple. Thus
God is always in Him, and thereby can be said to be "with him." This does not constitute two persons
either; for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and not a person. Person is a term applied to human beings. It is
in the person of Christ, that the otherwise invisible Father, who is Spirit not "person", is manifested
and seen.

1 TIMOTHY 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

God was manifest in the flesh. This means the only true God, even the Father, was manifest in the
flesh of His Son. This agrees with the testimony of the whole Bible. Jesus said the deity that was in
His flesh was the Father -

"the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"

John 14:10

"I am in the Father, and the Father in me"

John 10:38

"I and my Father are one"

John 10:30

Perfect agreement. The Father was in him, doing the works. God was in flesh, manifesting Himself.
No contradiction whatsoever. It fulfills prophecy also, for Isaiah said that the Son would actually be
God, even the everlasting Father, in human flesh form (Isa. 9:6).

The old classic Trinitarians dodged this verse by retranslating it in their minds as "God the Son was
manifest in the flesh." Any scripture to justify this "switch?" None. But that never stopped them in the
past. "The church has always interpreted it this way" is their constant refrain. What church I ask? Not
the original apostolic one founded on the Day of Pentecost. Dr. Boyd writes:

"Typical New Testament way of speaking is, of course, exceedingly strange if Jesus is Himself
God the Father" (Boyd, 68).

What is "exceeding strange" is this New Testament silence if Jesus is Himself "God the Son." Why do
they not produce even one text that says "God the Son" was dwelling in the Son of God? That's a hard
nut to crack and they'll be at it for quite a while. The absence of scripture does not keep them up at

114
night however. They sleep quite well being sedated by the "Church's traditional interpretation of
Scripture" which allows them to...

"discover that God can be truly one while also embodying a trinity..." (Boyd, 52).

As Augustine put it;

"Rome has spoken, Case closed!"

While classic Trinitarians were content to "rework" the text, Neo-Trinitarians prefer to bail out by
means of another parachute - one they borrowed from Jehovah's Witnesses. Using their favourite NIV
translation of the Bible, Neo-Trinitarians insist the verse should only read: "He who was manifest in
the flesh," thereby eliminating God completely from the discussion. Thus Neo-Trinitarians follow in
the footsteps of their Watchtower predecessors who likewise translate it as "He" and not "God" in their
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Now they can all walk away from the text, wiping their
perspiring foreheads and sighing with relief over what a "close call" they all just had. That Neo-
Trinitarians would prefer this Arian inspired rendering over the traditional one, shows how ardently
they "really" believe that Jesus is God. They are willing to join forces with a Christ denying cult, like
Jehovah's Witnesses, in order to avoid a "head on" with 1 Timothy 3:16 and its strong Oneness
pronouncement. Thus they have shown their "true colours" by jumping on the Watchtower bandwagon
and joining them in chanting: "Its not in the Greek." But it is in the Greek, and they are in the
WRONG!

The three oldest Greek manuscripts are the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus, and the Sinaiticus. Lets look
at their testimony. First, the Vaticanus is missing the entire epistle of 1 Timothy, so its eliminated from
the argument. The Alexandrinus renders it as "God was manifest in flesh." In support of this
translation there are nearly three hundred Greek copies which render it in the same way, retaining the
word "God." Only a handful of Greek copies support the "He who" perversion of the text. Among the
witnesses in support of "God was manifest" are: The Syriac Version of Philoxenus (AD 488-518),
Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394; on eo f Dr. Boyd's favorite Cappodocian Fathers),
Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 370), Chrysostom (d. 407), Dionysius of Alexandria (AD 264), plus Ignatius,
Barnabas and Hippolytus.

Almost all of these witnesses are older than any of the Greek Manuscripts we possess. Surely they
knew what the correct rendering was. They had the manuscripts before them as they wrote, and
handled ones which were much older than the ones we now have.

It is true that the third manuscript, the Sinaiticus, does render it as "He who was manifest in the flesh,"
however this particular manuscript is much corrupted and shows visible attempts by ten different
scribes to correct its supposed "errors!"

Bible scholars see another problem with the "He who" rendition:

"Dr. Bloomfield and other learned authorities have demonstrated that the new reading 'the
mystery...who was manifested' violates all the rules of construction and exhibits only too

115
 clearly the marks of accidental or deliberate corruption" (Daniel L. Seagraves, The Search for
the Word of God, p. 82).

Why do Neo-Trinitarians not "follow the Church" on this issue also, and "allow scripture to ell us what
the Truth in fact implies?" Why do they suddenly part company with their old ecclesiastical
compatriots - Ignatius, Hippolytus, Chrysostom, and the Cappodocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa? They
were certainly good enough witnesses for their Trinitarian arguments. Why are they not called in for
"expert testimony" on this case? Dr. Boyd uses Ignatius on pages 150-153 as an authentic witness for
the Trinity. He cites the writings of Hippolytus on page 178 and says that he, along with other church
Fathers, clearly understood "what was at stake." He mentions the Cappodocian fathers on page 173, of
whom Gregory of Nyssa was one. They are theologians to be trusted! But when it comes to the true
textual rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 they are of no value! They are never quoted or cited. They are
returned without fanfare to the dust of their tombs, until needed again. I hope he didn't mind that we
borrowed them in the meantime; after all, he wasn't using them!

In spite of what they say, any chance Neo-Trinitarians get to remove a proof of Christ's absolute deity,
they seize it. Even if they have to wake up in the same bed with Jehovah's Witnesses and their brood
of "gods many." For in their hearts, Neo-Trinitarians realize, if Christ is called God, he must be the
"only true God," even the Father. And this they cannot abide.

2 CORINTHIANS 5:19

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.

Who was the God that was "in Christ?" The same one Jesus told us was in Him:

that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 10:38

but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:10

as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,

John 17:21

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: ...

John 14:11

What more is needed? If Jesus is not the Father, then we are still unreconciled to the God that
was "in Christ." And if this was just the "Second Person" that was in Christ, then we still need
to be reconciled to the First and Third Persons of the supposed Trinity!

Trinitarians always try to weaken this verse wit their old "Johnny One Note" refrain:

"It was God the Son, not God the Father, who was in Christ."

116
Thus they again "retranslate" the verse in their minds and attempt to launch it off into the wild
blue yonder of the "distinct persons" theory. But it says God, not God the Son, and the Biblical
definition of God is "Father." Hence, the Father was in Christ reconciling the world unto
Himself. Paul agrees, Jesus agrees, why can't they?

About this time they start reaching for their "Perichoresis" theory which the Cappodocian
fathers cooked up after a restless night at the Monastery:

"...whatever person of the Godhead one is referring to, the other two are fully present" (Boyd,
64).

Well then what is so special about "God the Son" being incarnate, if the other two persons are
"fully present" also? And it can't be that the Son "endured" something the other "two" did not,
for what "Jesus endured the totality of the Godhead endured" (Boyd, 188). They might as well
come right out and say that the entire Trinity, all three persons, was incarnate in Jesus Christ.
"Well," they counter, "the Son was the one who was sent into the world." How could he be?
For each person of the Trinity "completely dwells within the other two" and "wherever God is,
all of God is" (p, 171). So they all come "into the world" together! What's more, seeing God is
an omnipresent Spirit, He was already in the world, and everywhere else! So when the trinity
arrived, it was met by the Trinity which was already here! Could anything be more ridiculous
and self-contradictory? Surely of all the inane theories that have ever been advanced, this is the
crown and summit. It would have been a blessing to the world if it had remained in that dusty
monastery, never seeing the light of day. But its out now and there is nothing they can do about
it but swallow and go on.

ACTS 7:59

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

He called on God, by saying "Lord Jesus." There's no question what God Stephen had in mind,
for he defined Him for us in verse 32 as "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob" who was also the "God of his fathers." This is none other than God the Father,
for "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, ..." (Isaiah 63:16). Are
we to assume that a few moments later, Stephen discovers another God, namely "God the Son",
and invoked him while dying? Hardly! The God that he invoked with the name of the Lord
Jesus was the same "God of His fathers" and the only God, even God the Father. Thus the
testimony of this dying saint seals Jesus' identity as Father and confirms it with his martyr's
blood.

But some will say, "Didn't Stephen see Jesus standing next to God in Heaven?" He did not! He
saw the "glory of God" (Acts 7:55). And where do we see the glory of God? We behold "the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). The only way we can see God's glory is
to look at the "face of Christ," who is the "image of God" (2 Cor 4:4) and has God's glory
dwelling within him, for "God is glorified in him" (John 13:32). Stephen also referred to Jesus
being on the "right hand of God." But this is not a literal flesh and bone right hand, for "God is
a Spirit" (John 4:24) and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). It is symbolic

117
speech. The Bible also talks about being sheltered under God's "wings," and covered with his
"feathers" (Psalm 91:4). Are we to believe that God is a huge celestial hen because of this
figurative speech? Of course not! His "right hand" is no more literal than His "wings" or
"feathers." It is all figurative. It simply means that Jesus is in the position of power, on the
right hand of Power:

Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
Luke 22:69.

When did Jesus receive this power? When He was resurrected and the Father took up
permanent residence in his body (Col. 2:9 Greek), thereby transferring all his power and divine
attributes to Christ, His Son.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth.
Matt 28:18

So in summary, Stephen saw Jesus with all authority and power, ruling from the heavens, "on
the right hand of power," and he saw the glory of the fulness of the Godhead shining out from
the face of Jesus Christ, who is the glory of God. No wonder he cried out to God saying "Lord
Jesus." Who wouldn't?

ACTS 20:28

...to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

God had blood! When? When the Father dwelt in the body of His incarnational Son. "God was
manifest in the flesh," and flesh has blood in it, for...

"the life of the flesh is in the blood thereof."

All things the Father had, belonged also to the Son through the incarnation.

"All things that the Father hath are mine..."

John 17:10.

In this sense the Father, who in his divine essence is Spirit, is said to have blood. He assumed it
through the incarnation, and it is in the same sense that...

"God... laid down His life for us"

1 John 3:16

Not that God who is a spirit could die or be killed. That is impossible, seeing God is immortal
and incapable of death (1 Tim 1:17). But He could, and did, lay down this assumed human life,
this flesh and blood body in which he was incarnate, and which He interpenetrated (John
10:38).

118
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works...
Hebrews 9:14

It was not God "the eternal Spirit" who died, but rather it was through the Eternal Spirit (who
dwelt in the body of our Lord) that the flesh and blood life of Christ was "laid down for us" in
sacrifice.

HEBREWS 1:8

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever

This is taken from the Book of Psalms, where God, speaking through David, was prophesying
of the Coming Messiah (Psalms 45:6-7). And by inspiration of God, working through the
writings of David, we are informed that the Messiah will not only be a "Son" but also God
Himself! This is not a conversation between two persons of the Godhead in which one points
to the other and calls Him God! It is Messianic Prophecy given by God in the Old Testament.
he who is the Son of God on the "outside" as a human, is also God on the "inside" as Spirit.

JOHN 5:20

...and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life.

How could Jesus Christ be referred to in this verse as "the true God and eternal life" when
Christ Himself defined the Father as "the only true God" and "eternal life" (John 17:3)? By
God the Father being incarnate and embodied in the Son, everything that is said of God can
now be said of Jesus Christ. the "True God" and "eternal life" is dwelling in the flesh temple of
His Son, thereby making Christ "God manifest in flesh" (1 Tim 3:16).

For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

John 3:43

Instead of a "measure" of the divine nature, He has all the fulness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9).
No wonder John could also write,

He that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

I John 2:23

And...

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9

The "true God" and "eternal life" even the Father, is enfleshed within the body of the Son.

119
 TITUS 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ;

Christ is here styled the "Great God and Saviour." In the tenth verse Paul talks about the
doctrine of "God our Saviour." Who is this Great God who is also Saviour? Trinitarians read it
in their minds as "God the Son and our Saviour," Jesus Christ. But that's not what Paul meant.
The Old Testament was clear that there was only One Saviour, Jehovah God, and none other.

I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 43:11

Yet Christ is called Saviour (Luke 2:11). Paul reconciles this in the One Person of Christ who
is both God and Saviour, and this he did according "to the commandment of God our Saviour"
(Titus 1:3). And this "Great God and Saviour" was none other than the Father incarnate in the
Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Titus 1:4

It was God the Father, in our Lord Jesus Christ, which constituted the one Saviour. (Note: The
original Greek uses no punctuation marks, therefore the comma after Christ can just as well be
added or omitted. In fact, the original Greek could be equally translated as: "from God the
Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Our Saviour").

In summary, there is no question that when Paul refers to Christ as the "Great God and
Saviour" he is calling Him Father; because Jesus in John 10:29, as well as Moses in
Deuteronomy 10:17, defined the "Great God" as being none other than God the Father!

ROMANS 9:5

...of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Trinitarians have always admitted this verse calls Jesus "God." But by using their unique
"Trifocal" lenses they see it as "God the Son." But it can be easily shown that this is another
reference to Christ as Father. He is said to be God who is "over all." And this is none other
than the Father:

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Eph. 4:6

And in case some might think there could be "two persons" (or three) who are "above all" we
present Psalm 83:18:

120
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the
earth.

The one true God the Father, known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, now incarnate in Christ,
is "over all, God blessed forever." Cold stubborn facts are against our Trinitarian friends, but
they manage to "fix it up" somehow and go on. The thing just will not wear!

So we have seen from this biblical survey that Jesus Christ is, on a number of occasions in the
New Testament, directly called God. And in every case we have seen that this is also a
reference to Him being God the Father. there is nothing in any of those passages that would
warrant the assertion that "another divine person" is being referred to, namely "God the Son."
Every single text mentioned is most easily explained and understood by recognizing the Father
as the divine nature dwelling in Christ, as He Himself said.

Dr. Boyd, however, believes he has found another divine nature that dwells in Christ. He
writes:

"Paul also came to see that this same one God dwelled fully as the Son of God in Jesus Christ"
(Boyd, 122).

He has the Son of God "dwelling fully" in the Son of God! The Son is dwelling in the Son -
whatever that means! It is certainly not what Christ Himself revealed, for he said, "The Father
(not the Son!) that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). I think the Son of God
can be trusted to know who was dwelling in Him! To support his "Son in Son" doctrine, Dr.
Boyd refers us to Colossians 2:9. But that's no help for him, fro it reads,

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Nothing about just "the Son dwelling in the Son," but plenty about the whole Godhead
dwelling in Him (and that would necessarily include Father, Son and Holy Ghost). He needs a
text that says "God the Son dwelt in the Son of God." But he'll never find it. I know. I was a
Trinitarian. I searched the entire Bible through, looking for such a text and never found it. I had
my friends look, they couldn't find it either. My pastor couldn't find it. They all gave up
looking, as I myself did. Why search for what is not there? Its a waste of time. This whole
thing was not planted by the Father, and will therefore have to be "plucked up" (and the sooner,
the better).

Another route which indisputably identifies Jesus Christ as God the Father is obtained through
cross referencing Old Testament prophecies with new Testament fulfillments in Christ. Dr.
Boyd does not like cross referencing and warns against it on page 85 with bold letters, "Beware
of Cross Referencing Arguments." It is no wonder he dislikes cross referencing, for these
references would make any Trinitarian cross! But we like them. To us they are "joy
unspeakable" and "full of glory" - the glory of Christ that is.

Rev. 1:7-8 Jesus was the Almighty

121
Gen 17:1 And the Almighty was God

John 8:58 Jesus was the I Am

Ex. 3:14 And the I Am was God

Acts 3:14 Jesus was the Holy One

Isa 43:15 And the Holy One was God

John 8:24 Jesus was the I Am He

Isa. 43:19 And the I Am He was God

Rev. 22:13 Jesus was the First and Last

Isa 44:6 And the First and Last was God

1 Cor 10:4 Jesus was the Rock

Psa 18:31 And the Rock was God

2 Cor 11:2 Jesus was the One Husband

Jer 31:32 And the One Husband was God

Matt 23:8 Jesus was the One Master

Mal. 1:6 And the One Master was God

John 10:16 Jesus was the One Shepherd

Isa. 40:10 And the One Shepherd was God

122
Acts 4:12 Jesus was the One Saviour
Isa. 45:21 And the One Saviour was God

Luke 1:68 Jesus was the One redeemer

Isa. 41:14 And the One Redeemer was God

Rev. 19:16 Jesus was the Lord of Lords

Deut. 10:17 And the Lord of Lords was God

John 1:3 Jesus was the One Creator

Isa. 44:24 And the One Creator was God

John 1:49 Jesus was the King of Israel

Isa. 44:6 And the King of Israel was God

Phil. 2:10 Every knee must bow to Jesus

Isa 45:23 Every Knee must bow to God

Matt. 25:31 Jesus is Coming

Zech. 14:4-5 God is Coming

Who could possibly deny that the Almighty, the I Am, The I Am He, the Lord of Lords, the
First and the Last, the Redeemer, and the Creator mentioned in the Old Testament was anyone
else but God the Father? And yet Jesus is the New Testament fulfillment of every one of those
titles! He is either God the Father in flesh or the New testament writers were terribly mixed up.
I'd rather believe the Trinitarian theologians and "fathers" were mixed up; they had a penchant
for it. Yet in spite of this mountainous avalanche of Biblical evidence that comes raining down
on us from the twin peaks of the Old and New Testament, all proving Jesus to be the Father in
His divine Nature, Dr. Boyd writes:

"The way the Bible does speak, then, is to refer to Jesus as God's Son and the Father as
someone distinct from Jesus the Son" (Boyd, 69).

123
 The only way this statement could be made correct would be to replace "Bible" with "Pope,"
for as we have clearly seen, it is not the Bible which is so determined to make the Father
distinct from the Son.

CHAPTER XII
WHAT THINK YE OF THE CHRIST?
WHY DO TRINITARIANS CLING TO THE WORD "PERSONS" WHEN DEFINING THE
GODHEAD?
WHY ARE NEO-TRINITARIANS EMBARRASSED BY THEIR DOCTRINAL
VOCABULARY?
WHAT WORDS DID THE INSPIRED WRITERS USE TO DEFINE CHRIST'S DEITY?
ARE THEY STILL APPLICABLE?

WHY USE UNSCRIPTURAL LANGUAGE? // WHY THE USE OF "PERSONS?" // HEBREW

REVELATION IN A GREEK MOLD // SPIRIT // CHRIST AND THE FULLNESS OF THE
SPIRIT // "GLORY" // GLORY OF GOD IN THE FACE OF CHRIST // "SPIRIT OF GLORY AND
OF GOD" // TRINITARIANS SPEAK ON CHRIST'S GLORY // OLD TESTAMENT GLORY IN
CHRIST // SELF // LIFE // JOHN SPEAKS OF THE ORIGINAL LIFE // CHRIST SPEAKS OF THE
ORIGINAL LIFE // SUMMARY

WHY USE UNSCRIPTURAL LANGUAGE?

Dr. Boyd states bluntly that he feels there us nothing wrong with using "unscriptural language" to
express what scripture teaches.

"First, there is nothing in scripture that prohibits the use of unscriptural language to express
what scripture says. Such a notion if held consistently, would actually prohibit preaching.
Instead we would have to simply come together and read the Bible (in the original language!)"
(Boyd, p. 59).

But why invent "unscriptural language" when there are perfectly adequate scriptural terms already
available, such as Godhead instead of "Trinity," Spirit instead of "substance," manifestation instead of
"person." And why invent "unscriptural language" that contradicts already existing terms! Why have
"eternal Son" instead of "begotten Son?" Why use "third person of the Trinity" instead of "Spirit of
Christ?" And what justification is there for substituting "God in three persons" for "God in Christ?"

WHY THE USE OF "PERSONS?"

The real reason Trinitarians will not return this "borrowed capital" to their Gnostic lenders is that to do
so would collapse the Trinity. It cannot stand if confined to biblical terminology. The "unscriptural
language" is absolutely essential for their "unscriptural doctrine."

124
For this reason Dr. Boyd fights hard to keep the "unscriptural (and anti-scriptural) term "Persons" in
active circulation. To retire it, would put him, and all other Trinitarian theologians, out of work
(though we are more than willing to retrain them for gainful employment). He pleads his case on p.
172,

"Because the word 'person' has become far more individualized, many well respected
trinitarians feel that it is misleading and should actually be dropped from contemporary
creeds..." (P. 172-173).

He feels however that it should be retained and continue to be utilized, but

"with caution, making sure through teaching that the Church understands that we are not using
the word literally, but analogously" (P. 173).

His contention is that the word is dangerous and must be used "with caution" because it has, in modern
times, taken on a newer and narrower meaning. Now it means "individuals" or separate "beings." We
understand Dr. Boyd's embarrassment and we sympathize with him, but we cannot relieve it. In fact,
I'm afraid its going to become more acute. For the simple facts are that the current usage of "person" in
modern ("post-enlightenment") times is the same as the creed makers of old used it -- It meant then,
and was intended to mean, "three individuals" or "three beings". Here is what one of many scholars
has to say on this point.

"The closest Greek parallel to the Latin 'three personae' was 'three prosopa,' but the latter term
meaning 'face, mask, or role,' was popular with the Sabellians. The Cappodocians insisted on
the stronger 'three hypostaseis' (beings)." (H. Dermott, McDonald, Basil the Great, p. 167).

"He (Basil) was the first to fix the accepted formula for the Trinity: one substance (ouisia) and
three persons (hypostaseis)." (Ibid. 167).

So it is clear from the start that the Trinitarian term "persons" was meant to teach "beings" or
"individuals". Why Dr. Boyd would want to deny this is far from easy to understand, especially when
he himself used it in just such a "nuance." Beginning on p. 189 and ending on p. 196 he says
concerning the persons of the Trinity:

"How they love in time has always been taken by the Church to be a true revelation of how
they love in eternity" (P. 189).

If that's not "three individuals" what is it? The unscriptural language of Trinitarianism is absolutely
necessary to keep this fictitious triangle going.

All of this resulted when the church Fathers attempted to express the Godhead in Greek philosophical
terms. In Jesus' day the Greeks only wanted to "see him" (John 12:20-21); three hundred years later
they were redefining him.

HEBREW REVELATION IN A GREEK MOLD

125
For too long the Church has tried to pour a Hebrew revelation into Greek molds. One of the reasons
inquirers after Truth are sometimes hindered in seeing a full revelation of Christ's deity is that they
search for it in Greek terminology instead of Hebrew. We must always remember that Jesus was
Hebrew, as was His audience. His terminology and mode of expression would reflect this. Do not
expect Him to use words like "hypostasia," "prosopon," "ouisia" and so forth. These terms would
emerge centuries later amidst clamour of the "not so nice" Nicea. What we must do is to discover what
language Jesus used to discuss his divine nature. This is not difficult, for they are there in the Gospels
staring at us. Trinitarian theologians have for the most part refused to consider them as references to
the divine nature in order to build the Trinity form their Greek Sources. Let us consider these terms,
which are three in number:

SPIRIT

The divine essence, or God's nature, in the Bible is defined as Spirit. Christ Himself gave a Godhead
definition that none of the "Councils" of men can surpass for accuracy or clarity when he said: "God is
a Spirit" (John 4:24). If He had wanted to say "God is a Trinity" he could have. But He didn't. He
didn't because it was not true. If he had wanted to say "God is three Persons," He could have. But He
did not make that statement either, for it was untrue. What the Master did was, "God is a Spirit," and
no more needs to be said. If men will adhere to this as their basic definition of God they will avoid all
the nonsensical dogmas that have accumulated over the centuries. This is the doctrine that came down
from heaven (John 7:16-17). The idea of God in "three distinct persons" did not! It was churned up in
Asia Minor three hundred years later with the help of Constantine's battle axe. Once we realize
"Spirit" is the term Christ uses for Godhead, other revelations follow in its wake.

CHRIST AND THE FULLNESS OF THE SPIRIT

We find out that Christ is filled with the entire Godhead, for in John 3:34 we read,

for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

Christ doesn't have a portion of the Divine nature or Godhead, not just one third, but he has it "without
measure" -- all the fullness of the Divine Father, who is Spirit! Paul expressed the same idea in
different words when he said, "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwelt bodily in Christ. The Father, or
Spirit, is in Christ without measure. That is why He is said to be sealed by "God the Father" (John
6:27). He has the full sum or "seal of the Father" in His body. To be "sealed" means to have the
"fullness" or "sum" (compare Ezekiel 28:12).

Jesus' very words were "Spirit" because they emanated from the Father that indwelt him:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:63

Spirit was the indwelling divine nature of the Man Christ:

126
 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he
said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Mark 2:8

It was through the Father nature, His Spirit, that he so "perceived what was in men's hearts." It was the
"Spirit" or divine nature of the Father who did the works (John 14:10); that radiated out from Christ
and healed the bleeding woman, causing the man Christ Jesus to realize that virtue had gone out of
him (Mark 5:30). When Jesus "groaned in the Spirit" (John 11:33), or sighed deeply in "his Spirit"
(Mark 8:12; Marl 7:34), it was the Father, or Spirit nature of Christ, that was reaching out in love an
compassion through His incarnational Son. "For the Father Himself loveth you" (John 16:27). It was
also the divine indwelling Father, the Spirit, that led Christ into the wilderness to do battle with the
devil during the 40 day Temptation.

"Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost..." (Luke 4:1)

was...

"...led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matt 4:1)

It was not the Spirit in him which was tempted, for God does not tempt neither can He be tempted, but
rather the human Christ, the Spirit's temple that was so tempted. And it was likewise in the "power of
the Spirit," the divine nature of God who was Spirit, that Christ returned to Galilee (Matt. 4:14).

Paul summarized this beautifully years later when he wrote:

God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, (1 Tim 3:16).

Jesus was God in a human body, manifest in the flesh. But what does it mean "he was justified in the
Spirit?" When Jesus said: "Before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58). He was "justified" in making that
statement, because the "Spirit" in Him was the Great I Am that had pre-existed Abraham. When Jesus
received worship (Matt 28:17), he was "justified" in receiving it, because the divine Spirit incarnate in
him was God and thereby entitled to worship. When Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5), a prerogative of
God, he was "justified" in so doing, because the Sin-forgiving God was the Spirit that dwelt in Him,
and had the right to forgive sins. All of his divine actions and words were "justified" because he was
that Spirit, God, robed in flesh... He was "justified in the Spirit."

"GLORY"

Glory is another word used to describe the divine nature of God the Father that dwelt in Christ.

Jesus told his disciples that he would "come in the glory of his Father" (Matt. 16:27). This is, would
come in the divine nature of His Father, a nature that indwells Him. To prove that the Father's glory, or
nature was incarnate in Him, he gave a "preview" of this coming 6 days later to Peter, James and John,
"And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as
the light." (Matt 17:1-2). The glory, or nature of the Father, was radiating in divine effulgence through
the veil of this flesh. It was as much as could be done to show the disciples that "God was in Christ."

127
Anymore and they would have died, for the divine nature is a "light which no man can approach unto"
(1 Tim. 6:16).

GLORY OF GOD IN THE FACE OF CHRIST

That this display of power was the Godhead in manifestation is made indisputable by Paul's statement
that we behold "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 4:6). This is why he that hath seen
Christ "hath seen the Father." Christ has all the glory of God, the fullness of glory. In other words, he
possesses all the Godhead within His body. He is the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8), and the person in
whom is contained the "brightness" of God's glory, for he is the "image" of the Father (Heb. 1:3). This
glory, or deity in Christ is not the "Second Person of the Trinity," but is God the Father Himself. To
this fact Christ testified repeatedly. "That the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13). He
referred to his Second Advent as his coming, "in the glory of His Father..." (Mark 8:38). A glory
which God gave Him through the incarnation (John 17:22).

"SPIRIT OF GLORY AND OF GOD"

It is the Spirit of Glory and of God (1 Peter 4:14), which is defined by Christ as the Spirit of the
Father, that Christ was praying for in John 17 when he said:

Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:...
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was.
(John 17:1,5).

Christ at this last hour knew that soon he would die and the divine nature or "glory" that was dwelling
in Him would depart (which it did, Mark 15:34). His prayer was that in his forth coming resurrection
God would re-enter, and re-establish Himself in the new Temple of Christ's resurrected Body. Christ
was asking for "glorification" or in other words "divine indwelling" of the Father in his new immortal
body, just as God had indwelt the flesh and blood body he was about to sacrifice (John 14:10). It was
necessary for the man Christ to pray for everything he received from God, including his resurrection
and deification or "glorification." Furthermore, he prayed that the disciples might behold "his glory"
someday in heaven. "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am,
that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me..." (John 17:24). For God to give Christ "his
glory" is the same as God giving Christ his own divine nature as Father, his very "own self" (John
17:5). What Christ wanted in this prayer was for the Godhead to be put back in Him when He emerged
from the Tomb, to be "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Rom. 6:4). Jesus had
absolute faith that this would occur. In fact in his mind it was as good as done. Recall his statement in
the Last Supper:

Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

John 13:31

That was the present situation during Christ's earthly life -- God was "glorified in him" or in other
words, God was "incarnate in him." Then Jesus continued:

128
 If God be glorified in him, (v. 32)

..or if God was presently incarnate in Him (and He was), then...

God shall also glorify him in himself, (v.32).

God will also do it again, that is God will again embody "Himself" in Christ. When? At the
resurrection:

...and shall straightway [very soon] glorify him.

And this did occur three days later ("straightway") at the resurrection, for he was raised up by the
"glory of the Father" Rom. 6:4. Now Paul tells us God has taken up permanent residence in Christ,
never to be separated from Him, through death or any other means:

"For in Him dwells permanently all the fullness of the Godhead in a body" (Col. 2:9 - Greek).

TRINITARIANS SPEAK ON CHRIST'S GLORY

Some Trinitarian writers have also seen the connection between Christ's "glory" and "his deity"
(though they define the deity in Trinitarian terms). J. Dwight Pentecost writes:

"The same glory that Moses beheld in the tabernacle in Exodus 40:34-38 and that the Priest
saw in the temple in 1 Kings 8:10-11 was revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ on the Mount
of Transfiguration. Peter testified to this in 2 Peter 1:16-18" (J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words
and Works of Jesus Christ, p. 31).

Ron Rhodes writes:

The glory "dwelt in the tabernacle of the flesh of Jesus. The true temple of God was therefore
of the flesh of Jesus. The true temple of God was therefore not the edifice in Jerusalem, but the
very body of Jesus. It was in Him that the glory of God shone." (Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the
Manger, p, 152).

He further elaborates:

"For this reason John testified: 'we have seen his glory' (John 1:14), no doubt a reference to the
transfiguration, in which Jesus, towards the end of his three year ministry, pulled back the veil
of his glory so that His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as the light" (Matt.
17:2). (Rhodes, p. 152).

Finally Benjamin Warfield, noted Trinitarian expositor says:

"The flesh of our Lord became the Temple of God on earth (John 2:19) and the glory of the
Lord filled the House of the Lord" (Benjamin Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, p. 52).

129
The tragedy of these Trinitarian writers is that, while realizing "glory" is a synonym for the divine
presence in Christ, they fail to simultaneously realize this presence is the Father's nature and what they
are actually describing is the incarnation of the Father in Christ! They have truly "shot an arrow in the
air," but it has fallen in flight, and they "know not where."

OLD TESTAMENT GLORY IN CHRIST

A study of the Old Testament use of "glory" will quickly show that it signifies nothing less than the
full, undivided manifestation of Deity. It is not parceled out or divided up among a Trinity of Persons.
It is the fullness of the Godhead in glorious manifestation. Therefore Christ's possession of this glory
is equivalent to his possession of the whole Godhead in his divine nature. (See Ex. 33:18 & 22; Isaiah
42:8; Psalm 24:7-10; Exodus 40:34-38; 1 Kings 8:10-11). The fact that the Father said He would not
"give His glory to another" (Isa. 42:8), coupled with the statements by Christ that he had the Father's
glory (John 17:5), proves that Christ is not considered "another", but is himself the Father in human
manifestation.

SELF

The use of the term "self" by Christ is perhaps his strongest assertion to possessing the divine nature of
the Father. For if he had the Father's self dwelling in complete and total fullness within His body, then
he was the Father. Christ prayed to be glorified (incarnated as we have seen) with the Father's self at
his resurrection.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self

John 17:5

He also said that God shall "glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify him." John 13:32.
The same thought underlies this passage also. It is the Father "himself" that accomplishes the
glorification by incarnating "himself" in "him" the Son. That two "selves," one human and one divine,
existed simultaneously in Christ becomes clear. The Human "self" he referred to as being incapable of
doing anything apart from God:

The Son can do nothing of himself, ... John 5:19

"But the Father..." Christ's deity, "Sheweth Him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him
greater works than these, that ye may marvel" (John 5:20). And where was this Father located that
"sheweth him all things that Himself doeth?" Incarnate in the man Christ Jesus: "I speak not of
myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). This is the doctrine of
the dual natures, or the two "selves" existing in Christ - human and divine.

LIFE

The transference of the Life of God into the Body of the Son was the essence of the incarnation of the
Father in the Son.

JOHN SPEAKS OF THE ORIGINAL LIFE

130
The Father is the original source of "eternal life." The Apostle John refers to "that eternal life, which
was with the Father" in 1 John 1:2. This is not a Second Person in the Godhead. God's life is said to
be "with" Him just like His other attributes, such as wisdom, understanding, power, etc. are said to be
"with him." Boyd himself gives a convincing argument in support of this on page 57 and concludes by
saying:

"To speak of any of God's attributes as distinct from himself was simply to speak of God
himself involved in the world."

Thus this eternal life which was with the Father, is actually the Father's very life itself, in other words
his "essence" or "being."

But John further tells us that this "life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness..." (1
John 1:2). He also states:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1 John 1:1

They actually "saw" and "handled" the Father's own "being" or "life." The Father Himself was among
them!

I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
1 John 2:13

When did they "know," "see," and "handle" the father? Certainly not in His Spirit form before the
incarnation, but when "God was manifest in the flesh" of Christ. This was actually the Father's
original eternal life which was placed in the flesh temple of His Son. That's why John says:

"that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you... and truly our fellowship is with the
Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3).

How could fellowship be otherwise if the Father's "being" is incarnate in his only begotten Son!

CHRIST SPEAKS OF THE ORIGINAL LIFE

Jesus expounded the same doctrine in John 5:26:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

The Son did not have "life in Himself" as a result of being the Son (as Trinitarians teach). But it was
"given" to him to have God's eternal life or being in himself. When did God "give" the Son to have this
Father-life in Him? At His birth of course, because He as born "God with us" (Matt. 1:23) and the
"everlasting Father" (Isa. 9:6). The Bible plainly declares there is only one immortal life (1 Tim.
1:17), and that life is now in the Son, which is the same as saying the Father is in the Son, which the
Bible also says -- John 14:10-11.

131
Seeing the Father's divine nature, or "everlasting life" is in the Son, this original "life source" can be
dispensed to believers by the same mediatoral Son:

...everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you:
John 6:27.

In this way believers are said, in a small measure of course, to be "partakers" of the "divine nature" (2
Peter 1:4).

This is why the Father is actually declared to be the "Son of Man" in John 5:27.

And ["the Father" - verse 26] hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he
[referring back to the same subject, "the Father"] is the Son of man."

The Greek phrases it,

"because Son of Man he is!"

The Son could not have any authority to execute judgment, unless the Father was in Him (and one
with Him) doing "the works" (John 14:10).

SUMMARY

In summary we have seen that Spirit, glory, self, life, all refer to the Father's divine nature. These are
the Biblical terms for it. And Jesus is said to be filled with that Spirit without measure; to be the
Temple of that glory without restriction; to have the Father's self without distinction; and to contain
that life without termination. In short, Jesus is God the Father manifested in the flesh, and proved to
be so by whatever term of nature is used.

CHAPTER XIII
BELIEVE ME FOR THE WORKS
DO THE ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST PROVE HIM TO BE THE ONE TRUE GOD, OR A JUST A
MEMBER OF A "DIVINE TRINITY"? WHILE ON EARTH, WAS CHRIST ALSO PRESENT
"IN HEAVEN"? ARE THERE SOME THINGS CHRIST DOES NOT KNOW?

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN CHRIST // THE ONLYS OF JESUS ONLY // ONLY HAS
IMMORTALITY // ONLY ONE TO BE WORSHIPPED // THE ONLY HOLY ONE //
OMNIPRESENCE // OMNIPOTENCE // OMNISCIENCE // ALTERNATING NATURES //
ETERNAL // CONCLUSION

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN CHRIST

132
Another clear Biblical Testimony to the Godship and Fatherhood of Christ is to consider the Attributes
with which the Bible endows Him. This is His Attributive deity.

Believe me for the very works' sake. John 14:11

...is the way Christ Himself called attention to this line of proof. It is a "lower road" to follow then
direct revelation, but it will lead you to the same conclusion. It must be kept in mind also that
scripturally all of these divine attributes have been transferred to Jesus by the indwelling Father, not
because He is a Second Person, co-equal. It is rather a direct result of the fact that God is in Christ,
that we can say He is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.,

For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth:
John 5:20

In fact by means of the indwelling of God in Christ there was an exchange of characteristics between
the human and divine in some mysterious and marvelous way.

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
John 17:10

Let us look at these attributes, for they are characteristics that can only be possessed by the one infinite
God. And they cannot be passed around among "divine Persons" equally. The very nature of them
preclude this. For if a person is "all powerful" what need is there for two other "all powerful" persons,
if such were even possible? And especially if a divine Person is said to be the only one with
immortality, how could another divine person also have it? It would render useless the word "only."

THE ONLYS OF JESUS ONLY

To begin with let us examine some of the "onlys" of Jesus Only. Bear in mind these things are being
said of a Person, not a substance or essence.

ONLY HAS IMMORTALITY

In 1 Timothy 1:16-17 Jesus Christ is called the "King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God."
Now if Christ is the only wise God, then He is the Father in His interior nature, for the Father is so
defined (Rom. 11:33). Another "distinct person" could not also be "the only" wise God. He might be
"another wise God," but the Bible never says that. No wonder Christ is called the "wisdom of God" (1
Cor 1:24). Now if some are in doubt that the above verse in 1 Timothy is even referring to Christ, they
need only turn to the close of the letter where we read

Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of Kings, and
Lord of Lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see...
1 Tim 6:15-16

133
Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is the only one with "immortality". There cannot be
another immortal, if he is the only one. And how is that Jesus hath immortality? Because He is
"dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen." That "light" is the
divine nature of the Father, the same nature that mutually indwells Christ ("I am in the Father, the
Father is in me.") The immortal life of God the Father is Christ's life, and dwells in him.

ONLY ONE TO BE WORSHIPPED

We are told by no less an authority than our Lord himself that God the Father is the only one who
should be worshipped and served.

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matt 4:10.

Yet Jesus received worship and never rejected or corrected it. He was worshipped at birth by the Magi
(Matt. 2:2, 8, 11). The lepers worshipped him (Matt. 8:2), rulers worshipped Him (Matt 9:18), the
disciples worshipped Him (Matt. 14:33), women worshipped Him (Matt 15:25, 20:20, 28:9), the blind
did also (John 9:38), as well as the demon possessed (Mark 5:6). Yes Jesus said only God the Father
should be worshipped and served. Is there a contradiction? Only if one is Trinitarian, for in their
theory a Second Divine Person is receiving worship that should only be rendered to the first divine
Person, according to what the Second Divine Person said! In Oneness there is no contradiction, for it is
God in Christ that is worshipped so that "the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13).

THE ONLY HOLY ONE

Jesus is also called the Holy One. Peter preached to the Jews and said

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Acts 3:14

Yet who is the Holy One in the Old Testament? God the Father, the only God Israel recognized.

There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee:
1 Sam 2:2

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker,
Isa 45:11

Remember these statements limit the title to just one "divine Person" (to use Trinitarian terms), for it is
a "Person" and not a substance being addressed. And there cannot be any other divine person who is
the Holy One because that would make a Holy Two! Yes, a real problem for Trinitarians and will
remain so as long as they maintain their "separate identity Theory" of Christ and the Father. But again
Oneness doctrine reconciles this beautifully. The Father, whom Jesus called "Holy Father" (John
17:11), was resident in Christ's flesh (John 14:10), was manifesting Himself in that flesh (1 Tim. 3:16),
and using Christ's body as his Temple (John 2:19; Col. 2:9). This made Christ the "Holy One of God"

134
(Mark 1:24). And He sends that Spirit to us, seeing it is the Father in emanation, he calls it the Holy
Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26)!

OMNIPRESENCE

The Father is said to "fill heaven and earth" (Jer. 23:24). Yet Christ "fills all things" (Eph. 4:10), or is
in other words, omnipresent. While Jesus was standing here on earth, he declared that he was
simultaneously in Heaven.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man which is in heaven.
John 3:13

Notice, "which is in Heaven." That was present tense; going on and taking place right then and there.
How could Jesus have been in Heaven at that moment? Because the omnipresence of the Son of God
is the Father, who not only indwells Christ, but because he is a divine Spirit was also present in
Heaven, and everywhere else.

Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into
heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Psalm 139:7-8

The fullness of the Father, His mind and nature, were in Christ (Col. 2:9, Phil. 2:5), but the Father's
Spirit still extended into all places in the universe. God did not "drain" all his Spirit into Christ, but
rather incarnated into him the Fullness of that Spirit. God's mind, nature, centre of consciousness, or to
be more scriptural, his glory and his life were in Christ. Seeing the omnipresence of Jesus is the
indwelling Father, He can also talk about "Our Father which art in Heaven," and "Where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst" (Matt 18:20). In addition, He could say
"Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20). To a true believer, this is
precisely how the Father and Son are able to "Come to him" and make their "abode with him" (John
14:23). Not two separate persons coming to live in a Christian, but rather the Spirit of the Son, which
is the Father, comes to him. Jesus had just finished defining this indwelling of the believer as,

I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:21

The coming of the Son's Spirit, which is the Father, to dwell in a believer is the only way the Father
and Son can abode with a Christian today, and is the equivalent of Christ saying, "I will come" (John
14:18). This indwelling Spirit, Christians receive, is also known as the Comforter, or the Holy Spirit
(John 14:26). But it is all the same omnipresent Spirit of God in Christ. Does this not make much more
sense than to believe that there are three distinct Persons, each of which fill all things and are
omnipresent? Isn't it more compatible with scripture and experienced to believe that when the Holy
Spirit comes to someone it is Jesus, or whom we sing:

135
 "Come into my heart, Lord Jesus,
Come in to stay, Come in today,
Come into my heart, Lord Jesus"

And what Christian can tell you the occasions when the first Person, the second Person, and then the
third Person of the Trinity came into them? Trinitarians have gotten into serious trouble right there.
The only thing to do is abandon ship and swim hard for the Oneness shoreline!

OMNIPOTENCE

Jesus said:

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matt 28:18

He certainly didn't have it as the Son, for

The Son can do nothing of himself,

John 5:19

How therefore did He get "all power?" When the Father resurrected Him, he simultaneously re-
established his divine indwelling in the Son of God, and this placed all the power of the Godhead in
Christ.

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead:
Romans 1:4

The resurrected Christ is the glorified Temple of the incarnate and all powerful Father, hence Christ
has been given all power. Now Christ upholds everything by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3), and is
able to subdue all things unto himself (Philip 3:21). He lives by the "power of an endless life" and this
power is the Godhead that resides in Him (Rom. 1:20, Col. 2:9).

OMNISCIENCE

This word means all knowing. As the Son, or human being, Christ did not know the hour of his
Second Advent.

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father.
Mark 13:32

But in His divine nature as the Father, He knew all things (John 21:17), including the hour, for he said:

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me,

Rev 22:12

136
and,

Surely I come quickly.

Rev 22:20

He could not have said those things if he didn't know the day and the hour. As Ron Rhodes, a
Trinitarian, puts it in his book, Christ Before the Manger:

"The Gospel accounts are clear that Christ operated at different times under the major influence
of one or the other of his two natures. Indeed, Christ operated in the human sphere to the extent
that it was necessary for him to accomplish his earthly purpose as determined in the eternal
plan of salvation. At the same time, he operated in the divine sphere to the extent that it was
possible in the period of His humiliation." (Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger, p. 204).

Two excellent examples are provided for us that illustrate his well taken point.

"It is interesting that both of Christ's natures come into play in many events recorded in the
Gospels. For example, Christ's initial approach to the fig tree top pick and eat a fig to relive
hunger, reflected the natural ignorance of the human mind (Matt 21:19). (That is, in his
humanity he did not know from a distance that there was no fruit on that particular tree). But
the he immediately revealed his omnipotence by causing the tree to whither (v.19.b.). On
another occasion, Jesus in his omniscience knew that his friend Lazarus had died and set off for
Bethany (John 11:11). When Jesus arrived in Bethany, he asked (in his humanness, without
exercising omniscience) where Lazarus had been laid (v. 34)..." (Ron Rhodes, Christ Before
the Manger, p. 204-205).

ALTERNATING NATURES

Boyd lambastes Oneness theologians for maintaining that Jesus could "alternate" between his two
natures, as his fellow Trinitarian, Ron Rhodes, just described.

"Thus, in Oneness belief, Jesus can be understood to act and speak sometimes as God (Father)
while at other times as a human (Son). This means that when reading the Bible we must always
ask whether Jesus is acting in the role of or capacity of God or in the role or capacity of man"
(Boyd, p. 34).

He sharply criticizes this "Oneness key" as "switching", or "alternating" and "illusion." But apparently
it is all right for Jesus to "switch" and "alternate" between his two natures, as long as He does it in a
Trinitarian framework, that is, as long as the divine nature is considered to be "God the Son" and not
the "Father." Another Trinitarian put it this way:

"As the God-man (Jesus) is simultaneously omniscient as God (in company with the other
persons of the Godhead) and ignorant of some things as man (in company with other persons
of the human race)." (Robert Reymond, Jesus: Divine Messiah, p. 80).

137
So it is alright for Jesus to display his two natures, even simultaneously, as long as we use this
"Trinitarian key" to interpret it; a key which asks us to ascertain with whom he is keeping company,
with gods or men!

After having observed Christ reading the hearts of men (Matt 9:4), declaring the future (John 10:46),
and describing the past (John 8:56), the disciple's conclusion is found in John 16:30:

Now are we sure that thou knowest all things...

And this they accept because they believed his other nature had its origin and source in God,

thou camest forth from God.

ETERNAL

Only God is eternal -

from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 90:2

Only God "inhabits eternity." He alone is eternal. Who could dispute this conclusion? A "God" who is
not eternal must of necessity had a beginning, and therefore would be only a creature. But our Lord
Jesus Christ is said to be eternal; he is called in prophecy the "everlasting Father" (Isa. 9:6). Thus
showing us that his eternal nature is that of the indwelling Father. When Jesus asserted His
Jehovahistic eternality by declaring, "Before Abraham was I Am" (Jn. 8:58), it was his divine nature as
Father that he referred to. For as a Son, he had a beginning (Heb. 1:5), but in his divine nature as
Father, he had "neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

As Father, his ...

goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2

...or days of eternity.

But as Son, he came forth from Bethlehem of Judah. For the Father's immortality, or eternal life,
which Christ now has, has always been with the Father. That eternal life which was with the Father (1
John 1:2), was placed in His Son Christ Jesus at the incarnation:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
John 5:26

And by means of this, the eternal life of God "was manifested and we have seen it" (1 John 1:2).

138
 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles,
1 Tim 3:16

Apostle John says by means of this miraculous incarnation of the eternal God in our Lord Jesus Christ,
the early disciples actually saw Him who was from the beginning!

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1 John 1:1

In Christ was life, the eternal life of God, and this was the light of men (John 1:4). The fusing of the
divine nature with the human nature of man in Christ which gave our Lord an eternal Pre-existent
memory and nature.

CONCLUSION

Thus we see from a study of Christ's attributes, that through the indwelling of God the Father in his
incarnational Son all the attributes and powers of God are transferred to Christ, and made
characteristics of this person. He is therefore omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. Paul
expressed it beautifully when he said:

In whom [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Col. 2:3

And this he describes as the real

mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Col. 2:2

A far cry from another "Three Person" mystery that was yet to be invented, in which the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge are divided up equally between three co-existent divine Persons.

CHAPTER XIV
ACCEPTABLE WORDS
CAN NON-BIBLICAL VOCABULARY ADEQUATELY CONVEY THE TRUTH?
WHAT IS THE "ADDED VOCABULARY" OF TRINITARIANISM AND WHY CAN'T THE
TRINITY STAND WITHOUT IT?
WHO IS REALLY USING "BIBLE LANGUAGE"?

USING CORRECT TERMINOLOGY // A DEBT TO THE "FATHERS"? // REAL REASON FOR

THE TRINITY // ONENESS OR TRINITY TERMS? // "ONENESS" VS. "TRINITY" //
"BEGOTTEN SON" VS. "ETERNAL SON" // "GOD IN CHRIST" VS. "GOD IN THREE

139
 PERSONS" // "MANIFESTATIONS" VS. "PERSONS" // "SPIRIT OF CHRIST" VS. "THIRD
PERSON OF THE GODHEAD" // DOUBTING TRINITARIANS // REAL REASON FOR "ADDED
VOCABULARY" // GREEK PHILOSOPHY HAS ITS SAY // AQUINAS THE FORGER //
AUGUSTINE THE BORROWER // MORE "GOLD DIGGERS" // JUSTIN MARTYR - ANOTHER
GREEK MINER

USING CORRECT TERMINOLOGY

The words we use to express our thoughts and ideas are important; they are our "logos" or expression
of Reason. When dealing with the subject of God and His divine nature we are faced with a dilemma.
We wish to convey what we feel is an adequate exposition of the deposit of Faith concerning the
Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit; yet we do not wish to inject human terms and our zeal that may
subvert or pervert that truth. Now the apparent solution would be to use (as often as possible) Bible
terminology; for this was given under divine inspiration. We could not go wrong doing this. In
addition, we should not try to define and probe areas that the Bible has specifically left undefined. This
will only result in speculation, and its usual fruit, heresy. And thirdly, when there is an adequate term
found in the Scriptures, we should not attempt to substitute another one for it. Failure to adhere to
these principles has resulted in the doctrinal monstrosities gathered together under Trinitarianism.

A DEBT TO THE "FATHERS"?

Carl Brumbach in his book "God in Three Persons" says we owe a great debt to those early Fathers
who so carefully defined the Trinity for us (Carl Brumbach, God in Three Persons, p. 197). Gregory
Boyd is also appreciative of their efforts when he writes:

"This is what ultimately produced the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity in the early
Fourth Century" (Boyd, p. 122).

Notice that the "fully developed" doctrine doesn't arrive until the Fourth Century! Does this mean that
He who said "I am the way the truth and the life" only brought a partially developed Truth? Jesus said
in John 8:40,

"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the Truth, which I have heard of
God..."

That ought to be enough for anyone. What need of four centuries of "ironing out" what was never
"wrinkled" in the first place? Clever Paul is said to have arrived at the "essence of this doctrine", (p.
122), but not "all the implications of this belief," which would require another three hundred years. Of
course Paul has another opinion of that:

"For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the council of God"
(Acts 20:27).

One can almost see in this word picture of Dr. Boyd's the Apostle Paul humbly seated and taking notes
as the monks and Fathers, beads in hand, explain such newfound "implications" as "Perichoresis of the

140
three persons, " "The eternal generation of the Son," "Plato's Timaeus Trinity," the "theotokos of
Mary," "the homoousion concept of Christ," "Philo's Logos," "three hypostacies in one substance," ad
nauseum! How sad Paul missed all this! All he had to work with were such "essential" and
"unimplicated" concepts as "God was in Christ," "God was manifest in the flesh," and in Christ dwelt
"all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (1 Cor. 5:18, 1 Tim. 3:16, Col. 2:9).

REAL REASON FOR TRINITY

The real reason this so-called "full development" of the Godhead teaching didn't arrive until the fourth
century has nothing to do with discovering more Truth. The real reason is the Early Fathers, "to whom
we owe such a debt," were busy trying to "marry" Christian doctrine with Greek Philosophy and
culture. And it was a very unwilling bride. Vows had to be exchanged twice at Nicea, in addition to
Constantiniople, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Chalcedon. Boyd touches on this briefly on page 161 when
he writes:

"To be sure the language and categories that Athenagoras and the other Apologists utilized to
communicate the Christian Communities faith to their surrounding milieu was borrowed, as it
had to be, from the milieu. Hence they employed Stoic and Platonic Categories when possible
to help express their faith."

By the code word "categories" and references to Stoicism and Plato, we may understand "doctrine" --
a marrying of Platonic and Stoic doctrine to the original Faith. And this of course would call for a
whole host of new words and terms, not found in the Bible, to explain their newly formed Trinity. And
I might add, words and terms that are still with us in the Shibboleth of Trinitarianism, because they
cannot talk without them. Thus they became "wiser above what was written." Boyd and other Neo-
Triniatarians would love to dispense of such embarrassing and anti-biblical terminology as "Persons"
and "Trinity" but they can't bring themselves to. For the elimination of the "added" vocabulary would
immediately collapse the Trinity and leave its proponents stuttering. If they were shut up to the use of
Bible terminology only, they would emerge Oneness every time!

In describing Christ's divine nature Trinitarians would only be able to say that the deity dwelling in
Him was the "Father" (John 14:10). They could not find their "second person" or "God the Son"
anywhere in the Scriptures, let alone dwelling in Christ. In explaining the unity of God, the only word
they would find would be "one" (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 41:14, Mal. 2:10, Eph. 4:6). The "Trinity in Unity"
would be more of a phantom ship than the "Flying Dutchman." The divine nature is never defined as
three. And as far as what they refer to as "essence" or "substance" of God, "Spirit" would emerge as
the Scriptural definition of God. Trinitarianism would come to an abrupt end! And they know it. For
this reason they cling to their "added" vocabulary as if it had thundered out of Sinai.

ONENESS OR TRINITY TERMS?

The Oneness Revelation of the Godhead came about almost entirely by simply returning to Apostolic
forms and letting the Bible speak for itself. We are very happy and satisfied to use on Bible language,
if trinitarians will agree to the same. In such a case there would be no debate, for there would be
nothing to debate. Let's examine respective categories of words and phrases and see:

141
 "ONENESS" VERSUS "TRINITY"

The Bible says God is one (Deut. 6:4, Mal. 2:10, James 2:19, Eph. 4:6, Isa. 41:14). He is called the
Holy One over fifty times. Oneness is simply the noun form of the adjective "one" and is certainly
acceptable. The Godhead is never referred to as three; if there was a "threeness" to it, surely at least
once this would have been stated in all the many passages that qualify God by number. Trinity means
"Three - in - one" or "Threeness" but where is it? No where! Gregory Boyd talks about the Threeness;
Augustine talks about it; Aquinas talks about it; Plato talks about it; but where does the Bible talk
about it? the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 2, page 70, in trying to explain this absence of "threeness"
to God's revelation to Israel offers this excuse:

"...God did not reveal the Trinity to them. Until monotheism was rooted, the idea of three
persons in God would have sounded like three gods."

Is that why in Isaiah 44:24 God said that He is the Lord that "stretches forth the heavens alone" and
"spreadeth abroad earth by myself," just so we would never suspect there were two other persons with
Him? Not only is the term trinity unscriptural, but it is anti-scriptural and must be eliminated.

"BEGOTTEN SON" VERSUS "ETERNAL SON"

The Bible says repeatedly that Jesus was a begotten Son (John 3:16, John 3:14, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9).
The Bible tells us where he was begotten -- in the womb of Virgin Mary (Matt 1:20); by whom he was
begotten -- the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35); when he was begotten, -- "this day" (Heb. 1:5); and why He
was begotten, -- that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9). This is the origin of the Son of God and
the Bible knows no other. "Son " is a male child born of a woman, according tot he definition of the
word in every language of the human race. This definition fits Christ:

"But when the Fullness of Time was Come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,
made under the Law" (Gal. 4:4).

The parallelism here is real clear, he was made a begotten Son, what we might become "adopted Sons"
of God (Gal 4:5). Boyd and most trinitarians are uncomfortable with this because it negates their
unbiblical idea of "eternal" Son (which of course is the opposite of "begotten Son"), so he writes:

"Jesus is, therefore, not God's only born Son, -- rather, He is, as the NIV rightly translates it,
God's 'one and only' Son" (Boyd p. 113).

Of course if this proves anything, it proves too much. For if Jesus is God's "one and only" Son, then
what about those adopted sons we read about in Galatians 4:5. This teaching not only robs Christ of
His begotten status, but it robs Christians of their sonship status! All of this linguistic sleight of hand is
done for the sole purpose of adding the unscriptural term "eternal Son" to the Godhead discussion.
Remove it, and lets go on.

"GOD IN CHRIST" VERSUS "GOD IN THREE PERSONS"

142
Oneness believers are proud to proclaim their doctrine as "God in Christ," sometimes adding the
adjective Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) hence, "Mighty God in Christ." Our literature constantly refers to our
doctrine as that. It is a most scriptural term. We do not constantly banter about a belief in God in three
modes, or God in three roles, as we are so often accused. Even if those ideas are in conformity with
Scripture, they are not necessary. God in Christ says it all. Paul used it in 2 Cor 5:19:

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."

He used it three other times also: 1 Thess. 5:18, 2 Cor. 12:19, Phillip. 3:14. He never used "God in
Three Persons." It was prophesied in Isaiah concerning the Messiah:

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my
city, and he shall let go my captives... Thus saith the Lord... They shall make supplication
unto thee saying Surely God is in Thee, and there is none else, there is no God. Verily
thou art a God that hidest thyself O God of Israel, the Saviour"
(Isa. 45:13-15).

God was in the Messiah: "hiding" under a veil of flesh. Jesus fulfilled this scripture in John 8:58 - 59
when he announced he was the "I Am" or Jehovah and the Jews took up stones to stone Him, "but
Jesus hid himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel! Paul also referred to the same truth when he
said:

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit..."

( 1 Tim 3:16).

Jesus said it:

"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"

(John 14:10).

Everywhere and anywhere it is "God in Christ". Isaiah said it, Paul said it, John said it, Jesus said it.
Why do trinitarians insist on saying something else? They sing their "Holy Holy Holy" and that's fine.
They refrain with "Merciful Mighty" and its still fine. And they pay their dues to Platonic Greek
Philosophy with "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity." And that's not fine! Apostle Paul says its
"spoiled" (Col. 2:8), and he's right.

Nowhere in the Bible does the expression "God in Three Persons" occur. It is a heretical substitute for
"God in Christ." Paul got along without it; Peter managed; John who wrote almost exclusively on the
deity of Christ never dreamed of using it. Never came close. Surely if it is the touchstone of
Christianity the sine que non, they would have used it and used it often. They didn't and they wouldn't.

Boyd says on Page 173,

"In his work 'On the Trinity' Augustine admitted that he used the word 'person' to speak of
God's threeness 'not that it might be spoken, but that it might not be left unspoken.' "

143
They invent a "threeness" that isn't there, and then coin unapostolic words like "person", not to
describe it, but so it doesn't remain undescribed! If Its such a poor word for the job, lets get rid of it
and hire something else! But no --- "There is simply no better term available, " Dr. Boyd bemoans. he
is so personally ashamed of it that he consistently puts it in quotes, lest his readers interpret it with a
"radically individualistic connotation." In other words he doesn't want them to think of persons, when
he says "persons." He reminds us of Humpty Dumpty when he told Alice: "When I use a word it
means just what I choose it to mean." We have no such problem with "God in Christ." We want people
to think of Christ. If Neo-Trinitarians do not want people to think of the persons as "individuals" then
why do they present them as such -- fellowshipping together throughout eternity; "bursting" in love,
passionate love, one to another; and having "I-Thou" relationships, "loving communion," triune love
celebrations, sending each other, and enjoying genuine personal "otherness" (Boyd, p. 189-192).

In fact Boyd says:

"...the notion that God is in his essence alone, that apart from and before creation God exists in
total solitude, is completely incompatible with the Christian understanding that God is
essentially love or even essentially personal" (Boyd, p. 191).

If all this is not teaching that the "persons" of the trinity are three divine inter-acting individuals with
their own minds, then what is it? The idea of God being "alone" is not compatible with "Christian
understanding." Trinitarian understanding is what he means! God must also have a "personal
otherness." That's just a fifty cent way of saying God needs another Person ("personal otherness") to
keep Him company! Well, God's "aloneness' and "solitude" may not be "compatible" with him, but it
is certainly compatible with God Himself, for He informs us:

"Thus saith the Lord, Thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the
Lord that maketh all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth
abroad the earth by myself"
(Isa 44:24).

That verse alone removes the entire rationale for maintaining the use of "God in Three Persons,"
whether in quotations marks or not! God in Christ is enough! Let us return to the New Testament
phraseology. "Persons," even with quotations marks, boils down to the same thing and is totally
unacceptable. "He will surely reprove you if you do secretly accept persons" (Job 13:10).

"MANIFESTATIONS" VERSUS "PERSONS"

How shall we refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, if "persons" is unacceptable? Why not use the
Bible term "manifestation"? The Bible refers to God as a manifestation in 1 Tim. 3:16,

"God was manifest in the flesh."

The Son of God is referred to as a manifestation in 1 John 3:8,

"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested..."

144
-- also 1 Peter 1:19-20, 1 John 3:5. And finally the Spirit of God is referred to as a manifestation in 1
Cor. 12:7

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man..."

(also John 14:21).

The incarnation is described as a manifestation of God's life as well as love ( 1 John 1:2; 1 John 4:9).
"Manifestation" is a Bible word; its used in connection with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the
incarnation, and it is flexible enough to avoid the hairsplitting controversies that have plagued the
church for centuries. It is an infinitely better choice than "persons" because it has no tritheistic and
individualistic overtones. In the end it seems to be the final definition that even Dr. Boyd leave us
with, for he writes on page 196:

"For when all is said and done the doctrine of the Trinity simply means that God is a God of
eternal love, a God of grace, and a God who is unconditionally and authentically open and
revealed in the manifested activity of the Father, in the Son, through the Holy Spirit."

Where biblical and only Biblical terminology is adhered to, there is unity. When "added vocabulary"
appears there is disunity. Instead of wasting so much time in his book justifying a God of three
"Persons," "ways," "fashions," "aspects," "modes," or "manners," why didn't he simply adhere to
"three manifestations." At least that word is in the Bible!

"SPIRIT OF CHRIST" VS. "THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD"

The Holy Spirit is referred to in the Bible as the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), "Christ in
you" (Rom 8:10, Col. 1:27), "Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor 3:17), "Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phillip 1:19),
"Spirit of His Son" (Gal 4:6). What could be clearer by these oft repeated utterances? The Holy Spirit
is actually Christ in His Spirit nature. Jesus testified this also in unmistaken terms. Three times in John
14 he referred to the Spirit coming to believers as himself coming to them.

"I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you"

(John 14:18).

"I will love him and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21).

"...And I in you" (John 14:20).

The Holy Spirit is Christ in His Spirit nature as God, manifesting himself to us, coming to us, and
living in us -- "I in them" (John 17:26).

But this is not good enough for trinitarians. They have to call Him something else! So they invent a
term, Third Person of the Godhead and foist this on all Christendom as the litmus test of orthodoxy.
They did not even stop to apologize for this verbal innovation, or attempt to give Scripture reference.
Their purpose is to separate Christ from the Holy Spirit, for this would help them mesh their Platonic
Trinity more smoothly with their "Christian Trinity." But, by what authority do they label the Spirit of
Christ with this new title? Who authorized them to divide the Godhead up into three persons, and rank

145
them first, second, and third? While they clamour for us to produce a reference calling Christ Father
(and we do), or one calling Christ the Spirit (and we do), it never occurs to them that they might be
called upon for a reference calling the Holy Spirit "the third Person of the Godhead." Dr. Boyd has in
bold titles on page 117

"The Holy Spirit as the Third Person."

He never attempts to provide one text which refers to him as such. However earlier in his book he
prepared his readers for this mystery when he stated

"Fourth, there are two very good reasons as to why the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit
is a bit more obscure than that of the Father and the Son..." (p. 53-54).

Why not say "opaque"? The first reason is,

"it was not necessary or expedient, for the 'Third Person of the Trinity' to be revealed as such
until just prior to the beginning of the Church age" (Boyd, page 54).

Well that takes care of the Old Testament. No third person there! And as for the New Testament:

"Even more significant, however, is the relatively obscure (though no less important) role the
Holy Spirit has within God's plan of redemption" (Boyd, p. 54).

Well, this completes his "obscurity." Now this "distinctness" is "obscure" in the New Testament also!
Jesus was "born of the Spirit," "filled with the Spirit," "led by the Spirit," offered himself "through the
Spirit," and was resurrected "by the Spirit." That's hardly " obscure" in the Plan of Redemption to me!
And he claims that Jesus "succinctly summarizes this theme, found throughout the New Testament" by
His statements in John 16:13-14! I do not recall the Holy Spirit as being so "obscure" on the Day of
Pentecost either, when he arrived as a "rushing mighty wind." He was not so "obscure" in Acts 8 also,
when Simon the Sorceror offered money for the ability to impart Him by laying on of hands. His
"obscure role within God's plan of redemption" didn't seem to be on Peter's mind when he told the
multitude in Acts the second Chapter to Repent and be baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of
sins, for the express purpose of receiving "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Paul didn't think
his "role in the plan of redemption" was so "obscure" when his first question to the Ephesian disciples
was, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

As far as the Holy Spirit's identity in the Old Testament is concerned it is still Christ. For Peter writes
concerning the Spirit that spoke through Old Testament prophets:

"Searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did
signify when it testified before hand the suffering of Christ..."
1 Peter 1:11.

So instead of the Holy Spirit being revealed as the "Third Person of the Godhead" in the Old
Testament, he was the Spirit of Christ!

146
All this talk of "obscurity" and not being "revealed as such" is a convenient shelter to hide in when
pressed for a scripture identifying the Holy Spirit as "the third Person of the Godhead." then on page
119 "The Pot begins to call the kettle black." There we Oneness are accused of teaching a "secret
identity" of the Holy Spirit! If its a secret, its an open one! We have maintained, a long with Christ and
the New Testament writers, that the Holy Spirit is "Christ in you." We are the ones who openly
proclaim, and provide Bible reference, that "The Lord is that Spirit" (2 Cor 3:17). We don't hide
behind "obscurity" and lack of "revelation", for we learn the identity of the Spirit from the Spirit
Himself when He said, "I in you." The Trinitarian identity of the Holy Spirit as the 3rd Person is so
"secret" that they themselves cannot even find it, though they search diligently amidst the "obscurity."

In order to maintain the unscriptural title "third person", Dr. Boyd is forced to contradict himself. On
page 53 he denies, (based on "triadically structured verses") that the

"Holy Spirit is simply another name for the presence or power of God as Oneness theology
maintains..."

Yet he has not qualms, (when denying the Spirit's identity as Christ) in saying:

"The Spirit is indeed the presence of Christ himself..." (Boyd, p. 128).

and

"Rather, He (Christ) is simply teaching that all he is shall be present in the 'person' of the
Holy Spirit" (Boyd, p. 129).

Apparently the Holy Spirit can substitute as the "presence" of the "Second divine Person" when
"Trinitarian theology" finds it expedient, but not the First Person! And why would the Holy Spirit have
to substitute for the presence of Christ, when according to the Perichoresis doctrine...

"whatever 'person' of the Godhead one is referring to, the other two are fully present" (Boyd,
p.64)?

Christ the 2nd Person is as much present as the 3rd Person, who is substituting for his presence! The
arguments advanced to maintain the separate identity theory of the Holy Spirit are not only
contradictory, they are in many cases, degrading to Christ the Spirit. We are not authorized to relegate
the Spirit of Christ to "obscurity" or rank him "third" in a Triad of "three divine Persons." And all this
is done to keep in vogue the 4th Century title "Third Person" of the Godhead, a title designed to keep
distinct what is repeatedly declared to be identical! Why not lay the ax to the root of the tree and
eliminate this Christ dishonouring and anti-scriptural term. Paul didn't need it, Peter didn't need it,
Christ didn't;' need it ----- all of whom described amply the role of the Holy Spirit without this
"Crutch." For what reason do trinitarians of today need it? Do they have something more to say than
Christ?

DOUBTING TRINITARIANS

Some trinitarians are beginning to see the problems that this "added vocabulary" has produced.

147
Walter Martin, distinguished founder of Christian Research Institute and a man with whom I was
personally acquainted, writes concerning the "eternal Son" usage:

"The doctrine of 'eternal generation' or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the
Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in AD 230, is a theory which opened the
door theologically to the Arian and Sabellian heresies which today still plague the Christian
Church in the realms of Christology. The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son
of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in the prophetic
passages of the Old Testament. The term Son itself is a functional term, as is the term Father,
and has no meaning apart from time... Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created
by the illogical 'eternal Sonship' or 'eternal generation' theory of Roman Catholic theology,
unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology. Finally, there cannot be any
such thing as eternal Sonship, for there is a logical contradiction of terminology due to the fact
that the word Son predicates time and the involvement of creativity. Christ, the Scripture tells
us, as the Logos, is timeless. 'The Word was in the beginning', not the Son" (Walter Martin,
Jehovah of the Watchtower, p. 160-161).

And this from a man who has laboured to defend Trinitarianism for years!

Dr. W.T Conner, the eminent Baptist theologian, in his monumental work "Christian Doctrine," has
this to say about the term "three persons" ----

"If the word 'person' as applied to the distinctions within the Godhead is to be taken in this
individualistic and external sense, then we had better not use the word person in this
connection. If to call these inner distinctions of the Godhead 'persons' is going to be taken to
mean that God is one, only in the external and generic sense, then we had better speak of God
as only one person rather than as three" (Christian Doctrine, W.T. Conner, p. 124).

Robert Bowman recognizes the same problem that "added vocabulary" tends to produce in popular
concepts, namely that God is three individuals. Therefore he issues this disclaimer:

"If 'person' is used to mean a separate individual being, then in that sense trinitarians frankly
would confess to believing that God is one 'person' " (Robert Bowman, "Why You Should
Believe in the Trinity", p. 13).

I fall this "added vocabulary" is ricocheting off the walls and producing so much confusion, why keep
firing it? There is certainly no New Testament mandate, nor precedent, for using such terms as
"persons," "person," "eternal Son," "God the Son," "God in three persons," or "Trinity." Lets get rid of
them and clear the air!

"Blind unbelief is sure to err,

And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain."

REAL REASON FOR "ADDED VOCABULARY"

148
What is the real reason Trinitarians have added this extra-biblical (and anti-biblical) vocabulary? It has
nothing to do with expanding or clarifying our knowledge of God. Christ and His inspired Apostles
brought all the revelation we need, when they never packaged it in these unscriptural terms. Neither is
it to eliminate heresies, because it spawned more than it ever stifled. In the end it was the sword, and
not the Creeds, that disposed of the "heretics" so called. The real reason is that the early Trinitarian
theologians were enamored with Greek philosophy and speculation and were determined to integrate it
with the Christian Concept of God. Greek speculation was intensely concerned with analyzing
"substance" and "essence" and "modes of existence." This is why such Greek philosophical work-tools
began appearing in Christian discussions. Words like "hypostasis" (substance), "ousia" (essence),
"homoosusios" (consubstantial) and "prosopon" (person). The ancient Hebrews, from whom we
received the oracles of God, never attempted the arrogant blasphemy of analyzing God's substance or
essence. The thought would never have crossed their mind for mortal man to try to determine such
things as God's inner substance. The Hebrew method concentrated on what God did, not so much what
He "is". More is to be learned of God or Christ by observing the actions or works, rather than
attempting to probe the essence. This is why Christ, speaking from a Jewish background said:

"Or else believe me for the very works sake"

(John 14:11).

He had just announced that he was the Father embodied ("the Father that dwelleth in me," "the Father
in me," verses 10 & 11). He knew some wouldn't understand this perfectly. he did not recommend that
they have "councils" and "debates" to probe the inner "substance" of the Father and the Son to see if
they were "homoousious" (of "same" substance) or "homoiousious" (of "similar" substance). He
simply pointed to the "works" that He did, works that only the Father could do, as proof of His deity.

"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him"
(John 10:37-38).

If they had done this there would have been no need for Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus
and all the other squabble sessions that were held in the first five centuries of Christianity.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY HAS ITS SAY

But Greek "philosophy," which Paul condemned as a "spoiler" and "vain deceit," was at work here:

"In the days of the fathers, from Origen to Augustine, the world of intellect was dominated in
the main by a phase of Platonic philosophy. And into this world of philosophy the leaders of
Christian thought advanced with bold freedom, and, on the whole successfully established a
synthesis between the tradition and the higher thought of their age" (Charles Gore, D.D., "The
Reconstruction of Belief", p. 809).

With all this "synthesizing" with "higher thought" of Greek philosophy is it any wonder they would
need additional non-biblical terms to produce their new synthesized Greek Godhead!

AQUINAS THE FORGER

149
There was a lull in this worship of Greek worship of Greek Philosophy for time during the Medieval
period, but with the dawn of the Renaissance a

"new synthesis established itself of which St. Thomas Aquinas was the Master-builder" (Gore,
p. 810).

You will recall that this Master-builder of Greek Synthesis, Thomas Aquinas, is a favorite of Neo-
Trinitarian like Dr. Boyd, who praises him for his understanding of the Trinity. This marvelous
Trinitarian, whom Dr. Boyd classifies as

"one of the great saints of the church" (Boyd, p. 212),

...also produced wit the help of forged documents, a defense of the Pope's claim to supremacy:

"So St. Thomas incorporated these forgeries into the structure of his defense of the papal
claim, and they remained there to deceive students down to Sir Thomas Moore." (Gore, p. 811,
also see "The Pope and the Council" by Janus p. 264ff.)

No wonder Oneness believers prefer to adhere to Christ and the Apostles or our Godhead teaching
instead of "Ancient" forgers.

AUGUSTINE THE BORROWER

Augustine, another Great synthesizer of Greek Paganism, goes even further in his obsession with
Greek philosophy. In "De Doctrina Christiana" Chapters 40 and 41, he compares this borrowing from
the "Greek philosophers" with the incident from Exodus where the Jews "borrowed" jewels of silver
and gold, and raiment, from the Egyptians. He says the pagan Platonists of Greek Philosophy had
some "true things" about the worship of "the only true God" which they did not invent (He says!), but
dug as it were, "gold and silver" from the "mines of God's providence." And this can be "borrowed,"
and furthermore, Christians can "convey" it to good uses. Now the only "mines" that Jesus ever
recommended we dig in are the Old and New Testaments. Out of this "treasure" comes forth "things
new and old" (Matthew 13:52). Oneness people, unlike Trinitarians do not care to prospect anywhere
else; we have already staked "our claim" and its not on the "Mine Fields" of Greek Philosophy!

MORE "GOLD DIGGERS"

It might be added that Augustine was not alone in borrowing from Greek Philosophy:

"Such borrowing Augustine attributes to innumerable Greek Christian Authors and among the
Western to Cyprian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Optatus, and Hilary" (Gore, p. 652).

Augustine even outdid Origen in this for

"Origen appears to restrict what may be 'borrowed' with more caution than Augustine" (Gore,
p. 652).

150
And what was the main Jewel that attracted so much "borrowing" from the Greeks? A jewel, they
couldn't seem to find in the Oracles of God, and therefore went prospecting elsewhere? It was the neo-
Platonic trinity. Gore describes it as:

"a trinity in the later Greek (Neo-Platonist) Philosophy -- The One, Reason, and Soul" (Gore,
p. 527).

And there is more:

"So it is with Thomas Aquinas. He, too, begins from the divine unity. He too like Augustine,
derives his philosophy of God partly through Neo-Platonist channels... in article after
article of his Summa, he asserts like Augsutine, that the divine being subsists in three eternal
and co-equal persons" (Gore, p. 543).

JUSTIN MARTYR - ANOTHER GREEK MINER

Justin Martyr another "great Trinitarian" was also digging around in the rubbish of Greek speculation
for more jewels on the Godhead. Of him Gore writes:

"Justin Martyr, who had been 'a philosopher' before he became a Christian, and remained so
afterwards, recognized... in Socrates and Heracleitus... 'friends of Christ' and 'Christians' before
their time. Like Justin, so also Augustine, two centuries later, knew that in his own case the
Platonic philosophy had brought him to Christ. And not only so, but also Augustine, like
Origen before him, deliberately approved of Christianity 'borrowing' from Hellenism" (Gore, p.
638).

Drawn to Christ by Platonic philosophy! No wonder they never arrived!

"No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me drawn him"
(John 6:44).

And it also no wonder they had to invent new "added vocabulary" (substance, essence, person,
persons, Trinity) with which to deck out their new Platonic Godhead. Remove the vocabulary, strip off
the "raiment borrowed from the Greeks," open your eyes to the "emperor's new clothes" and you will
see what is really there --- nothing! I must concur with the wise old sage of Troy,

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

The consequences of accepting these philosophical gifts from the Greeks was just as tragic for the
church as the wooden horse was for the Trojans!

CHAPTER XV
THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON

151
 DID THE SON OF GOD EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH AT BETHLEHEM?
WHO WAS THE MYSTERIOUS "ANGEL OF THE LORD" MENTIONED IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT?

A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS // DID THE SON OF GOD PRE-EXIST //

IDEAL PRE-EXISTENCE // PRE-EXISTENCE AS THE "WORD OF GOD" //
THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS // THE VOICE OF THE LORD // "THE BODY OF HEAVEN" //
"THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD" // "THE FORM OF GOD" //
THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD // JOHN PATERSON COMMENTS //
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD // THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH APPEARS TO JACOB //
THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH AND MOSES // THE ANGEL WHO LEADS TO THE PROMISED
LAND // THE ANGEL WITH GOD'S NAME // THE ANGEL WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN // THE
ANGEL WHO MUST BE OBEYED // THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT // THE ANGEL OF
THE LORD AS REDEEMER // THE ANGEL OF GOD AS SAVIOUR // THE ANGEL OF THE
LORD IS CHRIST // THE ANGEL AS GOD'S IMAGE // MANOAH'S INCIDENT // JACOB'S
INCIDENT // JOSHUA'S INCIDENT // THE ANGEL WHO SPOKE AS GOD AND MAN // FROM
"WORD OF GOD" TO "SON OF GOD" // TRUE MEANING OF MORPHE // WHY THE WORD
WAS MADE FLESH // WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON"? // IS THIS
DOCTRINE ONENESS? // LET THE FOUNDERS SPEAK // G.T. HAYWOOD // JOHN
PATERSON // FRANK J. EWART //
C.H. YADON // THEODORE FITCH // OSCAR VOUGA // GORDON MAGEE // ORIGIN AND
NATURE OF THE WORD // TRINITARIAN THEORY // ONENESS THEORY // FIRST BORN
AND FIRST BEGOTTEN // EARLY FATHERS // THE APOSTLES CREED // THE NICENE
CREED // ATHANASIAN CREED // CHALCEDONIAN CREED // JUSTIN MARTYR //
ATHENAGORA // MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINE // CHRIST'S OWN
WORDS // IS THE WORD IN ANY SENSE ETERNAL? //

 
THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH, WHO APPEARED FREQUENTLY IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES,
WAS ALSO KNOWN AS THE WORD OF GOD. HE WAS THE "BODY OF HEAVEN" IN WHOM
THE INVISIBLE FATHER DWELT.

A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS

Dr. Boyd throws out a challenge to Oneness believers concerning the question of the Pre-existence of
the Son of God. He cites a number of texts from John's Gospel, Paul's writings, and the epistle to the
Hebrews, which seems to teach a Pre-existence of Christ as Son. Dr. Boyd then asks,

"How does Oneness Theology handle these texts?" (Boyd, p. 37).

It is an honest question, and deserves a comprehensive answer. In this chapter we shall provide it.

DID THE SON OF GOD PRE-EXIST?

To the question whether the Son of God pre-existed, the Bible answer is yes. He did Pre-exist. But
how? In Two ways. We shall first look at his Pre-existence in the Foreknowledge of God.

152
 IDEAL PRE-EXISTENCE

God is not bound by the limits of time as we are. We think and operate in terms of past, present and
future. God is an eternal Present. He calls "those things which be not, as though they were" (Rom
4:17). Thus in God's mind or plan, the Son of God "existed" countless ages before He was ever born of
Mary. He had "existence" in God's foreknowledge. In fact, the crucifixion is spoken of as having
occurred before the "foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8). How could "the lamb" be "slain from
the foundation of the world?" In God's mind and foreknowledge! Even the Church is said to have
existed in God's mind "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4-5). We Christians are said to
have been given grace "before the world began" (1 Tim. 1:9). This occurred in God's mind. In
actuality we were not given grace until we responded to the Gospel call. So also it is with the Son. He
existed in God's mind, long before His birth took place. "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not
redeemed with corruptible things...but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish
and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was
manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:18-20). The Son of God was foreordained in the mind
of God, but did not take actual existence, or become manifest, until these last times. The Son's
idealistic existence was in God's mind from all eternity. His actual existence in time however is pin
pointed for us in scripture.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,
made under the law,
The Son's actual existence began when He was born of a woman, and this agrees with Luke 1:35. The
Bible says in two places that the Son was "made". One is here in Gal. 4:4, where he is said to be made
of a woman. The other is in Hebrews 2:9:
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels
If the Son is "made" how could he be eternal?

PRE-EXISTENCE AS "THE WORD OF GOD"

The idea of the Son existing "ideally" in the mind of God does explain a number of texts, especially
those I have cited. However there are also a number of scriptures that speak of Christ in the Old
Testament that cannot be explained on this basis. We read of God "who created all things by Jesus
Christ" (Eph. 3:9); and God who "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son... by whom also he
made the worlds " (Heb. 1:2); and Christ Himself speaks of the glory He had with the Father "before
the world was" (John 17:5). The answer to these texts lie in the scripturally revealed fact that the Son
of God did Pre-exist, but not as the Son of God, for that would be the same as having a Pre-existed
male human being. No, the Son Pre-existed as "the Word of God" ("the Logos" in Greek). He who was
the Word of God in the Old Testament, became the Son of God in the New Testament. The Son of
God, the male person born of Mary, did not pre-exist as a Son, per se. That would mean a pre-existent
human being. But that does not negate the fact the He who was the Son of God in His earthly sojourn,
had existed before in a different form!

THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS

John speaks of the Word (Logos in Greek) who was "in the beginning with God" and yet "was God."
What was the Logos, or the Word of God?

153
As we have seen, the Son of God was God's visible body, form, or Temple in the New Testament
times. God dwelt in Christ His Son and used Him as His own body. Whoever saw Christ, saw the
Father, for God was in Christ. The Bible also teaches that God had a visible body or form in Old
Testament times as well. It was not a human body of flesh, but it was a glorified body. And just as
God dwelt in the human body of the Son of God after Bethlehem, so also did he dwell in the celestial
body of the Word of God before Bethlehem. Whether in the Old Testament as the Word of God or in
the New Testament as the Son of God, Christ has always been the visible Temple of the invisible
Spirit. A Oneness "God in Christ" exists in both Testaments.

THE VOICE OF THE LORD

The glorious "Word" was the body God used when he "walked" with Adam and Eve in the cool of the
evening. Naturally He would have to use some form or body to fellowship with them. They couldn't
"walk" with an omnipresent Spirit!

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the
day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the
trees of the garden.
The "Voice of the Lord" is the same as "the Word of God". It was God's vehicle of visual
communication with His creation.

"THE BODY OF HEAVEN"

In the time of Moses, the Elders of Israel were given a view of the Logos.

Exo 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved
work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
They could not have seen God in his Spirit nature, for a Spirit is necessarily invisible. Yet they saw
God's feet, and described his visible form as the "body of heaven." God has only had two bodies. In
the Old Testament times it was the Body of Heaven, but in the New Testament times it was the Body
of Humiliation (Phil. 2:8), which the world crucified and pierced!

"THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD"

The Word of God was God's visible image in the Old Testament times. He was the "brightness of his
glory and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). He was the "image of the invisible God and the
firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). When men saw Him they saw God:

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved.
Did he see God as Spirit? Of course not. A Spirit doesn't have a "face". What he saw was the Word,
who was God's visible image and as such did have a "face."

154
 "THE FORM OF GOD"

God had a visible form in the Old Testament times. Jesus spoke of God's "shape" as well as His
"voice" (John 5:37). Paul mentions the "form of God" in Philip. 2:6. A pagan king once saw the
"form" that was "like" the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). This "form" was the "Word of God." This "form
of God" was later changed into the "form of Man" at the Incarnation for the purpose of redemption
(Phil. 2:2-8).

THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD

Now we understand the meaning of John's prologue. The Word, or God's visible form, was "with
God," just as our "bodies" are "with us" wherever we are. And yet the Word "was God." Because God
dwelt in that "form," used it as His visible Temple, it can be said that the Word "was God." Wherever
this Form appeared, It was God Himself appearing. The same situation obtains in the New Testament
dispensation. Christ, the Son of God is also God's body or form. The Father is said to be "with" Christ
(John 8:29), and also to be "in" Him (John 10:38), and Christ is thereby said to be God (John 20:28).
Whoever saw Christ, saw God (John 14:8-10). God in Christ makes Christ God. God in the Word,
made the Word God.

It was the "voice" of God, speaking out of his "shape" or visible image (John 5:37) that said: "Let
there be light, and there was light." This is how the worlds were created by the Word of God (Heb.
11:3).

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth.
God's glorious visible Form, the Word or Logos, spoke and creation resulted.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
made.
And this Word was eventually changed into flesh and became the "Son of God". "The Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

JOHN PATERSON COMMENTS

John Paterson was one of the most insightful writers on Oneness topics. His early work, "The
Revelation of Jesus Christ," was used as a Godhead textbook in the infancy of the Oneness Movement.
He summarized the doctrine of the Logos in very clear and logical terminology. he writes:

"How did God show Himself to Abraham, eating and drinking before him? (Gen. 18:6-8,33);
or How did Moses see his back parts? (Ex 33:23), or how did the elders of Israel see the God of
Israel, and did eat and drink? (Ex. 24:10,11). In the answer to these questions lies the secret of
the Mystery of God: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and
without Him was not anything made that was made' (John 1:1-3). In the beginning! That refers
to Genesis 1:1, which reads, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

155
 "Now what is a 'word'? Is it not the expression of an inward abstract thought in a substantial
concrete form. It means this in English, but as a matter of fact, the Greek word Logos means
not only the expression of the thought, but also the inward thought itself. So we conclude that
the Word was the visible expression of the invisible God; in other words, the invisible God
embodied in visible form; and not only this, but the word was, essentially nothing less than the
Eternal God Himself, as it is written 'The Word was God' " (John 1:1). (John Paterson, God in
Christ Jesus, p. 9-10).

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

The Pre-Incarnate Christ also appeared frequently in the Old Testament times as the Jehovah Angel, or
Angel of the Lord in the KJV. The Angel of the Lord was none other than the Word of God. He was
the Form or Image of the Invisible God which we have already discussed. The "body of heaven" which
Moses and the elders of Israel saw, the Logos or Word of God, was none other than the glorious Angel
of Jehovah. In the Old Testament dispensation the invisible God was embodied in the visible form of
Christ as the Angel of God. In New Testament times the same God is embodied in the physical form
of Christ as the Son of God. Christ has always been God's Temple or body, whether as the Angel of
God, or as Son of God. The same Oneness truth prevails throughout recorded (and unrecorded)
history, namely that the one divine invisible Spirit has always had his physical Person in whom He
dwelt and manifested Himself. This Christ, whether as Angel of God or Son of God has always been
the Mediator between the invisible God and his visible creation. An examination of some of the
frequent appearances of the Angel of Jehovah will prove very enlightening on this theme. It must
always be borne in mind that we are not talking about "two distinct persons in the Godhead." For God
the Father is not a Person; he is a divine Omnipresent Spirit (John 4:24). Christ, whether as Angel of
God or Son of God, has always been God's Only Person, God's visible Image. God the invisible Spirit
has always embodied his essential deity and nature in the visible body of His "Person," the Christ.

 
THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WRESTLED WITH JACOB UNTIL DAWN. JACOB DECLARED, "I
HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE."

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH APPEARS TO JACOB

In Gen. 28:13 Jacob had a vision of God at Bethel. God declared to him at this time that He was "The
God of Abraham and the God of Isaac." Twenty-One years later the Angel of God appeared to Jacob
and told him that He was the God that appeared to Him at Bethel (Gen. 31:11-13). Thus the Angel of
God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac!

Shortly after this a "man" wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24). This mysterious "man" is called the "face
of God." What Jacob saw was the Logos, the "image of the invisible God." This was the pre-incarnate
Christ, then known as the Angel of the Lord.

The Prophet Hosea speaking about Jacob's unusual "wrestling match" said, "Yea, he had power over
the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel... even
Jehovah God of hosts: Jehovah is his memorial" (Hosea 12:4-5 margin). Here we see that the
mysterious "man" who wrestled with Jacob, as a man, is none other than the Angel of the Lord, and in

156
His divine nature, Jehovah God Himself! Jacob wrestled with God in Christ! And this is the same One
who is described as the "Word" who was in the Beginning, and was God! There can be no other
conclusion. Jacob's mysterious "man" is identified by Hosea as the Angel of God. And this Angel of
God is defined by the same prophet as Jehovah God.

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH AND MOSES

The Angel of the Lord figures prominently in the life of Moses and in the Wilderness History of Israel.
In Exodus 3:2 the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.
When Moses drew nigh the bush the Angel said, "I am the God of thy Father, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:6). It is clear that the Angel was Christ, the visible image of the invisible
God, because the same verse says: "And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

THE ANGEL WHO LEADS TO THE PROMISED LAND

God promised to lead the children of Israel by means of His Angel manifestation. "Behold, I send an
Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared."
Christ as the Angel of God led the earthly Israel to an earthly Promised Land. But in this dispensation,
Christ as the Son of God, leads the "spiritual Israel," His church, to their heavenly home:

"In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so I would have told you. I go to
prepare a place for you" (John 14:2).

THE ANGEL WITH GOD'S NAME

Christ has always been the divine name bearer. This is because wherever the fullness of the divine
nature is embodied, there God's throne is also. Christ, the human Son of God, was the Temple of the
embodied Father, hence he had the Father's name, and announced the fact in John 5:43:

"I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not."

The Angel of God, Christ in the Old Testament, was also the visible Temple of the Father:
"Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your
transgressions: for my name is in him" (Ex 23:21).
God's name was in Him, because God was in Him! Who else has ever borne the Father's name but
Christ? And how else could the divine Father Spirit transfer His name to a person except by
incarnation or embodiment? The parallels between the Word of God (the Angel) and the Son of God
are drawing ever closer.

THE ANGEL WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN

When Christ was here on earth as the Son of God he shocked the Pharisees by forgiving sin. In Luke
5:20 he said to the palsied man:

"Thy sins are forgiven thee."

The Pharisees remonstrated, reasoning that only God could forgive sins. Christ responded to them by
announcing:

157
 "The Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins" (Luke 5:24)
Because God the Father was incarnate in the Son, the Son could forgive sins.
"Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50).
This makes Christ, the God-man, the mediator between sinful men and a sinless God.

The Angel of God in the Old Testament also "had power upon the earth" to forgive sins:

"Provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions" (Ex. 23:21).
To power to retain or pardon transgressions was a prerogative of the Angel of the Lord. This Angel
had this power because God Himself was embodied in Him and functioned through him. Just as the
"God-man" was a mediator between sinners and God in the New Testament times, so also was the
"God-Angel" a similar mediator in Old Testament times. In either dispensation, Christ (whether as
Word of God or Son of God) is the One mediator and the only "Person" with power to forgive sins.
And the basis for this is the same in both time periods, namely, God (with His name) was in Christ!

THE ANGEL WHO MUST BE OBEYED

The Angel of God is to be obeyed as God Himself:

"Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not" (Ex. 23:21).
Why is it? Because the words of the Angel are actually the words of God Himself who is embodied in
Him:
"But if thou shalt obey his voice, and do all that I speak..." (Ex 23:22).
The Angel's "voice" is actually God "speaking". When the same Angel-Word was made flesh ("and
the Word was made flesh"), and became the Son of God, the exact same situation prevailed. The Son
said:
"The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he
doeth the works" (John 14:10).
God has always used His Form or Image as His "Mouthpiece," so to speak. The results of obeying the
Angel of God are the same as obeying the Son of God: deliverance from enemies (v. 22-23), a blessing
through bread (Lord's Supper) and water (Baptism in Jesus' name), and divine healing (v. 25), and of
course a new home on "the other side of Jordan."

THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT

The most positive identification of the Son of God with the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord is found in
Malachi's prophecy. In the first verse of the third chapter we read:

"Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me."
This was clearly John the Baptist who was the preparing messenger for Christ, the Son of God. Mark
1:2 applies this to John the Baptist. Then the next thing that is to happen is
"The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly appear in His temple, even the Angel of the
Covenant, whom ye delight in" (Mal. 3:1 margin).
The Angel of the Lord, who walked the earth in a "celestial body" would now become the Son of God
in a new "flesh blood" human body. The Angel of God had delivered to Israel the Old Covenant (Heb.

158
12:25-26, Acts 7:53, Gal. 3:19). Now the same Angel or Messenger of the Covenant appears on earth
as a man to deliver the New Covenant:

"This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws
into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more" (Heb. 10:16-17). In the Old Testament as the Angel of God, the Christ delivered the Old
Covenant to the Old Israel. Now in the New testament, as the Son of God, He delivers the New
Covenant to the New Israel.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD AS REDEEMER

The Angel of the Lord is also designated as the "Angel of His Presence":

"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence saved them: in his love
and in his pity he redeemed them..." (Isa 63:9).
And this verse is given as an explanation of the preceding one which said Jehovah "was their Saviour"
(Isa. 63:8).

What does it mean when the Jehovah-Angel is called the Angel of God's Presence? It means exactly
what it implies. God's very presence, his essence or nature, is embodied in this Angel. The Angel is
God manifested in a visible Form. We cannot strictly call it an "incarnation" for that refers only to
human bodies. But, as John Paterson put it:

"While no thoughtful person would suggest that He took flesh prior to Bethlehem, His
appearances in bodily form from the dawn of human history certainly...indicate something akin
to an incarnation" (Paterson, p. 47).
God is so embodied in His Word or Angel that we can truthfully say:
"the Word was God."
The Angel-Word was the visible Temple of the otherwise invisible presence of God, hence he is the
Angel of His Presence. Deity embodied in a glorious Personal Form. When the "Word was made
flesh" we have the same deity or "presence" incarnate in a human form, the Son of God:
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19).
God in His Angel was the means by which He reconciled Israel. God in His Son is the means by which
He reconciles the world!

THE ANGEL OF GOD AS SAVIOUR

The same passage in Isaiah indicates that the Angel of God is the Saviour (Isa. 63:8,9). There can be
only One Saviour, and that is Jehovah. Isaiah himself told us that:

"I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Isa 43:11).

The Word of God, Jehovah in Angel Form, desired to save Israel, to be their Saviour. But the Son of
God, Jehovah in human Form, desires to save all mankind:
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32).

159
 THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS CHRIST

Some may wonder if it is correct to refer to the Angel of the Lord as "Christ". They have assumed this
is a New Testament designation only. Christ is Greek for the "Anointed One." The Hebrew form is
"Messiah", and as such was certainly used in the Old Testament, used by the Jews of Christ's day,
contained the Word Christ (Christos-Greek). The Angel of God, being the embodiment of both God's
nature and name, was certainly the "Anointed One" or "Christ" in Old Testament times.

In fact, the Bible specifically refers to the Angel of the Lord as Christ, and in more than one reference.

In 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul designates the Angel of the Lord that was with Israel in the wilderness, guiding
and protecting them, as "Christ."

"And they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
When that same Angel of God was "provoked" (Ex 23:21) and "pardoned not their transgressions," but
sent fiery serpents into the camp, "much people of Israel died" (Numb 2:6). Yet Paul says it was Christ
that had been "provoked" or "tempted," again clearly identifying the Angel with Christ:
"Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents" (1
Cor 10:9).
Moses was called by an Angel of God in the burning bush to forsake all and identify with God's
people and to deliver them (Ex. 3:2-12). This he did. The writer of Hebrews describes it as "esteeming
the reproaches of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." (Heb. 11:26). How could Moses
"esteem the reproaches of Christ" if there were no Christ? And who could this Christ be, if it wasn't
the Angel that spoke to him "face to face" (Ex. 33:11), whose "glory" he saw (Ex. 33:18-19). For the
"glory" of God is found in the "face" of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

Peter refers to the Holy Spirit which operated in the Old Testament Prophets as the "Spirit of Christ"
(1 Peter 1:11). How could there be a "Spirit of Christ" back then, if there was no Christ Himself!
Remember, Isaiah talks about the Angel of His Presence, and how Israel vexed "his holy Spirit" (Isa.
63:9-10). Apparently the Angel administered the divine Spirit to Israel, for it was "His" Holy Spirit,
and thus, Peter calls "the Spirit of Christ." Hence the Angel was Christ.

Isaiah saw the Angel of the Lord seated on the throne in heaven as the embodiment of God (Isaiah
6:1). Yet John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and wrote of it (John 12:41).

THE ANGEL AS GOD'S IMAGE

The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Gideon (Judges 6:12). The words the Angel spoke are identified
as Jehovah speaking directly to Gideon:

"And Jehovah said unto him..." (v. 16).

The Angel performed a miracle and then disappeared out of sight (v. 21). In verse 22 we read:
"And when Gideon perceived that he was an Angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas O Lord
(Jehovah) God! for because I have seen an Angel of the Lord face to face" (v. 22).

160
He feared death, for he knew to see the face of the Jehovah Angel was the same thing as seeing the
face of Jehovah, "and no man shall see my face and live." But Jehovah again spoke to Gideon and
assured him he wouldn't die:
"Peace be unto thee, fear not, thou shalt not die." (v. 23).

MANOAH'S INCIDENT

In Judges 13 the Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah's wife and assures her that she will conceive.
The woman describes her visitor to her as husband as "a man of God" with the "countenance of an
Angel of God." Manoah prayed that the Heavenly visitor return to give them more instructions (v.8).
The Angel of God did return and gave them more information about their forthcoming son, Sampson.
As the Angel was about to leave, Manoah asked what the Angel's name was (v. 18). The Angel said
his Name was "Wonderful" (v. 18 margin). This clearly identifies the Angel as Christ, the image of the
invisible God, for he is called "Wonderful" in Isa. 9:6. Are there two "Wonderfuls?" Not likely. When
the Angel of the Lord left, it finally "dawned on" Manoah they had actually been communing with
God in His Angelic Form as the Word, and Manoah exclaimed:

"We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

JACOB'S INCIDENT

We already reviewed the incident when Jacob wrestled with the Angel of God (Gen. 32:24-30). He,
too, asked the Angel for His name. His request was denied. The Angel said His Name was
"Wonderful," meaning "secret". It would not be revealed until Christ was born at Bethlehem, when we
hear:

"Call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21).
Jacob also recognized he had seen the Word Image, God's visible Angelic Form, for he said
"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (v. 30).
 
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THE "LOGOS", OR ANGEL OF THE LORD, APPEARED TO THE
PATRIARCHS AND DISPENSED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES. THIS ANGEL OF
GOD BECAME THE SON OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

JOSHUA'S INCIDENT

The same "Word" (Logos) appeared as the Angel of the Lord to Joshua and identified Himself as the
"Captain of the Lord's Host" (Joshua 5:14). He then commanded Joshua to worship Him, which he
did! (Joshua 5:15). There can only be One "Captain" and his name is identified in Hebrews 2:10 as
Christ! As the Angel of God, Christ was Israel's Captain for earthly warfare. But now as Son of God,
Christ is the Captain of our salvation in spiritual warfare! In both dispensations it was necessary for
the "captain" to come to earth and "appear" before his "troops," and lead them in battle!

161
 THE ANGEL WHO SPOKE AS GOD AND MAN

Zechariah relates a mystifying incident involving Joshua the High Priest (not the same Joshua who
succeeded Moses). He saw Joshua the High Priest standing before the "Angel of the Lord" and Satan
standing on the right hand, resisting him (Zech. 3:1). The Angel, speaking as a "man" would, rebukes
Satan saying:

"Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan, even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee" (v. 2).
But just a few verses later, the same Angel speaks in the first person as Jehovah God Himself saying:
"If thou wilt keep my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my
house" (v. 7).
The Angel of the Lord appears to be speaking from two perspectives. One, as the messenger or Angel,
and the other as the deity embodied in that Angel. In the New Testament Christ also spoke from two
perspectives. As the Son he said: "I can of my own self do nothing." But as the embodied Father he
said: "Thy sins be forgiven thee."

In the first chapter of Zechariah we encounter the same phenomenon. The Angel, speaking as a "man"
would, asked God; "O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem" (Zech 1:12).
Yet in the second chapter the same Angel replied in the First Person, as Jehovah God Himself, saying:
"For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about" (Zech. 2:5). This we see that God's
Word in the Old Testament on occasions can speak from his nature or perspective as the Angel of
God, the Messenger, or He may speak out of the divine nature resident in Him as Father. The same
pattern we notice in the New testament concerning our Lord, who sometimes spoke as a man, as when
he inquired about Lazarus' burial site: "Where have they laid him," and sometimes spoke as God, as
when he commanded Lazarus to rise: "Lazarus, come forth!"

The same "dual speech" from the one Person is glimpsed in the incident of Abraham offering up Isaac.
When Abraham had demonstrated his faith, the Angel of God addressed him thusly: "I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me" (Gen. 22:12). First he
speaks of God as apparently distinct -- "I know thou fearest God." And then the same Angel speaks
directly as God Himself: "Thou hast not withheld thy son...from me.!

The same "key" of the "Dual natures of Christ," which explains such speech in the New Testament,
can also be used to "unlock" the mystery of such speech in the Old Testament. For in both cases we
are dealing with the same God in the same Christ.

FROM WORD OF GOD TO SON OF GOD

In the history of redemption the time came when he who had been God's "Heavenly body", known as
the Word or Angel of God, would become the human Son of God. the Lord, "Whom ye seek," would
suddenly come to his human "temple" (Mal. 3:1; John 2:19). God's glorious Personal Form, His Old
Testament Image, had to be "laid aside." The price of redemption required the shedding of blood. The
Angel of Jehovah, the Word, was a celestial body. (Ex. 24:10). It was not composed of "flesh and
blood". It was visible and tangible, but lacked the key elements for salvation, namely blood that could
be shed, and flesh that could be pierced (Heb. 9:22). It had served its purpose. So the Scriptures tell us
that the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). This mystery occurred through the

162
process of the Virgin Birth. The glorious body of the Old Testament Word was transformed into a
flesh body known as the Son of God. There was no Son of God until the flesh body emerged from the
womb of the Virgin Mary:

"Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke
1:35).

"God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).

The Bible says that this "Word made flesh," known as the Son of God, "dwelt among us" (John 1:14).
The Greek word for dwelt is "tabernacled" or "pitched his tent". Now if the Son of God is a tabernacle
or tent, then someone must live in it, for that's what tabernacles are for! And Christ very unmistakably
revealed who was living in the tabernacle of his fleshly body:
"The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).
Paul agreed to this when he said:
"In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).
So just as the Word had been God's Temple or body in the Old Testament, so the "Word was made
flesh", the Son of God, continues to be the temple of God in New Testament times.

Paul talks of this "transformation of bodies" in Philippians the second chapter. He speaks of Christ
who had been in the "form of God" and was the visible equivalent of the invisible God in earlier times
(Philip. 2:6). This "form" was the Angel of God, and the "Body of Heaven." However Paul tells us that
this "body" or "form" was exchanged for the "form of a servant" and the "likeness of a man" (v. 7).
This is when the "Word was made flesh" and the whole idea of Christ laying aside the glorious "form
of God" and taking upon himself the "fashion of a man" was for the purpose of dying on the cross for
our sins (v.8).

TRUE MEANING OF MORPHE

It should be mentioned at this point, that much "misinformation" is being circulated by trinitarians
concerning the interpretation of the word "form". The Greek word for "form" in this text is "morphe".
While this word may embrace more than just the outward or visible form, its primary meaning is
related to visible physical appearance, or outward form. In fact, in the writings of the earliest Latin
fathers and in the Latin Vulgate, the word is translated by a Latin phrase that is strictly understood in a
physical outward sense. The only other place that "morphe" is used in the Bible is Mark 16:12, and
there it clearly refers to Christ's physical visible body. To try and translate "form" as something other
than "that which strikes the eye" or "physical body" or "appearance," is simply to mistranslate it. So
the "form of God" was a visible tangible body which could be seen. Christ called it God's "shape"
(John 5:37), and said it could be "seen." He ought to know!

WHY THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH

God inhabiting the body of the Angelic-Word could never have offered that up on the cross for
redemption. So God, through the Incarnation and Virgin Birth, transformed his immortal celestial
body into a mortal human body. The "form of God" became the "form of man." And as God has been
"incarnate" in the Pre-Bethlehem Angel-Image, so was he also incarnate in his post-Bethlehem human

163
image. God took this body to the cross (Heb. 9:14), offered it for salvation, withdrew from it so it
could die (Mark 15:34), and after three days re-entered and resurrected it (John 2:19-20). Now that
body, having been resurrected and glorified, is similar to what the One God had in the Old Testament.

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44).

It is "flesh and bone" (Luke 24:37) but not "flesh and blood" (1 Cor 15:50). In his new glorious
resurrected body, Christ is not only known as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), but has resumed his title as
Angel of God also.
"There stood by me this night the Angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear
not..." (Acts 27:23-24).
...is Paul's witness. The resurrected Son of God also appears under the title of Angel on occasion in the
Book of Revelation. In the tenth chapter of Revelation we read of a mighty Angel "Clothed with a
cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of
fire" (Rev. 10:1). If we compare this with the description of Christ in Revelation 1:13-16 and
Revelation 4:2-3, we see it is the same person.

Christ Himself made reference to his previous glorious "form" which he possessed in ancient times
when he spoke of "the glory" which He had with the Father "before the world was." This was His
glory as the Word of God, the "Body of Heaven" which was mediator to all God's universe. His form
as Angel of God was "glorious", especially in comparison to the human form in which he now existed,
and by which "he humbled Himself, being obedient unto death" (Philip. 2:8). Nevertheless, in his
resurrection and glorification Christ regains that glory which he had.

"Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him" (John 13:31).
He is again in the Body of Heaven, but with the "reminders of redemption," by which is meant the nail
prints in his hands and the wound in his side.

WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON"?

There are some passages, very few, that refer to the Old Testament Word of God as "Son." One such
example is in Hebrews 1:2, which talks of the worlds being created "by the Son." How can this be, if
the Son did not exist until the "Word was made flesh" at Bethlehem? The answer is very simple. In
these instances the Bible writers are simply talking about the one who would later (at Bethlehem) be
known as Son. They do not mean he was Son at that time. They are projecting His birth-acquired title
back through time. This is a common practice, even in today's speech. I once saw a film where the
narrator said: "This is the cabin where President Lincoln was born." Was he "President" at the time of
his birth in that humble cabin? Of course not. But he who would become President, had been born
there. In the same way we hear of the High School that President Nixon attended and the football field
President Reagan played on. Were they President at the time? Certainly not. They did not become
President till long after their High School and football days. The speaker is merely using a title they
acquired later in life to more fully describe them. He is projecting a title back in time. So when we
hear of the world being created "by the Son" we understand it is the Word that is being referred to and
not a pre-existent human being. In other words, he that would later be known as the Son, created the
worlds. But he did not do it as "Son". He was the Word at that time. His Sonship acquired title (Son) is
being projected back.

164
Even Trinitarians admit this is so:

"It is not unusual for Scripture to denominate appellations which do not, in a strictly literal
sense, appertain to the entire range of age-times under consideration in the respective contexts.
An obvious example occurs in the words of the Son of God to his grumbling disciples... 'What
then if you should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before' (John 6:61-61
NASB). It is pre-incarnate conditions, although such in prospect according to divine counsels"
(Ronald F. Hogan, The Gory of God, p. 72).

IS THIS DOCTRINE ONENESS?

Some may be wondering if this concept of "God in Christ" in both Testaments is in conformity with
Biblical Oneness. Nothing could be more Oneness, and as I will shortly prove, this message was an
original and authentic part of early Oneness Exegesis. If God the Father, as a divine Spirit, can be
manifested in the body of Christ in the New Testament, and it be Oneness, then why can't the same
God be similarly manifested in the body of Christ in the Old Testament? If God in Christ is Oneness in
the New Testament, why is it not in the Old Testament? The only difference involves the bodies in
which he dwelt. In the Old Testament it was a celestial body, known as the Word of God. In the New
Testament it is a human body, known as the Son of God. It is the same God, the same Christ, and the
same indwelling. Only the form of Christ's body has changed, from the "form of God" to the "form of
man."

God in Christ in the Old Testament is shown to be Redeemer, Saviour, Captain, and Provider. The
Angel of God embodies God's Presence or divine nature, and bears God's name, and administers God's
Spirit. He who sees the Angel of God sees God.

God in Christ in the New Testament is also revealed as Redeemer, Saviour, Captain and Provider. The
Son of God likewise embodies God's presence or divine nature, and He too bears the Father's name
and administers God's Spirit. He who sees the Son of God, sees God also.

Neither in the Old or New Testament are we speaking of "two distinct persons." The only Person is
Christ, God's Image. He has always been the Person of God. God Himself is not a Person, divine or
otherwise. He is never called a "person" in Scripture. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). So what we have is
one invisible Spirit dwelling and manifesting Himself in One visible Image, known as the Angel of
God in one dispensation and the Son of God in another. Pray tell, where are there two persons
anywhere?
 

THE "VOICE OF THE LORD," WHO WALKED WITH ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN, WAS
ACTUALLY THE ANGEL OF GOD, IN WHOM GOD WAS MANIFEST; HE WAS GOD'S OLD
TESTAMENT "FORM" OR "BODY".

LET THE FOUNDERS SPEAK

Many of the early pioneers of Oneness truth recognized and taught the concept of God in Christ in the
Old Testament. It was part and parcel of the message. It did not receive as much attention as the New

165
Testament "God in Christ" truth due to the fact that the battle lines with Trinitarians were primarily
drawn on New Testament territory. Nevertheless they recognized the important truths concerning the
Jehovah Angel as the Word of God. The neglect of this aspect of Oneness has resulted in much
needless controversy with Trinitarians, where time might have been more profitably spent. Oneness
exponents of today need to realize, as their forebearers did, that the "idealistic Son doctrine" will never
adequately answer all the texts presented to us on the pre-existent Christ by our opponents. The entire
oneness message will never come into complete harmony without this segment of the Truth being fully
integrated into our theology. Let us now examine the record of our early writers.

G.T. HAYWOOD

Bishop Haywood, first Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, was a theologian,
journalist, composer and artist. A genius by the definition of the term. His theological works on
Oneness were among the first to appear. Concerning the Angel of Jehovah as the Word, he wrote:

"Elohim is God, the living God, the power of creation (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Rev. 3:4-11).
He first assumes a creature form, though spiritual in nature (Gen. 12:7, 32:24-30, Isa. 6:1, 5);
afterwards, the human form for the purpose of redeeming mankind. (John 1:14, Heb. 2:9, 14,
16, 17; Phil. 2:7, Rom. 8:3). That Elohim, in his creature form spiritually, who appeared to the
Patriarchs and Prophets is the same who appeared in a human form 1,900 years ago to Israel
can be clearly seen by reading the following Scriptures: Gen. 17:13, Ex. 6:23, with John 8:56-
58, Isa. 6:1, 2, 5, 9, 10 with John 12 :39-40, 41, 44, 45." (G.T. Haywood, Divine Names and
Titles of Jehovah, p. 7-8).

"When Jacob wrestled with the Angel he sought to obtain the secret name, but was prohibited...
The children of Israel were led by the Angel of the Lord and Jehovah said, 'Beware of him...for
my name is in him' (Ex. 23:21). To Manoah, the Jehovah Angel replied, 'Why asketh thou after
my name, seeing it is secret (margin, Wonderful)?' (Judges 13:18). The Prophet Isaiah declared
that his name shall be called 'Wonderful' (Isa. 9:6). From these scriptures it can be clearly seen
the Jehovah had a name to be revealed which was above all his names! There is not a shadow
of a doubt but that the angel that appeared to the Virgin of Nazareth was the Jehovah Angel of
old who bore that "Wonderful' name. It was there that he had finished his journey over the hills
of time and deposited that secret name in the bosom of her who was 'highly favoured of
God.' ..The Word was God from the beginning (John 1:1-4) and when the Word became flesh,
it was given a name that 'is above every name,' for he there and then 'magnified his Word'
above all His name. His name shall be called Jesus!" (Haywood, p. 13-14).

JOHN PATERSON

In 1920 John Paterson wrote his classic Oneness Treatise entitled "Revelation of Jesus Christ." This
was used as a textbook in early Oneness circles and was printed by both G.T. Haywood and A.D.
Urshan. It has been reprinted by Word Aflame Press under the Title "God in Christ Jesus. Bro.
Paterson, whom I knew, presented me with a personally autographed copy of his book when he first
reprinted it. I quote now from this Oneness pioneer's masterful work which contains over 800 scripture
references:

166
 "The visible being who appeared to Jacob and declared himself to be God, and who was
recognized by Jacob as God, is variously described in the Bible as 'the Angel of Jehovah' (over
50 references), 'the Angel of the Covenant' (Mal. 3:1, 1 Cor 10:9), and 'the Angel who can
refuse to pardon iniquity, because the name of Jehovah is in Him' (Ex. 23:21, Psalm 2:12).
Surely no one will deny the Power to forgive, or the right to refuse pardon, belongs solely to
God. Who is this Angel if he is not the pre-existent Christ? ...Likewise, the fact that Christ was
not 'just another angel' did not prevent Him from being the Angel of God's Presence and the
Angel of the covenant who 'suddenly came to His Temple' (as foretold in Malachi 3:1 and
fulfilled in John 2:13-16)" (John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus, p. 48-49).
John Paterson's book "The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name" has been in circulation over 50
years. It is considered the most popular and widely decimated Oneness book of all time. On page 13
we read:
"God gives a fearful warning against trifling with His name in the Person of His Son when he
says concerning the Angel of the Covenant, 'Beware of Him. And obey His voice, provoke
Him not' Why? 'for my name is in Him' (Ex. 23:21). Every Bible student knows that He was
the Lord Jesus Christ" (John Paterson, The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus Name, p. 13-
14).

FRANK J. EWART

Bro. Ewart was the first to see the light on Water Baptism in Jesus' Name as the fulfillment of
Matthew 28:19. Back in 1913 he began baptizing in Jesus' name those first Oneness believers. He was
also an articulate author. Concerning the Pre-existent Christ, he writes:

"There is not a single scripture that asserts Jesus existed eternally as a Son. He is called 'the
Word,' 'God's Wisdom,' 'Back in the Beginning,' but never God's Son. See John 1:1, Prov.
8:22-31... He asserts that His existence was inseparable from the One True God. He asserted
that back in the beginning he was in 'the bosom of the Father.' It is written in Zechariah that he
was 'God's Fellow.' Micah said the babe of Bethlehem was 'from everlasting.' Isaiah says He
was 'the Everlasting Father'..." (Frank Ewart, Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 37).
Bro. Ewart recognized the "Word" or "God's Fellow" to be the embodiment of the invisible Father
back in "the beginning" and who would later become the "Babe of Bethlehem."

C.H. YADON

C.H. Yadon, a well revered Oneness Pioneer, had reprinted a remarkable book entitled "Jehovah-
Jesus." This book was originally written by one R.D. Weeks. For years this book was the principal
Godhead work circulated by the United Pentecostal Church. Often quoted out of context, and distorted
grossly by enemies of Oneness, the book fell into disfavour, and has not been reprinted in years.
However it contained a very thorough exposition of the Angel of Jehovah as the Pre-Existent Christ
and the embodiment of the Father. He wrote:

"It was the same divine 'Angel,' the 'God of Israel,' that was seen by Moses and the elders of
Israel on Mount Sinai, and who spoke to them there. We are told that 'no man hath seen God at
any time,' that is, God as a Spirit. What they saw must have been the Angel Jehovah, the same
who 'spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend' -- The Lord, (Jehovah)

167
 who spoke to Moses not in a vision, nor in a dream, but mouth to mouth, even apparently,
whose 'similitude' he beheld. He was a created being, because 'seen' and talked with 'mouth to
mouth' and ;face to face' yet also Jehovah, God Himself. He was the Spiritual Rock, the 'angel'
that was with the Israelites in the wilderness, which 'Rock was Christ'" (C.H. Yadon, Jehovah-
Jesus, p. 51).

THEODORE FITCH

In the early 1930's the Lord Jesus Christ Himself appeared to Theodore Fitch, who was a Trinitarian,
and revealed the Oneness of the Godhead to him. Rev. Fitch immediately set about writing his book
"The Deity of Jesus." It is still the most comprehensive work ever published on the Oneness. Fitch
wrote many other books on the Oneness which enjoyed wide circulation among believers. I quote from
"The Deity of Jesus" page 4:

"The 'Angel of the Lord' represented the Great Eternal Spirit that filled the Universe. The Spirit
of God was present everywhere. The Angel 'Person' of God was God in One Place. Please
notice that everytime the Angel of the Lord appeared or spoke to anyone it was God Himself
'in person'... Before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary, the Lord God existed in two
definite ways. God was manifested as an Angelic Spirit 'Person' and as an omnipresent Spirit,
that is present everywhere all the time. His 'Person' was in the form of a man, and His eternal
Spirit was without form, body or parts" (Theodore Fitch, The Deity of Jesus, Pentecostal
Publishing House, Hazelwood, MO n.d., p. 4).

"Before the incarnation, the fullness of God dwell in a Spirit body which was in the form of a
man. This beautiful angel body was made flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of
the Virgin Mary. This made the God-Angel a God-man... If the Word or 'Person' of God was
made flesh, then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father.. The Word that was God, was
'made over' into a flesh man (John 1:14). When God the Word was made flesh, he became a
Son, but still remained God, he still remained the same Person... The angel Person of the Lord
from Heaven is now called the Son of God" (Fitch, p. 22,23).

OSCAR VOUGA

Bro. Vouga's popular little book "Our Gospel Message" has this to say concerning the Son of God and
his Pre-existence as the Word of God on p. 28:

"The Son of God was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. (Matt. 1:18-
25) - The son of David of the tribe of Judah. 'In the beginning (He) was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God...all things were made by Him; and without him
was not anything made that was made.' John 1:1-3. Her was in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). He
was the Body of Heaven that Moses and Aaron, with the elders of Israel, saw. (Ex. 24:10). It
was He who talked with Abraham (Gen. 17:1), wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24-30), was and
is the creator of all things. '...all things were created by Him and for Him' Col. 1:16

"'But made himself of no reputation (Nay, he stripped Himself of glory - Weymouth), and took
upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,' Phil. 2:7. He left the

168
 glory of the Father, that is stripped Himself of divine glory, but not of deity, and was made
flesh... He is now glorified with the Father with the glory He had before the world was (John
17:5). (Oscar Vouga, Our Gospel Message, p. 28).

The book carries an endorsement from Howard A. Goss, founding father of both the Assemblies of
God and the United Pentecostal Church. Bro. Vouga's exposition of the Godhead on pages 27 to 29 of
his book is in my opinion one of the very best ever written.

GORDON MAGEE

"Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus" is the famous little book by the well known
Apostle to Ireland, Gordon Magee. On page 7 of the original edition published by the author (It has
been changed in the revised edition published by Word Aflame Press), we read,

"'Who being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God.' Or in other
words, before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the divine visible equation of the
invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with
God, but he made himself of no reputation, 'He took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men.' this being, who prior to His physical birth, was in the very form
of God -- the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God -- This Being, God, at His
Incarnation took upon himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at his
incarnation, but did not cease to be God..." (Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the
Godhead in Jesus, n.d., p. 7).

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE WORD

We have seen that the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus, pre-existed as the Word (Logos) or Angel of
the Lord. We have also seen that this Word or Angel was God's visible Image and Mediator in the Old
Testament. He was God's personal Form. The invisible divine Spirit was "incarnate" in this Angel of
God, just as he would later be in the Son of God. This explains how the Word was "with God" and yet
"was God" and how God created all things "by Christ Jesus." The question now before us concerns the
origin of this Word or Angel. Was he "created" or "eternal" or "begotten?"

TRINITARIAN THEORY

The origin of the Logos is shrouded in mystery. We know the Word was "in the beginning" (John 1:1)
and existed before "the foundation of the world" (John 17:24). This much we know. Trinitarians feel
the Logos was "eternal." They base their reasoning on such texts as Micah 5:2 which speaks of his
"goings forth" which "have been of eternity." Also Proverbs 8:23 "I was set up from everlasting."

ONENESS THEORY

Others, including Oneness theologians, feel the Logos had a definite origin. They point to Christ's
statement in Rev. 3:14, where he referred to Himself as "The Beginning of the Creation of God." They
view this as a reference to his Pre-existence as the Logos. The passage in Colossians 1:15-19 is also
used to prove the argument. Christ is called the "image of the invisible God" in verse 15. This, as we

169
have seen, is the Word or Angel of the Lord. The same verse also calls Him "the Firstborn of every
creature." This, like the title in Rev. 3:14, is the instrument of creation "for by him were all things
created" (v. 16). And this was possible only because the Father was dwelling in Him as His divine
nature: "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." (v. 19). This "fullness" is the
Godhead, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Heb 1:6 is also taken
as a reference to his primeval origin. This "first begotten" however receives worship, "let all the
Angels of God worship him." Thus, the divine nature of God is resident or incarnate in the First
Begotten, making him also God and worthy of worship.

FIRST BORN AND FIRST BEGOTTEN

Christ as the Word or Jehovah Angel is said to be the "first born" and "first begotten." Based on what
we know these expressions could never be taken literally, for that would require a "divine mother" pre-
existing in heaven; "begotten" and "born" are earthly terms, defined by human reproduction. Christ's
birth at Bethlehem was a literal begetting because he had a "real" mother and was actually "born." God
was the real Father of that child, howbeit through a miraculous birth. So Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:6 must
be taken as highly figurative language which refers to a process about which we have no real
understanding or capacity to understand.

EARLY FATHERS

It is apparent from reading the creeds and the writings of the early church Fathers that they believed in
the origin of the Logos in Pre-Creation times. The idea of an "eternal generation" always going on, and
a "birth always taking place" but never culminating were later "twists" woven around the original and
unambiguous statements. We shall examine some.

THE APOSTLES CREED

Considered the oldest, though not written by the Apostles. It contains no reference to the Pre-existent
Logos, or His being "begotten." It also makes no reference to the deity of Christ. Aryans, Trinitarians,
and Sabellianists, could all easily subscribe to this creed. It is "controversy free." No wonder its
popularity has endured!

THE NICENE CREED

This creed refers to the Son's pre-existence and origin as Logos in these words:

"Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God and very
God, begotten, not made." In this creed we also read of the Son being of one substance with the
Father. However, he is still "begotten before all worlds."

ATHANASIAN CREED

This, the lengthiest of all creeds, speaks of Christ as "begotten before the worlds," but "of the
substance of the Father." He is still "begotten before all worlds," but the idea is that he was generated
from the Father's "substance."

170
 CHALCEDONIAN CREED
"Begotten of the Father before the Ages" is the phrase used in this creed. He had an origin
before the ages begin to roll. The Virgin Birth is also defined as a second "begetting" in these
words: "But yet as regards his manhood, begotten for us men and for our salvation, of the
Virgin May, the God-bearer (Or Mother of God-"theotokos" in Greek)."

JUSTIN MARTYR
"Now the Word of God is His Son, as I said before. he is also called 'Angel' and 'Apostle'. For
as Angel he announces what it is necessary to know...This can be made clear from the writings
of Moses, in which this is to be found: 'and the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire
out of the bush and said, I am He who is God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob...'
But these words were altered to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Apostle,
who was first the Word, and appeared now in the form of fire, now in the image of the bodiless
creatures (angels). Now, however, having become man by the will of God for the sake of the
human race...The Father of the universe has a Son, who being the Word and first begotten of
God is also divine. Formerly he appeared in the form of fire and the image of a bodiless being
to Moses and the other prophets. But now in the time of your dominion he was, as I have said,
made man of a virgin according to the will of the Father." (Early Christian Fathers, Cyril C.
Richardson, editor, p. 284-285).

ATHENAGORA
"Rather did the Son come forth from the Father to give form and actuality to all material
things... The Prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he says: "The Lord created me as
the first of his ways, for his works'" (Richardson, p. 309)
This is sufficient to show that the idea of the Word being "formed," "begotten," "created," or "coming
forth," from God in a time described as "before all worlds," "before the ages," "in the beginning," was
not an unfamiliar or novel concept in the early church. This Word was also identified with the Angel
of God in the Old Testament times.

A MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINE

A very interesting discussion concerning the Word appears in Dr. E.W. Bullinger's previously cited
"Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament." The doctrine Dr. Bullinger
brings forth, although he is an ardent Trinitarian, is almost word-for-word the Oneness position on
Christ as the Word, or Angel of God. Here is what he says:

"The Godhead is 'Spirit' (john 4:24) and as Spirit has no likeness to matter, God Himself took
some creature form, (not human) before He created anything, in order that creation might
have a mediator, or a means of communion with Deity. Hence, Christ is said to have been, 'In
the Beginning' (John 1:1); 'before all things' (Co. 1:17); 'The Firstborn of every Creature' (Col.
1:15); 'The Beginning of the Creation of God' (Rev. 3:14); and hence, "In Him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9).

"Elohim, therefore, is the Logos or Word, who took creaturehood, to create, (as afterwards
took humanity, to redeem). As such He is the Father's 'Servant,' 'Angel,' or 'Messenger.'
(Elohim denotes His being set apart to the office with an oath; Messiah or Christ, His anointing

171
 to the work of redemption; Angel or Messenger, referring to his actual dispatch; Servant, with
reference to the service actually to be done). He appeared to Adam and the Patriarchs, (Gen.
17, 17, 18, 21, 22, 32; Ex. 3, 6; Joshua 5:13-15 with Ex. 23:23; Judges 13, etc., etc.) This view
only makes permanent that which most commentators assume as being only temporary.

"His mission in connection with creation was to manifest Deity to His creatures, (Prov. 8:22-
31). His work was begun with Adam (made in His likeness and image), but the Fall interrupted
the mission, and it was necessarily suspended. Then 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14) in
order that He might redeem creation from the curse. Made flesh in order that He might suffer
and die (See Heb. 10:5, Ps 40:6; Isa. 42:40, Philip. 2:7)." (Bullinger, p. 896-897).

Oneness theologians could find no argument with this marvelous discussion from the pen of a well
known and well respected Trinitarian Bible expositor and author.

CHRIST'S OWN WORDS

Christ Himself may have been speaking of his beginning as Word of Jehovah Angel in a number of
statements He made. These statements have a cryptic and mystifying ring to them and may be capable
of deeper interpretation than what we have accorded them.

"Jesus said unto them, If God were you Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and
came from God..." (John 8:42).
When did Jesus "proceed forth" from God? Could it have been when He emerged from the Father as
the Word, or God's Image, in the dateless past? We know when He "proceeded forth" from Mary as
the Son of God, for the Scriptures say:
"God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).
But where does the Bible say "He proceeded forth" as the Word of God? Perhaps John 8:42 provides
the Bible answer. In one of his last discussions with the disciples Christ says:
"For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came
out from God" (John 16:27).
What is this "coming out from God" that Jesus is speaking of? Obviously it is the same as his
"proceeding forth" and is a reference to the time when He, as the Word, first made his appearance
"before all ages," even "before the worlds were." For He was God's visible form or Temple before
anything was created. The first thing God fashioned was a body for Himself; this was the "beginning
of the Creation of God" and the "first born of all creation." In this body God could dwell and
"incarnate" Himself and thus have a Mediator for all his subsequent creation.

In his final prayer Christ says:

"For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them,
and have known surely that I came out from thee..." (John 17:8).
"Came out" as the "Firstbegotten," the "Image of the invisible God," is what he meant! He "came out"
from Mary as the "form of man" in 4 B.C. But He came "out from God" as the "form of God" back
"before all worlds." Mary produced the Human body in which the divine Spirit dwelt, but in the
dateless past God produced the celestial body (Ex. 24:10) in which he dwelt , before He was "made
flesh" (John 1:14).

172
 IS THE WORD IN ANY SENSE ETERNAL?

The Word of God, as God's creature form (Bullinger, p. 896) came forth from the omnipotent Spirit in
the dateless past before the :"Foundation of the world." The emergence of the Angel of Jehovah as
God's "celestial body" and "mediator" at this remote time is scripturally assured for us (Micah 5:2,
Prov. 8:23; John 17:24). But is there any sense in which it could be said that the Word was eternal?

Yes, in the sense of having existed in God's mind or foreknowledge as an unexpressed thought,
destined to take substantial form in time. The Word did not exist eternally as a "distinct" divine
Second Person in the Godhead. There was no "persons" at all, just Spirit, until the Jehovah Angel was
brought forth as God's Person. And it was in this one and only Person of the Word that God took up
residence and deposited his divine nature.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, of all books, has this to say on the subject:

"They knew that St. John spoke of the Second Person of the Trinity as the 'Word of God'
existing from all eternity as an unexpressed word. in the mind of a Thinker. Only when God
decided to create, and especially when he sent his word upon the earth in the form of the man
Christ, did the inner word come forth; it was now the spoken Word through whom all things
were made and who was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI,.
p70).
Except for the preposterous notion that an "unexpressed word in the mind of a thinker" can be
considered a "second Person" in the Trinity, the main thrust here is correct. The Word existed eternally
as an unexpressed concept in God's mind. Then the Word took actual existence when God "brought
forth" His Visible Form, the Jehovah-Angel, called also the "Word," or the "Body of Heaven." The
Deity dwelt in this Form as His visible Temple; this is the Word that was "in the Beginning" and was
eventually "made flesh." This is the scriptural doctrine concerning the Pre-Existence of Christ.
 
HE WHO WALKED AMONG US IN THE "DAYS OF HIS FLESH" AS THE SON OF GOD, HAD
PREVIOUSLY MANIFESTED HIMSELF TO THE PATRIARCHS AS THE WORD OF GOD.

CHAPTER XVII
IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM
DO THE DETAILS OF BAPTISM MATTER AS LONG AS ONE IS "SINCERE"?
WHAT ARE THE "WATER TESTS" GOD'S PEOPLE HAVE FACED THROUGHOUT
HISTORY?
IS BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME ONE OF THEM?

THE HEART OF ONENESS // WATER TESTS // HISTORY OF THE REVELATION OF

BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME // EFFICACY OF BAPTISM // WORDS OF CHRIST // WHAT
COULD BE MORE PLAINER? // GOOD-BYE TO AUGUSTINE AND FRIENDS //
TERTULLIAN // JUSTIN MARTYR // AUGUSTINE // AQUINAS // SCHOLARS AND CREEDS //
BAPTISM FOR (EIS) REMISSION OF SINS // BORN OF WATER -- JOHN 3:5 // HOW DID

173
NICODEMUS UNDERSTAND IT? // BAPTISM SAVES -- 1 PETER 3:21 // "WASH AWAY THY
SINS" ACTS 22:16 // BATH OF REGENERATION // PUT ON CHRIST IN BAPTISM //
BAPTIZED INTO NEWNESS OF LIFE // CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART // WHAT MORE IS
NEEDED? // NEO-TRINITARIAN INDECISION // MODERN DAY SUBSTITUTES //
SALVATION AND "WHAT ONE DOES" // 

THE HEART OF ONENESS

Carl Brumback in his book "God in Three Persons" remarked that they very heart of the Oneness
Movement is in it's doctrine of Baptism in Jesus' Name.  In a sense this is true.  Baptism in Jesus' name
was the first truth recovered after the Latter Rain outpouring of 1900, and in the words of E.N. Bell "it
it was the vehicle God used to roll up to our astonished eyes a greater vision of Jesus than we had ever
seen before."  Baptism in Jesus' Name was the first step in a doctrinal chain reaction that led to the
revelation of the Truth of Oneness and the Biblical New Birth.  Therefore, it is only logical that this
doctrine would receive the fiercest assaults from our enemies, and in the case of Dr. Boyd and other
Neo-Trinitarians, the most bizarre and desperate mechanizations ever brought forth against a Truth;
arguments so desperate that many Trinitarians refuse to endorse them.  It is in his theories concerning
Baptism in Jesus' Name that Dr. Boyd has ventured the farthest; pressing the very limits of blasphemy,
he drives his leaky vessel ever onward through the ocean of confusion and apostasy.
 

WATER TESTS

God has always tested and proved his people through the means of water.  When the Bible opens there
is water (Genesis 1:2).  No mention is made of it's creation, though it surely was created.  The Spirit is
also there, brooding over the waters.  Right from the start of the Biblical record there is a  combination
of water and Spirit that results in creation.  Thousands of years later the Master tells Nicodemus that
another combination of water and Spirit would result in a "new creation."

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God. " (John 3:5).
God proved Noah with an earth-wide water test,
"Wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water" (1 Peter 3:20).
God tested the children of Israel at the Red Sea, in which,
"they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2).
Another water and Spirit event.  Also, in Gideon's day, God told Gideon
"The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee
there" (Judges 7:4).
Out of 10,000 only 300 passed the water test.  In the New Testament John the Baptist brought a water
test to the people in preparation to receiving Christ, and the Pharisees failed it by rejecting...
"the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:30).
On the day of Pentecost, Peter put the water test to the assembled multitude, men responsible for the
crucifixion.  When they, pricked in their hearts, desired  to know what to do to be saved, Peter told
them:

174
 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38).

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added
[unto them] about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41).

HISTORY OF THE REVELATION OF BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME

In the year 1913 a world wide camp meeting of "Spirit baptized" Pentecostal believers was held in
Arroyo Seco, California.  A name which means "Dry Gulley" in Spanish.  How significant - "yet that
valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink" (2 Kings 3:17).  God had alerted the saints
beforehand through the Spirit, that he would "Do a New Thing" and proceed to do a "marvelous work
among the people, even a marvelous work and a wonder" (Isa. 29:14).  Therefore, an air of expectancy
prevailed over the Camp Meeting.  It came quietly at first.  A Bro. McAllister from Canada, while
preaching a sermon on water baptism, remarked that if they were to follow Apostolic precept they
would baptize their candidates once by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins.  This sent spiritual waves throughout the assembled congregation.  Shortly after that,
a Bro. Sheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, received a tremendous revelation concerning the
Name of Jesus and dutifully woke his fellow campers up in the midnight hour to share it.  A great
searching of the scripture began concerning the subject of the Name of Jesus Christ.

Bro. Frank Ewart was the first to see the relationship between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38.  Guided
by the Spirit of God he clearly saw, by placing all the scriptures together, that the reason Peter
commanded baptism in Jesus' Name at Pentecost was due to the fact that the name "Jesus" is the one
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit referred to by our Lord in Matthew 28:19. 
He immediately baptized Glenn Cook who in turn baptized him and a spiritual fire of truth was lit that
now encircles the globe.  From this small beginning an international movement for the restoration of
true New Testament Apostolic religion exists earthwide in the Oneness Pentecostal Revival.  A
movement that Dr. Boyd claims he was once part of for a number of years:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt
have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not
all of us" 1 John 2:19.
Now he feels he must work diligently  to turn this thing back.  This will prove a most difficult and
dangerous task for him, "for whosoever shall fall on this rock shall be broke:  but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt 21:44).
 

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM

The opening volley of every attack on water baptism in Jesus' Name is always an attempt to minimize
the importance of baptism in general.  For our opponents know that if people are taught that baptism is
not "all that important," certainly not  "essential for salvation," then they will not feel so compelled to
give diligent search as to the proper mode or formula.  And a diligent search in scripture and history is
the last thing our  detractors want!  For they know it is fatal to their position.  Dr. Boyd is no different
in this respect, for he writes:

175
 "This is not, however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly
contingent upon baptism.  The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and
faith alone, that saves a person is itself enough to prove this..."  (Boyd, p. 136).
 

WORDS OF CHRIST

So salvation was never "seen as being directly contingent upon baptism."  Conspicuous by its absence
in Dr. Boyd's discussion are the extremely "contingent" words of Christ in Mark 16:16.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Seems like quite a direct contingency to me -- belief plus baptism yields salvation.
 

WHAT COULD BE MORE PLAINER?

Dr. Boyd's omission of this passage may be due to the fact that he does not consider this portion of
Mark as part of the Word of God, a view held in common with Jehovah's Witnesses, who print it
reluctantly in the margin of their New World Translation.  This is an old dodge often employed -- "It's
not in the original Greek."  But it is, and the weight of scholarship now leans  ever increasingly in its
favour.  Phillip Schaff's Companion to Greek New Testament, page 190 proves the passage is included
in 500 ancient manuscripts!  Schaff says:

"The section is found in most of the uncial and in all the cursive manuscripts and on most of
the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and
Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts quotes vs. 19 as
part of the Gospel of Mark."
 

GOOD-BYE TO AUGUSTINE AND FRIENDS

It is amazing  to see how quickly Dr. Boyd has parted company with the "great saints of the church"
including Augustine, Aquinas, and the Cappodocian Fathers.  For they all believed strongly and
fervently in "baptism for remission of sins."  They were baptismal regenerationists to a man!  Dr.
Boyd is quite content to soak up their wisdom in regards to the Trinity (and pass it on second hand to
us), but when it comes to their equally dogmatic position on water baptism for remission of sins, they
are no longer wise nor great.  Surely if these fathers were so "divinely illuminated" as to discover such
teachings as the Perichoresis doctrine, they could not have missed something so elemental as baptism. 
Why doesn't he quote them now on this position?  He doesn't dare, because he is again impaled on the
horns of  a dilemma.  If he quotes them on baptismal regeneration he will have to admit that it is either
a valid doctrine or that they were deceived and unenlightened!  Neither of which would be pleasant for
him.  The only alternative is to let "sleeping dogs lie."  But I insist on waking them and hearing them
bark!
 

TERTULLIAN

176
 "So in the case of baptism... a man is brought down into the water and washed to the
accompaniment of a few words, and comes up again little or no cleaner, therefore, it is
regarded as incredible (to unbelievers - ed.) that he should obtain -- eternal life."  (Gore,
Reconstruction of Belief, p. 645).

JUSTIN MARTYR

"No one is allowed to partake of it (the Eucharist) unless he believes that what we teach is true,
and has been washed in the laver for the remission of sins and for regeneration."  (Gore, p.
918).

AUGUSTINE

Baptism confers "supernatural grace upon those who receive" and "expunges the stain of original sin
from them" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138).
 

AQUINAS

Baptism is a "means of grace," "admits to membership in the visible church," and "sin, both original
and actual is forgiven."  (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 139).

The list could go on indefinitely, and Dr. Boyd well knows it.  The unanimous testimony of every
early Church document (Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene, Post-Nicene), reveals that Baptism is for the
remission of sins.  All the early Church fathers, and "great saints" of the church all proclaim with one
united voice the same doctrine -- baptism for remission of sins.  The same men, and the same voices,
Dr. Boyd is so happy to refer us to on the Question of the Trinity; of them he says on page 161:
 

"And each of these figures understood himself to be passing on the Faith that was had been
handed down by the Apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, p 161).

And that includes Baptismal Regeneration!

 

SCHOLARS AND CREEDS

All scholarship is agreed on this point:

 

"On the basis of these and similar declarations by the writers of the New Testament it may be
concluded that in the Christian Community of the 1st Century baptism occupied a place of
great importance and was regarded as essential to the New Birth and to membership in the
Kingdom of God" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138).

177
And what of the Creeds?  These creeds, that are such doctrinal fortresses for Trinitarian Belief, also
shelter within their walls the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration!  On pages 172 and 173, Dr. Boyd
takes great pains to point out the correct interpretation of what the "ancient confessions" really meant
in regards to the Trinity, lest we become guilty of a "misapplication of the creedal language."  But he
is awfully silent on how to apply the "creedal language" of these "ancient confessions" where they
announce such "orthodox teachings" as "we acknowledge one baptism unto the remission of sins" --
Nicene Creed.

In the first half of the Nicene Creed (which speaks of the Trinity) is true and applicable, why such
"deafening silence" on the second half, which puts forth baptism for remission of sins?

Its sad but true;  Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians must bid a reluctant farewell to "church
Fathers," "church traditions," "Cappodocians," "Augustine," and "Aquinas."  For they all held
unequivocally to baptism for remission of sins.  Allies on the Trinity; enemies of baptism.  How much
reliance can one place on that divided camp!
 

BAPTISM FOR (EIS) REMISSION OF SINS

The first Gospel sermon preached in the newly opened church age was delivered by the Apostle Peter
on the Day of Pentecost and climaxed with these immortal words:
 

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."  (Acts 2:38).

This has always been to mean just what it says -- baptism is the means of obtaining remission of sins. 
All the early writings of the Church, Fathers and Apologists, so understood it.   Church History of
1500 years knew of no other meaning.  The Greek Church, in whose language the verse was written,
knows of no other meaning.  Dr. Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism knew of no other meaning. 
But Neo-Trinitarian "easy-believism" advocates now of another meaning!
 

"The preposition 'eis' in Greek can simply mean 'with a view towards,' 'in connection with,' or
'in the light of.'  If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that
baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins."  (Boyd,
p. 136).

In other words this is the old worn out argument, "spruced up" somewhat, that the word "for" in Acts
2:38 really means "because of."  Hence according to this theory we are baptized "because of" the
remission of sins, which we already received when we "signed a decision card," or "slipped up a
finger" or "allowed" Jesus to come into our heart.  This nonsensical interpretation has been answered
repeatedly in the past.

178
The preposition "eis" does not mean  "because of" or "in the light of."  It means "in order to obtain." 
Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, defines it:
 

"a preposition governing the accusative case and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit,
into, towards, for among."  (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, 4th ed.).

Arndt and Gingrich, unquestionable authorities agree with Thayer:

 

"of place -- into, in , toward to" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of  the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature).

For the Acts 2:38 passage they have to say this:

 

"to denote purpose, in order to ...for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven."

This certainly kills Dr. Boyd's innovative translation and lays it in it well deserved grave.

But if more proof is desired, it is available.  In Matthew 26:28 Christ uses the exact same phrase, word
for word, as found in Acts 2:38 - eis ophesin hamartion: "for the remission of sins."  The context in
this case is the Last Supper and the Lord is speaking of his blood.  "This is my blood... which is shed
for many for the remission of sins."  There it is, "for the remission of sins" -- exactly the same as in
Peter's sermon.  Now did Christ mean his blood would be shed because the believers already had
remission of sins, or did he mean that it would be shed for them to obtain remission of sins? 
Obviously to obtain remission of sins.  Therefore, Peter's command in Acts  2:38, which is a perfect
parallel to Matthew 26:28, means exactly the same -- baptism "in order to obtain" remission of sins.

And with this conclusion agree all major Greek scholars, all "apostolic Fathers," all "the great saints of
the Church," all reputable historians of Early Christianity, The Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman
Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.;  the same sources, by the way, that
are appealed to by Dr. Boyd and other Trinitarians, in support of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  In his
section on "Baptismal Regeneration" (pages 134-139), Dr. Boyd doesn't mention even one time "the
church," "the fathers," scholars, theologians, church history, or orthodox tradition -- sources he is so
fond of appealing to in his Godhead discussions.  Why?  He knows he's "changed hats" for awhile and
can't use them;  for they oppose his doctrine of baptismal efficacy, with a vengeance!
 

BORN OF WATER -- JOHN 3:5

Next the statement of Christ himself must be attacked in order to depose Baptism from its scriptural
essentiality.  Those who relegate baptism to a mere "outward sign of an inward work" are always
nervous around John 3:5 -- almost never quoting it when mentioning the New Birth.

179
 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
This is so obviously a reference to baptism of water and Spirit that our opponents become almost
frantic in their efforts to escape its impact.  Their fertile imaginations go into overdrive!

Through the years I have heard that "water" refers to the birth fluid surrounding the fetus, or the Word
of God, or the preaching of the Word, or waters of salvation, or Christ's "belly," -- anything but
baptism in water!  Jesus in John 3 talks about births involving Spirit, water, and flesh.  All agree
flesh is literal, all agree Spirit is literal, but when we come to water it suddenly becomes symbolic in
some people's minds.  In almost any Bible the marginal references will direct you to Acts 2:38, Mark
16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Titus 3:5; all water baptismal references.  Again, all the early church fathers
and apologists, ante and post Nicene writers, interpreted it to mean water baptism.  There is no other
viewpoint in the early church.  The Cappodocians, Augustine, and Aquinas would be quick to explain
it as baptism and would be "astonished beyond measure" at any other interpretation, and would brand
as a heretic anyone who taught otherwise!

But, of course, Dr. Boyd must again bid them Adieu, for he has yet another interpretation:
 

"Turning to John 3:5 there is simply no decisive reason to think Jesus is referring to baptism
when he says that one must be 'born of water'" (Boyd, p. 138).

What is the reason?  Why, Nicodemus would not have understood, that's why!
 

"Its certainly difficult to suppose that Nicodemus would have understood 'water' as referring to
the not-yet-existent ritual of Christian baptism" (Boyd, p. 138).
 

HOW DID NICODEMUS UNDERSTAND IT?

The implication is that Nicodemus had no experience with the practice of baptism, and hence would
never have made the connection between "born of water" and "baptized in water."  Therefore Christ
certainly would not have brought up something, still future, that Nicodemus couldn't possibly
comprehend.  This is absolutely untrue.  John the Baptist had just finished a mass water baptismal
campaign in preparation for the Messiah's arrival (Luke 3:3) in which a "multitude" of Jews "Came
forth to be baptized of him" (Luke 3:7), and "went out to Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt 3:5-6).  In
addition, Nicodemus would have been very familiar with the practice of baptizing in water all
proselytes to the Jewish faith:
 

"Baptism... was already in the time of our Lord (with circumcision and sacrifice) the rite for
the incorporation of the Gentile proselytes into the community of Israel.  The whole ceremony
was their 'New Birth' as Israelites" (Gore, 672).

180
Gore also quotes the distinguished Hebrew scholar Eldrsheim who adds:
 

"as he (the proselyte) stepped out of these waters he was considered 'born anew' -- in the
language of the Rabbis as if he were  a 'little child just born'"  (Gore, p. 672).
In the light of all this it would seem incredible if Nicodemus didn't associate our Lord's phrase
with water baptism.  It would be the first thing to come to his mind!

And what does Dr. Boyd offer as an alternative interpretation to "born of water" as a reference to
water baptism?  Ever the innovator, he says:
 

"Hence it seems most likely that 'water' is being used as a metaphorical synonym for 'Spirit' in
verse 5" (Boyd, p. 138).

This leads to the truly bizarre conclusion that what Jesus actually said was: "Unless a man be born of
the Spirit and of the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God!"  And of course, "Nicodemus
would have readily picked up on this."  (Boyd, p. 139).  And so have we!
 

BAPTISM SAVES -- 1 PETER 3:21

The passage in 1 Peter 3:21 is next on the "hit" list:

 

"The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ: "

The connection between water baptism and the salvation it produces is so strongly linked here
("contingent" if you please) that "they who labour, labour in vain" to refute it.  But Dr. Boyd says it
means the "opposite" (p. 137), in other words it proves Baptism does not save!  To turn back this
Niagara of proof he resorts to two different maneuvers.  First he mentions that Peter, "is here talking
symbolically" and this is "clear not only from the fact that he explicitly says he is talking symbolically,
but also from the fact that he goes on to clarify that he is not talking about any literal washing or
'removal of dirt from the body...'" (Boyd, p. 138).

That there is symbolism is true; but it is not the symbolism Dr. Boyd would have you believe.  It is the
flood of Noah that symbolizes baptism.  The flood is the symbol, not baptism!  His beloved NIV
translation brings it our clearly:
 

"In it (the ark -- ed.) only a few people, eight souls in all were saved through water, and this
water (the Flood -- ed.) symbolizes baptism that now saves you also..." (I Peter 3:21 NIV).
The flood of Noah is the type, Baptism is the Anti-type or  the reality.   In the next clause Peter is
quick to point out what gives baptism its saving efficacy, "the answer of a good conscience toward

181
God."  The literal water, H20, cannot, by itself, cleanse any sin!  "The putting away of the filth of the
flesh" or in other words the contact  of water upon  the skin, cannot by itself save.  If this were true
then any sinner splashing around in the lake or river where a baptism was in progress would be
automatically saved.  The whole idea is absurd and Oneness people have never taught that.  The
teaching that a mere application of water with a religious formula cleanses from sin, regardless of the
subjects upon whom it is performed, '"baptismal regeneration."  This is Roman Catholic, but  not
Pentecostal teaching.  It is for this reason that Catholic theology, dogmatically and "infallibly" teaches 
that if a baby, accident victim, comatose patient, lunatic, or whoever, has water applied to them,
whether by sprinkling, pouring or spitting(!), in "the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost," that person receives a cleansing from sin and an incorporation in the body of Christ,
regardless!  That is "baptismal regeneration" and is miles apart from the teaching of the UPCI or any
other Oneness Organization, and Dr. Boyd knows it.

We teach exactly what Peter expresses in this passage:  that when  the external rite of baptism is
accompanied with "the answer of a good conscience," in other words, repentance and belief in Christ,
then baptism will save or produce remission of sins.  The "answer of a good conscience" is absolutely
essential, otherwise all you are left with is an ineffectual bath of the "filth of the flesh".  Dr. Boyd
reverses the Bible completely when he says:
 

"The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that
produces the saint's 'good  conscience'" (Boyd, p.138).
That's not what Peter said!  A "good conscience," produced through repentance, "answers" God's
command by being baptized in water; and this is what saves!  Christ said the same thing in more
succinct phraseology, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).

Once years ago when I was teaching school I got involved in a discussion with some students on
salvation.  I made the comment that baptism was necessary for salvation.  The next day one of the girls
remarked to me that her preacher had told her the Bible never says you have to be baptized to be
saved.  I quoted 1 Peter 3:21 where it states, "Baptism doth also now save us" and asked her to show it
to her preacher.  The following day she returned to class and I asked her what her preacher had to say. 
She replied: "He said not to talk to you anymore."  That ended that!

Almost every text of scripture that touches on the subject of baptism indicates that it is essential to
salvation.  Baptism, coupled with repentance and faith, is the means by which the erring sinner is
pardoned of his transgression.  This is the New Testament message and the original plan of salvation. 
Also that this is the only plan recognized by those who wrote immediately after the close of the New
Testament canon; some of whom were contemporary with John and Paul.  It is the ancient teaching of
the primitive Church.
 

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" ACTS 22:16

There are other scriptures which bear this out.  When Paul converted, he was instructed by Annanias in
the following words:
 

182
 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).

Baptism in conjunction with repentance ("calling on the name of the Lord") leads to "washing away of
sins."  Paul never forgot or deviated, from the deposit of Truth he received that day in the house of
Judas, on a street called Straight.
 

BATH OF REGENERATION

We hear him telling Titus:

 

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration ("bath of regeneration" -- Greek), and renewing of the Holy
Ghost" (Titus 3:5).

He likened baptism to a "bath" or "washing" of regeneration which was made possible "through Jesus
Christ our Saviour" (v. 6).  How much more evidence is needed to establish the saving efficacy of
baptism?
 

PUT ON CHRIST IN BAPTISM

Paul further teaches that we "put on Christ" by being "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27).  Do you
want to be in Christ?  Be baptized into Him!  Do you want to put on Christ?  You put him on through
water baptism.  Therefore if you are not baptized "into Christ" you are still "outside" him.

"Are you in the Church Triumphant?

Are you in the Saviour's bride?
Come and be baptized into the body
And for evermore abide!"
 

BAPTIZED INTO NEWNESS OF LIFE

Water baptism is a pre-requisite for "newness of life" and participation in the future resurrection from
the dead at his coming:
 

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his
death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
For if we have been planted (i.e., baptism) together in the likeness of his death, we shall be
also in the likeness of his resurrection":   (Rom. 6:3-5).
 

183
 CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART

Paul also compares baptism with the Old Testament rite of circumcision.  In the Old Testament
circumcision removed part of the literal flesh of the male and incorporated him into Israel.  But in the
church age, baptism (the "circumcision of Christ") removes or "puts off the body of sins," and
simultaneously incorporates us into the church, the new "Israel of God."  This is brought out clearly in
Colossians 2:11-12,
 

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:  Buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead."

The writer of Hebrews says the same thing.  Our hearts are "sprinkled from an evil conscience"
through repentance.  Then our bodies are "washed" with pure water .  Without this we cannot "draw
near" to God "with a true heart," or have "full assurance of faith."  (Heb. 10:23-24).
 

WHAT MORE IS NEEDED?

If God wanted to say that baptism is absolutely essential for securing remission of sins and obtaining
salvation, what more could he possibly have said?  Every word conceivable, every metaphor imagined,
every example observable is brought before us to drive home the point.  Jesus said he that "believes
and is baptized shall be saved,"  unless a man is "born of water and Spirit he cannot enter God's
Kingdom."  Peter said to be baptized "for the remission of sins," because "baptism doth also now save
us."  Paul was told to be baptized to "wash away his sins."  He therefore called it a "washing of
regeneration" which "saves us."  Baptism is the only means to "put on Christ," to get "in Christ," and
to "rise with Christ."  It puts off the "body of sins," and puts us in the "body of Christ."  Did the Bible
leave anything out?  I think not.
 

NEO-TRINITARIAN INDECISION

Even Dr. Boyd is forced to admit that after such a scriptural bombardment that these passages

"...do show that baptism was regarded as being an essential aspect of the ordinary saving
experience of early believers. In the strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with one's
being united with Christ (Rom. 6:4-5), with one's 'putting on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), with the
forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) and ...with one's becoming a member of the New Covenant
Community (Col. 2:11-12).  There is nothing to indicate that this act was perceived as being in
any sense peripheral to the Gospel" (Boyd, p. 135).

He uses the word "essential" which means "necessary; indispensable" (Webster's unified
Dictionary).    Therefore baptism was a necessary and indispensable "aspect of  the ordinary saving
experience," according to  what Dr. Boyd states!  Now having said that baptism is essential or

184
"indispensable" to salvation, he spends the rest of the chapter dispensing with its essentiality!  And this
he begins to do on the following page:
 

"This is not however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly
contingent upon baptism.  The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and
faith alone, that saves a person is itself to prove this" (Boyd, p. 136).
Will he ever make up his mind?  On page 135 baptism is an "essential aspect" of salvation, and "in the
strongest  possible terms, baptism is associated with ...the forgiveness of sins."  By page 136, however,
salvation is not "directly contingent upon baptism" and it is "faith, and faith alone that saves a
person"!  A lot can happen in one page!  In the next nine pages follows the standard hackneyed
arguments used to "explain away" the passages he previously designated as the "strongest possible
terms!"  In these type of books one must be very careful to mark your place in reading -- for one page
can make a tremendous difference.  I assume Neo-Trinitarians must be under a burden to please
everyone in their camp on the baptismal issue, for "some like it hot, some like it cold, and some like it
in the text nine pages old!"  If you believe its essential read page 135.  If you believe its not
"contingent" and "faith alone" is all that's needed, then read page 136.  While they're doing that, we'll
be reading our Bible, all the pages!
 

MODERN DAY SUBSTITUTES

How the modern day "evangelicals" with their waterless "dry cleaning" salvation wish they had the
scriptural armory that we Oneness Pentecostals have.  They would love to have just one text where the
apostles coaxed someone to "accept Jesus as their very own personal Saviour"; but like old Mother
Hubbard, they find that cupboard is bare!  They search in vain where the Apostles told the people to
"just slip up a hand" ("I see that hand, God bless you!").  But the Apostles were too busy telling people
to "Repent and be baptized in Jesus' Name" for such nonsense.  Now the 20th Century preachers even
have Jesus running "for election" and the people are "to make a decision about Christ!"  Or better still,
they send in their "absentee ballot" by signing a decision card!  (Can you  imagine Peter passing out
decision cards on the Day of Pentecost?).  Then they plead with the unrepentant prospect to "allow
Jesus to come into his heart and live."  Reluctantly the new "convert" does this, but with the
understanding that repentance is not needed (and is almost never even mentioned in these "plans of
salvation").  And of course, no cleaning up or changing of lifestyle, for this would be "legalistic" and
"bondage".  You may keep smoking, drinking, acid rocking, wife swapping, living together "without
benefit of clergy," -- this will all "drop off" eventually, if ever, as you "grow" and "mature".  But don't
worry about it.  There's "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (as long as you don't finish
reading the verse, that is!)  Yes, its all as simple as ABC -- Accept, Believe, Confess -- that's it! 
You're as good as signed, sealed and delivered.

I know of an incident in Florida where a "worker" went into the laundromat and asked 16 people there,
who were busy doing laundry, if they believed Jesus was the Son of God and their Saviour.  They all
said "yes" and he proudly came out and announced that 16 people had just been born again! - Now if
someone would just go in and inform them of the fact (before their clothes dry and they leave), I'm
sure they would be quite surprised!
 

185
 SALVATION AND "WHAT ONE DOES"

Dr. Boyd criticizes the Oneness Movement in a number of places because we espouse a God who
actually has requirements and conditions, starting with baptism, for those who would serve him:
 

"One is not saved in this Theology (Oneness - ed.) by virtue of being in a gracious, loving
relationship with Christ alone.  Rather salvation is tied, in a most particular fashion, to what
one does" (Boyd, p. 194).

And we have
 

"no motivation to love and accept people unconditionally - whether inside or outside the
church" (Boyd, p. 194).

We are therefore very wrong for not accepting people "unconditionally" into our church membership,
fornicators, blasphemers, prostitutes and drug dealers!  No conditions, just come in!  God doesn't
require anything -- (we are told).  But our God does require repentance and change of life (And we do
too!)  Dr. Boyd's God does not.
 

"Rather, we know that God is naturally being the infinitely loving God, who he eternally exists,
precisely when he enters into the unconditional relationship with us that he desires" (Boyd, p.
195).

He further states:
 

"Because God is essentially social and loving, our loving relationship with him is not a sort of
bridge to God we construct with our 'good behaviour', as the Oneness Theology requires. 
Rather our  relationship with Him is something God Himself accomplishes by opening up his
loving sociality now to include us.  Our acceptance to God is wholly based on God's
performance which manifests who God eternally is.  It is not even related to our
performance."  (Boyd, p. 196).

And this spills over into Church discipline.  We are told:

 

"...to love and accept people unconditionally -- whether inside or outside the Church" (p.
194).

The results of this philosophy of God and salvation is tragic.  The so-called "church" of today tolerates
every abhorrent behaviour and sinful lifestyle in the name of "love" and "acceptance".  The plan of
Salvation is reduced to a smile in God's direction.  The only standard most preachers require today is
that you impose no standard, on yourself or anyone else.  Love, mercy, acceptance, tolerance,

186
unconditionality are in.  Repentance, judgment, accountability and holiness are out.  And hell, of
course, is never mentioned!

David Wilkerson, who preaches a clear message of repentance and change, recently mentioned 
meeting so-called "born again believers" who could not see anything wrong in continuing in their jobs
as "topless" dancers in a "nudie bar."  After all, Christ had accepted them just as they were (topless
and all!).  And, naturally, they could "witness" for Christ at work!  This kind of "mentality" is the
direct result of the type of salvation Dr. Boyd advocates.  After all, "it is not even related to our
performance" (Boyd, p. 196).  --And that must  include those Go-Go Cages and on bar tops as well!
 

"Every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  Wherefore
by their fruits ye shall know them.  Not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter
into the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 7:20-21).

"Doing the will of the Father" certainly sounds like a condition to be performed.  How does it sound to
you, dear reader?

Much is said about the love of Christ, and the mercy of God.  And this is certainly scriptural.  But they
have no use for the Christ who said:  "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3), or "if
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out ; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye,
than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Mark 9:47).  "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire
is not quenched." (Mark 9:48).

Though they love to quote Paul, selectively that is, they refuse to preach his gospel that men "should
repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20).  For it contains two words
that do not fit into their "cheap grace" gospel, namely "repentance" and "works".  Paul's audience
didn't like it either, "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me"
(v.21).  Any preacher who does set that forth as a true requirement for salvation will be killed in the
jumbo church ecclesiastical temples of today.  "Faith and faith alone" is all they want to hear.  It may
be a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31), but please don't mention it! 
For they like to picture God as a loving "Grandpa" in Heaven who tolerates any behaviour in the name
of love.  And even though we shall "not escape if we neglect. so great salvation,"  it would not be
polite to mention it.  It would run contrary to their idea of a very "understanding" God.  I recently
talked to one of these new type "Christians," a lady who owns a Christian bookstore, in which she
offers for sale two blasphemous books.  One of which offers the idea that Jesus' conception may have
resulted from Mary having sex with Zecharias the Priest!!  And the other book advocated the church
accepting and blessing pre-marital fornication and homosexual marriages!!  When I pointed out to her
the blasphemous contents of these books, she quickly informed me she had read them and was
surprised that I was not as broad minded as she, or as tolerant!  She then proceeded to inform me that
the Holy Spirit guided her in the selection of these books!  Perfectly good books for evangelical
Christians to feed upon according to her, because God "gave us brains," and we are "free"  to decide
what to believe!  And this my friends is the end  to which all such unapostolic, "just believe," "faith
alone" preaching  leads to -- People that cannot be disciplined, won't be disciplined, and insist on their
right to believe anything that supports their corrupt lifestyle.  And we must, according to Dr. Boyd,
accept them unconditionally into the church.  "Our performance is not the issue" remember.

187
 
 

JESUS UNFOLDED THE TRUE PLAN OF SALVATION TO NICODEMUS WHEN HE SAID:

"...EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO
THE KINGDOM OF GOD."  JOHN 3:5.  THUS JESUS INCLUDED WATER BAPTISM IN GOD'S
SAVING ECONOMY.
 
JESUS EMPHASIZED THE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALITY OF BAPTISM WHEN HE
ANNOUNCED TO HIS APOSTLES; "HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE
SAVED..." (MARK 16:16).

CHAPTER XVIII
NO OTHER NAME
DO ONENESS PEOPLE  IGNORE JESUS' COMMAND TO BAPTIZE "IN THE  NAME OF
THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY GHOST"?
WHY ARE TRINITARIANS TRYING TO ELIMINATE ALL BAPTISMAL FORMULAE,
BOTH ONENESS AND TRINITARIAN?

 IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL? // IS FEAR HEALTHY? // THE FORMULA  /

/ G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY //  WILHELM BOUSSET // DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON // DEAN
STANLEY // ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS //  HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE // THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA // OTTO
HEICK // SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA // ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA // BAPTIST
SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUT // THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO
"CONFESSION" // WILLISTON WALKER // ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA // NEW TESTAMENT
ACCOUNTS // JERUSALEM // SAMARIA // CAESAREA // EPHESUS // ETHIOPIA //
DAMASCUS // CORINTH // ROME // GALATIA // COLOSSE // THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL
AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME // WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19? // REVELATION AND
RECONCILIATION // REVELATION AT PENTECOST // MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED //
THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT // FINDING THE ONE NAME // THE NAME OF THE SON //
THE NAME OF THE FATHER // MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS // NAME OF THE HOLY
GHOST // NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS // THE APOSTLES
AGREE // THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM // THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME" DOCTRINE //
OPENING PANDORA'S BOX  // IS THE FORMULA VERBAL? // PROOF OF VERBAL
FORMULA // SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA // PICK A PHRASE, ANY
PHRASE! // APOSTOLIC APPLICATION // PHANTOM FORMULAS

188
Jesus did not tell His disciples to baptize using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He told them
to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  That name is JESUS!!  JESUS is the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the
King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Bright and Morning Star, the First and the Last, the Beginning
and the Ending, the One that was, and is and is to come.  THE ALMIGHTY.
Every Apostle, every disciple, every writer of the New Testament was baptized in Jesus' Name.  No
one ever used the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in baptism.
WHY DO YOU?
Acts 2:38  Acts 8:14-16  Acts 10:44-48  Acts 19:1-6  Acts 22:16

IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL?

Having established the importance and essentiality of water baptism, we now turn our attention to the
"formula," or words to be spoken over the candidate.  If baptism is essential, then it is essential that we
do it correctly.  Some will argue that God is not interested in details.  But what constitutes a "detail"? 
Was it a "detail" that the death angel was looking for that dark night in Egypt when the first born son

189
was slain in every house that had no blood on the door posts and lintels?  Could the Jews have varied
the "details" a little and painted the windows instead?  Or used red paint instead of blood?  After all,
they look the same, and God is not "picky."  But God was "picky" that night, and details did matter. 
Was it just a detail when Uzzah touched the ark to steady it as it made its way down the dusty road.  If
it were a detail, he was killed for it!  Or what about the "details" concerning the Lord's Supper?  Must
we use bread and fruit of the vine?  The Mormons use bread and water; the Quakers use nothing; and
one blaspheming modernist in Maryland set beer and pretzels on the altar.  He said "the details don't
matter,"  "God wasn't picky," as long as the intent was correct!

Where will it stop as ministers relegate everything they don't agree with to "circular file" of
"unnecessary details"?  Boyd sums up his opposition to our insistence on the use of the New
Testament formula by saying:
 

"In other words, the God presupposed in this theology will damn a person on  a technicality"
(p. 145).
He feels of course, that the baptismal formula is a technicality!  To obey God exactly in the
requirements for salvation, as we in the Oneness faith believe in doing, is characterized as
 
"a relationship between a meticulous perfectionistic employer and his fearful employees."  (p.
145).
And he refers to water baptism as a
 
"procedure the believer performs for God" (p. 145).
We don't view God as a "meticulous perfectionistic" just because he sets down clearly in the Word a
very simple  plan for the procurement of pardon.  Neither is baptism something we perform for God. 
For it is we, not God, who receive remission of sins.  We are the sole beneficiaries of that great
experience.  Moses was told to be careful to "make all things according to the pattern," that was shown
him.  Should we do less, and use "grace" as an excuse for this "free-wheeling,"  pick as you please
cafeteria approach to religion?  Peter silenced these arguments about the unimportance of the Name of
Jesus and its employment  when he said:
 
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name ("no second name") under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12
And Jesus told us something also about those who do not have particular concern  about even the least
of his commandments (and baptism is certainly, not that):
 
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 5:19
That's the principle of obedience that Christ laid down.  We are not to "pick and choose" what is a
technicality and what is not!  We Oneness are not "fearful employees" but joyously obedient followers
of Christ, who look forward to hearing:  "Come thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of
your Lord."  And our desire is that we may say, as Christ did, "Lo, I come... to do thy will, O God." 

190
(Heb. 10:7).  Technicalities and all!  For the "volume of the book" is full of them!
 

IS FEAR HEALTHY?

Dr. Boyd apparently thinks "fear" has no place in a

 
"relationship between a passionately loving Father and his undeserving children" (p. 145).
But we all know the results of such thinking in today's society in which the children have absolutely
no fear of their parents:  Promiscuous lawlessness!  Paul did not agree with Dr. Boyd's  "no fear"
theory for he wrote:
 
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much
more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling
Phil 2:12
Paul believed it was more important to tremble than to whistle!  the writer to the Hebrews says:
 
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should
seem to come short of it.
Heb. 4:1
Omitting the Name of Jesus in water baptism would certainly cause one to "come short", if we
consider New Testament practice.  Trinitarians better fear!  What the modern church, which claims to
be Christian, needs is a little more fear, instead of this "merrily we skip along" attitude that has
developed over under the guise of "love" and "grace". The modern day evangelical convert is fast
degenerating into an individual who gives his "heart to Jesus," lends his body to the devil, and keeps
his mind for himself!  And this is real grounds for fear!  (and worry!).
 

THE FORMULA

The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christian baptism was always performed in Jesus' name. 
This is the Formula and the New Testament knows no other!  Dr. Boyd grudgingly hints this may be
so:
 
"Thus, even if the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' name, it should at least be very
clear they did not do so with the Oneness significance..." (p. 141).
He further states:
 
"The more informed Oneness Pentecostals like to argue that Jesus' Name baptism was
practiced not only in Acts, but in the second and  third century as well.  And, indeed, there does
exist a small amount of  evidence to this effect." (p. 141).
"If the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' Name" he says!  There's no "if" about it!  We have
the record, for "it is written."  They baptized in no other way!  He surely must admit this.  He is an
educated man, a graduate of Princeton!  He reads the Greek; he has an open Bible; he has access to
great libraries, he knows what scholarship says in this point.  Before we examine  the scriptural record,

191
let us hear the conclusion reached by eminent scholars from just such a scriptural examination.
 

G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY

This Baptist scholar and historian, fluent in classic languages, was commissioned by the Baptist
Church to write a definitive volume on water baptism for the benefit of the Baptist Church.  His
volume is a masterpiece of research.  He has left no stone unturned.  The work is truly the "be all" and
"end all" on the baptismal controversy.  He did not consider the evidence "a small amount" for he
writes:
 
"There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in
the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
(G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 82-83).
He further proves that baptism was performed with the invocation of Jesus Name, was associated with
remission of sins, and followed by a charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  What does that sound
like?  And this was from a man who has no "axe to grind" -- 2:38 or otherwise!
 

WILHELM BOUSSET

This German historian writes,

 
"It is still essentially a baptism in the Name of Jesus"
(Wilhelm Bousett, Kurios Christos, p. 295).
He goes on to say,
 
"The Testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula (in Jesus name - ed.)
down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matt. 28:19, the trinitarian
formula was only later inserted"
(Bousett, p. 295).
 
 

DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON

He writes:
 
"In the earliest times, however, baptism appears to have been administered 'in the name of
Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or 'Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16; 19:5).  And on the use of the single
baptismal formula St. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 seems to be based..."
(Ephesians p. 234ff).
To this conclusion of Dr. Armitage is added the endorsement of Dr. Charles Gore, in his masterful
work on Christian history and doctrine entitled the "Reconstruction of Belief":
 

192
 "I have expressed disagreement with this in the past, but I desire to retract the disagreement.  I
think the evidence is fairly convincing  that at the beginning only the single name  was used. 
Down to the time of the Schoolmen this view prevailed, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Th. 3A
qu. 66 a. 6"
(Gore, 745-746).

DEAN STANLEY

He writes in Christian Institutions: the following:

 
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in
the  three-fold name -- soon superseded the simpler form of that in the 'Name of  the Lord
Jesus Only'."
 

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics edited by James Hastings states:

 
"The formula used was 'in the Name of  the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase;
there is no evidence for the use of the triune Name"
(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, p. 384, 1958 edition).
 

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible adds:

 
"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name
of the Trinity"
(James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 241, 1906 edition).
 

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA

The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol 1, pages 395-396 under "Baptism" and
referring to the Trinitarian formula says:
 
"But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian Baptism until the
time of Justin Martyr, and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended form. 
In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in
use.  The 3,000 believers were baptized on the day of Pentecost in the Name of Jesus Christ. 
The same formula was used at the Baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him.  Indeed
it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: 'Were you
baptized in the name of Paul?'  No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the
Acts of the Apostles. The difficulty was considered by the Fathers."

193
I imagine it was!
 

OTTO HEICK

Otto Heick's objective in his comprehensive work on Christian thought is this:

 
"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the Name of the
Triune God:  Father, Son , and Holy Spirit"
(Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought,  vol. 1, p. 215).
 

SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"The New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus... which still occurs in the
second and third centuries"
(Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p.435, 1966 edition).
 

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

 
"We gather from Acts 19:4 that John had merely baptized in the Name of the Coming Messiah,
without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth.  The Apostolic Age supplied the identification,
and the normal use during it seems to have been, 'into Christ Jesus' or 'in the Name of the Lord
Jesus Christ' simply, or 'of the Lord Jesus Christ'
(Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, p. 368, 1910 edition).
 

BAPTIST SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUT

G.R. Beasley-Murray, whom we previously cited, has produced what many consider the most
comprehensive study on Water Baptism yet.  His book, Baptism in the New Testament, is required
reading for any who would gain  a true biblical understanding of this rite of Christian initiation. 
Beasley-Murray is one of the leading New Testament scholars in England, and is, as we have
mentioned, a Baptist; but his research transcends denominational lines.  F.F. Bruce said concerning his
book:
 
"...it is a work of first class scholarship, and it would be a tragedy if it were to become
unobtainable."
After years of study and investigation in the subject of water baptism, Beasley-Murray has determined
that  New Testament water baptism was performed exclusively  with the single formula of "Jesus
Name;" was for the remission of sins; and was further associated  with Charismatic Spirit reception. 
(If one is "in a hurry" the same conclusion can be obtained by studying the Articles of Faith of the
United Pentecostal Church International or the Manual of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World!)

194
Let us read what Dr. Beasley-Murray has to say on baptism; the fruit of years of unbiased scrutinizing
of scripture and history:
 

"The Name of the Lord Jesus is called over the baptized.  He therefore dedicates himself to the
Lord and is appropriated for him... This implies an effective action by which the Messiah
enrolls the baptized as one of his subjects and accords to him a place in the Kingdom of God"
(p. 102).
"In the passage already cited, Acts 22:16, the exhortation to Paul, 'Rise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins, calling on his name,' implies that his sins will be washed away in his
baptism accompanied by prayer.  The word of Peter in Acts 2:38 conveys a similar
impression..." (p. 102).
"As has been mentioned, baptism in Acts is always administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ'
or in the name of the Lord Jesus'" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) (p. 100).
"That the Name was on the lips of the candidate baptized as well as uttered by the baptizer is
harmonious with the dual nature of baptism as an act of man and an act of God" (p. 100).
"Cleansing is the  primary meaning of baptism in all religious groups that have practiced it; but
when baptism is administered in the name of the Lord who died and rose for the blotting out of
sins (Acts 3:19), this aspect of its significance is immensely strengthened" (p. 103).
"Again and again we have had cause to remind ourselves that Christian Baptism is baptism in
the Name of the Lord Jesus; in it the name of the Lord is called over the baptized, declaring
him to be the Lord's, and the name is confessed and invoked by the baptized" (p. 120).

"The significance of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' is presumed as known without
further explanation: the name of Jesus Christ is called on by the baptismal candidate in appeal
for washing, consecration and righteousness, and the name of Jesus Christ is called over him
by the baptizer, signifying that Jesus Christ... cleanses, consecrates, and justifies him" (p. 166).

Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that Paul's expression, 'but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of our God," in 1 Corinthians 6:11, is a direct reference to the Jesus name baptismal
formula:
 
" 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' reflects the use of the name in the baptismal formula"
(p. 163).
He also is certain that Paul's reference to the "Spirit of our God" links water baptism in Jesus' Name
with Spirit Baptism:
"That the experience of the Spirit is linked with baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus needs no
further demonstration after our discussion of the evidence on this matter in the Book of Acts"
(p. 163).
He also feels it is
"difficult to disassociate the 'washing' of 1 Cor. 6:11 from the baptismal cleansing" (p. 163).
So do we!

Interestingly enough, Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that 1 Cor. 6:11 might have been used after Paul's
death as the basis for the newly evolving Trinitarian formula which eventually replaced the original
apostolic Jesus' name formula.  The reason for this suggestion is that 1 Cor. 6:11 mentions Jesus, the

195
Spirit, and God in one paragraph.  Trinitarian innovators might have seized that to justify their new
"replacement" formula.  He writes:
 

"This is insufficient evidence for the existence in Paul's time of a baptism in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it provides a hint of the way in which the Trinitarian formula
arose..." (p. 167).
Dr. Beasley-Murray is also in agreement with Oneness Pentecostalism in linking a Charismatic Spirit
Baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name.  He writes:
 
"The third and perhaps most impressive gift  of God in baptism is the Spirit, the possession of
which was frequently accompanied in the earliest church by spectacular Charismatic gifts and
signs.  That the gift should be associated with baptism is to be expected.  For baptism in the
name of the  Messiah Jesus related the believer to the Lord of the kingdom, who had received
the Spirit from the Father that he might pour him forth upon his people..." (p. 104).
"...we cannot doubt that this inward sealing of the Spirit is conceived as taking place in baptism
in the name of Jesus, when the name was invoked and called over the baptized..." (p. 174).
"thus the  'seal of the Spirit' is neither baptism in water, nor a baptism in the Spirit divorced
from the rite of baptism; it si the 'Baptism of the Spirit' in association with the laying of the
name of  Jesus on a believer in the rite of baptism" (p. 174).
"The seal of the Spirit however, is in inward possession which none but God can see, apart
from its effects in character, behaviour, and the Charismata" (p. 175).
There is all the evidence one needs: over 400 pages of unbiased research conducted by a world renown
scholar of the Baptist Faith.  His conclusion?  Baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins,
accompanied by Spirit baptism with charismatic evidences!  Why was none of this impressive array of
evidence for the Jesus' name formula ever mentioned by Dr. Boyd?  Why, in the face of his mountain
of research, did Dr. Boyd fail to quote it even once?  A scholar like Beasley-Murray is known in every
theological seminary, his reputation spans two continents, he carries the highest endorsements, and his
name occurs in many bibliographies.  Yet he is never once called to the stand by Dr. Boyd respecting
the Jesus name formula.  Is this type of "exegesis" indicative of future trends in presenting "all the
facts?"  Forbid it, Almighty God!
 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION"

Perhaps the most astonishing proof of the alteration of the baptismal formula from Jesus name to
triune titles comes from the "alternators" themselves -- the Catholic Church!

Some years ago, before I ever dreamed I would be writing this book, I was driving past a thrift store
when the Lord impressed on me to stop and go in.  I was not in the habit of doing this, but I obeyed. 
Once inside the Lord directed me to a cabinet of old used books.  I began to search through them. 
There among the old books I found an official Catholic Catechism, with the Bishop's "imprimatur" and
"nihil obstat."  These are Latin terms which means the book is officially approved  as containing
"nothing objectionable" or contrary to Catholic teaching.  Guided by the Lord I turned to the section
dealing with water baptism.  It was then I realized why the Lord had been so patiently directing my
steps.  I was astonished to read this official Catholic admission concerning the original baptismal

196
formula:
 

 
 
IN THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CLEARLY
RECOGNIZES THAT THE ORIGINAL BAPTISM WAS, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS" AND
MUST  HAVE BEEN CHANGED  AFTER THE DISCIPLES' DEATH.
 
"The earliest practice of the Church was probably to baptize converts 'in the name of Jesus'
(Acts 10:48; 19:5) since in baptism it was his Lordship they confessed and into his body they
were incorporated"
(An American Catholic Catechism, p. 112).
What more is needed?  As Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; case closed!"

If that is not enough, then surely this quote from an equally "official" Catholic Encyclopedia will
provide the final "coup de grace" to this painfully recalcitrant stonewalling by Trinitarians.  It reads as
follows:
 

 
"An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism cannot be found in the first
century" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 59).
"Higher mathematics" can surely be employed here by our opponents to put "two and two together." 
For if the original formula was baptism in Jesus' name (An American Catholic Catechism), and the
Trinitarian formula was unheard of  for at least 100 years (New Catholic Encyclopedia), then what
conclusion is possible other than one which maintains that the Triadic formula for baptism was an
unapostolic invention, birthed late in time, and devoid of New Testament precedent or approbation. 
The Catholics admit it, the Baptists admit it, scholars admit it, historians admit it -- in fact, among
most critical New Testament researchers it's not even considered a debatable point any longer!  Why
doesn't Dr. Boyd come in?  Its getting awfully cold out there.  He once warmed himself by the fires of
this great truth, till an "ill wind" blew him elsewhere.  God grant that he return is my ascending prayer.

197
 

WILLISTON WALKER

Evidence continues to pour down upon u from every direction.  Williston Walker, noted historian
adds:
 
"With the early disciples generally baptism was 'in the Name of Jesus Christ'"
(Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 87).
 

ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA

And from the Encyclopedia Biblica:

 
" 'In the Name of Jesus Christ' or 'of the Lord Jesus.':  The former expression is used in Acts
2:38 and 10:48, The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5.  See also Acts 22:16... From these
passages, and from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye
baptized in the Name of Paul?')  it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the
earliest times 'in the Name of Jesus Christ' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.'  This view is
confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of Baptismal Confession appears to have been
single -- not triple, as was the later creed."
(Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 473, 1899 edition).
Thus we have it from the word of scholarship and history.  The verdict is in -- Baptism in Jesus Name. 
This is unbiased evidence.  Not one of these men were personally baptized in Jesus Name.  If they
espoused any faith at all, it was Trinitarian.  But concerning the Triune baptismal formula they are
unanimous -- "not one example in the whole New Testament," "doubtless" of later origin, "no
evidence" for its use, "no mention of it in the New testament," "not given in any description" in the
New Testament, and "no record can be discovered in the Acts."  This is all quite damaging to Dr.
Boyd's "if the earliest disciples" theory.  I wouldn't want to be in court with these witnesses taking
stand against me.  Their testimony for "Jesus Name" being the original formula is equally compelling. 
For they consider the evidence "overwhelming" and "convincing" being from "the earliest times," and
"found in every account."  they find that "at the beginning" it is only "the single name."  the "New
Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus" for it was "administered from the earliest times"
and "confirmed" by "baptismal confessions."

What can Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians say in the face of all this evidence?  Do they also believe
the earth is flat?
 

NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS

These scholars all independently reached the same conclusion through an examination of the baptismal
accounts in the Book of Acts and the witness of history.  Let us turn our attention to the record of

198
baptisms in the New Testament Church.
 

JERUSALEM

The Jews on the day of Pentecost, together with their Gentile proselytes were commanded to
 
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

(Acts 2:38).
 

SAMARIA

Phillip the evangelist went there preaching the "Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts
8:12).  Where upon the Samaritans in a great city wide revival were "baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus" (Act 8:16).
 

CAESAREA

Cornelius, and those of his household, the first Gentile believers, listened carefully to Peter's sermon
that through Jesus' Name "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins"  During the
sermon they were filled with the Holy Ghost and Peter therefore commanded that they should "be
baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48 R.V.).   Being filled with the Holy Ghost did not
excuse them from baptism in Jesus Name, but rather made it incumbent upon them!
 

EPHESUS

Paul met some converts who knew only the teaching of John the Baptist, having been baptized of him. 
Paul, in spite of this, ordered their rebaptism in Jesus' Name after they learned fully of Christ:
 
And when they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus
(Acts 19:5).
Anyone learning this truth needs to be "rebaptized" from whatever other form they had.
 

ETHIOPIA

Phillip joined himself to the chariot of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was traveling to his homeland, and
preached Jesus unto him.  When the Ethiopian believed on Jesus Christ, "They went down both into
the water, both Phillip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38).  What was Phillip's formula
for baptism?  Acts 8:16 informs us that it was "in the name of the Lord Jesus."  he certainly wouldn't
change his formula in one day.
 

199
 DAMASCUS

Paul, blinded by his experience with Christ on the Damascus Road, makes his way to that city to await
healing and further instruction.  This is quick to arrive as Annanias enters the house and informs him: 
"And now why tarriest thou?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of
the Lord."  (Acts 22:16).  Paul was baptized with the "invocation of the Name of the Lord Jesus."  This
required having the Name called "upon" him.  Acts 15:17.
 

CORINTH

Paul, writing to this church which was torn by splits, puts these questions to them:
 
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?  or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Cor. 1:13).
The obvious answers are:  Paul was not crucified for them, Christ was; they were not baptized in the
Name of Paul, but in the Name of Christ.  Unless they were baptized in the name of the undivided
Christ, his argument would not make sense. Corinth was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.
 

ROME

The Church at Rome was "baptized into Jesus Christ":

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death?
(Rom 6:3).
 

GALATIA

The Galatians likewise were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ:
For as man of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ
(Gal. 3:27).
 

COLOSSE

The Colossians were also "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. 2:12), and this is defined in Rom. 6:3
as a baptism "into Jesus Christ".  Hence the Colossians received the one Apostolic baptism -- in the
name of Jesus Christ!

All of the above mentioned churches were founded by either Peter or Paul or Phillip.  We know Peter's
formula was "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48), Phillip's was in the Name of the Lord
Jesus (8:16).  And the one Paul used was the same (Acts 19:5).. In the mouth of two or three
witnesses, let every thing be established.
 

200
 THE FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME

In fact, the first Church Council, unlike subsequent Catholic Councils, ruled that the Name of the Lord
Jesus was to be called upon all Gentile Converts.  We read this in Acts 15:14-17 where it is stated
that "God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name."  And how is this
done?  We are not left in the dark:  "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the
Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."  Now I ask, in
what rite or ordinance does a believer have the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ called "upon him" if it is
not baptism in that Name?  Of all the Church Councils and their decrees that trinitarians love to quote,
why do they always pass this one by?  Not much is said about this baptismal creed, is there?
 

WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19?

The only thing that remains now is to reconcile these references with our Lord's command in Matthew
28:19 in which the Apostles are commanded to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."  And this task is easy to do.  And it is precisely in
linking this command with the references in Acts that produces automatically the reconciliation and
perfect agreement of all texts concerning water baptism.
 

REVELATION AND RECONCILIATION

To reconcile the command by Christ in Matthew 28:19 to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" wit the passages in Acts, in which all converts were baptized "in the
name of Jesus Christ" or  "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is the task now before us.  Ingersoll, the
famous atheist orator, frequently used this apparent contradiction to show that the Bible contained
discrepancies.  But it is neither a discrepancy nor a contradiction.  If men would cease looking to
church councils for their "enlightenment,"  and return to the "fountain of living waters,"  they would
begin to see "all things clearly."  Boyd is sure that
"when Jesus commands us to baptize 'in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit' he is not cryptically making some  esoteric self-reference that must be decoded for
believers to be baptized correctly and therefore saved"
(Boyd, p. 143).
But in so stating, he contradicts the Lord, for Jesus told His disciples that he was indeed speaking of
the Father "cryptically" as Dr. Boyd phrases it.
 
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (parables -- margin): but the time cometh
when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs (parables), but I will show plainly of the
Father
(John 16:25).
A parable must be "decoded" for it is "cryptic".  His references to the Father were in just such a
category; not "plain" but "parabolic".  But Christ promised a time when the Spirit would arrive (John
14:16-19), then they would get the promised revelation concerning the Father:
 

201
 at that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
(John 14:20).
And that day, of course, would be Pentecost.  It was on that day the Apostles would receive the
promised Revelation mentioned in Luke 10:22:
 
...and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father; and who the Father is but the Son, and he
to whom the Son will reveal him.
By Christ's own definition, the baptismal reference in Matt. 28:19 to the Name of the Father and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was one of His parabolic statements, that would not be made plain until
the day, namely Pentecost, when they would receive the promised Revelation and have the father
shown plainly to them!  And this occurred and right on time.
 

REVELATION AT PENTECOST

Carl Brumback in his book , God in Three Persons, disputes the Apostles received any Godhead
revelation on Pentecost and demands we show where it was received.
 
"It is necessary for the Oneness to assume that Peter at Pentecost received a 'revelation' that
Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for it is not written!..."
(Brumback, p. 77).
But it is written and "plain to him that understandeth and right to them that find knowledge" (Proverbs
8:9)!  At the climax of his sermon, Peter declares by divine revelation:
 
Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus,
whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ
(Acts 2:36).
It is obvious that something startling and apparently paradoxical is being presented by the qualifying
terms "same" and "both."  That one and the selfsame person could be both Lord and Christ, is
something that only God could have made happen!  It s a miracle!  The word "Lord" here is "Kyrios,"
which is the Greek term used in the New Testament for Jehovah.  Wherever Jehovah appears in the
Old Testament, it is translated in the New by Kyrios.  Thus the Old Testament phrase in Joel that
"whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved," is rendered  in the New Testament by
"whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved."  So Peter, in revealing Jesus
as Lord and Christ, is actually announcing that Jesus is both Jehovah and Messiah -- the same person
is both!  Calling him Jehovah is the equivalent of calling him God or Father, for the Jews believed in
no other God than God the Father who had revealed Himself under the Name Jehovah (Mal. 2:10, Isa.
63:16; 64:8 and John 8:41).  This same  Jesus is also the Christ, the Anointed Man, the Son of God
who was born to save "his people from their sins."    Acts 4:26 makes it quote clear that Lord and
Christ is simply another way of saying Father and Son; and Jesus is both!  It is now very "plain,"  no
longer a "parable," but truly "revealed."  This same Jesus is both Father and Son, Jehovah and Christ,
divine and human, God and Son of God, in the one selfsame person of our Lord Jesus Christ!  And
God has made this to happen, by raising Christ from the dead and simultaneously taking up
"residence" in His immortal glorified temple.  So it could  be truly said that in Christ "dwells all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily."  The Father is dwelling in the Son (John 14:10).  Jehovah is
embodied in the flesh of His Messiah, the Christ.  That is why when the Jews cried out asking what to

202
do, Peter commanded them to be baptized in Jesus' Name -- for it is the Name of the Father, and of the
Son; for this same Jesus is both!  Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is the divinely sanctioned
interpretation of what it means to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Hoy Spirit.  And that's the only Biblical explanation ever given!
 

MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED

Let us now revisit Matthew 28:19 in the light of this revelation:

The first thing we notice is that Jesus refers to the One Name and One Name Only.  For "Name" is in
the singular.  He is not speaking about "names," plural, but one name, singular.  And this One Name is
-- the Name of the father, and also of the Son, and even more, it is also the Name of the Holy Spirit. 
And it is in this One Name of the Godhead we are to baptize.
 

THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT

Dr. Boyd tries to downplay the significance of the singular  name in Matt 28:19 as of no great
consequence:
 
"The bottom line is that there need be nothing theologically significant about the singularity of
'the  Name' in Matt. 28:19"
(Boyd, p. 143).
But my library is filled with book sin which Trinitarians have pondered and tried to explain this
singularity, and come up with all sorts of revelations of their own!  Many come close to the truth, but
because like all Trinitarians, they are "reasoning in chains", they never arrive.  For they are not
allowed to stray too far from their man devised creeds which bind them fast to their "distinct person
theory."  Take for example this quote from Robert L. Reymond, Presbyterian:
 
"Jesus does not say 'into the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'
...What he does say is this, 'into the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit'; first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of
single name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinction of each..."
(Robert L. Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah, p. 84).
This "singular name" comment was so theologically appealing that Ron Rhodes has reproduced it in
his book, Christ Before the Manger, on. p. 28.

Andrew Jukes found it intriguing and also "theologically significant" for he writes:

"First then 'the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' is one name, not
three or many.  Our Lord did not say, 'Baptizing them into the names' but 'into the name, of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'"
(Andrew Jukes, The Names of God, p. 174-175).

203
So we are not the only ones who notice something "theologically significant" about the singular
name!  But the significance of it is not in uniting "three persons" but in revealing One!
 

FINDING THE ONE NAME

Seeing Jesus declared there is but one name common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let us find
that name scripturally.
 

THE NAME OF THE SON

We shall start to solve this equation by considering the middle factor first.  What is the Name of the
Son?  This is easy and all Christendom is in agreement.  The Name of the Son is Jesus.  "And she shall
bring forth a  Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" Matt
1:21.

But the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus "inherited" his name, for "he hat by inheritance, obtained
a more excellent name" (Heb. 1:4).  From whom did he therefore inherit this name; the name the angel
brought down from heaven?
 

THE NAME OF THE FATHER

Jesus does not leave us in doubt as to whose name it was he bore.  In John 5:43 he declares:
 
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:  if another shall come in his own name,
him ye will receive.
This name was not "his own name," but had been His Father's name before Him!  He came bearing the
Name of the Father.  The name Jesus is also the Father's name!  The original Greek of John 17:11,12
brings this out clearly.  I am quoting from the Revised Version:
Holy Father, keep them in thy Name which thou has given me
and
I kept them in Thy Name which Thou has given me.
Weymouth's Translation reads:
I have kept them in thy Name -- The Name Thou hast given me to bear.
No wonder Christ could say "I have manifested thy name!"  (John 17:6).  The only name he ever
manifested was "Jesus" for "his name was spread abroad" (Mark 6:14).  Is it unusual for a Father and
Son to have the same name?  Doesn't every legitimate  Son bear his father's name?  Jesus said "I have
declared unto them thy Name, and will declare it" (John 17:26).  Aren't the mighty signs and wonders
being done in Jesus' Name, and the Baptisms being performed in Jesus' Name, a fulfillment of Christ's
prophecy that he "will declare it."
 

MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS

204
And why should there be any doubt that Jesus is also the name of the Father?  The Name Jesus is the
Greek form of the Hebrew "Jahoshea" (or Joshua) which means "Jehovah the Saviour."  When you say
the Name Jesus, you are actually saying in contracted form "Jehovah the Saviour."  The "Je" is from
"Jehovah,"  God's revealed name in the Old Testament.  Even Trinitarians admit the name Jehovah is
applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their entire "Trinity."  Then why would not the name Jesus
(Jehovah-Saviour) be equally applicable to all "three persons," especially seeing that all three play an
indispensable part in the plan of Salvation?

We have thus seen the name of the Father and of the Son is included in the Name of Jesus.  All that
remains is to determine the Name of the Holy Ghost.
 

NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST

The final piece of this Name revelation falls into place beautifully.  Like the Temple of Solomon, in
which each stone was first quarried and polished, and then brought to Jerusalem and silently fitted into
place, so the name of the Holy Ghost moves by divine utterance into the completed trilogy.
 
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, he shall
teach you all things...
(John 14:26).
-- The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, comes to earth in Jesus' Name, bearing Jesus' name, and manifesting
it.  How could it be otherwise for the Comforter is Jesus?!
 
I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.
(John 14:18).
For this same reason he is called the Spirit of Christ, and Christ (Romans 8:9-10).  "Christ in you"
(Col. 1:27), or in other words, Christ in His Spirit nature come to dwell in us.
 

NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS

Thus we have seen demonstrated clearly and simply from the lips of Christ Himself that the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus.  For the Son's Name is Jesus, and He bore
the Father's Name, who sent the Spirit with the same Name!

In Proverbs we are asked:

 

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists?
who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what
[is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Prov 30:4
Thanks to Oneness light -- we can tell!  It is Jesus!
 

205
 THE APOSTLES AGREE

That our conclusion is correct concerning the "Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost" is proven by the witness of the Apostles.  For they were commanded to baptize in the one name
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  All their baptisms were performed in the Name of Jesus.  therefore
by comparison it is quickly seen that they recognized the name of Jesus as the one Name referred to in
Matt 28:19.  (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16).

And it is through this name, and no other, that the door to cleanness and justification is open to us
through water baptism.
 

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1Cor 6:11
 

THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM

Panicking in the face of this tidal wave of scriptural evidence for Baptism in Jesus' Name, Dr. Boyd
unveils to our astonished eyes one of the most bizarre theories ever advanced against the truth.  He
decided to take the "bull by the horns" and throw out all baptismal formulas, trinitarian and
Oneness, and reduce Christian baptism to a wordless initiation!  His desperation to rid the church of
the New testament Formula of Jesus' Name seems to know no bounds.  He is even willing to sacrifice
the cherished Trinitarian formula as the price to pay.  He has, so to speak, untie the Gordian Knot by
cutting it in two!  Nettled by the truth of the New Testament, and cornered by Church History, he opts
to throw out not only "the baby with the bathwater" but the bathtub also!  Hear him as he boldly goes
"where angels fear to tread."  We read,
 
"Because the Semitic phrase 'in the name of ' could have such a wide variety of meanings,
there is no more reason to take the Acts phrase 'in the Name of Jesus' as an audible liturgical 
formula than there is to think that the Matthean formula was to be taken  like this"  (p. 111).
Better no formula, than "Jesus' Name" is his motto.  We have often pointed out to trinitarians in the
past that if the phrase "in the name of Jesus" is interpreted to only mean "by the authority of" and
thereby eliminated as a spoken formula, then the same interpretation must be applied to "in the name
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and that too would be eliminated as a formula.  The point we were
trying to make was that the whole interpretation was wrong in the first place.  Most Trinitarians have
seen it that way once it was pointed out, and abandoned that interpretation rather than part wit their
formula.  Dr. Boyd on the other hand has decided to use this incorrect interpretation (as I will prove) to
eliminate both formulas!  Of course to do this he flies in the face of two thousand years of Church
practice, and proposes something even the Arian heretics dared not try.  Augustine, Tertulllian,
Aquinas, the Cappodocians and every other "great saint" of the church he so admires would curse him
for it (and some like the "great reformer" John Calvin, would burn him for it!)
 

THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME" DOCTRINE

206
One can only imagine the effect such a "pro-choice", renegade theory would unleash in the Church
World if it were taken seriously (which, Thank God, no one does!)  Ministers would begin tailor fitting
their own baptismal formulas to meet the occasion.  Compromises would be made to the point of
lunacy.  I can almost hear some modern day "love is all that matters" preacher standing on the shore
line in California (why is it always California?) with his new convert:
 
MINISTER: And what say ye of the "Faith once delivered to the saints?"
CANDIDATE: I think it's neat, man!
MINISTER: And what think ye of the Christ?
CANDIDATE: He was cool, like really cool, you follow?
MINISTER: Yes, yes, I follow, "Upon the confession of your faith I now Baptize you into the
neatness of Christianity and the coolness of Christ. Amen!"
Don't think I am exaggerating or being ludicrous for the sake of argument.  Today's' ever adapting,
relativistic church, needs little encouragement to fly off into such "meaningful" excursions into
"restructuring."  The "wild blue yonder" is always beckoning them!
 

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX

Dr. Boyd would open such a Pandora's Box, and rob baptism of any fixed scriptural significance, just
to fulfill some strange obsession against Oneness and anything related to it.  His "latest thing down the
tubes" theory is as unacceptable as it is bizarre -- and totally unnecessary.  I had once heard of a Pastor
in the midwest who pronounced the baptismal formula  in "unknown tongues" so as to avoid any
confrontation over which formula was correct!  And I though that would never be topped in my
lifetime.  But I am afraid that in this category, Dr. Boyd sweeps away an Oscar for Best
Performance.
 

IS THE FORMULA VERBAL?

What he is saying through his "Semitic phrase" arguments is simply that when the phrase "in the name
of Jesus Christ" occurs in Acts it does not represent something verbal or actually uttered.  It is a rather
saccharine-like atmosphere or state of mind:
 
"When it is said that certain believers were baptized 'in the Name of the lord Jesus,' this need
mean nothing more than what is meant by giving a cup of cold water to someone 'in the name
of a disciple' "
(Boyd, p. 144).
He goes on:
 
"It merely means that baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins' derives its significance and beauty
from the person of Jesus Christ to whom it centrally points" (p. 144).
And all this without saying His Name; you just point, don't talk!  In fact he says there was no evidence
before the fourth century "that the words spoken over a candidate at baptism were any big deal."  (p.
145).  No big deal, you see, just say what you want; lets get it over with!

207
Thank God we are not left to his interpretation, but we have the record, for again "it is written!"
 

PROOF OF VERBAL FORMULA

Does "in the name of Jesus" mean to verbally pronounce it?  It certainly does!  Here is the proof:

The disciples were commanded to heal the sick and cast out devils in "Jesus' Name" (Mark 16:17-18). 
How did they use the name?  Verbally!
 

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee:  In the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 3:6
It was quite a "big deal" for that poor lame man, for he went into the temple "walking, and leaping,
and praising God."  (v. 8).  Does Dr. Boyd suppose it would have been just as effective if Peter and
John had just pointed  up to Heaven, silently, and smiled, until the lame man understood the
"significance and beauty" of it all?  The Apostles felt differently; they uttered the Name!

Another case comes to mind.  This one involving the demon possession of a certain damsel.
 

 But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus
Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Acts 16:18
It must have been a "big deal" for the demon, for "he came out the same hour."   And it was a
verbally uttered formula that did it.

When they prayed "in Jesus' Name" they said it.  The apostolic prayer in Acts 4 concludes
 

By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of
thy holy child Jesus
Acts 4:30
and...
 
...when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together
Acts 4:31.
Whether this was "significant and beautiful " I cannot tell, but it certainly was powerful!  If healing "in
Jesus Name" was verbal, and if expelling demons "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if praying "in Jesus
Name" was verbal, why does Dr. Boyd insist baptism "in Jesus' Name" was not?  I prefer the
scriptural examples, to his "Semitic theories."
 

SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA

208
Now for the testimony of Greek Scholarship. Arndt and Gingrich point out that the phrase "in the
name of" (in to onomati) used with God or Jesus means in most cases "with mention of the name,
while naming or calling on the name" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 572).  The same authorities also mention
that the verb "called" (epikoleo) in Acts 15:17 ("all the gentiles upon whom my name is called")
means:
 
"someone's name is called over someone to designate the latter as property of the former's" (p.
572).
This same verb "called" is used  in James 2:7 which says:
 
  Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
James 2:7
The Amplified Bible's Commentary states that  this is "the Name of Christ invoked at baptism" (The
Amplified Bible, p. 360).

Dr. Gore writes in his thoroughly researched history of early church practice :
 

"And the shelter of that name belongs to those only who have had it invoked upon them in
baptism and have received the Spirit of Jesus within them."
(Gore, Reconstruction, p. 640).
Dr. Armitage Robinson says:
 
"It is plain that the phrase 'in the name of' indicates some solemn utterance by the
accompaniment of which the washing of water is made to be no ordinary bath, but the
sacrament of baptism"
(Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).
He further states:
 
"It is probable then that the 'name' here referred to (in 1 Cor. 1:13 -- ed.) is the solemn mention
of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with the rite of baptism whether as the confession made
by the candidate, or as the formula employed by the ministrant"
(Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).
 

PICK A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE!

Everything draws to the same conclusion, -- (Bible Scholarship, Linguistics, Reason) -- something had
to have been said, something was said, and that something was the Name of Jesus.  But this will not
do for Dr. Boyd.  On pages 142 to 143 he serves up no less than eight different interpretations of what
"in the name of" could mean; what he calls a "wide variety of applications."  And we'll see how wide!

It could mean:
 

209
 "in relation to," "with respect to its intentions," "with an obligation towards," "in the authority
of," or  "a principal of behaviour."
It could even mean
 
"With a view towards" "in the light of" or "in appreciation of."
Take one of them, or two of them, any of them, all of them, or none of them!  Just so you don't
verbally utter the name of Jesus.  You have quite a selection so don't be hasty.  If one "doesn't get you
out of it" the next one will.  Plenty of griss for this mill!  It seems strange indeed that any Christian
would expend so much energy trying to prevent the Name of Jesus from being spoken.
 

APOSTOLIC APPLICATION

How long shall [this] be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, [they are] prophets
of the deceit of their own heart;  Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their
dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour,
Jeremiah 23:26-27
The Apostles certainly didn't have this attitude.  They were commanded to "speak henceforth to no
man in this name" (Acts 4:17) and that they "should not teach in this name" (Acts 5:28).  They
certainly were doing more than just "pointing" or "thinking".  They must have been wielding   that
Name verbally.  Saul's goal was to destroy "them that call on His Name" (Acts 9:21).  He must have
heard something!  When the Jewish rulers demanded of Peter and John "by what power or by what
name have ye done this?" (Acts 4:7), Peter answered for all Oneness believers when he verbally said,
"By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth  , whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead." 
(v.10)
 
 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12
 

PHANTOM FORMULAS

Thus in an attempt to eliminate any formula for baptism, Dr. Boyd has gotten his feet all tangled up in
flight.   He first maintained that there was a "small amount of evidence in favour of the Jesus' Name
forumla" (p. 141).  Then he refers to third century references to "the Trinitarian Formula or mode for
baptism 'along side'  the supposed 'Jesus Only formula' " (p. 141).  Next he finds the Trinitarian
formula becomes "the dominant formula for baptism" from the beginning of the Second Century on.
(p. 142). And finally ending on the high note that there really was no formula at all, Trinitarian or
Oneness! (p. 143).  These formulas are very ethereal -- first they exist "side by side," then one is
"dominant" over the other, and then we must learn they weren't there at all!  Under what lack of
evidence must a writer labour who resorts to such argument?  Phantom formulas that appear and
disappear like apparitions in the night!

210
 CHAPTER XIX
VOICE OF HISTORY
ARE TRINITARIANS CORRECT WHEN THEY INSIST THERE IS NOT ONE "SHRED OF
EVIDENCE" THAT THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA WAS CHANGED?
DO UNBIASED HISTORIANS AGREE?
DID A SO-CALLED "ECUMENICAL COUNCIL" OUTLAW JESUS NAME BAPTISM?
IS INVOKING JESUS NAME THE SAME AS USING "MAGICAL INCANTATIONS"?

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM //  CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME
BAPTISM // A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM // AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM //
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE // EARLY WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM //
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS // DIDACHE // IRENAEUS // MARCION // ACTS OF PAUL AND
THECLA // RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT // JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA //
CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19 // EUSEBIUS // CONYBEARE // MATTHEW 28:19 AND
ONENESS ADVOCATES // TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS // THE NAME OF THE LORD
METHOD // NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD // GODHEAD NAME METHOD //
DISPENSATIONAL METHOD // MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL INVOCATION? //
TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE // TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC
INCANTATION // DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD // TOYING WITH THE GREEK // PERSONAL
INCIDENTS // DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER // JOEY BRAY'S REMARKABLE
DELIVERANCE //  

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM

211
Dr.  Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug in order to get on with his multi-
explanations of what "in the Name of" could mean.  He unilaterally declares that there is not "one
shred of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church history.  He remarks
that the early church "quibbled" about a good many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was
not one of them.  Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been
reduced to a "quibble." Putting that aside, let us see if there are any "shreds" of controversy lying
around in the dusty tomes of early church history.
 

CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

Quite a large controversy erupted in the third century between Cyprian, a theologian of North Africa,
and the Bishop of Rome, Stephen.  Cyprian insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name
be rebaptized in the Trinity.  Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others.  Firmillian, Bishop of
Caesarea (in Cappadocia) wrote Cyprian and quoted Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in
"the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ." Cyprian argued back against this saying
even Baptism in Jesus Name, performed outside the Catholic Church, was invalid because it had not
been administered by the Church's jurisdiction.  The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name
of Christ did indeed remit sin.  I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three continents
over a number of years and results in a decision from the See of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of
evidence that there was some ":quibbling going on." (see Cyprian, Epistles, 72.00, A.N.F.  V, p. 383)
 

A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM

Further evidence comes from an anonymous document of this time period entitled, "A Treatise on
Rebaptism," in which the author (believed to be a Third Century Bishop) argued in favour of the
validity of Jesus Name baptism, thus hurling another challenge to Cyprian's view.  Apparently the
debate was quite ongoing.  The author concluded his presentation with the statement: "Heretics who
are already baptized in water in the Name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Spirit." (see,
A.N.F., V, p.665-78)
 

AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

In the Fourth Century Ambrose (340-398) argued baptism in Jesus Name was valid, even though it
didn't mention "The Name of the Whole Trinity." (see Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit I, iii, p.43, The
Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Phillip Schaff, editor).
 

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

By 381, tolerance for the original Jesus Name formula came to an end.  The Council of Constantinople
condemned "Sabbellian" baptism (as they called it) and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy
Apostles" the practice of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple
immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one.  (see, A.N.F, VII, p.513)

212
There's more than a shred of controversy going on here.  It certainly seems that "two formulas" are
locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name," the other in the name of the Trinity: one, the Trinitarian
formula, is decreed the "winner" by imperial force; the other is outlawed.  Why was all this passed
over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr.  Boyd? Could it be that the next most logical
question to arise would be which formula was the first one? And as Trinitarians have long realized, the
answer to that question is fatal to their contention.
 

EARLY WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM

Let's look at some of the early writings and see if there is something among these "shreds" that could
throw light on which was the original formula.

The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings (which are all unanimous on the
Jesus Name formula) is the "Epistle to the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome.  This is the next
generation after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula? He refers to it
in these words:

"Every soul over whom his magnificent and holy name has been invoked."

A comparison with Acts 15:17 and 22:16, shows this to be an obvious reference to the only name ever
so invoked in Apostolic times -- the Name of Jesus (Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, New
York; MacMillan 1970, p. 73).
 

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS

The next early witness we have is "The Shepherd of Hermas" a very popular writing in the early
Second Century Church.  It was written in Rome (140-145) by an unknown individual.  It was
recognized in some churches as scripture and read aloud during the service.  Here it is baptism in Jesus
Name again and again.  He speaks of Christian being saved "through water" and "founded on the word
of The Almighty and Glorious Name" (Vis.  3:3); and of those who "wish to be baptized in the Name
of the Lord" (Vis.  3:7); and "before a man bears the Name of the Son of God, he is dead" but when
they are sealed by baptism "they descend into the water dead and they arise alive" (Sim.  9:16).  He
speaks of being worthy "to bear his name" (Sim.  9:28); and no one enters into the Kingdom of God
without the Name of Jesus, which they must receive (Sim.  9:12).
 

DIDACHE

The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is another early Second Century document.  It
refers to Baptism in this manner:

"Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord"
(9:5).

213
Another chapter (7:1) also referred to baptism in the "Name of the Lord" but was altered by a copyist
who inserted the triune formula instead, and references to "pouring" instead of immersion.  That this
was a latter mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was a much later Catholic
innovation.  The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7:1 originally read
"in the name of the Lord" like chapter 9:5 (vol.  2, p. 378).
 

IRENAEUS

Irenaeus, a famous theologian and early father, who died in 200 A.D., writes: "We are made clean by
means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord" (A.F.N., I, p. 574).
 

MARCION

Marcion who broke away from the Church at this time baptized in Jesus Name and his followers
continued to use this formula (see A.N.F., V, p.380).
 

ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA

The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" written by an eastern Presbyter in the second century also records an
account of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ (see A.N.F., VIII, p. 490).

"In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on my last day," is one statement that appears there.
 

RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT

The "Recognition of Clement" of late Second Century origin stated:

"Jesus instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved of all their sins
upon the invocation of his Name" (Recognition 1:39).
 

JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA

The early witness of the Church, right after the death of the Apostles, indicates a continued practice of
baptism in Jesus Name.  It isn't until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a
Triune one, creeping in.  In the Second and Third Centuries the two formulas are in use (even as they
are today).  But it is quite obvious which one is "the new kid on the block." Trinitarian baptism is an
unapostolic innovation that eventually replaced the original Jesus Name formula.  And that is precisely
the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians, which we previously cited, are in
agreement with our position.
 

214
 CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19

Some scholars have even gone so far as to say Matthew 28:19 was a later "interpolation." Professor
Harnback dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "now word of the Lord." (History of
Dogma, vol. I, p. 68).  Dr.  Peake says in Bible Commentary:
 
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.  Instead of the
words, 'baptizing them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably
read simply 'into my Name' " (p.  723).
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, sates under the article, Baptism-Early Christian:
 
"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (textual, literary and historical) is
thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."
R.R.  Williams concurs:
 
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed
doctrine of God verging of Trinitarianism.  Early baptism was in the name of Christ"
(Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29).
Black's Bible Dictionary says:
 
"The Trinitarian Formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian
mind" (article, Baptism).
 

EUSEBIUS

Eusebius lived between A.D.  264-340.  He was a voluminous writer and compiled the earliest history
of the ancient Christian Church.  He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older
than the ones we now have.  Thus he had the advantage of being much closer to the original writing of
Matthew 28:19.  Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations (which number
eighteen or more) he renders the text as: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME,
teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you." Only after Nicaea does he alter
this!
 

CONYBEARE

Conybeare, the church historian, informs us that Eusebius lived virtually in the greatest Christian
library of his time, namely that which Origen and Pamphilus had collected at Caesarea, Eusebius'
home.  In his library, Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years
than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries.  Dr.  Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of
Eusebius that we know most of what is known of the history of the New testament.  (Westcott,
General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New testament, p. 108).  Certainly, as a witness, he
cannot be ignored.  Perhaps the most compelling evidence we get from Eusebius is that after his visit
to Constantinople and his attendance at the Council of Nicea, he changed his references to Matthew
28:19 and began quoting it in the triune formula! Thus he switched to the Trinitarian rendering

215
immediately after Nicea, with its imperial threats of banishment to all who reject the newly
officialized Trinity doctrine.  Hew never knew or quoted any other form but the "My name" rendition
until his visit to Nicea.  Discretion appears to be the better part of valour in his case!
 

MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES

Let it be pointed out that the UPCI and other Oneness organizations have no quarrel with Matthew
28:19 as it is found in the Authorized Version.  Indeed, it forms an indispensable scriptural link in our
revelation, not only of Baptism, but of the Godhead also.  For if the Name is one, the person is one. 
We have shown previously how a complete and enlightening reconciliation of Matthew 28:19 with the
passages in Acts is possible, not only from a Oneness perspective, but from a Trinitarian one as well. 
We have included the textual discussion of Matthew 28:19 and the related witness of Eusebius simply
to make the discussion complete and to expose our readers to this facet of the question.  I know of no
Oneness organization that endorses any other reading of Matthew 28:19 than what we have in the
Textus Receptus.  However, facts are facts and stubborn things at that, for they refuse to go away. 
Perhaps archaeology or Biblical Research will yield more light on this interesting phase of the
discussion in the future.  The beauty of the Oneness position is that regardless of which rendering of
Matthew 28:19 is the correct one, the conclusion is still the same -- baptism in Jesus Name.  For to us,
and the Apostles, Christ's reference to "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
was just a longer way of saying "my name." When people finally realize this, the textual conflict may
resolve itself almost automatically.  For Christ may have uttered both statements on that mountain
long ago.
 

TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS

Trinitarian scholars themselves come up with no less than four different methods of reconciling
Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts, resulting in a literal use of the name of Jesus Christ in
baptism today.  None of these men believe in the Oneness, but all of them advocate baptism in Jesus
Name as the proper way to obey Christ's command in the last chapter of Matthew.  We shall review
them briefly with the understanding that they are being set forth as additional testimony.  None of
these four "reconciliations" is official Oneness doctrine, and their mention here does not imply
endorsement.  However, they all possess merit to some degree and are certainly worth our time.
 

THE NAME OF THE LORD METHOD

This is perhaps the oldest explanation for Baptism in Jesus Name in modern times.  It even preceded
the revelation given in 1913 in California.  William Phillips Hall popularized it in his book
"Remarkable Biblical Discovery" or "The Name of God According to the Scriptures." This book was
originally published by the American Tract Society, and has been republished in abridged form by the
Pentecostal Publishing House.  The author was a brilliant scholar, studied both Hebrew and Greek, and
was well esteemed by Bible Teachers of his day.  His book received excellent reviews at the time of
publication, and is quoted still.  Hall feels his views about the baptismal formula being in Jesus Name
were "imparted to him by the Glorified Lord Jesus Christ" (Remarkable Biblical Discovery, P.P.H.,

216
St.  Louis, 1951, p. 5).  Basically, the reconciliation is accomplished as follows: The Name of the
Father is Lord (Mark 12:29-30, Isa.  42:8), the name of the Son is Lord (Acts 2:36, 1 Cor 8:6), and the
Name of the Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Cor.  3:17).  hence, the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit is Lord.  But this name can only be used in conjunction with the name of Jesus Christ,
who is the one mediator and the only way to God.  Hence, the apostles always used the full expression
"Lord Jesus Christ" which combined the Name of the Godhead (Lord) with that of the mediator (Jesus
Christ).  See for example 1 Cor.  5:4, 2 Cor.  11:31, Acts 20:21, Acts 16:31, etc.  Hall does a
remarkable piece of research proofing that the original baptismal formula in Acts was consistently "in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" according to the most ancient manuscripts and sources.  The
references we have today (Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, Lord) are abbreviated forms of the original full
name -- Lord Jesus Christ.
 

NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD

This interpretation was also used occasionally by Oneness expositors in the early days of the
Movement.  It is only rarely heard in Oneness circles today, but is popular among some Trinitarians.

While visiting a very large Trinitarian church in Texas, I purchased the book entitled "The Name of
God" by Kevin Conner, published by the author.  It was being sold in their bookstore at the time and
highly recommended.  Rev.  Conner's book carries an endorsement by Rev.  K.R.  Iverson, Pastor of
Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon, a Trinitarian church.  The basic explanation is this: The Name of
the Father is Lord (Luke 10:21, Isa.  42:8), the Name of the Son is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), the Name of
the Holy Spirit is Christ (Col.  1:27); thus the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Lord
Jesus Christ (Conner, p. 115-116).  And, of course, he reaches same conclusions as Hall, namely that
the original baptismal formula texts in Acts are all "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

James Lee Beall, Pastor of Bethesda Temple in Detroit, Michigan, espouses the exact same
interpretation in his book "Rise to Newness of Life" on pages 60-61, (Rise to Newness of Life, James
Lee Beall, Evangel Press, Detroit, Michigan).  Pastor Beall is also a Trinitarian and well known Bible
teacher and author.  He also baptizes in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

GODHEAD NAME METHOD

Basically this method teaches that seeing the "fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ"
then his name must be the name of the Godhead.  In other words, in the Trinitarian scheme of things
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed and manifested in the second person Christ; therefore his
name is also the name which reveals and manifests all three persons.  In her book "The Exalted Name"
Lucy Knott stated: "In the Lord Jesus Christ dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily.  The
Exalted Name must needs show forth the Father and the Spirit as well as the Son.  While the Son bears
the exalted name, the Father and Spirit are equally exalted for they are all one in essence" (The
Exalted Name, Lucy Knott, Nazarene Publishing House, Kansas City, Missouri 1937, p. 226-227).
 

DISPENSATIONAL METHOD

217
In response to a question on the correct baptismal formula, Dr..  Pettingill, in his book "Bible
Questions Answered," let loose yet another interpretation that results in a Jesus Name baptismal
formula.  This one is by far the most unusual, but it apparently satisfied the good Doctor, who was a
firm believer in Baptism in Jesus Name.  He basically argues, from an extreme dispensational point of
view, that the Matthew 28:19 command is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  He therefore calls it the
"Kingdom Commission." Furthermore he adds:
 
"of course, we are well aware that it is often spoken of as the Great Commission of the Church,
but we are convinced that this is an error."
He feels Matthew is "Kingdom" territory and does not apply to the Church Age, but will take effect
only after Christ returns.  To prove this he says:
 
"Let it be observed also that the baptisms of the Acts are not 'into the Name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' but rather 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 2:38, 8:16,
10:48, 19:5).  ...The Name of the Lord Jesus is in this day and dispensation the name which is
above every name, and whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be done in the Name of the
Lord Jesus..." (William L.  Pettingill, D.D., Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1973,
p. 106-107).
The subconscious desire of Trinitarians to conform to the obvious pattern of Jesus Name Baptism in
the Acts of the Apostles, coupled with their unwillingness to part with their Trinitarian Theology has
led to this brood of hybrid and novel attempts at reconciliation.  Though there is merit in all of them,
and much merit in some of them, the simple explanation of our Lord (John 5:43, 14:26) as to what
constitutes the one Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be preferred.  And it is that light
which is shining brightly in the Oneness movement, which is now encircling the globe in preparation
for the return of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
 

MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL INVOCATION?

In his final attempt to discredit those of us who "in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our
Lord,"  he resurrects an old charge that "magic" and pagan "incantations" designed to manipulate
God.  That a 20th Century Christian would find common cause with first and second century heathens
in opposing the invocation of Jesus name is as startling as it is revolting!

On page 144 Dr. Boyd compares our invocation to a "magical formula said during an act."  He feels it
presents a "return to  a form of paganism in which it is believed that deities can be manipulated to
behave in certain ways by the utilization of certain incantations and formulas invoked by devotees" (p.
145).  "Magical incantations upon which God's forgiveness rests" is how he characterizes our doctrine
of "in the name of Jesus."

How well does that sit with the thousands, yea millions, of Christians, who over the centuries have
sent their earnest petitions heavenward "in Jesus Name?"  How would the humble Christian mother,
praying for the healing of her suffering child "in Jesus' Name," feel when informed by Dr. Boyd that
her use of the "name above every name" was a "pagan incantation," and that what she thought was
"faith in that name" was actually an attempt at "manipulating the deity!"

218
And what shall we say of that "Magician" Peter who "verbally" repeated His Jesus Name "incantation"
at the Gate Beautiful and "manipulated" the Deity to such an extent that the lame man immediately
received strength in his feet and ankle bones and was healed!  He himself was so happy with this
"incantation" that he went leaping and walking and praising God.  Peter's explanation for "verbally"
using the name of Jesus differs somewhat from Dr. Boyd's explanation.  For when those first century
haters of the "formula" asked him: "By what power or by what name" have ye done this, his response
was:  "ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to
the impotent man, by what means he is made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of
Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the
dead, even by him doth this man stand before you  whole" (Acts 4:7-10).  That was Peter's explanation
of both his "magic trick" and his "incantation!"

John Wesley's converts were once accused by a detractor of suffering from "epileptic fits."  IN this
way he "explained" away the spiritual manifestations occurring in Wesley's  enthusiastic meetings. 
Wesley's answer was :

"Epilepsy?  Sinners are converted, backsliders return, doubters are convinced, drunks become
sober, and thieves become honest working men!  If this be epilepsy then I say, Roll On, thou
Mighty Epilepsy, Roll On."
So if our use of Jesus Name be magic, then I would say in the tradition of Wesley, "Roll On thou
mighty Magic, Roll on!"
 

TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE

Tertullian faced the same charges in the early Christian Church from pagans, who viewed Christian
Baptism as an attempt to gain eternal life through "incanting" of a few words and a ritual bath in
water.  Anyone who sees only that in Christian baptism, or any other invocation of His Name, has very
myopic vision indeed!  And unfortunately, Dr. Boyd shares the same viewpoint concerning our
Baptism in Jesus Name as those early pagans espoused, and the same answer Tertullian gave is still
applicable:
"Yet what a miserable incredulity is this which leads you to deny to God His special
properties" (Simplicity With Power, Tertullian, de Baptism, p.2 ).
Jesus Christ forever negated the charge leveled against our use of the name, by Dr. Boyd and others,
when he said:  "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it"  (John 14:14).  If that's "incantation"
and "manipulation" so be it!  More on this so-called "magic" formula is brought out in John 16:24: 
"Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full."  We
ask "in His Name" and our joy is quite full.  Christ had just previously defined the nature of this
"incantation -- manipulation" so called, when he said in verse 23 "Whatsoever ye shall as the father
My Name, He will give it to you."  Dr. Boyd's argument therefore is not wit us, but with the Father!
 

TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC INCANTATION

If Dr. Boyd is serious about his aversion to "pagan incantations" in Christianity, he doesn't have to
look any further than his own Trinitarian faith.  For the Nicene Creed, which is "encanted" in many

219
Trinitarian churches as part of the liturgy, has a Gnostic pagan phrase at its heart!  I quote from "The
Heretics" by Walter Nigg.  Commenting on the phrase, "one in essence with the Father," in the Nicene
Creed, he writes: of course, this had the defect of having been originally a gnostic phrase, and one
which had no precedence in the Bible."  (p. 127).

What logic is it that would bind on all Christendom a pagan gnostic phrase, repeated continually  in a
creed; and yet at the same time ridicule the verbal invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, calling it
"pagan magic?"  Why would anyone want to put himself in the same class as that bitter Christ-hating
Sanhedrin which ordered Peter "not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus" (See Acts 4:18)? 
That's the real intent of all this nonsensical twaddle about "magic" And "incantation" and
"manipulation."  It's the same Spirit that fuels their "no baptismal formula" heresy.  It is an outright
and disgusting  attempt to silence the Name of Jesus from being verbally uttered.  The devils of Hell
couldn't be more pleased!  And there can be no doubt as to who the real author of this theory is!  Our
response is the same as Peter's and John's, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you
more than God, judge ye.  For we cannot but speak the things  which we have seen and heard"  (Acts
4:19-20).  We too have a creed, but it doesn't come from the gnostics, it comes from the Paul: "and
whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the
Father by him" (Col. 3:17).
 

DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD

In G. Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,"  p. 255, he writes concerning the
expression "calling on the Name":
"The Hebrews expression 'calling on the name of the Lord' originally  signified 'To invoke the
deity with the Name Yahweh' and still bears traces of a magical constraint which can be
exercised by utterance of the Name... In the Old Testament, of course, the invocation bears the
weaker sense of 'calling on Yahweh' i.e., worshipping him... and the magical notion
disappears.  Indeed, misusing the Name of God in magic and incantation is expressly forbidden
in the decalogue... Yahweh refuses to be conjured up by the utterance of his name.  He
promises his coming at the appointed shrines when he is called upon there... Thus the Name of
Yahweh is not an instrument of magic; it is a gift of revelation.  This does not rule out the
fact that uttering or calling on Yahweh's name implies faith in his Power..."
The Oneness position exactly!
 
 
JESUS SAID:  "I AM COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME AND YE RECEIVE ME NOT..."  (JOHN
5:43).  THIS IS PROOF THAT CHRIST BEARS HIS FATHER'S NAME, A NAME WHICH HE
INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER (HEB. 1:4).  WHEN WE INVOKE HIS NAME WE ARE NOT
USING MAGIC, BUT FAITH!

220
  
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES FATHER, SON AND HOLY
GHOST.  THEY RECEIVED CERTIFICATES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.  IS THERE ONE
EXAMPLE OF ANYONE IN THE BIBLE BEING BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES?

TOYING WITH GREEK

In a desperate attempt to stifle discussion on Baptism in Jesus Name, certain Trinitarians of late have
taken to using the Greek in their argument.  Though their error has been corrected repeatedly in the
past, they will not cease employing it.  These "lower lights" keep burning, but they send no gleam of
truth "across the waves."

221
Their basic contention is that the Greek expression rendered "in the name" in Matt 28:19, is different
from the Greek expression in Acts 2:38, which is also translated into English as "in the name."  Thus
they contend that Matt 28:19 actually says to be baptized "into" the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, whereas Peter's command is merely to be baptized "in" the name of Jesus.  Peter's words are
thus interpreted to only mean  "by the authority of Jesus," while Christ's words are said to be the actual
formula.

Of course, any reputable Greek scholar would inform them that there is no difference between the two
expressions, they are equivalent to each other.  But if these so-called "Masters of Greek" had done
their homework, they would have found that Paul commanded the Ephesian disciples to be baptized
"into" the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts 16:6.  The exact same Greek expression is used here as in
Matt 28:19, "into the name."  This collapses their quibble entirely, and they should apologize to their
reading public.  They are without excuse, because John Paterson pointed this out to them in his book,
The Real Truth about Baptism in Jesus Name, away back in 1950.  Did they think enough time had
elapsed and it was safe to turn this thrice resuscitated argument loose on their unsuspecting readers yet
again?  One can only hope that the lid is finally nailed shut on this nonsense.
 

 
WHEN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE BIBLE IS PROPERLY ANALYZED , IT PROVES
BAPTISM "INTO THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" WAS THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY
FORMULA.
 

PERSONAL INCIDENTS

I realize that subjective personal, experiences, no matter how spectacular, cannot replace the Word of
God as a doctrinal guide.  However, such experiences, when supported by clear Biblical precedent,
should be taken into consideration as corroborating evidence.  Having established the scriptural
veracity of Baptism in Jesus' Name, I would now like to recount two remarkable incidents which
occurred in my ministry relative to the doctrine in question.
 

DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER

In the summer of 1976, I was teaching my Sunday School Class when a very frail woman entered the
church and staggered down the aisle.  She seated herself near the front of the church and waited
patiently for the lesson to end.  Finally she raised her hand, apologizing for taking up my time, and
requested to say something.  The woman seemed to be in earnest about something, so I consented. 
She informed me that she had cancer and could only live a few more weeks.  She was greatly
concerned about her soul and had been repenting and asked God to forgive her.  She had read where
you needed to be baptized to be saved in Mark 16:16 and so had packed a change of clothes, and with
great physical effort, had driven to a nearby church.  She mentioned the name of the Church and I
recognized it as a local Trinitarian assembly.  She continued with her story and told how she had
entered the church and asked the pastor to baptize her.  He agreed to do this after the service, and
instructed her to be seated and join them in worship.  Then something remarkable happened.  While

222
seated in that Trinitarian church she heard the Lord speak to her very clearly and distinctly.  He said to
get up and leave the service at once, because they could not baptize her correctly there, and she must
go somewhere else.  Startled, but obedient, she  quietly slipped out.  She drove her car, not knowing
where to go next.  When she came near by church the same voice of the Lord told her to stop and go in
and request baptism, for here she would be baptized in the proper way.

As we sat and listened to her most unusual story, a holy awe settled over the congregation.  I myself
was astonished at such an amazing recitation.  But more was to come.  With genuine sincerity in her
eyes she looked at me and asked: "Pastor, what is the difference between your baptism and that other
church's?  God would not let me be baptized there and I want to know why?"

I explained that even though we both immersed candidates in water, our church did it in Jesus Name,
which is the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  The other church merely
repeated  the titles without mentioning the name.  She readily saw this truth and then realized why God
had led her to our church.  "IN all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will
bless thee" (Exodus 20:24).

I baptized her in Jesus Name for the remission of sins.  Shortly after that she passed on to her reward. 
I am confident that at this very moment as I write her testimony and her face comes up before me in
memory, she is in heaven worshipping the One-Personed God, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Name she
took on in baptism.
 

JOEY BRAY'S REMARKABLE DELIVERANCE

A second incident occurred while I was attending a Pentecostal convention in Houston.  I met a young
man who needed a job.  I knew of an employment opportunity in Galveston and agreed to drive him
there.  I thought it would be a good opportunity to witness to him.  On the way he began to speak in a
very disjointed and incoherent fashion.  He claimed to be able to understand the speech of animals and
to get "revelations" from them.  He asked me if that was of God.  I told him he had a demon.  He tried
to flee the car but we were on a high bridge by this time and I refused to stop.

When we got to Galveston, about midnight, I stopped the car alongside their famous sea wall.  We
both got out.  I told him he was demon possessed and needed to be delivered.  He agreed and fell down
at my feet sobbing and holding me fast by the ankles so I could not leave.  I began rebuking the spirit
that was in him.  The few remaining tourists that straggled past us that night gave us a wide berth!  I'm
sure it presented  quite a sight.

The spirit came out of him and a great calm swept over him.  I knew there had been  a change.  Next I
led him in a prayer of repentance as he turned his life over to Christ.

His next remark caught me by surprise.  He said: "Shouldn't I be baptized?"  I responded affirmatively,
but told him I did not have a church in this city and therefore had no access to a baptistery.  he pointed
to the vast Gulf of Mexico that stretched before us on all sides, and like the Ethiopian of old, he asked
why this would not be sufficient.  (Acts 8:36).  Somewhat embarrasses for not having realized what a
mighty "baptistery" God had provided us, I told him it was indeed sufficient.

223
There was no one on the beach at this late hour and the tide was coming in.  In the moonlight I caught
a glimpse of his shirt.  It had a satanic symbol on it!  I told him I could not baptize him with such an
evil sign on him.  He agreed and took the shirt off and threw it on the sand.  We proceeded into the
water and I immersed him in the saving name of Jesus.  As he came out of the water he began
speaking in tongues!  What a wonderful time we had!  When we returned to the shore, the shirt was
not at the spot we had left it.  It had completely disappeared.  IN its place lay a clean new white towel
neatly folded, soft and dry.  Just as if an angel had brought it down for him.  He used it to dry off with,
and both of us were convinced this was a miraculous sign from God:  "Therefore if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new" (1
Corinthians 5:17).  And this apparently includes Tee-shirts (at least in this case anyhow).

We separated, but several months  later I received a letter from him:

 

Dear Brother Ross,

I am in Chicago now.  I have no place to live and I walk the streets looking for work.  But I
know God is with me.  The wind here blows very cold sometimes, but I don't mind.  I just pray
to God and talk to him in unknown tongues, just like I did in the Gulf that night, then I feel so
much better.  I know he is with me.

Your brother,
Joey

Later the same young man came to Florida and confirmed his testimony  before my entire
congregation.

Multiplied thousands of people around the world could add their testimonies to these two, as top how
God led them into this remarkable truth of the one true name of God, revealed in water baptism.  Soon
the whole world will believe nothing else!  "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of
Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered;
and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass t pass out of the land.  And the Lord
shall be king over all the earth:  in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name One."  (Zech.
13:2; 14:9).
 

 
THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR
PERSONAL TESTIMONIES OF HOW THE LORD REVEALED TO THEM THE TRUE BIBLE
BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME.  THESE TESTIMONIES ARE PRESERVED IN THE
HEADQUARTERS AND VARIOUS CHURCHES OF THE ONENESS MOVEMENT.

224
 CHAPTER XX
SALVATION, SPIRIT AND TONGUES

 
 
ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES RECEIVED
THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF TONGUES.

225
 IS THE "INITIAL EVIDENCE" TEACHING REALLY NECESSARY TO PRESERVE
PENTECOSTAL REVIVAL?
AREN'T "TONGUES" JUST ANOTHER GIFT?
ARE OUR OPPONENTS CORRECT WHEN THEY SAY "EVIDENTIAL TONGUES" WAS
NOT TAUGHT BY PAUL?

IMPORTANCE OF THE SIGN // HISTORICAL LESSONS // FIGHTING GOD // "EVIDENTIAL

TONGUES" DISCOVERED // SPIRITUAL EXPERIMENT PROVES THE TRUTH // LATTER
RAIN // ON TO AZUSA STREET // THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE // HAVE TONGUES
CEASED? // REVIEWING THE BIBLE RECORD // JERUSALEM -- ACTS 2:1-4 // SAMARIA --
ACTS 8:14-21 // TESTIMONY TO SAMARITAN TONGUES // MATTHEW HENRY // ADAM
CLARKE -- METHODIST // THOMAS SCOTT -- EPISCOPALIAN // JOSEPH BENSON --
METHODIST // PHILLIP SCHAFF -- REFORMED // LUTHERAN COMMENTARY // ALBERT
BARNES -- PRESBYTERIAN // WILLIAM ROBERSTON // THE EXPOSITORS GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT // CAESAREA // EPHESUS // DAMASCUS // SUMMARY

IMPORTANCE OF THE "SIGN"

In his appendix A, "Salvation, the Spirit and Tongues," Dr. Boyd launches his attack against the
Pentecostal belief of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. 
In this section he alienates himself not only from Oneness believers, but from Trinitarian Pentecostals
as well.  For it is the common distinctive of all Pentecostals, including the Assemblies of God, Church
of God, Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal Holiness Church etc., that the Baptism of believers in the
Holy Spirit is uniformly attested to by an utterance in tongues.  Donald Gee, the well known Bible
scholar of the British Assemblies of God, well remarked that it was the linking together of tongues
with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which ignited the  great worldwide Pentecostal revival of Holy
Ghost power.  A revival that is still sweeping all continents and gathering millions into its fold. 
Wherever tongues are taught as something less than the initial evidence, the revival ceases altogether,
or becomes distorted.  Without this "gateway" gift of tongues functioning as a "sign" all other gifts
eventually disappear, and the church returns to sterility and coldness.  Wherever this "sign" is
acknowledged and taught as the evidence of the Spirit's personal Baptism, the revival continues and
expands.
 

HISTORICAL LESSONS

History is filled with movements and revivals of spiritual gifts that "dead-ended" because this vital
link was not preached.  The Camisards of France, the Irvingites of England, the Methodists of America
are all prime examples.  Without the Bible standard, eventually anything starts to "pass" as a "true
Baptism," and soon the whole thing dies out.  On the other hand, when "tongues" are taught to be a gift
not for every baptized believer, but just for a select few, an elite class develops who have this
"exclusive treasure" and the revival becomes distorted and fanaticism creeps in.  This happened among
the Irvingites in England during the last century.  The health and vigor of the Pentecostal Movement,
and its permanence, is due to its refusal to abandon this scriptural standard.
 

226
 FIGHTING GOD

In fighting the teaching Dr. Boyd is going for the very heart of the entire Pentecostal Movement.  He
would like to single-handedly turn this revival back.  In this attempt, which is expressly doomed to
failure, he not only takes on the entire Pentecostal Movement, but God Himself, as is found in the
unenviable position of "resisting the Holy Ghost" and "fighting against God."
 

"EVIDENTIAL TONGUES" DISCOVERED

The belief in "evidential tongues" came by way of direct revelation from God, based on a careful
survey of all Scriptures pertaining to it.  This first, of several revelations God gave to restore His
church, occurred in the year 1900 in Topeka, Kansas.

It was in that year that Charles Parham opened up a "faith" Bible School for people of all
denominations who wished to study the Word.  No tuition was charged.  The students depended upon
God to supply their needs.  A mansion was rented in Topeka which was known locally as "Stone's
Folley."  Due to the fact that Mr.. Stone "had not counted the cost" before building, he was forced to
leave his dream house unfinished.  One of the house's turrets was used as a "prayer tower" by the
students.  This would become the second "Upper Room" in Church history.

Shortly before Christmas, the dean of the school, Rev. Parham, announced that he was leaving on a
short trip for the holidays, but he wished to leave the students with an assignment.  They were to
search their bibles and see if they could determine from scripture what was the true and consistent
evidence that a person had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.  A great searching of scriptures got under
way, as the students combed through their Bibles to find what was the sign or evidence of true Spirit
Baptism.  When Parham returned he summoned the students together and asked for the results of their
research.  With unanimous agreement they declared that in the Book of Acts the consistent and
irrefutable evidence of Spirit baptism was the "speaking in unknown tongues."  This was the evidence,
they declared, in "Bible days."  But would it still be the evidence for today?  This they would soon find
out.
 

227
  
 
BETHEL BIBLE COLLEGE IN TOPEKA, KANSAS, WAS THE LOCATION GOD CHOSE TO
POUR OUT THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH "SIGNS FOLLOWING" IN EARLY 1901.  THIS WAS
THE BEGINNING OF THE PREDICTED LATTER RAIN.
 
 
 

SPIRITUAL EXPERIMENT PROVES THE TRUTH

On the New Years Watch Night Service, as the hour grew late, a sister Agnes Ozman requested that
hands be laid on her to receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.  This event occurred as the old 19th
Century was departing and the 20th Century was dawning.  As soon as hands were laid on her she
began to fell the 'rivers of living water" flowing through her.  Immediately, she began to speak
voluminously in other tongues.  She spoke in one language and then changed to another.  So it went on
to the amazement of those present.  She not only spoke in several languages, she also wrote them
down.  This was subsequently analyzed and proved authentic.  Sister Ozman thereby became the first
person in the 20th Century to seek the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and receive it with Bible evidence of
unknown tongues.  (Soon millions would follow her into this experience).  She was living proof that
the same evidence they had discovered in Acts was still operative.  Soon others began to seek and
receive, including Rev. Parham.  the appearance of flames of fire over the heads of some students was
also observed by more than one reputable witness.  This was a second Pentecost.
 

LATTER RAIN

228
The Bible, in  James 5:7, speaks of an "early" and "latter" rain of Holy Spirit power.  This is drawn by
analogy from the Palestinian weather pattern.  The purpose of the Latter Rain was to prepare the grain
for harvest; whereas the early rain was to establish the seed.  Between these two Rains occurred the
dry season.  The counterpart in the spiritual realm is evident.  The outpouring of the Hoy Ghost in
Apostolic times was the Early Rain, and it established and watered the seed of Christianity.  Then
came the long dry spell of the Dark Ages, when spiritual vitality was sapped and many false teachings
crept in.  Then, starting in 1900, came the Latter Rain, a new and glorious outpouring of the Holy
Spirit to prepare the Church for the Harvest at the coming of the Lord (Rev. 14:15).  Joel also
mentioned this great "outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh" which was to occur before the
"great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts 2:16-20).
 

ON TO AZUSA STREET

From the Topeka the revival spread to Houston and then on to Los Angeles, where it received its
greatest thrust.  William Seymour, and African-American preacher, brought this truth to the "City of
the  Angels" in the year 1901.  He began meetings in a small cottage on Bonnie Brae Street.  After one
powerful service in which the house slid off its moorings, they decided to rent an old abandoned
warehouse at 312 Azusa Street.  In this humble setting the Holy Spirit moved in the most amazing
fashion. The whole city was stirred.  People came here not only from America, but from all over the
world.  When it was "noised abroad" what was happening at Azusa Street, missionaries, pastors,
evangelists, and others "packed up" and went to see for themselves.  They promptly "received" and
went back to their respective fields of labour to spread the message.  Thus was birthed the great
worldwide Pentecostal revival.
 

 
 
FROM THIS HUMBLE BUILDING, AT 312 AZUSA STREET, LOS ANGELES, A GREAT
PENTECOSTAL REVIVAL SPREAD TO ALL THE WORLD IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH
CENTURY.
 

229
  

THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE

What was the compelling evidence those Topeka Bible Students discovered in Acts that forced them to
conclude that "tongues" was the universal sign of Spirit Baptism?  A conclusion that caused them
much persecution and ostracism, but one which they never retracted?

Actually, as Carl Brumback has remarked, the evidence for tongues as the sign is so overwhelming in
Acts, that it would almost take a special revelation to miss it!

In every case, without exception, when someone was baptized in the Holy Spirit the Bible record
indicated they spoke in tongues.  There are no exceptions!  This is the uniform pattern.  Are we
then being so "radical" if we insist on the same Biblical evidence for today?  If in every Bible case of
water baptism, water is used, is it "radical" to insist that water be used today?  If in every case of holy
communion, bread and the fruit of the vine are used, is it so "radical" to insist on those same elements
today?  The answer is apparent.  So if tongues are always the accompaniment of Spirit baptism, is it so
"radical" to insist on the same sign today?
 

HAVE TONGUES CEASED?

Men will go to any lengths to avoid this teaching, but in the end the record stands.  The old cavil that
"tongues have ceased" has been exposed over and over again.  The Bible does not say "tongues have
ceased," but rather says tongues "shall cease" (1 Cor. 13:8), future tense.  And it also tells us when this
cessation shall occur; when that which is "perfect" arrives and we see Christ "face to face" the Judge
of all, and our spirits are made "perfect" or complete, through resurrection.  Far from eliminating
tongues, this verse guarantees them right up to the resurrection!   No wonder Paul could say that the
church should "come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:7).
 

REVIEWING THE BIBLE RECORD

Let us now consider each case individually in the Book of Acts.

 

JERUSALEM -- ACTS 2:1-4

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance. "  (Acts 2:4).  This is the initial outpouring on the day of Pentecost and they "all
spoke."  Peter promised the same experience to all believers worldwide and though generations in Acts
2:39.
 

SAMARIA -- ACTS 8:14-21

230
The next case is that of the Samaritans.  It has been argued that they did not speak in tongues.  But the
Bible record will indicate they did.  There was a great city wide revival  under Phillip in which many
were converted and baptized in Jesus Name (Acts 8:5-8).  Many signs and wonders occurred in that
revival (Acts 8:13).  But the new converts had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost yet, and this
necessitated the Apostles making a special visit to Samaria.  When they arrived, they "prayed for them
that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:14-16).  The first thing that strikes us is, how did
Phillip and the Apostles know they had not received the Spirit?  What evidence was lacking in their
experience?  They had repented, they had joy, many were healed and delivered from demons.  What
was the one missing element that tipped everyone off that the Holy Ghost had not yet fallen?"  If
Phillip had been like most modern day pastors he would have sent the Apostles packing back to
Jerusalem, telling them not to bother his "members,"  they already had the Spirit Baptism in a quiet
unobservable way, and didn't need any "signs" to prove it.

But there was a sign that Phillip and the Apostles were expecting:

"Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that
through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying,
Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost"  (Acts
8:17-19).   Simon, who was a practitioner of magic, saw something amazing occur the minute the
Apostles laid hands on the believers.  It was a sign so unique and unusual, something he had never
seen before, that he blasphemously attempted to buy this power from the Apostles so he could
duplicate the same sign through  the laying on of his hands.  What was it he saw, if it was not the
miracle of tongues?  Remember, Simon had already witnesses healings, exorcisms and many other
"miracles and signs" in the revival prior to this incident (Acts  8:7-9, 13).  He never offered money
before for any of those things.  This, however, was something new; something which had not yet
occurred in the revival.  It was the absence of that same element that prompted  the Apostles earlier to
conclude the Samaritans had not yet received the Spirit Baptism.  What was this element?  It was the
sign of tongues.

The response of Peter to his impious offer was:

 

Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased
with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter...
(Acts 8:20-21),
The Greek word for "matter" is "word" or "speech".  This indicates that the miracle Simon saw was
"vocal," for he had no part in that "speech."
 

TESTIMONY TO SAMARITAN TONGUES

That tongues were the outward sign that Simon saw is the universal conclusion of every major
commentator and Bible scholar through centuries.  Here are their comments on the Samaritan
reception.
 

231
 MATTHEW HENRY

Commenting on the Samaritans before the Apostles arrived:

 
"They were none of them endued with the gift of tongues, then to have been the most usual,
immediate effect of the pouring our of the Spirit... This was both an eminent sign to them that
believed not, and of excellent service to them that did..."
 

ADAM CLARKE -- METHODIST

"It was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which were thus communicated -- the speaking with
different tongues..."
 

THOMAS SCOTT -- EPISCOPALIAN

Commenting on Simon's perverse desire to purchase the power of laying on of hands:

 
"This he supposed would admirably serve his purpose.. enabling men at his own will to speak
foreign languages."
 

JOSEPH BENSON -- METHODIST

 
"These new converts spoke with tongues and performed other extraordinary works."
 

PHILLIP SCHAFF -- REFORMED

 
"Outward miraculous gifts of some kind or other were plainly bestowed."
 

LUTHERAN COMMENTARY

 
"When Simon had seen the effects of the communication of the Holy Ghost, speaking with
tongues, and like."
 

ALBERT BARNES -- PRESBYTERIAN

232
 "The phrase, 'Gift of the Holy Ghost...' signified not merely his ordinary influence in
converting sinners, but... the power of speaking in tongues."
 

WILLIAM ROBERTSON

 
"That prayer was answered by an outpouring of the Spirit, accompanied by some of the
manifestations which marked his coming at Pentecost."
 

THE EXPOSITORS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Dr. Hort, who holds that the reception of the Holy Spirit is here explained as in Acts 10:44 by
reference to the manifestation of the gifts of tongues.

Thus we see from the context of Acts 8, Simon "saw" which so fascinated him, something he had not
seen previously, must have been the sign of tongues.  With this conclusion agree commentators and
scholars from all denominations, the original Greek of the passage, logical deduction, and comparative
incidents in Acts.  If it wasn't tongues, what was it?

CAESAREA

In Acts the 10th Chapter is the conversion of the first Gentile believers, Cornelius and his household. 
While Peter was preaching to them, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard the word" (Acts
10:44).  The Jews who accompanied Peter, though they opposed Gentile admission to the church,
could not deny that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost "for they heard them speak with tongues
and magnify God" (Acts 10:46).  It is apparent from this statement that tongues were recognized as the
indisputable sign of the Holy Spirit Baptism in Apostolic times -- a sign which even those prejudiced
Jews did not dare gainsay.
 

EPHESUS

In Acts 19, Paul met certain disciples of John the Baptist.  After updating them on the good news
about Jesus Christ, whom John had foretold, he re-baptized them in Jesus Name and "when Paul had
laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied"
(Acts 19:6).  This is almost 25 years after the day of Pentecost and the same sign of tongues is being
manifested when Spirit Baptism is bestowed.  It is mentioned in an almost casual way, thus indicating
that this was a normal and regular accompaniment, though supernatural in nature.
 

DAMASCUS

The conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus culminated in his reception of the Holy Spirit
Baptism at the house of Judas on Straight Street in Damascus.  Ananias, instructed by God, entered the

233
house and putting his hands on him said:
 
Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath
sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 9:17).
The narrative records Paul's healing and Baptism in water, but no further information about his
baptism of the Holy Ghost.  Do we have any proof he spoke in tongues?  Yes.  His own statement (if
that will satisfy our critics!).  In 1 Cor 14:18 he says "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than
ye all."  When would he have begun the exercise of this spiritual manifestation?  At his Spirit
Baptism, just like everyone else we have observed in Acts.  To argue otherwise is a quibble and a
delaying tactic.  Paul received the Baptism of the Spirit (Acts 9:17), and spoke with tongues (1 Cor
14:18).  What more   needs to be said?  This case again supports the principle that all who are baptized
in the Holy Spirit will speak in Tongues.
 

SUMMARY

These are the five recorded cases of persons actually receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost in the
New Testament Church.  There are no other cases recorded -- these are all!  We will learn from
these, or not at all.  There are no others to which we can appeal.  The Law of Moses only required two
or three witnesses to establish a fact.  Here we have five.  What do we learn from these "on the scene
reports" of Spirit Baptism?  The recipients varied:  Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles.  the locations varied: 
Jerusalem, Ephesus, Ceasarea, Samaria, Damascus.  The preachers varied:  Peter, Phillip, Paul,
Ananias.  The numbers varied:  one hundred twenty, twelve, one.  Relation to water baptism varied: 
sometimes before, sometimes after water baptism.  Even the years varied:  33 A.D. to 56 A.D.  But
one thing never varied, no, not in one case, for they all spoke with tongues!  Tongues is the one
consistent thread weaving them all together.  There are no exceptions to this rule, no matter what else
may have varied in God's providence, all received and all spoke.  If one wishes to conform to a New
Testament experience of Spirit Baptism, he cannot do it without the sign of tongues.  No wonder St.
Chrysostom, a favorite Catholic Church Father of Neo-Trinitarians, concluded:
 
"Whoever was baptized in Apostolic days, he straightway spoke with tongues; they at once
received the Spirit, not that they saw the Spirit, for he is invisible, but God's grace bestowed
some sensible proof of his enemy.  It thus made manifest to them that they were without that it
was the Spirit in the very person speaking."
Enemies of tongues as the Bible evidence, often argue that "tongues were used to preach the Gospel to
foreign nations."  They say they are not needed today because we have radio, T.V., and modern
translations.  This argument is completely without biblical support.  Not once were tongues used to
"preach" the Gospel.  At Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowd in their standard Aramaic language. 
The tongues the multitude heard on that day only announced "the wonderful works of God" (Acts
2:11).  Salvation was preached by Peter after the tongues ceased (Acts 2:14).  The Samaritans spoke in
tongues when Peter and John laid hands on them.  Were these Samaritans preaching the Gospel to the
Apostles Peter and John?  The idea is ridiculous.  Cornelius and family spoke with tongues "while
Peter yet spoke."  Was the ignorant Roman Cornelius preaching the Gospel to Apostle Peter?  Of
course not!  Paul laid hands on the Ephesians in Acts 19 and they "spake with tongues and
prophesied."  Were these Ephesians preaching salvation to Paul?  Just to state it reveals the folly of

234
such a notion.  There is not one single case in the entire New Testament that shows anyone preaching
the gospel "in tongues" to sinners.  In fact, Paul says just the opposite!
 
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no
man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1 Cor. 14:2)
The Bible says that tongue speaking is not for the purpose of "speaking to men,"  and the excuse-
making preachers say it is!  Who shall we believe?

It is also argued that seeing we now have the Bible, gifts like tongues or prophecy are no longer
needed.  The implication being that the early church received doctrinal instruction through "tongues"
because there was no Bible.  This idea is also ludicrous.  The early Church never received doctrine
through "tongues."  That was not the purpose of the gift of tongues or prophecy -- then or now.  These
vocal gifts were for "praying" (1 Cor. 14:14-15), "singing" (1 Cor 14:15), "blessing" (1 Cor 14:16),
edification, exhortation, and comfort (1 Cor 14:3).  Any teaching of doctrine was done by the
Apostles, in the natural language, not tongues (1 Cor 14:19).  Any "revelation" (1 Cor 14:6) given by
prophecy or tongues was of a local, personal, and nondoctrinal nature.  Paul was given a prophecy of
his forthcoming imprisonment (Acts 21:10), believers were warned of a coming famine (Acts 11:28),
two brethren were set aside for missionary work (Acts 13:2).  No New Testament doctrinal truth was
ever brought forth by tongues or prophecy.  It was not the purpose of these gifts.  They were not
substitutes for the Bible!  Well, we are asked, without a complete New Testament in written form, how
were the early Christians guided in doctrinal truth?  Not by tongues!  They had the living Apostles
themselves.  Paul and Peter and James and all the other Apostles were the official teachers of New
Testament Truth, and remained so until  the New Testament was complete.  Christ prayed concerning
his Apostles:
 

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word
(John 17:20).
And this is because Christ "had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen" (Acts
1:2).  The Bible did not replace tongues, because tongues were never a substitute for the Bible.

235
 CHAPTER XXI
RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD
WHY DO NON-PENTECOSTALS WANT TO CENSOR THE BOOK OF ACTS?
IS THERE REALLY "NO SALVATION" FOUND IN THE BOOK OF ACTS?
WILL WE BE "LED ASTRAY", OR LED TO CHRIST BY READING THE BOOK OF
ACTS?
WHICH IS IT?

THE BOOK OF ACTS -- CAN WE TRUST IT? // A VERY RICH DIET // AN UNRELIABLE
HISTORY? // CONTRADICTIONS // ACTS IS FOR DOCTRINE // DIVISIONS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT // FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT // THE GOSPELS // BOOK OF
ACTS // JESUS' PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN ACTS // ACTS -- THE BOOK OF
CONVERSION // THE EPISTLES // BOOK OF REVELATION

THE BOOK OF ACTS -- CAN WE TRUST IT?

Dr. Boyd advances several arguments against the initial evidence doctrine, most of which have been
around for awhile and are quite shopworn, having been tried on and returned to the rack many times. 
Others are so farfetched as to appear even silly.  However we will answer him according to his folly. 
And in addition there is the usual set of self contradictory statements which we will point out for our
readers.  The argument in which he invests the most energy is the one concerning the Book of Acts.

Seeing the evidence for tongues as the sign of Spirit baptism is so overwhelmingly shown in the Book
of Acts, the first thing that must be done by our opponents is to discredit that book.  This must be
subtly, for one dare not come out and say it is "uninspired".  No, it must be shown to be unreliable in
some fashion.  Sneaky tactics are definitely the order of the day here.  It is dirty work, but somebody
must do it!

Modernists and liberals have consistently avoiding living up to Apostolic standards by asserting we
cannot extract "doctrine from the Book of Acts."  It is "historic narrative" we are told and was not
designed to teach doctrine.  We must go to the epistles they insist.  If it is not taught or confirmed
there, then it is highly suspect and should be shelved.  Dr. Boyd follows dutifully in this pattern.  He
says it is "precarious at best to base any doctrine on the historical record of Acts unless this doctrine is
confirmed in some didactic portion of scripture" (Boyd, p.201).  And he will let you know what
"portions" those are!  He contends that to use Acts in this fashion "is really misguided" (Boyd, p.206),
and "we cannot derive a doctrinal or behavioral prescription from historical description" (Boyd,
p.206).  Even though Acts is a behavioral record!  We are cautioned to remember that Luke "is writing
as a historian, not a systematic theologian."  So of course, don't look for theology!  Dr. Boyd just can't
seem to control himself in this "ax the Acts" polemic.  Throwing all care to the wind he shifts into high
gear:
 

236
 "Therefore, if we look to Acts to be taught the Gospel -- how we should get saved -- we are
bound to go astray, for this work was never written for this purpose" (p. 207).
Go astray mind you!  The word of God is going to lead us astray!   When the Philippian jailer cried out
"What must I do to be saved" in Acts 16:30, that should be a signal to us to slam the book shut!  For
we are in grave danger of going "astray!"  Paul's answer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shalt be saved," will certainly "misguide" us, for it has nothing to do with salvation!  or so, Dr. Boyd
informs us.  Watch out for that "behavioral prescription!"  Also, when Paul is told to "wash away his
sins, calling upon the name of the Lord" in Acts 22:16, we are to dismiss that as having nothing to do
with salvation also.  Better hurry up and run t the epistles for some "didactic" antidote, before we go
"astray."

Strange indeed is the fact that even though Dr. Boyd does not believe Acts teaches salvation, he quotes
it frequently enough on that very subject -- and in a "didactic" fashion!  On page 136 he says:
 

"The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a
person is itself enough to prove this" (p. 136).
Then follows a strong of references almost half of which are from the Book of Acts!  They are Acts
2:21; Acts 10:43; Acts 15:9; Acts 16:31!  Odd, that he should use them if the book "was not written
for that purpose!"  On the bottom of the same page he again quotes Acts three times in an attempt to
prove salvation is not related to baptism -- Acts 3:17-26, Acts 4:8-12 and Acts 16:31.  And all this out
of a book from which "we are bound to go astray" if we try to use it to find out "how we should get
saved."  Then why does he so use it?  Is he trying to lead his readers astray?  Is that his confessed
intention?

He quotes Acts 20:28 to prove that "in Trinitarian theology," the suffering of Jesus on the cross is the
suffering of God (p. 187), in spite of the fact he has declared that Luke is "not a systematic theologian"
(p. 207).  Apparently his "non-systematic" theology is good enough when Dr. Boyd needs it.  On page
137 he would have us "learn from Acts" that the Holy Spirit "is sometimes given in dramatic fashion
before individuals are baptized in water" (Acts 10:44-48).  Now he is deriving a "doctrinal or
behavioral prescription" directly from historical description!  This is the very thing he condemns
Oneness believers for doing, declaring our "attempt to use the Acts in this fashion is really misguided"
(p. 206).  Misguided of course, unless he needs a "prescription" -- then it is quite all right (for him that
is!)  You'd almost think he had copyrighted the Book of Acts!  He appropriates it for his own
purposes, (theological, prescriptive, salvation, and otherwise), while denying Oneness believers any
right to cite it for doctrinal support!  Such an endeavor on our part he says can lead to nothing but
"harm and heresy" (p. 209).  "O Consistency thou art a rare jewel."
 

A VERY RICH DIET

Dr. Boyd, now dug in so deep he has no where to go but down, burrows on:
 

237
 "To set this work up as a norm for all church experience is thus to set up a very rich -- and very
unhealthy -- diet for oneself indeed -- nothing but harm and heresy can come from such an
endeavor" (p. 209).
The Book of Acts should therefore be quarantined.  New Converts might get sick!  Perhaps Dr. Boyd
feels a warning label is in order -- "This product when taken seriously is hazardous to spiritual
health."  Its a wonder Dr. Boyd doesn't follow Thomas Jefferson's lead, who cut out of the Bible
scissors those portions he thought dangerous!  So we are told that to line up with New Testament
precedents as set forth in Acts can only be "harmful" or even "heretical" he contends.  It's much
"safer" to follow the modern, non-nutritional diet of "easy believeism".  Slip up a hand, just sign a
card, make a decision, accept Christ as personal Savior, allow Jesus to come in, etc. Do not worry
about conditions, it's all "unconditionally guaranteed."  Just do these things and forget about that
harmful diet in the Book of Acts!  It's too rich for you any how!  The mil and toast Gospel is much
easier to digest, goes down so smoothly.  We Pentecostals can't buy into that!  We admit the diet in
Acts is "rich," for its not the pastry fluff of Neo-Evangelicalism; but we delight to feed on it.  We are
quite used to the "riches" of his goodness (Rom. 2:4).  "They continued steadfastly in the Apostles'
Doctrine, and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers"  (Acts 2:42).
 
AN UNRELIABLE HISTORY?

Even as a history, Dr. Boyd finds Acts less than desirable.  In fact it becomes almost worthless to hear
him describe it.  For example:
 

"Indeed so uniterpreted is Luke's objective reporting that he leaves it up to us to infer why he

even placed just these four accounts in his work rather than some other occurrences of the
Spirit's initial outpouring" (p. 208).
We have to "infer" because it is all so "uninterpreted."  We also must do some "guessing."  We are told
on page 209:
 
"...it seems that the best guess is that Luke included just these four occurrences of the Spirit's
outpouring because they were not normative!"
We just have to "guess."  But what a "guess" he makes!  Luke, according to Boyd, records these case
histories of Spirit baptism to show us what not to expect!  He parades the abnormal cases before us,
and not one example of what it "normative" in the Spirit's initial outpouring.  We now must depend on
theologians, like Dr. Boyd, as to what we can expect; for Luke has "led us astray" with these accounts
of "rare things that are most spectacular and unusual" (p. 209)..  According to Dr. Boyd, Luke leaves
many questions "open".  More questions are raised than answered:
 
"Left open are the questions of why Peter and John had to come, why the Holy Spirit had not
yet come, why the laying on of hands was significant, how they all knew the Spirit had come
when He finally did come" (p. 208).
Quite a list of unanswered questions!  But this is not to be worried about:
 
"Luke was not trying to teach Theophilus that the answer to any of these questions -- whatever
it might turn out to be -- was normative and necessary for all time."

238
Imagine, these things are not "necessary"!  Things like "how they all knew the Spirit had come," are
unnecessary concerns!  "Whatever it might turn out to be," (and Dr. Boyd will help with that in a little
bit) is not "germane to what Luke did want Theophilus to learn" p. 209).  At this point one almost
wonders why the Book of Acts was written in the first place.  No salvation in it, perhaps a possibility
of "going astray" however!  No information on how we know "the Spirit has come," that's not
"germane."  A few "rare" and "spectacular" things in an otherwise "ordinary" and "mundane" history. 
And these are "certainly not glimpses into everyday operation of the church," even though they
certainly appear to be.  As a "norm for all church experience," Dr. Boyd also says we can't cite it, that
would be "unhealthy."  We can't use it for salvation, that would "lead us astray."  Historically it leaves
us in the dark on so many points that it is left "up to us to infer" and to make "the best guess" that we
can!  Finally, Dr. Boyd crowns his whole nonsensical and illogical diatribe with the utterly ridiculous
conclusion that if Luke had answered the very questions he had raised, why, "what kind of pedagogy
would that be?" (p. 208).

It becomes quite apparent when one reads Dr. Boyd's entire book that he does use Acts, and uses it
repeatedly to teach doctrine, especially salvation.  He quotes it authoritatively and often.  It is only
when Acts teaches Pentecostal doctrine ,with which he does not agree, that it suddenly becomes non-
didactic, unhealthy, too rich, not germane, apt to lead astray, etc.  This is certainly begging the
question!
 

CONTRADICTIONS

A prime example of Dr. Boyd's "Pentecostal Obsession" is his two mutually contradictory statements
on the signs and wonders.  On page 204, he says:
 

"Hence the supernatural phenomena (e.g. prophecy, visions, healings) that have always been
associated with the Spirit will, after Pentecost, be available not just to one or two great men of
God, but to the entire people of God" (p. 204).
In other words, the supernatural phenomena will be normative for all believers in the church age. 
Fine.  But then on page 209 he contradicts himself completely when he writes:
 
"Indeed, given the time span that Luke seeks to cover with his Acts volume, it is not surprising
if he tends to lift out of the ordinary mundane history of the early church those rare things
that are most spectacular and unusual.... To set this work up as a norm for all church
experience is thus to set up a very rich -- and very unhealthy -- diet for oneself indeed."
Supernatural Phenomena that are characterized as "available to the entire people of God" on page 204,
becomes "rare" and "unusual" and "unhealthy" if viewed as a "norm" for the entire people of God on
page 209.  Why this contradiction?  If you will not eon page 204 the supernatural phenomena he says
are available to all are:  prophecy, visions, healings.  He leaves out tongues completely.  So when
Pentecostals try to include tongues as a "supernatural phenomenon" available to all  also, his position
suddenly shifts, and we are told that none of these things are "normative," and indeed it is "unhealthy"
to expect them.  Everything was fine and :"available" until tongues are added to the list!  If tongues are
to be included, then he will have none of them!  What kind of pedagogy is this?

239
The same contradictory reasoning is repeated.  On page 202 the Church is described as having an
anointing which "supernaturally empowers people to carry out God's will dynamically."  But on p. 207
when tongues are under consideration, we find they are "rare things" lifted out of the ":ordinary
mundane history of the early church."  A dynamic, supernaturally anointed and empowered people
producing  an ordinary and mundane history!  How did they manage to do it?  Think for a moment
dear reader, the Apostolic Church is "ordinary and mundane" he says.  Do you remember that
"mundane" incident when Peter and John healed the cripple at the Temple Gate?  Or their "ordinary"
prayer meeting that shook the whole house?  How about that "mundane and ordinary" resurrection of
Dorcas?  To say nothing of the utterly boring earthquake that freed Paul and Silas from jail!  Would to
God we were "making such ordinary and mundane" history today!
 

ACTS IS FOR DOCTRINE

Dr. Boyd, and others, when they posture that the Book of Acts is not to be used for doctrinal purposes,
are found not contending with Oneness believers, but with the Holy Spirit Himself.  For they
contradict plainly what the Spirit has said concerning Acts.
 

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3:16).
"All scripture" -- that includes Acts "is profitable for doctrine."  Now who shall we believe, the Holy
Spirit or Dr. Boyd?  The Holy Ghost says Acts is profitable for doctrine, Dr. Boyd says its
"precarious" for doctrine.  But all scripture, including Acts is also profitable for "instruction in
righteousness."  That would have to include salvation!  But Dr. Boyd again contradicts the Holy Spirit
and tells us not to "look to Acts to be taught the Gospel -- how we should get saved."  If we do, "we
are bound to go astray" (Boyd, p. 207).  Well, the Holy Spirit says we can find "instruction in
righteousness" in Acts.  Dr. Boyd says not to even look for it, "lest we go astray."  Again, who shall
we believe?  Instruction or destruction?  What shall it be?

Dr. Boyd, unfortunately puts himself in the same category as modernists and religious liberals when he
says that it is "precarious to base any doctrine in the historical record of Acts unless this doctrine is
confirmed in some didactic portion of Scripture" (p. 201).  He thus divides Scripture between those
"portions" which can be taken for doctrine, and those which cannot.  In liberal circles the gospels and
Acts, being historic narratives, are not considered reliable for doctrine.  Only the epistles are used for
this.  Indeed, Dr. Boyd rejects our initial evidence teaching because he feels it has "no corroborating
evidence in the Epistles..." (p. 209).  But the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is only found in the so-called
"narrative portions", in this case, the Gospels.  It's not mentioned, confirmed or corroborated even
once in the Epistles.  Are we to class this doctrine as "precarious"?  It's because of such heretical
reasoning as this, which divides the Bible into doctrinal and non doctrinal "portions," that so many
liberals outrightly reject the Virgin Birth.  It's not "corroborated" you see!  Neo-trinitarians lean in this
direction, also.  Shirley Guthrie feels one can still be saved while rejecting the Virgin Birth doctrine! 
Some suggest Paul and the early Church may not have known about it!  And these are authors Dr.
Boyd recommends to us in his footnotes!  The Bible tells us about rightly dividing the Word, but
contains a fearful warning about subtracting from it (Rev. 22:19)!
 

240
 DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Dr. Boyd's opposition to the Book of Acts is understandable, given his theological position.  Every
religious group feels uncomfortable in this book, except Oneness Pentecostals.  The reason is that the
Book of Acts is the measuring rod, a divine plumbline, by which all preaching and "plans" of salvation
are to be tested.  It is only in the Book of Acts tat we read the actual sermons that were preached by
the New Testament preachers in order to convict sinners.  And it is only in the Book of Acts that we
observe what sinners actually did to get saved.  The true pattern is found exclusively in the book of
Acts -- for it is "on the spot" reporting.

In the Book of Acts we never read the Apostles instructing anyone to "read the Watchtower": or
"prepare for Armageddon" in order to be saved.  That eliminates the Jehovah's Witnesses.  "But
though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let
him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9).  They preach another gospel , and they are cursed.  Neither do we read in
Acts that the Apostles instructed anyone to be "baptized for the dead," or "contract celestial marriages
for time and eternity."  This eliminates the Mormons.  They preach another Gospel.  They too are
cursed!  No converts were ever instructed to "keep the Seventh Day Sabbath," as the Adventists insist. 
Another Gospel, another curse.  And what is equally significant, no one was ever told to accept Jesus
as their "very own personal Savior: or "allow Jesus to come into their hearts" in order to be saved. 
Neither do we read of the Apostles passing out "decision cards" or asking people to "slip up a hand." 
The Apostles knew nothing of this simplified ABC method (accept, believe, confess), and never
preached it.  None of these man-made "easy believe" schemes are attested to in the Book of Acts. 
They are modern day inventions being hauled on Philistine carts designed to circumvent the truth.  No
wonder these preachers of "other gospels" so demean the Book of Acts.  Now we see why they instruct
their people to not use it "for salvation" lest they "go astray!"  How much blood is on their hands?

Oneness Pentecostals are the only ones who line up with the divine measuring rod of the Book of
Acts!  We conform to the "ancient landmarks" rather than trying to rearrange or eliminate them.  We
feel very comfortable with the Book of Acts.  The New Testament preaching in Acts consistently
instructs  sinners to repent of their sins, be baptized in water in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins,
and to receive the promised Baptism of the Holy Ghost.  The exact message Oneness Pentecostals
preach (Acts 2:38; Acts 2:4; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:14-18, Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16:32-
33; Acts 19:1-6; Acts 9:17-18; Acts 22:16).

Though details are not given in every account, and some emphasize one aspect more than another, the
"big picture" that emerges by considering them all is a gospel of repentance that was always
accompanied by water baptism, and a supernatural  endowment of spiritual power, which is
characterized by a charismatic utterance.  Far from being "unconditional" as Dr. Boyd contends (p.
23), the Apostles and other New testament preachers laid down very definite conditions:  repentance,
accompanied by a change of in lifestyle (Acts 19:18-19), and water baptism in Jesus Name.  Yes the
book of Acts is quite an embarrassment to those who preach "another gospel."  Ands this is the real
spirit behind such remarks as "this work was never written for this purpose" (Boyd, p. 207).

The work was specifically written for that purpose.  Acts is in fact the only book in the New testament
where we can learn what we must do to be saved (Acts 2:37; Acts 16:30).  Dr. Boyd says we should
not look to Acts to be taught "how we should be saved," yet we find people crying out "what must I do

241
to be saved," throughout the book!  Are we to ignore the answers they were given, as having nothing
to do with salvation?  How utterly insulting to the intelligence of his readers is such a groundless
supposition!  It must have been a very late and weary night at the typewriter that produced such a
doctrinal freak!  It should have been suffocated at birth!
 

FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Apostle Paul instructs us to "rightly divide the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15).  And the New
Testament has four main divisions:
 

THE GOSPELS

Matthew, Mark , Luke and John are the four gospels.  They record the life and ministry of Christ. 
They include his birth, his preaching, and his death, burial and resurrection.  Christ shed His blood
"which taketh away the sin of the world" in the last chapters of the Gospels.  The Gospels do not
contain the requirements for obtaining New Testament Salvation because:
 

1. Christ said that "repentance and remission of sins" would be preached in his name beginning
at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).  This occurred in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). 
Salvation preaching therefore begins in Acts, not the Gospels.
2. The Spirit would not be given to believers until Christ was glorified (John 7:38-39).  This also
occurred in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost.
3. There could be no forgiveness of sins until Christ's blood was shed and sprinkled on the mercy
seat in Heaven (Hebrews 9:12; 24-26).  This occurred after the ascension of Christ.
4. The one who made the "New testament" had to die first and be resurrected before it could
come into force (Hebrews 9:17).  While he was living on earth it was not in force, for "it is of
no strength at all while the testator liveth."  Christ died and was resurrected at the close of the
gospels.  The New Testament (Covenant) went into effect in the Book of Acts Period, after
Christ's Resurrection.

From all this it is very clear that the New testament plan of salvation, which includes remission of sins,
and the promise of the Spirit, could not begin until the Testator (Christ) died, was resurrected,
ascended (to heaven), entered the heavenly tabernacle, sprinkled the altar, and sent his Holy Spirit
back to earth.  Therefore, the Gospels point forward to New testament salvation, but do not contain it. 
We cannot look  for a "New Testament plan of salvation" in the gospels.  It is too soon.  The Christ
must die first and shed his blood.

Now some will ask, "Did not people have their sins 'forgiven in the Gospels'?"  Yes, of course they
did.  But in the same way that those in the Old Testament Dispensation had their's "forgiven."  They
were actually "covered" and "rolled forward" to the cross.  Forgiven with a view towards Christ's
atoning sacrifice.  When Jesus shed his blood and applied in heaven, then these sins were actually
canceled off the record books.  These people were forgiven, in other words, by "credit" or faith that the

242
Messiah would die and pay the price.
 

BOOK OF ACTS

This is the right book to find the true New Testament plan of Salvation.  It was written, and contains
events, that took place after Jesus died, poured out his blood and returned to Heaven to dispense His
Spirit to believers.  Salvation preaching was to "begin" at Jerusalem, and that's precisely where Acts
opens up.  There we have the first Christian sermon on the gospel preached (Acts 2:14-39).  Here we
have the first Christian converts saved (Acts 2:41).  And here we have the first Christian Church
formed (Acts 2:42-47).  This is where Salvation begins, is preached, takes effect.  It is on-site
reporting of how people in the 1st century church "got saved."
 

 
THE BOOK OF ACTS IS THE ONLY BOOK WHICH ACTUALLY SHOWS PEOPLE BEING
SAVED.  IT IS THEREFORE THE SAFEST WAY TO ASSESS WHAT CONSTITUTES A TRUE
BIBLE EXPERIENCE OF FULL SALVATION.
 
 
JESUS' PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN ACTS

Acts is also where Jesus' Prophecy and Commission to the Apostles, that "whosoever sins ye remit;
they are remitted unto them"  (John 20:23), was fulfilled and exercised.  For the Apostles commanded
the people to be Baptized in Jesus Name for the "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).  It is also in the Book
of Acts that Jesus' prophecy concerning Peter and the future church is also fulfilled:  "Thou art Peter
and upon this rock I will build my church... and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19).  It was in Acts, on the Day of Pentecost
that Peter "standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14), began the building of the church with the first full
gospel sermon ever preached.  It is also in Acts that Peter began using the "keys of the kingdom" by
"binding" the command of repentance and baptism on the crowd in order to "loose" them from their
sins.  Peter used these keys in Acts, and Acts alone, to open the door of Salvation to Jews (Acts 2:38-
39), Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), and Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48).
 

ACTS -- THE BOOK OF CONVERSION

The book of Acts is therefore the book of "Repent ye and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out..."  (Acts 3:19).  It is the book that informs us "neither is there salvation in any other; for there is
none other name  under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).  It is the
book in which people ask "what musty I do to be saved" (Acts 2:37; 16:30).  Yet,, Dr. Boyd says of
this book:
 

243
 "Therefore if we look to Acts to be taught the Gospel -- how we should get saved -- we are
bound to go astray..."  (Boyd, p. 207).
Let the reader decide.  Personally I think if we look to Dr. Boyd "we are bound to go astray."
 
THE EPISTLES

The epistles are letters written by the Apostles, primarily Paul, to people that were already saved.  The
record of how they were saved is in the book of Acts.  For example, Paul wrote to the Ephesians and
described them as already saved believers:
 

"To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus... with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:1-3).
If you want to know how the Ephesians were saved the record is in Acts 19:1-6 -- they repented, were
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Paul laid hands on them, they received the Baptism of the Holy
Spirit, spoke with tongues and prophesied.  So we see the epistles are written to people that were
already saved.  It would be absurd for Paul or any other write to give them instructions on how to get
saved!  If I just won the Indianapolis 500, would you have to give me lessons on how to start the car? 
If a man just won the heavy weight championship of the world, would it make sense to try to teach
him how to use the punching bag?  Of course not.  Neither does it make sense to teach that the plan of
salvation is to be found in the epistles.  You do not need to instruct people who are already saved,
sanctified, and "seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus," on what they need to do "to get saved." 
You might instruct them on what they need to do to stay saved; or how to worship, or witness.  You
might teach them about the resurrection, the deity of Christ, or how to solve church problems.  This
would be understandable, and this is, in fact, exactly what the epistles contain -- instructions to already
saved people on how to live the Christian life, a life they entered into through the Book of Acts!

Dr. Boyd says doctrine should be "confirmed in some didactic portion of Scripture."  (p. 201).  By
which we assume he means primarily the epistles, for he says our doctrine of tongues has "no
corroborating evidence in the Epistles" (p. 209).  So the epistles are where he wants us to get out
doctrine.  Fine.  But when Oneness writers teach the doctrine of women having long hair, a teaching
found in the Epistle of I Corinthians chapter 11, a didactic portion of scripture, Dr. Boyd wastes no
time dismissing the whole thing as a "cultural" requirement, no longer binding on Christian.  "To the
contrary," he writes, "whether Paul is speaking in this passage about women wearing veils, or about a
particular hair style, or even about women having long hair, there is no good reason to assume that this
is anything  more than a cultural issue" (p. 226).  "No good reason to assume" -- even though it's in the
inspire word of God, found in an epistle written to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ," and authored by an Apostle who said, "the things I write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37).  Just a "cultural issue!"  Set it aside and disobey it if you like, is Dr. Boyd's
advice.  We can dismiss a lot of things like that!  The homosexuals dismiss Paul's condemnation of
their life-style on the same basis -- "just a cultural issue."  Radical feminists and abortionists apply the
same "cultural" interpretation to the Bible and proceed with their baby killings.  I think we can tell by
his "cultural issue" argument the real confidence Dr. Boyd places in the epistles, his so-called "didactic
portions" of scripture.  They are only "didactic" when convenient!  They are only used to
"corroborate" what he wants "corroborated!"

244
We Apostolic Pentecostals on the other hand, get our Oneness from the Gospels, our salvation from
the Acts, and our Holiness from the Epistles.  That's why we're "full gospel."  And we enjoy our rich
diet too!
 

BOOK OF REVELATION

The last book in the New Testament division is the prophetic book of Revelation.  This is a book,
written in "apocalyptic code" and addressed to the "seven churches of Asia."  In it is unfolded, not
only additional manifestations of Christ's deity, but the whole course of this age culminating in the
Great White Throne Judgment at the End of the Age.  It  contains no instructions on how to get saved,
being written to already saved people.  But it does show the rewards the saved shall receive.  We
should not look for the "plan of salvation" in the horns and the heads of beasts coming out of the sea
and land.  That's not the book's purpose.

CHAPTER XXII
INITIAL EVIDENCE OPPOSED
DID PAUL DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TONGUES AS "EVIDENCE" AND AS "SIGN"?
WHAT DO NON PENTECOSTAL SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY?

MANY SUBTLE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY NON-PENTECOSTAL SCHOLARS

AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF "EVIDENTIAL" TONGUES.  BUT A CAREFUL READING OF
THE WORD WILL CLEAR THESE UP.

ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 12 // DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIGN AND GIFT // THE

SIGN OF TONGUES // PERSONAL INCIDENTS // NO MENTION OF A UNIVERSAL SIGN
ARGUMENT // NON-PENTECOSTALS GIVE EVIDENCE // JOSEPH BENSON // J.S. EXCELL --
THE PREACHERS HOMELETIC COMMENTARY // G.H.C. MACGREGOR // DR. REES -- AN
ENGLISH THEOLOGIAN // DR. G.B. STEVENS OF YALE "THEOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT" // DR. A.B. MACDONALD -- A SCOTCH PRESBYTERIAN // CHARLES GORE,
D.D. "RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF" // SHREDS OF EVIDENCE IN CHURCH HISTORY? //
IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS // GREGORY NAZIANZEN // BASIL THE GREAT // HILARY
OF PORTIERS // ST. AUGUSTINE // CHRYSOSTOM // ARGUMENT FROM COMPARING
OTHER FILLINGS // ARGUMENT FROM CONFORMITY TO THE PATTERN OF IN ACTS //
THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND ITS EVIDENCE (GRAPHIC) // REPORT OF 20TH
CENTURY REVIVALS // REPORT FROM ETHIOPIA // REPORT FROM NEW GUINEA AND EL
SALVADOR // REPORT FROM COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA // SHOULD WE SEEK? //
SIMULTANEOUS RECEPTION // DO WE WORRY ABOUT TONGUES? // SUMMARY //
OTHER EVIDENCES // SO-CALLED PIOUS EXAMPLES // PENTECOSTAL EXPERIMENT

ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 12:30

245
This is an old argument against evidential tongues and feeds on the premise that tongues is only a gift,
and not a sign or evidence also.  Thus Dr.. Boyd writes on page 198:
 
"From a theological standpoint, this is not an ability God gives to everyone." (1 Cor. 12:30)
Again on page 209:
 
"In 1 Cor. 12:30 Paul rhetorically asks his audience 'Do all speak in tongues?' "
Dr. Boyd feels that as far as tongues being an evidence of Spirit baptism,
 
"there is actually some evidence against such a notion" (p. 209).
But does this statement of Paul's constitute evidence against tongues as a sign that one has been
baptized in the Holy Ghost?

Pentecostal people have long pointed out, based on scriptural comparison, that there is a difference in
tongues as a "gift," and tongues as a "sign."  Though in essence, in both cases the speaking in tongues
is the same as to function; but as to purpose, it is different.  Commentators who are not Pentecostal
have noticed this also, but have tried to resolve this apparent difference between the tongues
mentioned in Acts and those mentioned in 1 Corinthians by denying the validity of the Corinthian
tongues.  This, of course, is a false premise, for Paul himself never denied the validity of the
Corinthians' tongues, but rather endorsed them as genuine (I Cor. 14:2, 39), however, in need of
proper control (1 Cor. 14:32).
 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIGN AND GIFT

The differences between the initial evidence, mentioned in Acts,  and  the gift of tongues mentioned in
1 Corinthians are self evident.  In Acts all spoke in tongues, and in all cases did so at the same time
(Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6); there was no interpretation of tongues; the speakers exercised the tongues at
the time of their conversion; and none occurred during a Christian Church service.  However, in 1
Corinthians 14, Paul tells us, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that the following rules must be
obeyed:  all may not speak at the same time (1 Cor. 14:27), there should be no more than two or three,
and they must speak in turn (1 Cor. 14:27), and all these utterances must be interpreted (1 Cor. 14:28). 
Furthermore, the Corinthian tongues occur in Christian Church services, and among believers after
their conversion experience.  If the tongues in Acts are the same as the Corinthian gift of tongues, then
we have the Holy Spirit violating His own rules -- for in Acts there is mass, simultaneous speaking and
no attempt at interpretation or control.  This is forbidden in the Corinthian meetings.  The only
conclusion, both logical and scriptural, is that there is a different purpose to the tongues in Acts, than
those in 1 Corinthians.
 

THE SIGN OF TONGUES

Why should Pentecostals be considered poor exegetes for maintaining tongues are both a subsequent
gift and a sign of Spirit Baptism?  Didn't Paul also speak of tongues as a "sign" (1 Cor. 14:22) as well
as a "gift" (1 Cor. 12:4, 10)?  He certainly did.  Jesus Himself spoke of tongues as a "sign" to follow

246
true believers (Mark 16:17).  Concerning the aspect of tongues as a sign, Dr. Boyd writes:
 
"For Paul here says that tongues 'are a sign... for unbelievers' although the precise meaning of
this verse is a matter of some controversy, this need not detain us presently."  (p. 210)
He seems to be in a hurry to move on.  I am more disposed to linger around  this verse for a while and
see if something turns up!

The first thing Paul did in this passage was to connect the "sign" of tongues to the Prophecy of Isaiah.
 

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they
would not hear. (Isai 28:11-12)
Isaiah mentioned the "other tongues" and declared "This is the rest," and "This is the refreshing." 
Certainly then God would not deny this rest and refreshing to anyone who desired it.  Did not Jesus
say "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest"? (Matt. 11:28). 
The glorious Baptism of the Spirit with it s attendant "sign" is the rest to which Jesus and Isaiah
referred.

Next Paul mentions that the sign of tongues is "to them that believe not" (1 Cor.14:22).  the world of
unbelievers is naturally not disposed to accept the claim of Christians that they are filled with the
supernatural power of the Spirit.  Their natural tendency is to doubt our claim.  But when they hear
someone speaking in a language they could not possibly have learned, they are forced to believe that
such a person is filled with God's Spirit.  On Pentecost, the unbelieving crowd was moved to ask, "and
how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8).  It was one of the
factors which helped make believers out of them!  The Jews who accompanied Peter, did not believe
God would pour out his Spirit on Gentiles.  But they had no doubt about it after they observed the
Gentiles being baptized in the Holy Ghost "for they heard them speaks with tongues and magnify the
Lord" (Acts 10:46).  Even Simon the Sorcerer was convinced as to the genuineness of the Spirit
Baptism when he saw the Samaritans speaking in tongues, and offered money to obtain the same
ability. (Acts 8:18-21).  Thus evidential tongues serve as a sign throughout all the world and at all
times.  Just as Prophecy served as a sign of Spirit Possession among the Israelites of the Old
Testament, so tongues served as a sign of Spirit Possession of the New Testament Church.  The Jewish
religion of the Old Testament was the national and local, so prophecy was all that was needed to
convince their fellow countrymen that a person was being used by Jehovah.  But Christianity is
international, found in every country and clime, so an "international sign," that cannot be gainsaid
anywhere was provided.  That sign is tongues.
 

PERSONAL INCIDENTS

I remember three personal incidents that stand out in my memory, vividly, which substantiate this. 
One involved a woman I knew in New Jersey who was baptized in the Holy Spirit in her apartment
and began very loudly to speak in an "unknown tongue."  However, it was not unknown to her Puerto
Rican neighbors who heard it.  For she was speaking, clearly and loudly, in Spanish.  The neighbors,

247
knowing she could not speak Spanish, thought she had the radio turned up loud and was listening to
some Spanish preacher "getting excited" during his sermon!

Another case occurred on Staten Island, New York, when I invited a young Jewish girl to service. 
Someone was filled with a mighty anointing of the Holy Spirit and began to speak boldly in tongues.  I
noticed this girl began to cry.  I waited to see what would happen.  She turned to me and asked me
how the speaker knew such perfect Hebrew!  I told her that the man was a Norwegian with no
knowledge of Hebrew whatsoever.  She looked incredulous and then informed me what he had said in
Hebrew.  It was a beautiful appeal to come into the House of the Lord, because God was waiting with
open arms.  This was followed by a traditional Jewish prayer she had learned as a child.  I know this
happened because i was there.  The young lady was as astonished as I, and had no reason to lie.

The third case involved a young mother who was in line in my church to have prayer for her baby.  I
could see the Holy Spirit all over her, so I laid my hands on her and told her "In the name of Jesus
Christ receive ye the Holy Spirit."  She began speaking clearly in other tongues, which included
German.  I am a licensed teacher of German and therefore quickly recognized and understood what
she said.  I knew the woman very well and was quite aware of the fact that she had absolutely no
knowledge of German, yet she was speaking with perfect grammar and pronunciation, something she
could not have done otherwise.  (Nor I!)

For all their claims of believing in "the supernatural phenomena" being available "to the entire people
of God" (p. 204), non-Pentecostals do not have one whit of it occurring in their church services; and
wouldn't permit it if it did!  The really "ordinary and mundane history" is being written in these
churches, and not those of First or Twentieth Century Pentecostals!
 

NO MENTION OF A UNIVERSAL SIGN ARGUMENT

Dr. Boyd feels Paul should have made mention of the fact that there was a universal promise of
tongues to all believers (the initial evidence) before launching into a discussion of the "gift" of
tongues, which is not for everyone.  He says:
 
"If Paul himself had at least hinted on some distinction between these two kinds of tongues....
But as a matter of fact, no such hint is to be found.  Paul speaks about tongues and its limited
usage in this context without any qualification" (p. 210).
But Paul does more than hint at it.  He plainly states the doctrine, before he even begins the discussion
of the various gifts.  Thus he forestalls confusion on this point from the onset.  In 1 Corinthians 12:7
he says
 
  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. (1Cor 12:7)
Now what is the "manifestation"?  It is in the singular, so there is only one.  Manifestation is defined
by the dictionary as :
 
"an act of manifesting; a public demonstration to show force or power; synonyms are:  clear,
open, plain, visible, evident, self evident" (Webster's Unified Dictionary).

248
Now, what was the public demonstration of the Spirit we read about  in the Bible?  What was the
"evident" or "self evident" act that made the Spirit's presence clearly known to onlookers?  In Acts,
every case of Spirit baptism was accompanied by a supernatural act of speaking in tongues that
convinced onlookers of the Spirit's "force" and "power."  If anything qualifies as "the manifestation"
of the Spirit's presence, it is tongues.  If this is not it, what is?  Corroborating evidence is seen in Paul's
statement that this "manifestation" was given to believers to "profit withal."  This could be nothing
else than tongues, for Paul also writes:  "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..."(1
Cor. 14:4), and he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than any one of them (1 Cor. 14:18). 
That is the "profit," and it is "given to every man."  After clarifying that this manifestation of the Spirit
(tongues) is for all, as we also learned from the incidents in Acts, Paul goes on to discuss the various
gifts that are distributed "severally," as a result of having received the "manifestation."
 

NON-PENTECOSTALS GIVE EVIDENCE

The doctrine that speaking in tongues was the sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Apostolic times
is not an exclusively Pentecostal notion.  Many Bible scholars and historians have reached the same
conclusion.  It is so evident in Acts that it's hard to avoid.  Dr. Boyd says the idea that "charismata was
ever associated with salvation or the reception of the Holy Spirit" is strictly a Oneness Pentecostal
novelty (p. 212).  Let us see what non-Pentecostal scholars have to say about this:
 

JOSEPH BENSON

1748-1812, a Methodist:
 
"And they received the Holy Ghost, in answer to the prayers of the Apostles; that is, these new
converts spoke with tongues and performed other extraordinary works."
 

J.S. EXCELL -- THE PREACHERS HOMILETIC COMMENTARY

"This shows that the recipients of the Holy Ghost must, in some external fashion... probably
speaking in tongues or working miracles... have indicated their possession of the Heavenly
gift."
 

G.H.C. MACGREGOR

"Glossalalia quite clearly means the outpouring of inarticulate sounds under the stress of an
overpowering religious emotion, a phenomena to which there are many parallels, in the history
of all religious revivals down to our day.  It was evidently regarded <B>as a supreme proof of
possession by the divine Spirit<b> and as such was earnestly coveted."  (The Interpreters
Bible, Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953, G.H.C. MacGregor, Vol. IX, p. 37).
 

249
 DR. REES -- AN ENGLISH THEOLOGIAN

"Glossalalia (speaking in tongues) was the most conspicuous and popular gift of the early years
of the church.  It seems to have been the regular accompaniment and evidence of the descent
of the Spirit upon believers.  (Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible, Gospel Pub. House,
Springfield, Missouri, 1937, Myer Pearlman, p. 314).
 

DR. G.B. STEVENS OF YALE

"THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"

Commenting on Acts 19:1-7,

 
"Here it is obvious that the gift of the Spirit is regarded as synonymous with the ecstatic
charismata of speaking with tongues and prophesying" (Pearlman, p. 34).
 

DR. A.B. MACDONALD -- A SCOTCH PRESBYTERIAN

"Very early in her (The Church's) career the disciples became aware of a new power working
within them.  Its most striking manifestation at first was speaking in tongues... and both those
seized by this power and those who saw and heard its manifestations were convinced that some
Power from a higher world had broken into their lives" (Pearlman, 314).
 

CHARLES GORE, D.D.

"RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF"

"This belief (the rite of washing and the laying on of hands) was no doubt confirmed among
the disciples by outward signs.  The newly incorporated members spoke with tongues and
prophesied."  (Reconstruction of Belief, Charles Gore, Charles Scribener, New York, New
York, 1920, p. 713).
"It has recently been suggested that the narrative in Acts 8 may be interpreted as a kind of
experiment, made because the Samaritan Christians had not, as a consequence of their baptism,
showed the signs of the possession of the Spirit which were expected -- the speaking with
tongues" (p. 751).
In spite of this wealth of testimony, not only from Acts, but from scholars and historians of all
denominations, that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was regularly accompanied by tongues speaking,
Dr. Boyd writes:
 
"No charismata was ever associated with salvation or the reception of the Holy Spirit.  This
unfortunate notion is strictly a Oneness Pentecostal novelty." (p. 212).
The above cited scholars, including Dr. Stevens of Yale, would have been surprised to find out they
were Oneness Pentecostals!
 

250
 SHREDS OF EVIDENCE IN CHURCH HISTORY?

Swimming dauntlessly against the ever stronger current of evidence, Dr. Boyd makes one more
statement that he hopes will not be investigated:
 
"As it turns out, however, none of the writings of the second, third, or fourth centuries supplies
a shred of evidence that the church ever held to anything like an 'initial evidence' doctrine... to
the best of my knowledge, no patristic scholar, and not even any Oneness exponent, has
attempted to defend such an impossibly unsubstantiated thesis." (p. 212)
As much as I would like the honor of being the first, I'm afraid many others have been there before
me, supplying enough "shreds" to adequately substantiate this "impossibly unsubstantiated thesis."  In
fact, the farther we go back in church history, the stronger the evidence becomes.  Let's review it
briefly:
 

IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS

He was a student of Polycarp, and lived about 115 to 202 AD. In his writing "Against Heresies" he
says:
 
"In like manner we do hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who
through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the
hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the Apostle terms 'spiritual'
they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit."
Who are those that take part of the Spirit?  "Those who through the Spirit speak all kinds of
languages."  This is certainly a good size "shred" of evidence.  But Irenaeus has some more "shreds"
for us to consider:
 
"For this reason does the Apostle declare, 'we speak wisdom among them that are perfect,' who
have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages,
as He used Himself to speak." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, William
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956, vol. I, Book III, Chapter XVII, p. 444-531).
Again, who are those who are "perfect" and have "received the Spirit?"  Those "who through the Spirit
of God do speak in all languages."  We hope "the best" of Dr. Boyd's knowledge is being added to
with these revelations from Irenaeus.
 

GREGORY NAZIANZEN

He was one of the Cappodocian Fathers, (of whom Dr. Boyd is very much aware) and made the
following statement concerning tongues in his time period:
 
"and the sign (of tongues) is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may
be an accusation to the unbelievers, as it is written, 'with other tongues and other lips will I
speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to me saith the Lord.'  But they heard...
the Spirit wrought a miracle in the matter of the tongues.  But as the old confusion of tongues

251
 was laudable when men.... were building the tower; for by the confusion of their language the
unity of their intention was broken up and their understanding destroyed; so much more worthy
of praise is the present miraculous One.  For being poured out from the One Spirit upon many
men it brings them again into harmony"  (Gregory Nazianzen, "On Pentecost," The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, VII, Grand Rapids, William Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1956, p. 384-385).
Here Gregory depicts the outpouring of the Spirit as a reverse of the universal confusion of tongues
that occurred at Babel.  How could this analogy hold true unless he was speaking of another universal
tongues phenomenon, one that brought harmony, not confusion.  He says it is a "miraculous"
manifestation, "poured out from One Spirit," it is upon "many men," and is the opposite of what
happened at Babel.  And he quotes Isaiah as a proof that it is "the sign" of the Spirit to them that
believe not.
 

BASIL THE GREAT

He was another Cappodocian Father, and said:

 
"So Paul speaks in Christ, saying, 'In the sight of God we speak in Christ' and Christ in Paul, as
he himself says, 'Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.'  So also 'in the Spirit he
speaketh mysteries' (tongues), and again, 'The Spirit speaks in him...,' then the Spirit is said to
be in them in divers portions and in divers manners."  (St. Basil, "The Book of Saint Basil on
the Spirit" The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, William Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1956, Grand Rapids, VIII, p. 39).
The proof, according to Basil, that Christ was speaking in Paul was when Paul "spoke in mysteries" or
other tongues.  Tongues is the proof of the Spirit's presence, and equated with Christ speaking in a
person.
 

HILARY OF PORTIERS

Of the Fourth Century, writing in his book "On the Trinity" he states:
 
"We may be sure that here (1 Cor. 12) we have a reference to the Father's same promise; Hence
it is by these miraculous workings that the manifestation of the Spirit takes place.  For the gift
of the Spirit is manifest..... by kinds of Tongues, that the speaking in tongues may be bestowed
as a sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit."  (Hilary of Portiers, "On the Trinity," the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, William Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1956, vol. IX, Book VIII, p. 146).
 

ST. AUGUSTINE

Although St. Augustine did not in his day encourage speaking in tongues at all, he did believe it was
the evidence of the Holy Ghost in the times of the early church.  Here is his most significant

252
testimony:
 
"In the earliest times, 'The Holy Ghost fell on them that believed:  and they spake with
tongues,'  which they had not learned, 'as the Spirit gave them the utterance.'  These were signs
adopted to the time.  For these behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues,
to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth."
(Augustine, "Homilies on the First Epistle of John,"  The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first
series, Grand Rapids, Michigan, William Eerdmans Publishing company, 1956, vol. VII, p.
497-498)
I find it hard to believe that Dr. Boyd, as fervent a disciple of St. Augustine as he is, never ran across
this reference, or the one in which he says:
 
"For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the
Holy Spirit and should forthwith begin to speak with tongues" (On Baptism, Against Donatists,
p. 443, Augustine, vol. IV)
...A quote which again shows Augustine's form belief that tongues regularly accompanied Spirit
Baptism in Apostolic times.
 

CHRYSOSTOM

He agrees with St. Augustine's conclusion and he tells us:

 
"Whoever was baptized in Apostolic days, he straightway spoke with tongues; they at
once received the Spirit, not that they saw the Spirit, for he is invisible, but God's grace
bestowed some sensible proof of his energy.  It thus made manifest to them that were without
that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking." (Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This,
Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri, 1947, p. 237).
Thus we see from evidence taken from the Second to the Fourth Century, that some Fathers  still
regarded tongues  as "the sign" of the Spirit, others as "a sign" but all acknowledge it was the regularly
accompanying sign in the Apostolic Age.  And that's what is important to Oneness Pentecostals, for
we claim to be Apostolic, not Patristic!

On Page 211 Dr. Boyd says:

 

"The third concluding argument concerning the Oneness 'initial evidence' doctrine is that all
the post canonical evidence from the Early Fathers counts decisively against it."
How thorough was the research that produced that statement?
 

ARGUMENT FROM COMPARING OTHER FILLINGS

Dr. Boyd tries to weaken the case of the Uniqueness of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by comparing it
with other "fillings" mentioned in the Bible that did not have tongues, notably those which occurred
before Pentecost.  Such examples of "tongues-less fillings" he cites are Gideon, Samson, Saul, David,

253
Elizabeth, and Simeon.  Then he writes:
 
"One might also incidentally, note that tongues played no role in any of these 'infillings.'  The
only aspect of the Holy Spirit's work that changes in the church age, as recorded in Acts, is the
scope of the Spirit's work." (p. 203).
We realize that the Spirit experiences he cites before Pentecost were described as "fillings," just as the
Book of Acts describes the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a "filling" also.  But just because the same
word (filling) is used, does not mean they are identical.  As Dr. Boyd himself points out:
 
"Hence, even when it looks like two otherwise unrelated passages are talking about the same 
thing and doing so with exactly the same language, and even using the same illustrations, one
must be extremely cautious in basing anything on 'paralleling' such passages together" (Boyd,
p. 87).
He has grossly violated his own rule.  His logic is:  Old Testament saints were "filled" and didn't speak
in tongues, New Testament saints are also said to be "filled," so its the same thing, and they don't need
to speak in tongues either!  With the same illogical reasoning we could conclude that since the word
"forgiven" is used in both the Old Testament and the New, then it means the same thing, and Christ's
death was not necessary -- they already had forgiveness before he died!  Of course, we recognize that
the word "forgiveness" means something vastly different before the cross than after it!  The same word
is capable of more than one limited meaning.  Dr. Boyd says the only aspect that changes is the scope
of the Spirit's work.  How wrong he is on that!

First of all, the Old Testament "fillings" were temporary anointings that came and went; nobody had
the Spirit as a permanent possession.  We never read of this in the New Testament.  For the
Comforter is given "that he may abide with you forever."  (John 14:16).

Secondly, the Holy Spirit that we receive since Pentecost comes to us from out of the Body of the
risen Christ and is mediated by his humanity.  Hence, it is called the Spirit of Christ, The Spirit of
Jesus Christ, The Spirit of His Son, and Christ in you.  This could never have been possible of Old
Testament fillings.  They were not "poured out" from the resurrected Christ!  (John 14:17; Acts 2:33;
Romans 8:9-11).

Thirdly, the New Testament "filling" or Baptism is always evidenced by tongues according to our
record (Acts 2:4, 8:16-18, 10:46, 19:6).  Old Testament fillings are never once evidenced by tongues.

The Bible couldn't be plainer:  The New Testament baptism or reception of the Spirit was new and
unique and not in existence before Christ's glorification.
 

"He that believeth on me, as the scriptures hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water.  But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:  for the
Holy Ghost was not yet; because that Jesus was not yet glorified," (John 7:30-39 margin).
Samson, Saul, Elizabeth, John, etc. couldn't have had this, because they had their experience before
Jesus was glorified.  That is why even though John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his
mother's womb, Jesus till said that he that "is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John." 
Sounds like a vast difference to me!

254
The other cases Dr. Boyd cites of people being "filled" for special tasks, such as Barnabas, Steven and
Paul, present no problem, because these examples do not apply.  These individuals had all previously
been baptized with the Holy Ghost at their conversions.  These instances of them being "filled"
occurred later in their Christian lives and were special anointings to energize them for a particular
mission (It was not  their initial reception).  That "filling" can be used in this sense also should not
surprise us.  "Filling": is a generic term that simply refers to a divine operation of the Spirit; this could
be The Baptism or a subsequent work.
 

ARGUMENT FROM CONFORMITY TO THE PATTERN IN ACTS

The next argument against our doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost appears to be unique to Dr.
Boyd.  At least it has his earmarks.  I have never encountered it before (and probably never will
again).

Basically it is postured by Dr. Boyd that we do not fit the "acts" pattern for The Baptism of the Holy
Ghost because we have the wrong numerical groupings at out altars!  Acts talks of a group of 120, and
another group of 12 receiving the Spirit.  Dr. Boyd in his "extensive" survey of Pentecostal Practice
has never seen a group of 120 or even 12 receive The Baptism simultaneously at our altars (or any
group of more than three, fore that matter).  Hence, he states, we are not in the pattern of Acts!  Unless
we have the right groupings, we're not authentic!  He writes:
 

"We never find (in Acts -- ed.) such things as individuals or groups.... receiving The Holy
Ghost in a group smaller than twelve.  Therefore, the Oneness groups fail to follow even their
own prescribed use of Acts as the normative pattern for how salvation should always occur." 
(p. 206).
He also adds a personal note:
 
"In Oneness Churches... rarely, if ever, does the Holy Spirit 'fall' upon entire groups.  In my
sixteen years of studying this movement, including four years from the inside, I have never
seen this experience happen to more than one individual at a time.  And the most I have ever
seen experience this in one night is three.  But, by the UPCI's own hermeneutics, this is without
biblical precedent."  (p. 202).
I wonder why Dr. Boyd did not extend this line of "proof" into other areas as well.  It's a very fertile
field to plow.  After all, no one in the book of Acts received  The Holy Ghost in a church building, and
almost all our converts receive it in church buildings; hence, we are not in the "pattern."  All New
Testament converts who received The Holy Spirit in Acts were subjects of the Roman Empire, none of
ours are; hence, we are not in the Book of Acts "pattern" again.  Weighed and found wanting!  And, of
course, none of our converts wear robes and sandals, so we are again "out of the pattern."  These
arguments are no more silly than his!

This argument (?) can be answered and "wrapped up" very quickly.  First of all, Dr. Boyd forgot, and
I'm being charitable here, to include one of the other cases of Spirit Baptism mentioned in Acts; one
that is fatal to his "group" theory.  I'm referring to that of the Apostle Paul -- who was a group of one! 
Boyd says we never see hear the Holy Spirit being received "by a group smaller than twelve."  I

255
believe "one" is still considered smaller than twelve!  Why did Dr. Boyd not mention Paul?  We're
certainly not talking about an obscure New Testament figure!  In fact, his testimony is given twice in
the Acts!
 

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said,
Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath
sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17-
18).
Wouldn't Paul be surprised to find out he wasn't "Normative!"

I don't know what exposure Dr. Boyd had during his four year sojourn in Oneness Pentecost, but I
have had over 30 years time.  I have seen the Holy Spirit fall over large groups, groups much larger
than twelve, and every one burst out speaking in tongues as The Spirit gave the utterance.  In Ethiopia
recently, a group of at least 40,000 believers received the Holy Ghost Baptism simultaneously, all
speaking in tongues.  Is that group large enough -- "a multitude which no man could number?"

[MF BLUME NOTE: -- A Oneness Pentecostal Crusade (UPCI) was held in 1998 again in Ethiopia,
and in one service 117,000 people were reported to have simultaneously receive the Spirit Baptism
speaking in tongues!]

But really, what kind of quibble is this that makes God bound to certain numbers or groupings?  Jesus
said:
 

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8).
Do you mean to say the Ethiopian Eunuch was denied this portion of the Spirit  because he happened
to be in the desert, and couldn't get into a properly numbered group?!  Also, everyone in the Book of
Acts who repented of their sins was also in a group, (or at least with someone else).  Does this mean
that those who repent alone have wasted their time and they miss out for not being "grouped"?  What
is this obsessive compulsion Dr. Boyd has with groups?  He insists on putting God in a "three person"
group throughout eternity, so He can have someone to love and talk to.  Now, the Spirit can't fall
unless it is  on a group.  We know there is safety in numbers; is there also salvation?
 
 
(CLICK HERE TO VIEW GRAPHIC
'THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND IT'S EVIDENCE")

REPORT OF 20TH CENTURY REVIVALS

The following report is taken from the Global Witness, which is the Foreign Missions Magazine of the
United Pentecostal Church International.  It contains reports of revivals in Ethiopia, New Guinea, and
Colombia, South America.  Groups numbering as high as 40,000, received the Holy Spirit and spake
in tongues simultaneously in a moment of time.  Neither in the New testament, nor in any subsequent

256
revival in church history, has such a phenomenon occurred.  This should forever settle the desperate
"group size" argument of our opponents.
 

REPORT FROM ETHIOPIA

 "One hundred fifty thousand people!  Yes, a mass of humanity packed tightly into an area
approximately 200 meters wide and over 150 meters deep, anxiously awaiting the Sunday
morning service, March 14, 1993, in Wara, Ethiopia.
"That morning, it is carefully estimated, that at least 40,000 people received the baptism of
the Holy Spirit.  Before the word of faith and prayer, when Brother Cole asked repeatedly
how many had ever spoken in tongues receiving the Holy Spirit baptism, about half of that vast
crowd raised their hands.  After the word of faith and the waves of glory had swept over that
vast congregation, he again asked how many had ever in their lives spoken in tongues and
received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  This time nearly all of the people present raised their
hands!
"We know of three blind people who received their sight and many others were healed. 
Brother Teklemariam has reported in a recent letter that he estimated many thousands received
healing during this Crusade.  The pastors of Ethiopia are now busy gathering the names of
people who received the Holy Ghost and information on the many things that took place during
this miraculous outpouring of the Spirit."
 

REPORT FROM NEW GUINEA AND EL SALVADOR

"While many miracles took place during the Ethiopian crusade in Wara, we are thankful that
Ethiopia is not the only place where God is pouring out His Spirit.  Before Brother Cole came
to Ethiopia, he witnessed over 4,000 people receive the Holy Spirit in one service in Papua
New Guinea.  In Thailand and Northwest India many were filled with the Spirit. Very
recently Brother John Hopkins reported that 3,145 people were filled with the Holy Spirit in
a two night crusade in El Salvador."
 

REPORT FROM COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA

 "We just recently returned from Colombia, South America, where during the national
conference over 200 people received the Holy Ghost.  On the last night that great crowd of
6,000 people in the stadium in Palmira, Colombia, was mightily shaken by the presence of
God.  Reports are coming in of other great ingatherings during the past two months in different
nations of the world."
 

SHOULD WE SEEK?

Our next supposed violation of the "Acts pattern" is that:

 

257
 "There is first of all, no instance of anyone seeking for the Holy Spirit..."  (p. 201).
Well, what were they doing in the Upper Room?
 
"These all continued in prayer and supplication..." (Acts 1:14).
This is what is said of the 120.  And for what were they praying and supplicating?

"But wait for the promise of the Father; ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence" was the Lord's last instructions to them.  Of course they were seeking the Holy Ghost.  What
else could they have been seeking with their prayers and supplications?  Also, the Apostles came to
Samaria and "prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost."  (Acts 8:15).  Are we to
believe the Samaritans "kept their minds on something else" while the Apostles prayed for them to be
filled?  Wouldn't common sense and Biblical precept indicate that they also prayed along?  What else
could they be thinking of at such momentous occasion?

Dr. Boyd says that when the Spirit fell on people, they were "entirely passive" (p. 201).  How does he
know?  Was he there?  The Apostle prayed for the Samaritans.  Did the Samaritans do absolutely
nothing?  Not even an Amen, or a thought about the Spirit?  The Upper Room group continued in
prayer and supplication.  Are those "entirely passive activities?"  Paul prayed for the twelve Ephesians
in  Acts 19.  How does Dr. Boyd know that they did absolutely nothing?  How can anyone receive
anything from God by being "entirely" passive?
 

"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. " (Matt 11:12).
Does that sound passive?  We do not believe in "begging" for the Spirit, as Dr. Boyd puts it.  We have
always taught against "begging" or "pleading" for the Holy Spirit Baptism.  But we do believe in
asking for it.  Jesus said we should!  Let's listen to His own instructions on how to receive the Holy
Spirit:
 
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth;
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a
father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if
he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
them that ask him? (Luke 11:9-13)
That is Jesus' method for receiving the Holy Spirit!  Ask, seek, knock, and ye shall receive.  Does that
sound "entirely passive" to you dear reader?  Who shall we believe, Jesus or Dr. Boyd?
 

SIMULTANEOUS RECEPTION

Dr. Boyd is also very sure, though he wasn't there, that all the groups received it simultaneously.
 
"...The Holy Spirit falls on all the believers at the same time" (p. 201),
...he stated authoritatively.  But again we ask, how does he know?

258
A great revival had occurred in Samaria.  Many, maybe the whole city was Baptized in Jesus' Name
(Acts 8:6-8, 12, 14).  Peter and John came down to Samaria to pray and lay hands on them that "they
might receive The Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:14-17).  Peter and John would have needed more arms than an
octopus to lay hands on that vast multitude "at the same time." It required the laying on of Peter and
John's hands for them to receive (v.17).  They could not receive simultaneously, unless hands could be
laid on all of them simultaneously!  And this, of course, was not possible!  Of all the wondrous
miracles we read about concerning the Apostles, sprouting additional arms and hands is not one of
them.

Paul had the same situation at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-6).  He laid hands on the twelve so that they might
receive the Holy Ghost.  Even if he used one hand for two heads, he would need six arms in order for
them to receive "at the same time!"  Perhaps Dr. Boyd can explain this, seeing he seems to have some
special insights on exactly  what happened back then.
 

DO WE WORRY ABOUT TONGUES?

Dr. Boyd makes mention of how Oneness believers "worry about tongues" (p. 202).  We don't worry
about tongues.  He has it all wrong.  We "speak with tongues and magnify God."  Neither do we
instruct our converts to "worry" about them.  Our altars are places of praise and worship.  And God
inhabits the praise of His people.

He feels the one hundred and twenty "as far as we can tell, were not expecting tongues."  (p. 201). 
Really?  Well Jesus had previously said that everyone born of the Spirit would have a "sound" (John
3:8).  He further clarified that the Spirit would speak (John 14:13), and testify (John 15:26).  Finally,
before he left this earth he informed his followers that they would speak in tongues:
 

And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...they shall speak with new tongues. (Mark
16:17).
It sounds like they had some inclination to me!
 

SUMMARY

On page 202, Dr., Boyd summarizes his argument as to why the Book of Acts cannot be our "norm"
for this experience.  The points he raised are as follows:
 
1. candidates "cannot seek for the Holy Spirit" -- but we saw that Jesus Himself commanded us to
ask and seek for it.  And we saw where the one hundred twenty did precisely that.  So this
point is invalid.
2. "they cannot worry about tongues" -- to this we agree.  So this is no point at all.
3. "they cannot receive Him by themselves" -- we saw that the Apostle Paul, the mightiest
Apostle of them all, received by himself at the house of Judas in Damascus.  So this point is
invalid also.  In fact, his whole case is invalid.

259
 

OTHER EVIDENCES

On page 210, he lists what he feels are valid evidences of "The reception of the Holy Spirit and of
Salvation."  They are drawn mostly from 1 John.  Things such as :
 
"obeys his word," "do what is right," "love his brother," etc.
Such a list sounds strange coming from a man who told us on page 23 that salvation has not
conditions.
 
"That moment I knew I was saved, for I knew I was -- because of Jesus' sacrifice alone -- loved
just as I was.  I was accepted unconditionally."
Now he writes that "evidence" of salvation is obeying God's Word, doing what is right, etc.  Well, this
is exactly what the UPCI teaches -- those who are saved can be recognized ("show evidence") by their
obedience to the Bible ("obeys His Word") and their conduct ("do what is right").  So why did he leave
us?

By the way, Oneness Pentecostals also believe that those conditions mentioned in 1 John are true
evidences of being Spirit-filled.  Our doctrine of tongues states that it is the "initial evidence" but not
the only one.  It is the first (initial) sign to occurring those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit, but it is
not the only one.  Christians should bear fruit.  But that is not an "initial" evidence, for it takes time. 
When a baby is born, you hear its "initial" cry and know it is alive.  But you later expect other
evidences, such as growth and development.  So it is also in The Christian Life; after the initial
"sound" of those born of the Spirit, we can rightly expect to see the fruit of the Spirit Paul wrote of in
Galatians.
 

SO-CALLED PIOUS EXAMPLES

Dr. Boyd, in a last desperate attempt to dislodge the concept of evidential tongues, fires his last round. 
Its an argument drawn completely from outside the scriptures; and this is where he must necessarily
go.  He maintains that our "Book of Acts" salvation plan can't be right because "the great saints of the
church -- Augustine, Thomas, Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa" were not baptized in Jesus
Name or spoke in tongues.  And he calls up "the great Protestant Reformers," such as Luther and
Calvin, to stand with them on this point (however uncomfortable that might be for them) (p. 212). 
Now it is certainly a weak case that has to depend on such an "ad hominem" argument.  No one denies
the great work Mother Teresa is doing with the unfortunate sufferers in the Third World.  But Albert
Switzer also did an equally great work of compassion in his mission in Africa; and he denied the Deity
of Christ and the Virgin Birth!  So if we are going to use people, rather than the Word, to measure our
experiences, we will encounter endless difficulties.  To start with, Mother Teresa being a Catholic,
would deny Dr. Boyd's premise that there are "no conditions" to salvation.  For she believes staunchly
in baptismal regeneration as well as coming to Christ through Mary and obedience to the "infallible"
Bishop of Rome.  Can we follow her?  Of course not; in spite of her good works.
 

260
 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend
themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among
themselves, are not wise. (2 Cor 10:12).
As far as the others are concerned, we need not trouble ourselves unduly as to why they did not obtain
"full salvation."  Augustine was too busy with the persecution of the Donatists -- "compelling them to
come in" to the Catholic Church.  And we know what a centuries' long blood bath he unleashed with
that revelation!  Thomas Aquinas was likewise preoccupied with his seances with dead monks and his
apparitions of Mary to be concerned with Acts 2:38.  Francis of Assisi was much involved with
preaching to animals; so he had no time!  IN the Protestant realm we encounter equally busy
schedules.  Martin Luther was in a rush to have the German princes "smite, stab, and slay" the
peasants of South Germany.  Hardly a good time to seek for the Baptism.  And the only fire Calvin
was interested in was the one he lit under Michael Servetus when he burned him at the stake!
 
Yes, "in all their love, piety and scholarship, these saints supposedly missed the  things
necessary for salvation..."  (p. 213).
And the fact that we would require of them the same thing the New Testament required of the Jews
who crucified Christ, namely repentance and baptism in Jesus Name for remission of sins, is viewed
by Dr. Boyd as a "horrifying implication."  (p. 213).

Even if we set aside the aforementioned "cage of every unclean and hateful bird," and consider the
more popular evangelists such as Billy Graham, we encounter scriptural discrepancies.

The Apostles never conducted an evangelistic meeting without immediately baptizing their converts in
water.  However these modern day evangelists never baptize their converts.  Signing a "decision card"
or "coming forward" is sufficient. Sometimes just "raising a hand" will do.  What a wide and
impossible gap exists between their practice and what occurred in the New Testament!

No, Dr. Boyd's bid to get us to exchange the divine measuring rod of the Word for a collection of
diverse and unscriptural human experiences, will not work.  He's willing to accept these people with
their papal infallibility, wafer  worship, baptism regeneration, stake burnings, and body stabbings as a
fit plumbline for salvation, just because they have one thing in common.  They all failed to get
baptized in Jesus Name or speak in tongues.  He strains at what we call a gnat, and swallows down the
whole camel -- head, neck, and tail!  And all because he wishes to set aside what is written.  It is better
to spend your time "getting an experience that fist the Bible, than endeavoring to get the Bible to fit an
experience."  This is Dr. Boyd's dilemma exactly.
 

PENTECOSTAL EXPERIMENT

One final historical note might be in order here, seeing we are talking about "human experiences." 
Early Pentecostals also thought long and hard on their "initial evidence doctrine."  So in the year 1907
they decided to conduct an experiment of sorts.
 
"It was decided that San Antonio, the next city slated to receive the Pentecostal message, was
to be a test case.  The brethren covenanted together not to mention anything about evidential
tongues.  No one else had taught the doctrine there, and it was felt that ...it would be good

261
 simply to commit the results to the Lord.  Consequently, no seeker was expecting tongues, but,
as Jerusalem, so at San Antonio, all began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance."  (Suddenly From Heaven, Carl Brumback, Gospel Publishing House, Springfield,
Missouri, 1961, p. 216-217).
We will not surrender our sign of tongues for any intellectual sophistry.  Besides, tongues came with a
guarantee:
 
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my
words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of
thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for
ever. (Isaiah 59:21).

CHAPTER XXIII
FEARFUL EMPLOYEES

 
 
THOSE WHO ARE TRUSTING IN THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL OF "LIVE AS YOU
PLEASE" WILL BE UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED AT THE JUDGMENT DAY.

DOES "FEAR" PLAY ANY ROLE IN A CHRISTIAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD? ARE
ONENESS PENTECOSTALS TREMBLING "EMPLOYEES" OF A "PERFECTIONISTIC
GOD"?
DOES BEHAVIOUR MATTER TO GOD?

262
 PERMISSIVENESS, HOLINESS AND FEAR // RESULTS OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL // 
GOD'S CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS // A CLEAN CHURCH // CULTURAL ISSUES
// GOLDEN CALF OF THE PERMISSIVES // OPENING A CAN OF WORMS // HOLINESS AND
HAIR // OTHER POINTS OF HOLINESS // SMOKING // ALCOHOL AND WINE // MOVIES
AND TELEVISION // CLOTHES AND APPEARANCE // WHERE WILL IT STOP? // IS GOD
CONCERNED? // LIBERTY VS. OBEDIENCE // EARLY FATHERS AND HOLINESS //
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA // TERTUILLIAN // CYPRIAN // ARNOBIUS // HOLINESS AND
THE CROSS

PERMISSIVENESS, HOLINESS AND FEAR

Because Oneness Pentecostals have a healthy respect for Christs' commandments, believe in holy
living, and strive to conform to what God expects Dr. Boyd ridicules them in the following words:
 
"In the Oneness view, salvation is not a relationship between a passionately loving Father and
his undeserving children. It is more like a relationship between a meticulous perfectionistic
employer and his fearful employees " (Boyd, p 145).
 Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has ever been to one of our camp meetings,
General Conferences, or revivals knows what joy and blessing we enjoy in our relationship with God.
Do "fearful employees" shout, leap, and dance in the presence of a "meticulous, perfectionistic
employer?" If you want to see fearful, depressed, and somber facial expressions, just visit the churches
where Luther, Calvin, and St. Augustine's spiritual descendents hold sway, namely the "mainline"
Protestant and Catholic Churches of today. Those men, who according to Dr. Boyd, preached such a
"beautiful and freeing" gospel, have produced a brood of the most "unjoyous" worshipers imaginable.
They don't even start to "lighten up" until they're back on the front steps of the church after service and
heading for lunch! Many of them can't wait to get Outside and have a cigarette to relieve their tension
(or boredom.) Why do the "fearful employees" of Oneness have more to shout, sing, and dance about
than the descendents of those "great reformers," who preached such a "freeing gospel?"

 A healthy "fear of God" however is what the nation, the church, and the family need in this day and
hour. The Bible teaches that a certain Mount of "fear" is necessary to a healthy relationship with God!
 

Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should
seem to come short of it (Hebrews 4:1).
Be not high minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also
spare not thee (Romans 10:20-21).
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much
more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phillipians 2:12).
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for
this is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
 And just in case someone wants to claim that "Grace" is incompatible with "Godly fear" the writer to
the Hebrews states: "
 

263
 Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for
our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:28-29).
 

RESULTS OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL

 The sad results of "permissiveness" can be seen in our schools and homes today. We are a nation
which can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, the clean and the unclean. We have a "pro-
choice" philosophy which sanctions every kind of wickedness, as long as it is a personal decision
exercised by a "free moral agent." Freedom to do what you want, without restriction, is the underlying
premise. In this type of thinking, the real enemies are any who would dare attempt to tell someone
what they should or shouldn't t do. Authority is out; unrestrained freedom is in! Things are not wrong;
they are only wrong for some!

 This evil leaven, I'm afraid, is also permeating the thinking of many so-called evangelicals and other
assorted varieties of Christendom The crop is starting to come in and it is fearful to behold. The
doctrine that "behavior" or "performance" is not the issuer and not "even related" to salvation, has
fueled every sinful lifestyle that now dares to parade under the banner of Christianity.

 I taught a young girl in high school who was well entrenched in that philosophy. She claimed to be a
Christian and did much to try to "lead others" to accept Christ. One day I observed her "witnessing" to
some classmates. When they didn't agree with her 'witness' she proceeded to "cuss them out!" I was
shocked and asked her about such 'behavior. I was quickly informed that the Lord was not uptight
about such things She had "prayed about it" and the Lord had shown her they were only ''words" (four
lettered, at that) and if they relieved her anger it was all right to use them. We are saved by grace you
see! And besides, in this philosophy God is only dealing with "her" and not "her behavior," which is
not "even related" to salvation. Shall we go on?

 I had a man in my office once, who was not a member of my congregation (Thank God!), who
claimed to have a ministry of "adultery." Yes, you heard me correctly. He was a member of an
"Evangelical Free" church, whatever that signifies, and had been caught "fooling around" with a
married woman. He calmly explained how he was a sincere Christian, had "accepted Christ as his very
own personal savior" and studied (?) the Bible regularly. I asked him to explain his "present
difficulty." Without the sign of a blush, he explained he did not feel 'condemned" at all.

He viewed his work as some sort of ministry. These women were "neglected" by their husbands, and
had very low "self-esteem." They felt "undesired" and "unloved." He just filled that void in their lives
and "helped" them to realize their true worth before God!! He helped himself also, of course! In my
naiveté, I tried to explain to him about sin and judgment. All to no avail. For I was informed that such
reasoning was "legalism" and he was naturally free from such "bondage." God is not "evaluating us"
on "performance," we are told, for he is a God "who loves and saves on the basis of how he performs,
not on the basis of how we perform" (Boyd, p. 219).
 

GOD'S CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS

264
 God is very clear in the Word that his people are to be different from the sinners which surround them
in this world. We are called to separation and Holiness. Indeed, we cannot be God's people unless we
"come out from among them." This was his policy for Israel in the Old Testament and is repeated for
the Church in the New Testament:
 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Almighty. (I Cor. 6:17-18).
Being "received" as a "son" or "daughter" is conditioned upon separation and "coming out from
among them." This is not to be misconstrued to mean that we should become hermits or recluses,
hiding in our homes, lest we meet a sinner! We are "in the world," but not "of the world." In fact, our
responsibility is to witness and be moral examples to the unsaved.
 

A CLEAN CHURCH

 But we cannot tolerate sinful life styles in our churches, regardless of how much Dr. Boyd thinks
behavior is not the issue and we should not "reject" anyone. All are welcome, but all must change and
conform to scriptural life style or be dis-fellowshipped. We do not advocate the "big tent" philosophy
that teaches there is room for every opinion and life style. That may be all right for the Democratic
Party, but it will not do for the church of the Living God. We would rather "affirm" the Word of God,
than sinful life styles. We are not going to become the country club for fornicators, perverts, radical
feminists and abortionists! Many churches today "shelter" everything in their membership. They have
fulfilled Revelation 18:2 and become "the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and
hateful bird." And because Oneness churches wish to maintain a clean membership, and because we
deal with "disorderly walks" according to the Bible, we come in for some severe censure from Dr.
Boyd. He writes:
 
"The performance oriented God who loves or damns because of behavior tends to create a
people who accept or reject each other ('and outsiders') because of behavior. For again, we
always tend to mirror the God we worship " (Boyd, p. 194) .
 So we must not reject, but rather tolerate in our church membership every person who claims to be
"unconditionally" saved. What other conclusion can we draw from what he has said? If we don't reject,
then we must accept; and this acceptance cannot be contingent upon behavior, for that would be
performance oriented. Therefore, welcome aboard ye drunks, harlots, blasphemers and addicts. There's
room for all. Leave your behavior at the door and pick it up on the way out! If God affirms you, dope,
booze and all, so do we!

 Paul certainly did not agree with this; here's what he had to say:
 

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators... but now I have written you not
to keep company; if any man who is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not to eat. (I
Corinthians 5:9-11)

265
Dr. Boyd says we "tend to mirror the God we worship." We don't mind that, for we worship a God of
Holiness. Jesus himself told us that if a brother would not accept church discipline, let him be as a
"heathen man and a publican " (Matthew 18:16-17). In Zion's navy, you "shape up" or you "ship out."
 

CULTURAL ISSUES

 The Gospel of Permissiveness needed a mechanism whereby all Holiness requirements mentioned in
the New Testament could be set aside. It would never do just to simply say the Bible was "uninspired"
and therefore fallible on these points. That's what the modernists do and has a distinctly unchristian
ring to it. No, something else must be found, something more palatable to conservative sensitivities.
They Couldn't wait too long, for Holiness was closing in on them; their new converts were asking why
certain scriptures weren't practiced. Finally, a discovery was made that would work just fine. Although
it came from an unlikely source, and had never been used before in "evangelical circles," it seemed to
fit the bill. It was called "cultural issues!"

 This device for setting aside scripture was first popularized on a wide scale by the Metropolitan
Community Church, the religious organization of homosexuals. When confronted with Paul's strong
denunciations of homosexual life style in Romans, they insisted it was all a "Greco-Roman" cultural
issue that no longer applied to present day homosexuals.

 Their historically inaccurate explanation ran something like this:  Homosexuality in Paul's day was
practiced in the pagan temples between devotees and specially trained male prostitutes, as part of
heathen worship. That was the "cultural setting." Seeing this no longer is the setting for homosexual
activities today, Paul's condemnation doesn't really apply. He was only concerned with homosexuality
in a Greco-Roman temple-prostitute milieu. Therefore, ipsit dixit, homosexuality is o.k.! In this
manner the modern Gay Church sets aside a portion of scripture they don't agree with, while still
claiming to believe in the Bible. Of course, any historian will tell you the whole argument is
fallacious, for homosexuality was also practiced in the same settings it is today, and Paul made no
distinctions in his proscription.
 

GOLDEN CALF OF THE PERMISSIVES

 But modern day evangelicals saw something they could use in this cultural argument, regardless of
the trash can out of which it was fetched. Now they could set aside those nettle-some holiness texts by
relegating them to the category of cultural issues that no longer apply. What a sigh of relief was
breathed in the camp of the permissives when this golden calf popped out of the fire! It was worth the
wait! All that was needed was a little "cleaning up" and some trim work around the edges.

 Dr. Boyd uses the "cultural issue" in appendix c. He wants to employ it to get Pentecostal women to
cut their hair. For he feels,
 

266
 "if one can help a United Pentecostal Church International woman see the error of this
teaching, one may help her experience more of the freedom before God that Christ has won for
her" (Boyd, p. 223).
Yes, she might go on to the freedom of abortion, divorce, feminism, and promiscuity. For they too are
being classed as "cultural issues." I read no where in the Bible that Jesus bled and died that women
might wear short hair. Just where was this "freedom" won by Christ before God?

 This is the "crack" in the truth he hopes to use to start a chain reaction, which ...
 

"may help free the person from the authority of the group altogether" (Boyd, p. 223).
The goal is always the same, eliminate authority. And the battering ram that he hopes will be
successful to open up this crack is the "cultural issue" argument, hot out of the homosexual furnaces of
the M.C.C. He writes on page 226:
 
"Whatever interpretation of this passage one arrives at, this does not in and of itself tell us how
the passage is to be applied today."
He concludes with:
 
"...there is no good reason to assume that this is anything more than a cultural issue."
In his footnotes on page 233 he refers to Dr. Fee's reference to it as a
 
"cultural assumption and a 'natural feeling' that they shared together as part of their
contemporary culture."
 

OPENING A CAN OF WORMS

 It's all "cultural," they say, and can therefore be ignored as binding. But they've opened quite a "can of
worms" with this cultural argument and many are already "wiggling" their way into the pews.
Marriage is after all another cultural issue. David and Solomon had many wives; Moses permitted
divorce; no marriage ceremonies are recorded, etc. So maybe the marriage passages in the Bible, as
well as the divorce ones, were only applicable to that "Greco-Roman cultural setting." Hence, we find
many so-called Christians "living together" without benefit of clergy. They go to church and feel fine
about it; and of course, they are "affirmed" and "accepted' at such ecclesiastical watering holes. After
all, this may be another one of those "freedoms" Dr. Boyd tells us Christ has won for us before God!

 Abortion can be defined, and is being defined, as another "cultural issue." They argue God prohibited
it in the "Israelitish culture," because they needed an increase in population to survive. But today, in
our overpopulated world, this "cultural necessity" does not apply. Now we can add the brutal
dismembering and scalding of infants in their mothers womb to the list of freedoms that have been
won for us over such "legalistic cultural baggage"!

 The list can go on and on -- right into hell. Then I wonder how the cultural setting will feel! Strange
that God would take up so much space in the New Testament to write about things that had no eternal
standing. And why would Paul direct his doctrine on women's' hair, not to just the Corinthians, but to

267
"all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." (I
Corinthians 1:2) Sounds transcultural to me!
 

HOLINESS AND HAIR

 The fact is none of Paul's arguments for long hair on women are "culturally related." He spoke about
the woman's long hair as "power on her head, because of the angels" (I Corinthians 11:10). Were they
"Greco-Roman" angels, who attended church at Corinth between flights? He said a woman's long hair
was her "glory." Is he referring to the "glory that was Rome and the grandeur that was Greece?' Isn't it
more logical that he had in mind what he wrote in the 20th verse of the 6th Chapter: "Glorify God in
your body." He also appeals to the original creation of man and woman as part of his carefully
reasoned argument (v. 9). That's precultural, unless of course, one wishes to argue that Eden was
located in Corinth and Eve was a "Grecian maid." It is often overlooked, but Paul prefaces the whole
hair discussion, by classifying it with the "ordinances" that should be kept (v. 2) and shortly after
informed them that his writings were the "commandments of the Lord " (14:37).

 For Centuries, nearly 2,000 years, long hair was considered the Christian standard for women. When
"bobbing" of hair came into vogue in the 1920's my grandmother cut her hair, but feared her own
mother's disapproval and tried to conceal it. This was never just a Pentecostal thing. I well remember a
Baptist lady I knew who worked in the shoe store where I shopped. She knew nothing of my religious
beliefs on this question, so her remark was not tailored for me. She mentioned she was going to get her
hair cut that afternoon, and then some what apologetically added, "the Bible really doesn't want me
cutting my glory, you know." Where did she get such an idea? From reading the Bible of course, like
all of Christendom did for centuries!

 Some of the strongest arguments for long hair on women have come from the Sword of the Lord
Publications, founded by the famous Baptist preachers Dr. John R. Rice. His daughters were famous
for their long hair, and displayed it publicly when he taught on this subject. Yet Dr. Rice was far from
being a Pentecostal, Oneness or otherwise.
 

OTHER POINTS OF HOLINESS

 The Oneness movement comes in for more Boydian criticism because of our stand against smoking,
drinking, dancing, movies, and television. He says:
 
"Any form of smoking or dancing, any use of alcoholic beverages and/or any attendance at
movie theatres is regarded as strictly immoral. Televisions are always frowned upon, if not
expressly forbidden, especially for ministers " (Boyd, p. 218).
To which I say "Amen" and "Amen."
 

SMOKING

268
 He says we are opposed to "any form of smoking. Just what "forms" does he approve of? Is it the
form that causes lung cancer, or the one that causes emphysema? Perhaps the form that gets you
"high? My curiosity is really peaked! All the forms I know are deadly. The United States government
requires all cigarettes to carry warning labels explaining their deadly poisoning effects. Their
advertisement on television and radio is prohibited. If anyone has ever seen a person die of lung
cancer, as I have, they would never think twice about this standard. It is a horrible and agonizing
death, perhaps only exceeded by the emphysema death in its horror. Suffocating for air is no pleasant
experience. The direct causal link between smoking and these dreaded plagues is too well established
to be debated at this late hour. The Bible says:
 
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any
man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which
temple ye are (I Corinthians 3:16-17).
Is the true church to permit members to defile the temple of God, which is his body, and not say a
word, even though it means his destruction? Are we to do less than the United States government
which even forbids smoking in post offices? The Greyhound Bus Company will immediately put you
off the bus if you smoke. I have seen it. Are we to have a lower standard than Greyhounds just so
believers can enjoy the "freedom they have in Christ" to poison themselves (and those near them!)?

 Only eternity will reveal how many people were saved from a cruel and early death through the strong
stand the Apostolic movement has taken against this killer. And conversely, only the great Assize of
the Ages will reveal how much pain and suffering was caused through this "freedom in Christ" heresy
being advocated.
 

ALCOHOL AND WINE

 As for alcoholic beverages, the same can be said. It does not matter what form we are talking about,
from Mad Dog Wine to Martini and Rossi. It's all responsible for misery and suffering. Every
alcoholic started out with "just one social drink." Every child crushed under the wheels of a drunk
driver can trace the cause back to "just one social drink." How many homes wrecked, marriages
ruined, bodies maimed, and reputations soiled because of the "sparkling cup." Thank God Oneness
Churches stand strong and firm against this liquid devil.

 I know many will argue in favor of wine, citing the wedding of Cana, and Paul's advise to Timothy.
For some people the only scripture they know is, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake." Wine is a
neutral term in the Bible. It can mean either alcoholic or non-alcoholic. Pharaoh's butler squeezed the
grapes directly into Pharaohs cup and gave it to him. That was certainly not alcoholic wine (Genesis
40:11). The Bible talks about the wine that is "in the cluster" ( Isaiah 65:8). That is certainly not
alcoholic! Take that "for your stomach" if you must!

 The Bible warns against fermented wine and beverages (those that give "their color" and "move").
 

Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babbling? Who hath
wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that

269
 go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in
the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an
adder (Proverbs 23:29-32).
All these '"freedoms" the Oneness movement will spare you if you adhere to its standards  I remember
reading the testimony of a young lady whose marriage and life were nearly ruined by drink. She was
converted in an evangelical church and gave up alcohol as part of her repentance, as did her husband.
She went to work at a Christian bookstore, where her fellow employees were very "advanced
spiritually" and were not under "legalistic bondage." They enjoyed their "freedom before God" to
drink and invited her to join them. At first she was shocked, but soon it was explained to her that
"behavior" like this was not related to salvation, really has nothing to do with it. To make a long but
sad story short, her marriage was nearly destroyed and two of her fellow employees developed serious
drinking problems. Fortunately she saw the light on this in time and returned to her happy "bondage"
of total abstinence. "Can a man take fire to his bosom and not be burned?"
 

MOVIES AND TELEVISION

 We used to begin our discussion of these twin evils by answering inquiries about "What's wrong with
television and movies?" Now we can begin by asking our inquirers, "what's right with television and
movies?"

And the answers are becoming more difficult for them to provide.

 America has the most depraved popular culture of any nation in the world. By every measurement we
have the most violent society. Our prison population is the largest on earth. Our speech, especially
among the young, is the filthiest of any nation. And the hours spent before television are the highest of
any population on the planet. Any connection? For those who still have any moral sensibilities left, the
most effective argument against television is to turn it on for 5 minutes! Psychologists and educators
across the land are beginning to reach a consensus that television is the single most destructive
influence in our society. Its comedians are gutter-mouth filth vendors. Its soap operas are sexual
merry-go-rounds. Its sit-coms consistently and subtly indoctrinate against Christian values and mock
all morality. Its action-adventures glorify murder and violence in the most graphic way possible. And
now with the absolutely abominable "real life" police and rescue squad series, the audience gets to
actually see "real people" die and be killed in an endless variety of appalling ways. We've gone
beyond acting to "real live death." They are nothing but snuff films, and televised Roman circuses.
Nero would be delighted.

 Even the news is biased, being controlled by pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-new age media magnates.
Each year they push the limits a little further in the area of "frontal nudity," "graphic violence"
"explicit sex," and "profane and obscene speech." And now thanks to fiber optics, not only will people
be watching television, but television will be watching them! Television is clearly shown in the Bible
to be the most effective tool of the coming Anti-Christ (Rev. 11:9-12; Rev. 13:15). David said in
Psalm 101:3, "I will set no wicked thing before my eyes." hall we as Christians do less? "Whatsoever
things are pure, think on these" (Philip. 4:8), and the networks are not interested in pure things, they're
too busy with the impure.

270
I remember an Assemblies of God minister remarking how shocked he was when he went into the
ministers prayer room during a convention to seek the Lord in prayer, and found his fellow ministers
gathered around a T.V. set watching a football game. They explained that it was the "big one of the
season." They probably did more shouting in front of that screen than they did in church all year.

 Movies are just as bad, even worse . Almost every movie is R rated. (X really). They set world
records for cramming the most obscene language into the shortest amount of time. Some curses are
repeated five times in one sentence. The audience thinks it's hilarious. Hollywood handed out five
academy awards to a movie dealing with a cannibal who skinned women and dismembered them. A
few months before they arrested a man in Milwaukee who had a collection of human body parts in his
apartment. No connection? Hollywood says "Art imitates life." I say, mass-media shapes "culture," or
rather "depravity." And what Christian can ever consider supporting Hollywood's movie industry after
that blasphemous, Christ dishonoring, hell-spawned, "Last Temptation of Christ" film?

 We are certainly not ashamed of our stand against such "entertainment." The true church is a moral
lighthouse, called to preserve the standard of decency and cleanliness in a world that can no longer
discern right from wrong, or cares to. Godly leaders, like the Apostles of old, have a responsibility to
raise a standard.
 

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a
candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify.
Your father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).
 

CLOTHES AND APPEARANCE

 Our stand for decent and modest apparel also comes under fire from Dr. Boyd:
 
"Moreover, at least in all United Pentecostal Church International congregations, women are
not supposed to wear any kind of make-up or jewelry, to wear any sort of pants, or to ever cut
their hair... and men are to wear their hair short and, usually, always to wear long pants."
(Boyd, p. 218)
Then he goes on to say something that makes utterly no sense at all:
 
"In some southern congregations, wearing long sleeve shirts and blouses, as well as wearing
bright colors, is prohibited" (Boyd, p. 218).
I don't know where he is getting his information, unless it's from the grapevine. I have pastored in the
deep South for over 23 years and never heard of such rules. Perhaps he is confusing us with the
Hassidim Jews of Brooklyn, New York. I suggest he review his research.

The common notion in circulation, which is reflected in Dr. Boyd's remarks, is that God is not
interested in a person's appearance, or a "dress standard." That's all legalism and "culturally related"
they quickly tell us. But God is positively interested in our dress! The first thing God established for
man after the Fall was a dress code. He personally changed Adam and Eve's "aprons" for "coats" of his

271
own choosing (Genesis 3:7, 21). The last thing God will do for his people will be to clothe them in the
proper attire:
 

And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine
linen is the righteousness of saints. (Rev. 19:8)
He told the Old Testament saints how to dress (Deut. 22:5, 11-12). He has stated in his infallible Word
how Christians are to dress in this New Testament dispensation (I Timothy 2:9-10; I Peter 3:34). There
you have it, instructions on dress from Genesis to Revelation and in the middle! Old Testament, New
Testament, pre-Flood, and post-Rapture. Who dares say God's not interested in the question?

 Our day and age is characterized by nakedness and lewd attire. And that same "spirit" wants to come
into the church house and "de-sanctify" the place of worship. In many of the "Permissive gospel"
churches people come in outfits they wouldn't dare wear to a job interview. They have no respect.
They flaunt their so-called "freedom," by seeing how "casual" they can appear. Some of the women
look like they're ready to tend bar while the men look like rodeo stars, all set to rope and brand. If the
church attempts to set a code of decency and respect, they are characterized as "legalistic." Grad night
at Disney World in Florida has a dress code that the high school seniors must adhere to or they will not
be admitted. Are Goofy and Pluto worthy of more respect than the Father and the Son?
 

WHERE WILL IT STOP?

 I was in two large churches recently in which I saw every outlandish and indecent outfit imaginable. I
saw Christians (?) worshipping God in "skin-on-baloney-tight" pantsuits, short shorts, ballerina
leotards, karate outfits, muscle shirts, etc. I know of one pastor who permitted his drummer to sit on
the platform with a tee shirt advertising beer! He didn't say anything, because he didn't want to "lose
him." Where will these churches draw the line? Will they timidly suggest that the young people please
not attend church in bikinis? But then of course they might retort that this "freedom before God" was
won for them by Jesus work on the cross! Do not think this scenario is ludicrous or impossible. All it
needs is time. The Permissive Gospel preachers have launched their boats out on a Sea of Sodom, and
there's no telling how far they will go. It only takes one straw on the surface to see which way the tide
is drifting.
 

IS GOD CONCERNED?

 God is very much concerned about what goes on inside places of worship dedicated to him, "Holiness
becometh thy house O' Lord, for ever." (Psalm 93:5) He doesn't overlook improper and impious
behavior, either. Annanias and Sapphira found their behavior 'affirmed" in a very unexpected way
(Acts 5:1-11). The money changers in the temple had their behavior "affirmed" in a way they were not
looking for also (John 2:13-16). Paul also "affirmed'' one young man's incestuous "behavior" by
delivering "such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved " (I
Corinthians 5:5), The modern church needs to look at God's "track record" for dealing with ungodly
"behavior" and "performance" before they begin their carping about all their freedoms and glorious

272
'"liberty" they now have.
 

 
 
PAUL INSTRUCTED THAT YOU SHOULD "WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH
FEAR AND TREMBLING."  PHILIPPIANS 2:12
 

LIBERTY VS. OBEDIENCE

 It is difficult to catch up with these Christian libertarians; they hop too fast. When we quote
something about Holiness from the Old Testament, they say "that's the Law of Moses and doesn't
apply." So they hop to the New Testament. When we quote something in the Gospels or Acts they say
"that's not confirmed in a 'didactic portion' of Scripture," by which they mean the epistles. So they hop
to the epistles. When we quote them something from the epistles on Holiness requirements, they
reverberate with: "that's a cultural issue and doesn't apply for today," and thereby hop completely out
of the Bible! Why don't they simply confess the truth: they are the children of disobedience and have
had their minds made up from the start that they were going to have it "their way," regardless of what
the Word says, didactic or otherwise!

273
 Why should any Oneness church be castigated for lifting a standard of dress and appearance when the
apostles did the same thing, three times, and in didactic portions of scripture at that! (I Timothy 2:9-
10, I Corinthians 11:14-15, I Peter 3:34). We did not "invent" these standards. They are New
Testament, apostolic, and universally applicable. It is the rule of the apostles, writing under
inspiration, which says women are to have long hair and men to have short, that jewelry and
ostentatious appearances are unbecoming for Christians, and that modest apparel is not only pleasing
to God, but required by him. If what we are charged with is obeying the Word of God, then we gladly
plead guilty. "I delight to do thy will, O My God: thy law is within my heart" (Psalm 40:8).
 

EARLY FATHERS AND HOLINESS

 The Early Church Fathers, that Dr. Boyd loves to refer us to, were extremely Holiness-minded and
didn't mind stating it in no uncertain terms
 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

 Between AD 190 and 202 he wrote numerous books, including, "The Instructor," and "Miscellanies.
He taught in these books that: clothing must extend below the knee, men should not appear as women:
no earrings, finger rings, or hair below the eyebrows. This treatise condemns all luxury in dress, body
or manner, including expensive clothes and beauty ointments
 

TERTULLIAN

 About AD 200 Tertullian wrote two books also. One is entitled, "0n The Apparel of Women," and the
other is, "On The Pallium." He recommended Christian women be adorned by "humility and charity."
He condemned fancy clothing and elaborate dressing of the hair, and urged Christian women to forgo
"The pageantry of fictitious and elaborate beauty." They were to be "modest" with their natural
attractiveness. And like Clement, specifically condemned the wearing of gold, jewelry, rouge,
mascara, and dyeing of hair. And that was for both men and women!
 

CYPRIAN

 He was bishop of Carthage. In AD 252 he wrote, "On Works and Alms," in which he stated that
wealthy Christian ladies are to anoint their eyes with good works and character instead of eye shadow!

ARNOBIUS

 He was another North African Christian, who wrote "Against The Heathen" sometime between AD
304-311. Although there is no known connection between he and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
or Cyprian, there is a remarkable unity of belief with them. Arnobius states that cosmetics, piercing the

274
ears, jewelry, and other personal adornment abuse both body and soul. He particularly railed against
men who were trying to alter their appearances to resemble women (unisex, in today's vocabulary).

 From where did all these early writers, (and these examples are only a few among many) get these
Holiness and "dress standard" ideas. Is it not an unbroken chain right back to the Apostles' teaching in
the New Testament? They are not only in unity with each other, but with the Apostles Peter and Paul
also. They all speak the same thing. It all springs from the original apostolic teaching. And I might add
that all these things which were so soundly condemned were also very much approved as normal and
proper in that cultural setting of long ago. If these men had swallowed "The cultural issue" argument
used by today's Permissives, they never would have written what they did. They were swimming
against the cultural tide! The Bible says that in the last day there will be a "Highway," for the
redeemed to walk on. It shall be called the way of Holiness; not the way of Permissiveness (Isaiah
35:8-10). It shall lead the "ransomed of the Lord" to Zion, "with songs and everlasting joy upon their
heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." This is precisely
why our enemies can never understand why with all our "rigid" and legalistic" holiness standards we
have the most joyous worship in all Christendom! The Bible says about Holiness that a fool "shall not
err therein." If a fool cannot err in it, then pray tell what must be the intelligence quotients of those
who cannot even "see" it?
 

HOLINESS AND THE CROSS

 Dr. Boyd says:

 
"In Oneness theology, the Cross, so far as I've ever been able to see, does not factor into this
issue at all" (Boyd, p. 217).
This is certainly a perfidious calumny to level against us. However, he did qualify it by saying "as far
as I've ever been able to see." We have encountered his myopia problem before, so we are prepared for
it. The cross factors into our Christian experience much more than it does into that of the "Freedom
Boasters." For while they are content to stare at the cross and imagine all sorts of ungodly "liberties" it
supposedly "won" for them, Oneness Pentecostals are busy doing what Jesus said to do as concerns the
cross:
 
If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me
(Matthew 16:24).
Self denial is one thing the Freedom Boasters hate to hear about. If only the verse had read "indulge
himself" they would have no problem.

CHAPTER XXIV
"AND YE SHALL BE HOLY"

275
  
 
 

WHEN CHRISTIANS ENDEAVOUR TO DRESS MODESTLY AND FOLLOW

NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCTIONS ON HOLINESS, "PERMISSIVE GOSPEL"
BELIEVERS LABEL THEM AS  "LEGALISTIC" AND "CULTIC."  IS THIS
ACCUSATION FAIR?
 

IS GOD INTERESTED IN OUR "BEHAVIOR" OR IS THAT JUST A

"PENTECOSTAL OBSESSION"? 
IS GOD IN THE BUSINESS OF "AFFIRMING" ANY AND ALL LIFESTYLES IN
THE NAME OF "LOVE"? 

276
WHAT ABOUT SMOKING, DRINKING, AND WEARING APPAREL? DO THEY
MATTER?  

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DR. BOYD // GOD THE BEHAVIORALIST // "LOVE" AND
"AFFIRM" -- AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY! // THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE PERMISSIVE
GOSPEL // ARE YOU DISTINCT FROM YOUR BEHAVIOR? // CALVIN AND LUTHER //
JESUS' WARNING AGAINST THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL // WHO ARE CHRIST'S REAL
FRTIENDS? // A CHAIN REACTION // PARABLE OF THE EVIL SERVANT // PARABLE OF
THE TALENTS -- MATTHEW 25:14-30 // DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER // WHAT DID
PAUL THINK OF "BEHAVIORALISM"? // BEYOND THE COMMA // HOLINESS -- FREEDOM
OR BONDAGE? // ONENESS POSITION ON WORKS // PAUL'S POSITION ON SALVATION
AND WORKS //  GALATIANS 5:19-21 -- LOSING THE INHERITANCE // EPHESIANS 5:3-7 --
DECEIVERS WITH VAIN WORDS // ROMANS 2:2-6 -- ACCORDING TO DEEDS // HEBREWS
10:26- 27 -- SINNING WILLFULLY

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DR. BOYD

 The God that Dr. Boyd would have us worship is radically different from the God revealed in the
Bible. For the God we meet in the sacred pages of the Bible is intensely interested in our behavior and
how we live our lives.
 
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people,
that ye should be mine (Lev. 20:26).
And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean (Lev.
10:10).
This interest that God has in our conduct is reiterated in the New Testament also.
 
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48).
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:20).
In fact almost the entire Sermon on the Mount is focused on how we should behave and conduct
ourselves in this life. It touches almost every realm of activity: giving, speaking, marriage, lending,
prayer, appearance, judging, obedience. It Concludes with the question:
 
...and why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say (Luke 7:46).
 

GOD THE BEHAVIORALIST

 But the God that Dr. Boyd presents to us is quite different;

 
"But being 'in Christ' means nothing, unless it means that our behavior is no longer the issue "
(Boyd, p. 220).

277
He reached this conclusion, he says, when he began questioning,
 
"how it was that if God really loved me, he could be so uptight about my behavior?" (p. 217).
Apparently, at least for Dr. Boyd, if a parent is concerned (uptight) about their child's behavior, it
shows a lack of love! For the same reason Dr. Boyd labels the God of the Bible, which Pentecostals
proclaim, as a "Behavioralist," and he states it quite plainly:
 
"God, in this view, is a supreme behavioralist. It seems that God is not in the business of loving
and affirming people. Rather, God is in the business of loving and affirming - or hating and
rejecting behavior. If you do good God approves of you. If you do bad God rejects you. But
this only means that in neither case is God dealing with you. It's your behavior that God is
really interested in " (Boyd, P. 217).
But he would maintain a distinction between a person and their behavior: God loves and affirms you;
your behavior is something separate and not related to who "you" really are, and in fact, not related to
salvation either! We shall see later from the Bible that this is the foundational lie upon which this
entire super structure of error rests, and is destined to be swept into hell along with its proponents!
 

"LOVE" AND "AFFIRM" - AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY!

 Dr. Boyd presents a God whose "business" it is to accept and "affirm" us, regardless of our behavior.
It doesn't matter what we do, no matter how evil, God had better "love and affirm us" or else He's a
"Behavioralist," and not a God of Love! And God must not even get "uptight" about our behavior, no
matter what it is, Dr. Boyd contends. For if he does, it means he doesn't really "love" you, "it's your
behavior that God is really interested in" (Boyd p. 217) . Succinctly stated, this whole "Permissive
Gospel" theory presents before us a God who is busy "affirming us," "loving" us, in other words
"approving us," while at the same time "looking the other way" as far as our behavior is concerned -
for that really doesn't matter

In fact, we are to be saved in spite of what we do, or indeed, shall ever do:
 

"All we are or ever shall be before God then is because of what he did, in spite of what we do "
(Boyd, p. 220) .
And that of necessity would include murders, rapes, blasphemies, etc. "In spite of," you see!

 Dr. Boyd also "begs the question" by making us feel that to be interested or even concerned about our
behavior, (what the Bible calls "convicted of sin,") is somehow unchristian! He writes:
 

"Frankly, to make salvation conditional upon particular do's and don'ts that we perform in our
life is to deny Christ's glory and to disparage God's grace" (Boyd p. 220).
He even feels it is "damaging at a spiritual and psychological level " (Boyd, p. 33). So we better not be
too "uptight" about our "do's and don'ts," less we diminish the glory of God and warp ourselves
psychologically!!! Dr. Boyd has also, so to speak, served notice on God Himself. For if God were to
meddle in our behavior or lifestyle, by "evaluating" us in terms of our "particular behavior," this would

278
make Him a "compulsive perfectionistic God " (Boyd, p. 218). And of course, such a God is unworthy
of worship or devotion! No, in this theology it behooves God to leave us alone if He wants to maintain
his reputation as a God who "unconditionally loves!" In fact, to believe in a "nit-picky God," as Boyd
puts it (p. 132), is for him, "a terrifying notion" (p. 133). And as always, Dr. Boyd throws in his "ad
hominim" argument for good measure:
 
"Where as the theology of John Calvin and Martin Luther was founded upon Paul's beautiful
and freeing gospel... The United Pentecostal Church explicitly argues against this position"
(Boyd, p. 216).
We shall deal with Calvin and Luther's "beautiful and freeing gospel" shortly!
 

THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL

The real author of this gospel that "it doesn't matter what you do.  God will just the same love you" is
Satan the devil. It is his oldest trick Eve had a correct understanding of the "do's and don'ts' of garden
living; for she told the serpent that to eat the fruit would mean death. Adam and
Eve had their "conditions" and they knew what behavior God required It  was not a question of
maintaining God's love" (for in a sense God loves even the vilest of sinners!); it was a question of
maintaining life! This is one of Dr. Boyd's fundamental misunderstandings. Obedience and behavior
are related primarily to life, not love! For in one way God loves all men (John 3:16), but only the
obedient are saved. The Bible unmistakably declares that obedience is necessary for salvation.
 
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey
him  (Hebrews 5:9).
Who receives "eternal salvation?"  Those that obey him! But Eve listened to Satan who convinced her
God was not really interested in "performance" or "nit-picky" details like obedience. He would love
her "in spite" of all she would do, for "behavior is not the issue." She believed him; she ate; and she
died! So in reality, Dr. Boyd's theology is old, very old.
 

ARE YOU DISTINCT FROM YOUR BEHAVIOR?

 What about this distinction Dr. Boyd draws between a believer and his "behavior." Can a Christian
really be a child of God, even though he "behaves" like a child of the devil? The Bible gives a
resounding no to this Boydian theory which separates a Christian (whom God loves) from his behavior
(which God ignores). For in the Bible, you are what you do! You are defined by your behavior! John
writes:
 
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he
is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil... (I John 3:7-8)
In fact, the very means of distinguishing between "God's children" and the "devils children" is by their
behavior!
 
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother  (I John 3:10).

279
There you have it as plain as words can make it "whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God."
"Doeth" indicates behavior, conduct ("performance" as Dr. Boyd likes to put it). John doesn't say
someone is a child of God in spite of their behavior. He doesn't say that those "who doeth not
righteousness" are of God anyhow, because behavior doesn't matter. He considers it a safe rule to
distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous based on their "behavior." If it's safe for him, would it
be any less safe for God?

 The "wisdom" that produced this carnal "loop hole" that behavior does not affect ones relationship
with God, can easily be traced to its source. For
 

...this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish (James 3:15).
 

CALVIN AND LUTHER

 Shall we examine Calvin's "beautiful and freeing" gospel for openers? Calvin was an extreme pre-
destinationalist. God selected some before the foundation of the world to be saved and then "forced"
them into it. Others He decided should be damned to hell, and refused to give them even a chance to
repent. And none of this was based on the individual's desire or moral state. It was just who ever God
picked.

 Do you think I'm overstating the case? Hear Calvin himself:
 

"For the seed of the Word of God takes root and brings forth fruit only in those whom the
Lord, by his eternal election, has pre-destined to be children and heirs of the heavenly
kingdom. To all the others (who by the same counsel of God are rejected before the foundation
of the world) the clear and evident preaching of the truth can be nothing but an odor of death
unto death (John Calvin, Instruction in Faith, Paul I. Fuhrman, translator, 1949, p. 36)
 How's that for a "beautiful and freeing Gospel?" Is that how we "participate in God's eternal triune
love?" (p. 196). And is this how the Trinity goes about "enveloping us within it?" (p. 189). The God of
Oneness may be a "God of Solitude" as Dr. Boyd calls Him, but at least He offers salvation to
"whosoever will" (Rev. 22:17). He does not pick some to be saved, and some to be damned. He does
not push some into his love, while holding at bay others who would sincerely want it if only given a
chance. Our Oneness Gospel offer that we give to all men is sincere, and available to everyone who
wants it. We offer "freedom" from sin and the "beauty" of Holiness. And if they're willing, so is God.
That's the real beautiful and freeing gospel."

 John Calvin took over the city of Geneva and ran it like a concentration camp. It was a Protestant
reign of terror. The Catholic Church never dreamed of the extremes this man went to in controlling
peoples' lives. He all but decreed when you could laugh (if ever!). He was famous for it. When
Michael Servetus disagreed with him, he had him burned at the stake. Is this the "freedom" Dr. Boyd
is speaking about?

280
 As far as Martin Luther is concerned, Dr. Boyd should be glad he's not still alive. For the good Dr.
would have thoroughly rebuked Dr. Boyd for his wanton Permissive Gospel. He might have even
given the order to "smite, stab, and slay him." Luther was such a "Bible believer" that he declared the
Epistle of James (with which he disagreed) an Epistle of Straw, and said he would "burn it!" I know it
as a fact for I studied at a Lutheran College. They did their best to get around it, but there it was. There
was no hiding it.

 Luther firmly believed in baptism for the regenerating of the soul and the remission of sins. He taught
it in his "Shorter" and "Longer" Catechism (and any other size you want!). Is that a "beautiful and
freeing gospel?" Dr. Boyd condemns baptismal regeneration as anti-gospel, then holds up Dr. Luther
as our example of gospel preaching. It's either confused, or illogical or both. Maybe he can explain it.
Dr. Luther also believed in what amounted to the same doctrine of "Transubstantiation" as the
Catholics teach. He called it "consubstantiation." You eat the wafer, you eat Christ. All so beautiful
and freeing! Enough of this cafeteria style use of history. Neither Calvin nor Luther preached what Dr.
Boyd advocates. They were rigid and "legalistic" beyond what their 20th Century admirers could
imagine.

 It is a much wiser course to examine what Christ, Paul and the New Testament had to say on
salvation, its conditions, and its relationship to "behavior" and "performance." And to that task the
next few pages are dedicated.
 

JESUS' WARNING AGAINST THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL

 Jesus himself warned us to beware of the tainted theology which would separate standing from
behavior. He said,
 
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
He previously explained that a ...
 
...good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (v. 17).
Dr. Boyd contradicts this however; for in his theology a good tree ("saved Christian") may bring forth
evil fruit (bad behavior). For "behavior" is not a factor in being a child of God to his way of thinking.
He writes:
 
"Thinking in this fashion inevitably exalts performing for God above honestly loving God, for
it exalts God's estimation of our performance above God's estimation of our being."
There it is again -- "our being" is separate from our "performance." He insists on separating what "God
hath joined together." Notice also how the sincere Christian practice of holy living is constantly
caricatured as a "performance." Why doesn't he use the Bible terms: "conversation," "walk," "life," or
its modern translation "lifestyle?" He doesn't dare! It would sound too "lawless" to say your "lifestyle"
doesn't matter, or God shouldn't get "uptight" about your "walk." It's better to hide it under terms like
"performance," "do's and don'ts" or "works."

281
 To be in God's family, (a "child of God") is directly contingent upon doing God's will. Without this
"behavior" you're not in!
 

For whosoever shall do the Will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother (Matt 12:50).
Dr. Boyd says it's "in spite of what we do" (p. 220), Jesus says it's because of what we do. Now whom
shall we believe?
 

WHO ARE CHRIST'S REAL FRIENDS?

Jesus defined his "friends" by their "behavior" towards him:

 
Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you (John 15:14).
If a so-called "child of God" is not obeying Christ's Commands, but is behaving disobediently to them,
is he a "Friend of Christ?" According to the words of the Master, he is not. But according to Dr. Boyd
he is, for "performance" has nothing to do with it!
 
"The God in Jesus Christ is ... a God who loves and saves on the basis of how he performs, not
on the basis of how we perform" (Boyd, 219).
Therefore, we can disobey his commands (sinful "performance") and still be "his Friend!" Again, who
shall we believe, Christ or Dr. Boyd?
 

A CHAIN REACTION

 
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth
me shall be loved of my father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him (John 14:21).
Keeping Christ's Commandments ("performance" if you please) results in God loving that person, and
Christ manifesting himself to him. Is there any similar promise for those who don't keep his
commandments?

Of course not! In this passage our love for Christ is defined as "keeping his commandments" - its
action, or "behavior" that proves our love for Christ, not "lip service." This is the first link in an
unbreakable chain reaction. Our keeping his commandments, shows we love him; this results in the
Father loving us; which results in Christ manifesting himself to us! The Father's love is a direct
result of our keeping Christ's commandments. But Dr. Boyd doesn't agree at all, for he writes:
 

"We don't need to, and we can't, do something to make God do something he wouldn't
otherwise do. Our performance is not the issue"  (Boyd, p. 195).
But performance is the issue as we shall see in Christ's parables to us of the "Evil Servant" and "The
Talents."
 

282
 PARABLE OF THE EVIL SERVANT

 Performance and behavior certainly were decisive factors in the case of the servants in "the parable of
the household" (Matt. 24: 45-51). The household represents the "church" (Gal. 6:10). The "servants"
are the Christians (I Cbr. 4:2, Rom. 1:1). The lord is Christ. When the Lord returns, who is the servant
that is blessed and made ruler? The one that is doing the Lord's will (v. 45-46).  In contrast, the evil
servant, who was not doing the Lord's will (v.48-49) is punished. He had disbelieved the promise,
smote his fellowservants, and become drunk. What was the result of this "performance?" He was "cut
asunder" and thrown into a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (v.51). And that is exactly where
the "performance doesn't matter," teaching always leads!
 

PARABLE OF THE TALENTS - MATTHEW 25:14-30

 Again Jesus teaches us the importance of what we do, and how it effects our eternal destiny. The
parable deals with the Kingdom of Heaven. The servants are the believers. The time period is the
present age. Each servant is given a "talent," which represents their assignment in the work of God.
The parable then "fast forwards" to the Second Coming of Christ. "After a long time the lord of those
servants cometh, and reckoneth with them" (v. 19). Those who had used their 'talents" for God's work
were told...
 
Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will
make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord (v. 21).
But as we saw in the previous parable of the household, the servant who did not his lord's will was
denied entrance into the "joy of the Lord;" and was consequently cast into "outer darkness" where
there is sweeping and gnashing of teeth " (v. 30). His "behavior" or "performance" concerning the
"talent" assigned to him was the deciding factor!
 

DOING THE WILL OF THE FATHER

 Jesus said:
 
Not everyone that saith Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth
the will of my Father which is in heaven  (Matthew 7:21).
Contrast this with Dr. Boyd:
 
"Our acceptance before God is wholly based on God's performance... it is not even related to
our performance " (Boyd, p. 196).
Did a wider contradiction ever exist in the entire history of theology? Christ says entrance into God's
Kingdom is based on our "doing the will of the Father." Dr. Boyd says it's not even related to our
performance. We have nothing to do! Such a teaching puts a smile on the face of every demon in hell.
The Father of Lies himself couldn't be more pleased. This is the very apex and zenith of "easy
believism." It can't get any "easier" than this. Just do nothing! The tide will suck you into the Kingdom
of God automatically with all the rest of the jetsam and floatsam! And this great revelation (?) of "sin

283
and get in," Dr. Boyd informs us, is...
 
"lost whenever one denies the eternal Trinity " (Boyd, p. 196).
I don't view it as a loss. Its a positive bonus. You can rid yourself of two errors for the price of one!
 

WHAT DID PAUL THINK OF "BEHAVIORALISM"

 Dr. Boyd speaks of Paul's

 
"...beautiful and freeing Gospel that one is saved by grace alone, wholly apart from works"
(Boyd, p. 216).
He refers us to Romans 4:1-8, where we discover that Dr. Boyd is as good at "adding" to scripture, as
he is at "subtracting" from it. For Paul never mentioned the word "alone;" that is an addition by Dr.
Boyd. Martin Luther tried the same thing in his German translation of the Bible by adding the word
"only" and gave the Catholic Church much ammunition thereby. We are now used to these "textual
revisions" however. For in the same chapter on page 220 -- he quotes Paul again as saying there is
 
...no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).
But he puts a period, where the Bible places a comma and severs the second half of the verse which
reads:
 
...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
And no wonder he had to do this "editing." If he let the text stand in its entirety it would have
destroyed his whole doctrine of "conditionless salvation." The freedom from condemnation is
promised only to those who "walk after the Spirit," something Dr. Boyd feels is not "even related" to
our salvation! It certainly must be a very weak case that requires cutting and pasting of Bible verses in
order to make them mean the opposite of what they say. Adding and subtracting from the Bible is
dangerous work (Rev. 22:18-19). Those who do it will have their part taken "out of the book of life."
 

BEYOND THE COMMA

 If Dr. Boyd and other Permissive Gospel advocates would go "beyond the comma" in Romans 8, and
read the whole chapter they might be cured of their spiritual anarchy. For Paul said to be...
 
...carnally minded is death (v.6),
and...
 
...if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the
flesh, ye shall live (v.13).
To live "after the flesh" is certainly a behavioral life style, and one that guarantees spiritual death!
Instead of soothing people into a false antimonian philosophy of "conditionless security," Paul pleaded
with them to "mortify the deeds of the flesh" in order that they might live! If a believer wants to please
God, he better consider his life style, for "they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
 

284
 HOLINESS - FREEDOM OR BONDAGE?

 Why do people like Dr. Boyd feel that to obey God and do what he says in holy living is somehow not
"beautiful and freeing?" I remember when I was teaching fifth grade in New York City years ago, I
asked the students to write a composition on what it means to be "free." I will never forget what one
student wrote. He said he knew his mother loved him, but she never cared how late he came in, who
his friends were, where he went, or how he did in school. He noticed other kids his age had to be in at
certain hours, had to get permission to go places, were expected to get good grades, and generally had
to do what they were told or be punished. He concluded his composition with the statement: "I wish I
could be free like other kids."

This fifth grader long ago saw that obedience to conditions set by a loving parent is true freedom. He
had the real answer to Dr. Boyd's question of ...
 

"...how it was that if God really loved me, he could be so uptight about my behavior" (p. 217).
A parent who is not "uptight" about their child's behavior doesn't really love that child.
 
For this is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments: and his commandments are not
grievous. (1 John 5:3).
A parent who does not get "uptight" about his child playing in the traffic, doesn't show much love!
And that includes trafficking in sin!
 

ONENESS POSITION ON WORKS

 The United Pentecostal Church, The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and all other Oneness
bodies certainly believe in God's grace in salvation. No Oneness organization that I know of teaches
that one can "earn" salvation by doing "good works." Oscar Vouga in his book, "Our Gospel
Message," has this to say:
 
"Therefore no person can be saved by his or her own good works, for nothing can wash away
the filth of sin but the blood of Jesus; salvation is only by grace through faith" (Oscar Vouga,
Our Gospel Message, p. 10).
That ought to set the record straight as to where we stand and clear the air of the false and malicious
charges that Oneness teaches "salvation by works." We never have and never will!

 But just because you cannot be "good enough" to "earn" salvation does not mean there are no
conditions to be met to obtain it! Even the "easy believism" preachers require you do something - raise
a hand, come forward, sign a card, etc. And neither does it mean you can "live as you please" in
complete disobedience and still "enter in."

 To illustrate the point let me cite an earthly example. I know that "every analogy limps;" but this one
is quite close to the point. My mother received a very substantial inheritance from a cousin. She did
nothing to "earn it;" in fact, she had not seen him in years. It was all of "grace." He provided for her
just out of kindness. Yet she had conditions to meet to obtain: sign documents, report to the bank, file

285
tax, etc. Those conditions were necessary to obtain the inheritance, and were gladly obeyed.
 

PAUL'S POSITION ON SALVATION AND WORKS

 Paul explains salvation the same way. In Titus 3:5 after mentioning that...
 
...it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us.
...then Paul goes on to say that it was by water baptism, "the washing of regeneration," or "bath of
regeneration" in the Greek, that God accomplished this. This was followed by the "renewing of the
Holy Ghost." The exact soteriological doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church International, the
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, and all other Oneness groups. Paul expresses the same thing in I
Corinthians 6:11:
 
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the
Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
The washing in Jesus Name, in other words baptism, is the means of obtaining sanctification and
justification, and reception of the Holy Spirit! And yet Paul would be the last to say he was preaching
salvation by works! Baptism is never called a work in the Bible, but the interesting fact is that Jesus
definitely labeled "believing" as a "work" in John 6:28-29. So those who advocate salvation by
"belief" only, are technically preaching salvation by works!! Glass houses again!

 It's more than strange that Dr. Boyd would cite Paul, even in a lopsided manner, for Paul had much to
say on "behavior" and "salvation."
 

GALATIANS 5:19-21 - LOSING THE INHERITANCE

 After listing the works of the flesh, (adultery, fornication, uncleanness, idolatry, wrath, strife, etc.),
Paul concludes with this warning:
 
...the which I tell you before, as I have told you in the past, that they which do such things shall
not inherit the Kingdom of God.
And yet "peeping voices" tell us, "performance" has nothing to do with it, because...
 
"...our behavior is no longer the issue" (p. 220).
If behavior is "not the issue," and we inherit "unconditionally," "in spite of what we do," then Paul
should have saved his ink! For his warning would not only be superfluous; it would be down right
hollow.
 

EPHESIANS 5:3-7 - DECEIVERS WITH VAIN WORDS

286
 Here Paul warns not to let fornication, uncleaness, or covetousness be even "named among you, as
becometh saints." This is expanded to include filthiness, and foolish talking. He boldly states that ...
 
...no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any
inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God.
And he warns us in no uncertain terms about those who insist behavior doesn't matter:
 
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God
upon the children of disobedience.
And less anyone subvert his words by saying this doesn't apply to Christians, he adds:
 
Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Live like sinners; partake of their wrath! Why all this warning if there is no risk of damnation (wrath
of God) because of persistent sinful living ?
 

ROMANS 2:2-6 -- ACCORDING TO DEEDS

 After having listed a whole catalog of sinful activities in Romans 1:29-32, which included: murder,
backbiting, homosexuality, deceit, fornication, etc., Paul issues a warning to Christians who think they
can participate in such behavior and not lose their relationship with God.
 
And thinkest thou this, O Man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same,
that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
The "behavior doesn't count" mentality is described in the next verse:
 
...or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and longsuffering...
Paul comes down hard against the "live as you please" philosophy in verses 5 and 6:
 
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of
wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man
according to his deeds.
In Pauline theology "deeds" matter, because they matter to God! In Boydian theology they don't
matter, in fact, are not "even related," because "our behavior is no longer the issue."

 What a great chasm there is between Paul's message and Dr. Boyd's nonbehaviorial panacea. Just
listen as Paul goes on:
 

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil... but glory, honor, and peace
to every man that worketh good... (Romans 2:9-10).
There are those annoying words again "doeth" and "worketh." Why does it not say that God will
"affirm" and accept those Christians who are doing evil, after all isn't God supposed to be in the
business of loving and affirming" people, regardless of their behavior? (Boyd, p. 217). Paul says just
the opposite! Those "who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and
immortality" will receive eternal life (v. 7). Those who are "contentious, and do not obey the truth, but

287
obey unrighteousness" will receive "indignation and wrath" (v. 8).  Again, it is behavior: "continuing
in well doing" results in eternal life; failure to "obey the truth" results in wrath.
 
 

HEBREWS 10:26-27 - SINNING WILLFULLY

 
For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth
no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which
shall devour the adversaries.
Willful sinning on the part of Christians, leaves them with no sacrifice which would "excuse" such
behavior, but rather a fiery judgment which will "devour" them - behavior and all!

 I think it is clear at this point that Dr. Boyd's entire theory of behavior not being related to standing, is
false and dangerous. Jesus compared it to a house built on sand:
 

But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon
the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of
that house was great (Luke 6:49).
And the real tragedy is that this whole foundationless false security, which will ensnare and damn
untold innocent people, can all be traced back to a young man who could not find sufficient
motivation, even in the preaching of Hell fire, "to change permanently certain aspects of the sin-
character" that he had acquired in his pre-United Pentecostal Church International life! (Boyd, p. 22)
They must have been something to lead to this!!
 

CHAPTER XXV
IS ONENESS A CULT?

288
  
 

Protestantism is split into more that 400 bickering sects.  Their creeds are constantly
changing and no founder would now recognize the creed that bears his name.

WHAT ARE THE REAL IDENTIFYING MARKS OF A CULT?

ARE ONENESS BELIEVERS PART OF MIND-ALTERING
CULT, OR MAYBE A "PERFORMANCE ORIENTED" HERESY?
IS THE ONENESS MOVEMENT THE TRUE CHURCH?

TRINITARIAN MUDSLINGING // EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS // PERSONALITY

ORIENTATION // ORGANIZATIONAL EXCLUSIVENESS // ESOTERIC AND DIETARY
HOLINESSS STANDARDS // DENIAL OF CHRIST'S FULL DEITY // WHAT THE
"DICTIONARY OF CULTS" SAYS // SIGNIFICANT ADMISSIONS // ONENESS MORE
SPIRITUAL, IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH THE LORD // ONENESS MORE CHRIST CENTERED,
MORE PENTECOSTAL // ONENESS HAS EXPLICIT NEW TESTAMENT PLAN OF
SALVATION // IS THIS THE BODY OF CHRIST? // IT MUST START AT THE RIGHT PLACE //
IT MUST START AT THE RIGHT TIME // IT MUST HAVE THE RIGHT FOUNDATION //
DATE, ORIGIN, FOUNDERS OF VARIOUS CHURCHES // IT MUST HAVE THE KEYS // IT
MUST BE SEALED WITH THE NAME // IT MUST HAVE THE SIGNS AND THE GIFTS // IT
MUST BE HOLY

TRINITARIAN MUDSLINGLING

289
 It is becoming increasingly popular in certain quarters to classify the "Oneness Movement" as a cult.
This type of mud-slinging is designed to conjure up images of Jonestown or Rev. Moon and his
Moonies in the minds of the listeners. By this means they hope to "turn off" anyone to our message
before they hear it. The idea being to strike fear in the hearts of any potential converts by raising
images of "ensnarements" in a "mind altering cult." Of course nothing could be further from the truth,
but that does not matter to our opponents, just as long as our message goes unheard. Paul, a first
century Oneness believer, was faced with the same charge. His response was: "After the way which
they call heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers " (Acts 24:14). That answer will do for us also.
When Jesus himself announced the Oneness he was accused of preaching a "cultic" message (John
8:48, John 10:33) and condemned to death as a blasphemer (Mark 26:65). The devil has always
opposed the preaching of the truth of God in Christ and the Biblical New Birth.

 Joining the chorus of those who chant "cult," Dr. Boyd writes:
 

"...this performance orientation tends to carry over into the social structure of many oneness
groups as well. This is what gives many Oneness churches a 'cultic quality' " (Boyd, 194).
By "performance orientation" is meant our insistence on obedience to Christ's command for baptism
("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16), and the New Testament injunction to
"Mortify the deeds of the body" that we might "live" (Rom. 8:13). Our insistence on a "clean" church
that does not tolerate members living in fornication, and in slavery to nicotine, alcohol and lewdness,
is also considered a "performance Orientation".  Strange definition of a "cult" is it not? To maintain
Bible standards of Holiness, as laid down by the Apostles in the New Testament, is to have "a cultic
quality" under this new definition! By that yardstick the Apostle Paul must have been trying to
transform the entire Corinthian congregation into a "cult" for he wrote:
 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will received you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and my daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (I Cor. 6:18).
 The real "earmarks" of a cult are quite obvious. And it is equally obvious that the UPCI, and the
PAW, and other Oneness organizations have none of them!

The major cults in this country are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Armstrongism, Seventh Day
Adventists and Christian Science. All of them are characterized by the identifying "fingerprints" of a
cult. These are five in number:
 

1. Extra Biblical Writings

2. Personality Orientation
3. Organizational Exclusiveness
4. Esoteric and dietary Holiness standards
5. Denial of Christ's deity or impecability.

 These are the "Cultic qualities" that the real "cult experts", Paul and John, defined for us in the New
Testament (I Tim. 4:1-3, Acts 20:28-30, I John 2:19-23, 4:1-6).

290
Let us examine each category and see if any apply to the UPCI or the PAW.
 

EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS

 All cults use other "divinely inspired" literature in addition to the Bible. The Mormons have their
Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants; all of which they consider
equally inspired with the Bible. It is in these nonsensical writings that the woman-hungry Joseph
Smith got his revelations about "extra" wives, and his subsequent revelation that his first wife "had
better receive them"! Jehovah's Witnesses have their Watchtower Magazine which they study in place
of the Bible. In addition every publication and book is considered infallible if it rolled off of
Watchtower Presses (at least until the next doctrinal blunder requires "adjusting"). "Pastor" Russel, the
founder, bragged that studying his "Millennial Dawn" volumes would keep you in the "light" better
than the Bible would! Christian Science has its "divinely inspired" Bible, namely "Science and Health
with Key to the Scripture" written by "Mother Eddy." They have no "preachers" in Christian Science
Churches, just "readers." What do they read? "Science and Health" of course! And their church
services are by far the most boring in the history of Christendom because of it! The Armstrong cult has
its "infallible" correspondence course, and the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong, their much deceived
founder. Everything he wrote, no matter how false, is considered the Oracle of God. But no one seems
to outdo the Seventh-Day Adventists in this department. Their "Prophetess" Ellen G. White wrote
mountains of books. Everyone of them is considered inspired. She herself said it was not "an erring
mortal" that was speaking, but "God himself." Everything she uttered, whether in letters, notes,
magazine articles, "Testimonies", etc. was and is considered divinely inspired and can not be
contradicted. If she sneezed, someone was there and wrote it down; if she yawned, they sought for
meaning in it! If you doubt her "inspiration" you will be promptly disfellowshipped. One young
minister in Austrailia learned the hard way for daring to suggest she might have been ''mistaken" in
some passages.

 But where are the "extra Biblical" writings in the Oneness movement? Where is the "inspired" and
"infallible" prophet and his "new Bible?" Nowhere! Oneness believes in the Bible and the Bible only!
We have no additional "written guides," supposedly "sent down from heaven." All our doctrine is
derived strictly from the Word of God, and no other source. The Catholic Church, whose "fathers" Dr.
Boyd is so fond of recommending to us, is fraught with extra Biblical revelations. Every doctrine that
the Pope decrees "ex cathedra'' is considered "infallible." By these means they have bound "the
faithful" to believe in such fictions as the Immaculate Conception, the Blessed Assumption, and Papal
Infallibility. Why does Dr. Boyd not class the Catholic Church as a "cult" based on these "extra
Biblical" and "inspired" additions to the Word of God? And talk about "performance oriented," which
Church is more so than the Roman Catholic? Even after death, the faithful have others working to get
them out of purgatory! Why are no epitaphs of "Cult" hurled at them? Instead he quotes their "fathers",
(Basil, Gregory, Augustine, Aquinas) and their "extra Biblical" revelations like the "Perichoresis"
theory in support of his Trinitarianism!
 

PERSONALITY ORIENTATION

291
 All cults gather around a Personality who is considered the "mouthpiece of God." Sometimes it is the
founding prophet, or sometimes it is a living seer. This "Personality" is quoted, followed, and served
as if he were Christ himself. Many times it is even a woman "prophetess." Christian Science has Mary
Baker Eddy. Her followers stood in the freezing snow to catch a glimpse of her as she rode by in her
carriage. Seventh Day Adventists have the aforementioned Ellen G. White, whose every sigh was
considered God inspired. She wrote on every subject in the world and has thereby infallibly settled
every issue for them for all time. They quote her as often as the Bible on any theme you can name. Her
repeated failed prophecies have no effect on their credualty. The Mormons have Joseph Smith. If you
don't believe he's a Prophet you can't even get to heaven. He is their "St. Peter at the gates.'' They "bear
you their testimony." And what is it? Joe Smith is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and writer of
Scripture. Their current presidents are also "divinely inspired prophets." Every now and then they
jump in the closet and pop out five minutes later with a "new revelation" (usually something to help
them avoid federal prosecution). Herbert Armstrong, in spite of charges of embezzlement and incest
with his own daughter, was revered as an infallible Prophet to the "Worldwide Church of God." Some
are still waiting for him to rise from the dead! But it has been longer than "four days" and "he
stinketh." Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by the self-styled "Pastor" Charles Russel with his
"miracle wheat" fraud. He was considered "the faithful and discreet servant" appointed to give the
faithful "meat in due season" as per the parable of Christ. The only meat he ever provided was
baloney, but try and tell them that. And of course the Catholics have their living oracle, the Vicar of
Christ a/k/a the Holy Father, and Teacher of all Christendom, his Lordship the Pope. This man is
worshipped and adored (they might deny it, but our eyes do not deceive us). They kiss his foot and any
other part they can get a hold of! He gives revelations from the "Chair of Peter" that are as binding as
the Bible to them. These include such gems as Pope Callixtus III excommunicating Haley's Comet!

 Now I ask, if Oneness is a cult, where is our Pope? Where is our "Founding Father" who could say no
wrong? What inspired Prophet do we follow, who dispenses extra Biblical revelations to the
"faithful"?   There is no such Personality cultus in Oneness. We follow Jesus Christ and him Only. For
this we have even been ridiculed as "Jesus Onlys."   We have no Joe Smith or Ellen White; only Jesus
Christ. Aquinas, whom Dr- Boyd cites for authority, was a firm defender of the Pope's Supremacy as
the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, even using forged documents to substantiate it! Augustine,
another favorite of Dr. Boyd and other Trinitarians, summed up his confidence in the Pope in these
words: "Rome has spoken, case closed." Oneness invests no one but Christ with such authority.
 

ORGANIZATIONAL EXCLUSIVENESS

All Cults teach you must belong to their "organizational to be saved.  They tolerate no sister
organizations or independent congregations. They are convinced their organization is the "one true
Church." They are "it"! Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be "God's theocratic Organization"
directly guided by the "144,000" spirit rulers in heaven. All must come into it to be saved. Everything
else is "Babylon the Great." If you leave the Kingdom Hall you are an "evil slave.'' Seventh Day
adventists are convinced they are "the Remnant Church" of Revelation 12. All others are "Babylon"
(they have one too!). Soon the issue will be clearly revealed and Christ will return for his 144,000
(they have theirs also!), all of whom will be Seventh Day Adventists! Christian Scientists must all be
connected to the "Mother Church" in Boston. This is God's only established Organization of which
Mother Eddy is the foundress. It is a religious octopus and just as deadly. The Mormons claim all of

292
Christianity had become "Apostate" until Joseph Smith "restored" the one true Church and labeled it
("with divine inspiration" of course), "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Outside of
this organization and its "temples" one cannot be saved. Even members of the "Re-Organized Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" over which Smith's own family presided, are considered "lost.''

 Herbert Armstrong's group is the same way.  You either belong to the "Worldwide Church of God" or
you are lost. Armstrong had planned to take the members of "his church" to the desert of Austrailia to
escape the Great Tribulation he predicted for 1975. Needless to say neither arrived. And of course the
Catholics always insist "Extra ecclesia, nulla salus," "outside the Church, none are saved." And they
mean the Catholic heirarchy by that. They claim to be the only organization that has the "earmarks" of
being the one Christ founded. They make much of "apostolic succession" to prove this. And all of
these cults do not permit local congregations to own their own "property." All deeds are invested in the
central organization. This is part of their control. You can leave, but they keep the property!

 How different and "uncultic" is the Oneness Movement in contrast to the aforementioned groups?
Neither the UPCI nor the PAW claim their organization is the one true Church.  No oneness group
claims that their "organization" is the only "organization" and that all must belong to it to be saved.
Besides the UPCI and the PAW, there are many other Oneness groups worldwide, plus thousands of
independent congregations. A11 of them are sovereign and for the most part enjoy good fellowship,
one with the other.  -- None claim to be the "remnant Church" or the "only Organization" without
which one cannot be saved. Neither does the UPCI or the PAW own the local church property. The
property is always invested in the hands of the local congregation, unlike cults who wish to own and
control everything.
 

ESOTERIC AND DIETARY HOLINESS STANDARDS

 Cults characteristically bind their members with "off the wall" requirements for salvation, or what
they call "Holiness" or "perfection In other words they invent "new gospels" to take care of "new
sins." Jehovah's Witnesses must "publish" to be saved. This is translated into selling Watchtower
subscriptions and placing books. They are baptized as a "symbol of their dedication to Jehovah" -
something about which the scriptures are deadly silent. Their "Holiness standard," which oddly
enough used to permit tobacco, and still permits alcohol, revolves around rejection of blood
transfusions and flag salutes. Even though the Bible says nothing about either, failure to obey leads to
loss of salvation. The Mormons have an elaborate gospel of works, leading to all kinds of after-life
kingdoms, celestial, terrestrial and otherwise. To be saved one must perform "temple endowments," be
married for "time and eternity," submit to "baptisms for the dead" and so forth. Their Holiness
standard consists of such bizarre requirements as wearing special "Mormon underwear," and drinking
nothing that is "hot" (coffee, tea, etc.). Anything that could be more unscriptural is hard to imagine:
getting into heaven by your BVD'S! "Holiness" in Christian Science consists of refraining from any
medical treatment or medicine, including an aspirin. Mrs. Eddy once taught that with enough "faith"
one wouldn't even have to wear extra clothes in the winter (or any at all!), and that it made no more
sense to give an infant a bath in water, than to dry off a fish! For salvation in this religion, you read
Science and Health and then do the best you can to kill yourself through medical neglect. Armstrong's
cult requires members to observe the Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, the new moons, abstain from

293
pork, rest on Saturday. Meanwhile he was gallivanting around with a bride forty years his junior and
who tried to have him "committed!"

 Seventh Day Adventists try to present an "evangelical image," but they are not.   Anyone found eating
"swine's flesh" at the coming of the Lord will be destroyed. Anyone worshipping on Sunday will find
out its "the mark of the beast." Their movement is laced with dietary "holiness" requirements. Ellen G.
White would have everyone eating fruits, grains, and nuts. Meat is frowned upon as "unclean." I was
in a Seventh Day Adventist Book Store in Orlando, Florida near Thanksgiving once when the
"faithful" were placing their orders for "soy bean turkeys." What has this got to do with Christianity?

 This is salvation and Holiness among the "cults."   This contrasts sharply with the Oneness position.
Our gospel is exactly that which the Apostles preached: repentance, water baptism in Jesus Name, and
reception of the Sprit (Acts 2:38, Acts 10: 44-48, Acts 19:1-6). What part of our Gospel message is
"cultic"? Absolutely none! We have no "temple rites," "magazine quotas" or "soy bean turkeys." All is
in strict accordance with apostolic preaching.  Our Holiness Standards are also entirely based on the
New Testament. Our hair standard was laid down under divine inspiration by the Apostle Paul (I Cor.
11:14-15). Our position concerning modest apparel, jewelry and adornment, was not "invented" by us,
but decreed by the apostles in two places (both "didactic" if you please). Anyone can read them in the
Bibles you don't need any other "holy" book (I Peter 3:3-4, I Tim. 2:9-10). Our stand against the body
defiling use of tobacco and alcohol, which inevitably leads to untold misery and death, is likewise
scripture based (I Cor 3:16-17, II; Cor. 7:1; Rom. 13:13; I Cor. 5:11). What does Dr. Boyd advocate
that we should do to shed our "cultic" image? Should we equip our pews with ashtrays as one
"modern" church in New York did? Or should we open up a "bar" in the basement as another one did
in Washington? One "very liberal" Church in San Francisco even helped to host a "Prostitutes'
convention"! Once you depart from Bible authorized Holiness and its enforcement, and start down the
slippery slope of "cultural relativism," all manner of wickedness will find a roosting place in the
church house. The Oneness believers have no intention of going that "route," regardless of who calls
us a "cult." So be it!
 

DENIAL OF CHRIST 'S FULL DEITY

 All cults tamper with the deity and life of Christ, and reduce Him to something less than what the
Bible says He is. Jehovah's Witnesses declare him to be a creature and nothing more. On earth He was
a mere man, no divine nature at all. They teach his body may have been "dissolved" into gases in the
tomb, and that His Second Coming took place invisibly in 1914. Mormons proclaim Christ as A God
among a multitude of other Gods that rule different planets. He was the spirit offspring of Elohim.
What's more, all Mormon males are destined to become gods equal to Jesus Christ. Brigham Young
taught that Christ was actually Adam, and fell into sin that we might be blessed! They also believe that
Jesus married Mary and Martha at the wedding of Cana! They propagate other blasphemies
concerning our Lord to shameful to repeat. Christian Science teaches that the Christ was a "principle"
or divine idea, separate from Jesus of Nazareth. They boldly declare that Jesus Christ did not "come in
the flesh" thereby falling under the censure of John who declared: "And every spirit that confesses not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Anti-Christ, whereof you
have heard that it should come..." (I John 4:2). Armstrong also taught that Jesus is one god among
many and that all his followers will become "gods" equal to Christ. God is "expanding his family" is

294
the way he put it. He also believes that Jesus' body was "disposed of" in the tomb, and that only a
"spirit" emerged on that first Easter morning. Seventh Day Adventists are working hard to cover up
their former teachings about Christ. One of their early books, "Christ and His Righteousness," by
Elder Waggoner, which I have on my library shelf, taught the Arian heresy concerning Christ. Ellen G.
White also taught that He had a fallen, corrupt and sinful human nature. They have performed
linguistic somersaults to try and "re-interpret" her words, but to no avail. They wish they could "throw
them out" but they don't dare; remember it was not "an erring mortal speaking, but God!" So they
swallow hard and make the best of it.

 How different is the Oneness view of Christ.  We believe in his absolute deity, and his sinless
manhood. We believe in his literal virgin birth and his bodily resurrection from the dead. We
hopefully await his visible and glorious return. We fully accept his atoning work on the cross and his
present intercession. Where do we have anything in common with the aforementioned abominations
propagated by the real cults in America? We are totally Biblical respecting the Person of Christ.  Is it
wrong and "cultic" to teach that in Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"? If it is then
Apostle Paul was a "cult master" for he taught it in Colossians.
 

WHAT THE "DICTIONARY OF CULTS" SAYS

 A new book by George a Mather and Larry A Nichols entitled "Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions,
and the Occult" has a rather lengthy article on Oneness Pentecostalism. This book carries an
endorsement and foreword, by Ronald Enroth, whom Dr. Boyd refers to as an "expert" on the subject
(Boyd, p. 232). On page 216 the "Dictionary" has this to say about Oneness and their belief in Christ's
deity:
 
"As has already been shown, however, its Anti-Trinitarianism is not an expression of bias
against the deity of Christ. Ironically the opposite is true. A strong case is made for the
absolute deity of Jesus as God. For this reason, some Oneness advocates are more willing to
acknowledge Trinitarians as being true Christians then are most Trinitarians willing to return
the favor" (Dictionary of Cults, p. 216).
 Quite an admission, is it not? This so called "Oneness Cult" makes a Strong case for the "absolute
deity of Jesus as God"! Do the Jehovah's Witnesses make such a "strong case" with their "creature
doctrine"? Do the Mormons make a strong case with their "god among gods" doctrine? How about the
Christian Scientists with their "phantom Jesus"? Are they making a strong case? This alone proves
Oneness is in no way a cult; for what cult ever made a "strong case" for the absolute deity of Christ as
God?

 So under what possible justification are we listed in a "cult dictionary"? For not accepting "tradition"
and the Creeds of the Fathers. Listen as they explain:
 

"Because Oneness rejects the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and invests the
Sacrament of baptism with a theology unlike any believed, taught, or confessed within the
ranks of orthodoxy throughout the centuries, it must in the last instance be regarded as being a

295
 heretical sect by all Christian Churches that uphold the Ecumenical Creeds'' (Dictionary of
Cults, p. 216).
We are an heretical cult because we do not accept the "traditional doctrine of the Trinity." Tradition is
now the yard stick of truth, just like the Roman Catholics have always insisted. Never mind that we
made "a strong case for the absolute deity of Jesus as God" That's just "biblical" and doesn't count! We
have dared to reject the tradition of Catholic "church fathers," hence we are a sect.
 
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For
laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... (Mark 7:7-8).
We are also classed as a cult for investing the Sacrament with a theology unlike any "believed, taught,
or confessed within the ranks of orthodoxy throughout the centuries." We baptize for remission of
sins. We did not "invest " baptism with "theology," Christ did in Mark 16:16 and Luke 24:47.   Was
He "outside the ranks of orthodoxy?"  Peter preached baptism for "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Was
he outside "the ranks of Orthodoxy" also? Paul also preached it (Titus 3:5, Acts 22:15-16). Was he
"unorthodox" and "outside the ranks?" At this rate there is going to be more "outside" the ranks than
"inside!" Perhaps however our use of the name of Jesus is the "Unorthodox" investiture they are
referring to. Again, we did not make this investment either. It was Christ who made his name a
prerequisite for obtaining remission of sins through baptism (Luke 24:47). And to this all the prophets
agreed (Acts 10:43). Peter employed the Jesus Name formula (Acts 2:38, 10:48), so did Phillip (Acts
8:16), as well as Paul (Acts 19:5-6). Were they all "unorthodox" and outside the ranks? History shows
that Baptism in Jesus Name was continued for at least 200 years after the Apostles. All learned
scholars of Church history admit it was the Original formula. The Encyclopedia Britannica says it was
the original formula. The Catholic Church itself admits that the Jesus Name formula was the first and
only one employed in the Apostolic Church age. Therefore, why should Oneness believers receive the
label of "heretical sect" for following the oldest original baptismal formula? Is it "heretical" to
conform to New Testament practice? And what is so heretical about employing the name of Jesus? It
is the "name above every name" (Phil.2:9), the only name "given under heaven" (Acts 4:12), and the
name in which we are to do all, "both word and deed" (Col. 3:17). If that be heresy, we are in good
company.

 But apparently our greatest crime that indicts us as heretics is that we do not "uphold the Ecumenical
Creeds." It would be easier to pin jello to the wall than to make that charge stick. Since when is it
heretical not to endorse "extra-biblical" writings? I thought one had to conform to the Bible and the
Bible Only. None of these so called "Ecumenical Creeds" were written by the Apostles, not even the
one which bears their name. They have been "tampered with" as in the case of the Nicene Creed, to
which the Catholic Church added the "filogue" clause, and thereby split Christendom in half. The
councils that produced these creeds were anything but pious. They were rife with fights, disorderly
brawls, screaming sessions, and even murders. One was dubbed the "Council of Robbers" by the Pope
himself! Nicea had its creedal statement dictated by an unbaptized Emperor who threatened with
banishment all who would not sign. And then he reversed himself on the whole thing a short time
later. The Creed of Chalcedon calls Mary "the Mother of God." Must we now "uphold the Ecumenical
Creed" which contains that pagan blasphemy to avoid the stigma of heresy? We consider it an honor to
be outside such creeds, and inside the Bible! The real heretics are the Neo-Trinitarians which presume
to teach the evangelical world such ideas as: the virgin birth was not related to Christ's Sonship, that it
isn't a necessary belief; that the Father and Son are not literal, that they are only "like" a father and
son; that God suffered and died, that "cultural relativism" takes precedence over the Word; that

296
behavior, no matter how wicked, is not related to salvation; that doctrine is only in didactic portions of
the Bible, etc., etc. These doctrines of demons are the real heresies. We in Oneness are proud to reject
and oppose such Hell-inspired notions. We condemn them, jot and tittle, in Jesus' Name.  We will hold
to our apostolic heritage, regardless of what others wish to label it.
 

 Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her...Many
pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot (Jeremiah 12:9-
10).
Every plant which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooted up (Matt. 13-15).
 The "Dictionary of Cults" shows its bias by the fact that it completely omits any reference to the
Seventh Day Adventist Church and their "inspired" Prophetess, Ellen G. White. This is a church which
"forbids the eating of meats" which Paul labeled a "doctrine of devils" (I Tim- 4:1-3).  It requires
Saturday keeping or you'll have the mark of the beast, and a host of other heresies like no eternal Hell;
soul sleep; investigative judgment; "remnant church", etc. The whole thing was built on the false
prophecy that Christ would return in 1844. Ellen White wrote more "inspired" bibles than they can
read. Yet in spite of all these cultic trademarks, they don't even get a mention.  Why? Could it be
because they have left their earlier Godhead teachings, and are now "upholding the Ecumenical
Creeds" like the good Trinitarians they are?
 

SIGNIFICANT ADMISSIONS

 A recent publication by the Assemblies of God has brought to light some very significant and startling
information concerning the Oneness issue. Edith Blumhofer in her fearlessly honest presentation of
Early Pentecostalism entitled, "The Assemblies of God," has disclosed a letter from her church's
archives that makes a remarkable admission.
 

ONENESS MORE SPIRITUAL, IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH THE LORD

 I now quote from her book in which she cites a letter from John G. Lake, famous Trinitarian
Pentecostal evangelist, to Charles Parham; Ms. Blumhofer writes:
 
"Some years later, when several of American Pentecostalism's early leaders expressed
disappointment about the Pentecostal movement's general course, they considered the Oneness
segment with favor. In spite of their own rejection of the central Oneness doctrine, they found
among Oneness people 'more genuine spirituality' than in any other segment of
Pentecostalism: 'The mere fact of their emphasis of Jesus that the other divisions of the
movement regard as extreme has tended to bless them in that it has brought them into close
touch with the Lord's life and Spirit' " (Edith Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God, p. 228,
quoting John G. Lake to Charles Fox Parham, 24 March 1927, 2-3, Assemblies of God
Archives).
 

ONENESS MORE CHRIST CENTERED, MORE PENTECOSTAL

297
 Ms. Blumhofer continues her analysis of Oneness spiritual life through comparison with the
Trinitarian wing of the movement. On page 238 she writes:
 
"Although its doctrinal distinctives distanced it from the mainstream of classical
Pentecostalism, from another perspective its adherents must be understood as participants in a
valid expression of Pentecostal experience. And the doctrinal departure aside, if one admits the
strong restorationist component at the heart of the definition of Pentecostalism, Oneness
proponents were more zealously restorationists, more doggedly congregational, and more
Christ-centrically spiritual -- in short, in some important ways more essentially Pentecostal
than the mainstream" (ibid, 238).
 

ONENESS HAS EXPLICIT NEW TESTAMENT PLAN OF SALVATION

 Even the Oneness plan of salvation is reviewed very favorably and declared to be based on an explicit
reading of the New Testament. She writes:
 
"Their view of the salvation process (which incorporated speaking in tongues) was based
explicitly on their reading of the New Testament. Radical restorationists before them who had
appealed only to Scripture as the source of truth (like Alexander Campbell, or Barton Stone)
had also been uncomfortable with Trinitarian language... In a sense, those who left the General
Council were accusing it of forsaking the apostolic faith" (ibid, 238).
 

IS THIS THE BODY OF CHRIST?

 Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that he would build his church. The word church is in the "singular." He
did not say He would build several churches or establish a series of denominations. The church is said
to be the "body of Christ," (I Cor. 12:12) and of course Christ can have but one body (I Cor. 12:20).
This body or church is also called "the Kingdom of God" (Rom. 14:17). The entrance into this body or
kingdom is declared to be through baptism (I Cor. 12:13, John 3:5). Therefore somewhere in the world
there must exist a people who constitute the true body of Christ and have entered it through a true
baptism. Where amidst the hundreds of different denominations is it possible to locate the true church?
Which, among all the claimants, is the rightful heir?

 Jesus did not leave the honest seeker for truth in the dark concerning this matter. He gave definite
identifying marks whereby we could locate His true body. He placed indelible prints on His true
church that could not be removed, nor duplicated. Though there are many who claim to be the "true
Church" only Oneness Pentecostals can produce the identifying marks. You may search your Bible
from cover to cover, but you will find no other group of people that line up to the "ancient landmarks"
as do Oneness Pentecostals. For this reason some have attempted to move the "landmarks" (Prv.
22:28). That is why you hear of groups claiming to be the rightful "Kingdom of God" because they
keep the Saturday Sabbath, or go door to door, or have a Melchisedec priesthood, or honor the Virgin
Mary, or have "Apostolic Succession." But Christ never said any of these things were the signs that
identify the church. Let us examine the Bible marks and see what people they describe.
 

298
 IT MUST START AT THE RIGHT PLACE

 The true Church was to start in the city of Jerusalem, in Israel, and no place else. Jesus said
repentance and remission of sins would be preached among all nations beginning at Jerusalem (Luke
24:47). If a group claiming to be the true church traces its founding to any other place, its claim is
false. This eliminates many "aspirants" right from the outset. The Jehovah's Witnesses began in
Allegheny, Pennsylvania. The Mormons began in New York State. Christian Science had its founding
in Boston, Massachusetts. The church of Christ was birthed in Kentucky. The church of God was
founded in North Carolina. The Baptists trace back to Holland. Catholicism first saw the light of day at
Rome. Methodism got off the ground in England, as did the Episcopal Church. On and on it goes.
Check any unbiased encyclopedia as to these facts and you will see it is so. None of them began at the
"starting line" of Jerusalem.

 What about Oneness Pentecostals? I would like to quote from the well known reference work
"Handbook of Denominations in the United Stated" by Frank S. Mead, sixth edition, page 211- The
article is entitled "Pentecostal Assemblies of the World," and deals with the first group of organized
Oneness believers in this country. Mead who is not a Pentecostal, has this to say:
 

"Origin is traced directly back to Pentecost AD 33."

(And as every Bible student knows, that took place in Jerusalem}.

 The Minute Book of the P.A.W. substantiates this. The Preamble states:
 

"The 'Pentecostal Assemblies of the World' is a continuation of the great revival that began at
Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost AD 33, and is founded upon the Apostles and Prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone (Acts 2:1-12, Eph. 2:19-20). Although the
true followers have been little known yet from that time until now there have always been
earnest contenders for the 'faith which was once delivered unto the saints' " (Minute Book of
the P.A.W., Preamble).
 The United Pentecostal Church International is the largest Oneness body in the World. They too trace
their roots back to the Jerusalem Revival with the following statement taken from the Foreword of the
Manual of the UPCI:
 
".. on the day of Pentecost, while the disciples were in the upper room praying and
worshipping God, '...suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,
and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them the utterance."  (Manual
of the UPCI, foreword).
 

IT MUST START AT THE RIGHT TIME

299
 The true body of Christ is a first century creation. Christ said it would not only begin in Jerusalem,
but it would begin there shortly after his Ascension.
 
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.
He spoke those words in 33 AD.

 The denominations in existence today did not have their origin at that time. The Baptists began in the
16th century as "Anabaptists" in Holland. The Methodists began in the 18th century. The Mormons
and Church of Christ began in the early l9th century, as did also the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
The late nineteenth century saw the emergence of Christian Science and Jehovah's Witness. Although
the Catholic Church claims a "first century origin,'' history reveals that her peculiar doctrines and
papal supremacy did not begin until the 5th century. Her sister, the Episcopal Church, split from her in
the 16th century. It was in that century also that the Lutheran and Reformed Churches came into
existence. First Century Origin cannot be attributed to any of them.

 Oneness roots go back to the first century, to 33 AD. As previously cited:

 

"Origin is traced directly back to Pentecost 33 AD" (Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the
United States, 6th ed., p. 211).
"The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World is a continuation of that great revival that began at
Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, Ad 33..." (Minute Book of the P.A.W., Preamble).
The Manual of the UPCI, after mentioning the establishing of the true church at Pentecost 33 AD, adds
this:
 
"... approximately 36 years later, Jude noticed a falling away, and urged the people to
'...earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.' Through the
centuries which followed there were only a few who received this wonderful experience of the
infilling of the Holy Ghost. Truly it was a day that was neither clear nor dark." (Read Zech.
14:6).
 At various intervals throughout the past centuries, the followers of the Apostolic faith and doctrines
have become prominent through great revivals that have appeared in Great Britain, United States and
Canada.
 
 "In the days of Tertullian (AD 207) Chrysostom (4th Century), Christians of the 13th Century,
the early Quakers, Wesley, Whitefield and Irving, the gifts and manifestations of the Apostolic
Church were much in evidence as the revival spirit swept over the country.
 "During the last 21 days of the l9th Century, a band of earnest, hungry-hearted ministers and
Christian workers in Bethel Bible College, Topeka, Kansas, called a fast, praying earnestly for
a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which to their joyful surprise, came upon them in the
early hours of the morning, on January 1, 1901. The people were heard speaking in other
languages as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance, just as happened on the Day of Pentecost..." 
This is scripturally and historically the same revival that began at Pentecost 33 AD. (Manual of
the UPCI, Foreword).
 

300
 IT MUST HAVE THE RIGHT FOUNDATION

 Jesus said if a house was not built on the right foundation, namely a rock, it would not stand (Matt.
7:24-27). He also said that "every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted
up" (Matt. 15:13). What then is the "true foundation" upon which the "true church" is planted? Jesus
must be the founder, for he said: "I will build my church" (Matt 16:18). The Bible also says we are
"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief
cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). The true church not only has Jesus for its founder, but is also Apostolic, that
is, follows and obeys the teachings of the Apostles. And this includes the Apostle Peter to whom
Christ said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..." (Matt. 16:18)

 The denominations were not founded by Christ, neither are they Apostolic in teaching. In fact most
vigorously oppose and deny what the Apostles taught, especially as it pertains to water baptism,
tongues, and Holiness. The Jehovah Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell and hate the
Apostolic teaching concerning water baptism in Jesus Name and Holy Spirit Baptism. Russel had been
a haberdasher, and should have remained so! The Seventh Day Adventists were founded on the
prophetic blunders William Miller and the false visions of Ellen G. White. A teenage boy named
Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church after some trips to the woods in which he "saw" Christ,
John the Baptist, Elijah, golden books (which "disappeared"), God Himself and an assortment of
various and sundry angels! What would you think if your kid came home with stories like that! Both
Seventh day Adventists and Mormons "claim" to believe in the Apostolic teaching on tongues, but
promptly disfellowship any one who does practice it! Sheer hypocrisy. They also fight against the
Apostolic doctrine of Baptism in Jesus Name. Christian Science was founded by the much married
Mary Baker Eddy, and is in "another world" as far as Apostolic teaching is concerned. Baptists were
formed by Menno Simons, the Methodists by John Wesley, and the Episcopalians by Henry the
Eighth, who was "six times wedded, two died, two divorced and two beheaded!").  All of these
humanly founded groups claim to be "lined up with the Bible," but they too will have nothing to do
with the Apostolic foundation of Jesus Name Baptism or true Holiness, outward or inward! Most of
them also oppose the Apostolic message of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, or if they do permit it, it
must be on "off hours." The Catholic Church claims Christ as founder, but history doesn't bear them
out. How could a church whose Pope is called "Holy Father" be founded by Christ who said: "Call no
man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9)? Christ had
nothing to do with the start of such a church as that.

 The Oneness Church has Jesus Christ for its founder, and the Apostles for its foundation. In fact, we
are often called "Jesus Onlys" and "Apostolics." The Preamble to the P.A.W. Minute book says:
 

"The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World is the continuation of the great revival that began at
Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, AD 33, and is founded upon the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone" (PAW Manual,
Preamble).
There is no person, prophet, pope, or President, of any kind, that Oneness honors as its founding
Father. We only have Christ for our founder. We have no "Ecumenical Creed" or "catechism" or extra
biblical revelation from which we derive our doctrine. Our teaching is that which the Apostles gave us.
We are the only group of people following the Apostles teaching concerning baptism in Jesus Name

301
(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5, 10:48, 4:12 etc.) and Bible Holiness standards (I Cor. 11:14, I Tim 2:9, I Peter
3:3, I Cor. 5:11). If the other denominations are on "apostolic foundation" why don't they follow what
the apostles taught? Oneness is also the only body of believers that reconciles biblically the teaching
of Christ on water baptism in Matt. 28:19 with the practice of his apostles in the book of Acts. For we
know and teach from Scripture that "The Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
is "Lord Jesus Christ."  All other denominations are in a quandary about this. Only Oneness can accept
both; that is why we are on the "foundation of the Apostles" and "Jesus Christ." The Manual of the
UPCI says the following:
 
"With the coming of the Holy Spirit, the word of the Lord became a new book. Truths which
had been hidden for many years were made clear. In the year 1914 came the revelation on the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The pivotal doctrines of the absolute deity of Jesus Christ and
the baptism in His name became tenets of faith. God marvelously confirmed our message as
the Gospel was preached in its fullness. The power which was hidden in the Name of Jesus
began to be revealed. Literally thousands were rebaptized into the name of Jesus Christ, and
multitudes received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit while in the waters" (Manual of the UPCI,
Foreword).
 
 

DATE, ORIGIN, FOUNDERS OF VARIOUS CHURCHES

NAME YEAR FOUNDER(S) ORIGIN

APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL 33 JESUS CHRIST JERUSALEM
LUTHERAN 1524 MARTIN LUTHER GERMANY
EPISCOPALIAN 1534 HENRY VIII ENGLAND
PRESBYTERIAN 1560 JOHN KNOX SCOTLAND
BAPTIST 1600 JOHN SMYTH AMSTERDAM
CONGREGATIONAL 1600 ROBERT BROWN ENGLAND
METHODIST EPISCOPAL 1739 JOHN & CHARLES WESLEY ENGLAND
PHILIP OTTERBEIN & MARTIN
UNITED BRETHREN 1800 MARYLAND
BOEHM
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST 1827 THOMAS & ALEXANDER CAMPBELL KENTUCKY
MORMON 1830 JOSEPH SMITH NEW YORK
SALVATION ARMY 1865 WILLIAM BOOTH LONDON
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 1879 MARY BAKER EDDY BOSTON
FOUR-SQUARE GOSPEL 1917
AIMEE-SEMPLE McPHERSON LOS ANGELES
 
 
ONLY ONENESS PENTECOSTALS CAN TRACE THEIR DOCTRINAL ROOTS BACK TO THE
CHURCH THAT JESUS CHRIST FOUNDED.

302
  

IT MUST HAVE THE KEYS

 In order to get into a house, one must be admitted by someone who has the "keys." In order to enter
the true church, one must go in at the right door, and that door must be opened by someone who has
the "keys." Jesus said to Peter:
 
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).
Further more Christ said:
 
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven (Matt. 16:19).
This authority was later expanded to include all of the true church, not just Peter (Matt- 18:17-20).
Christ also gave his Spirit-filled followers authority to "remit sin" (John 20:21-23).

 On the day of Pentecost Peter used the "Keys of the Kingdom" to open the door of salvation to the
Jews when he declared,
 

Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).
The door was opened by Peter instructing sinners to repent and be baptized in Jesus Name. This would
produce "remission of sins" and fulfill Christ's words that "repentance and remission of sins" through
water baptism, "should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke
24:47). It is also the way the early church "remitted sin,'' i.e. by baptizing repentant sinners in Jesus
Name. It is not done through means of darkened confessional booths, but through open baptism. Peter
used the same key when he came to Samaria and laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy
Ghost,
 
for as yet he was fallen on none of them, only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord
Jesus (Acts 8:15-16).
Peter used the "keys" again at the house of Cornelius when he preached that through Jesus Name they
could "receive remission of sins." When Cornelius and his household heard those words, the Holy
Ghost fell on them. Peter and the others were astonished "for they heard them speak with tongues and
magnify God" (Acts 10:43-46). Then Peter commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Jesus
Christ (Acts 10:48 RV). Thus Peter used the keys and opened the door of salvation to Jews,
Samaritans, and Gentiles. And they all came in the same way -- repentance, baptism in Jesus Name for
the remission of sins, followed by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost upon the cleansed vessel. Apostle
Paul used the keys in the same way. A careful reading of Acts 19:1-6 will show this:
 
When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spoke with tongues and
prophesied.

303
Phillip the Evangelist also used these salvation keys in his Samaritan Revival:
 
But when they believed Phillip preaching the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were baptized both men and women (Acts 8:12).
Ananias used the same keys when he opened the door of salvation for Paul:
 
And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).
 And Oneness preachers today use the same keys that Peter, Paul, Phillip and Ananias used when they
tell people to repent and be baptized in Jesus Name for the remission of sins and they shall receive the
Holy Ghost. We are the only Church preaching the original "keyed" message. Others tell people to
raise a hand, just come forward, sign a decision card, slip up a finger, swallow the wafer, sell the
Watchtower, serve the Sabbath, or some other man made pseudo-salvation plan. The original Church
has the original message!

 The Articles of Faith of the UPCI says the following under "Fundamental Doctrine ":
 

"The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible Standard of full
salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of
speaking with other tongues as the Spirit give utterance" (Manual of the UPCI).
 The Discipline and Doctrine of the PAW states:
 
"As members of the Body of Christ, which is the true church (Eph. 1:22,23), the Word of God
declares but one way of entrance therein and that is 'by one Spirit are we all baptized into One
body' and that is a baptism of 'Water and Spirit' "(I Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 3:26-28; Rom. 6:3-4;
John 3:5; Acts 2:38) (Minute Book of the PAW).
 

IT MUST BE SEALED WITH THE NAME

 The true body of Christ consists of believers who have been sealed with the Name of Jesus.   In Acts
15:14 we read:
 
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people
for his name.
 The church, which is the true bride of Christ (Rev- 22:17) must take the name of Christ her husband.
How does one receive the name of Jesus Christ? It must be called upon them in water baptism:
 
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is
called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things (Acts 15:17).
When a person is baptized in Jesus Name, the performing minister calls the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ upon them when he pronounces the formula "in Jesus Name" This makes them a member of the
"people for his name." Paul says the same thing:
 

304
 As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Gal- 3:27).
It is this "people for his name" that God is going to "take out" (Acts 15:14). When will this "taking
out" occur? At the rapture, for:
 
in that night there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken; the other shall be left. Two men
shall be In the field, the one shall be taken, the other shall be left (Luke 17:34-37).
Who is the one "taken out"? It is the one "upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord" (Acts
15:14,17). This same body of believers is seen in Heaven with the One Name of God and the Lamb in
their foreheads; the name they received through water baptism:
 
And there shall be no more curse; but the throne 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
(Rev. 22:4).
 This is why the devil will bring a great persecution upon the Jesus Name people just before the Great
Tribulation (and this persecution is even now beginning).
 
But before all these they shall lay hands on you, and persecute you... (Luke 21:12).
Betrayal and death will occur:
 
And ye shall be betrayed... and some of you shall they cause to be put to death (Luke 21:16).
And what is the reason for all this persecution and killing? Jesus gave the answer:
 
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake (Luke 21:17)
It is the stand that the one true church is taking on the "Jesus Name" issue that will stir the devil's
wrath against her. But Jesus has a wonderful promise to the true church, pictured under the code name
Philadelphian in the Book of Revelation. He says:
 
I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. (Rev-
3:8).
This is the door of the Rapture (Rev.4:1, Luke 13:24, Matt. 25:10). This promise is given to the
Oneness body because:
 
thou hast not denied my name (Rev. 3:8)
 
Because thou has kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from hour of temptation,
which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth (Rev. 3:8,10).
The church that has not "denied my name" is the church that is promised to be "kept from the hour," a
reference to the Great Tribulation. Jesus gave a similar promise to those who would be hated "for his
name sake" when he said:
 
and when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your
redemption draweth nigh... Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted
worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man
(Luke l7:23,36).

305
 Jesus is coming back for the same church that he planted in 33 AD. That church baptized exclusively
in the Name of Jesus, and did so for a number of years after the death of the apostles. The following is
a true record of a baptism which took place in Rome AD 100 and was reproduced in Time Magazine,
Dec. 5, 1955:
 
"The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistery door. Standing
waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded
into the pool beside him. 'Credis?' he asked. 'Credo' responded Publius. 'I believe that my
salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I
died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.' Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let
himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear, 'I baptize you in the
Name of the Lord Jesus' as the cold water closed over him."
 

IT MUST HAVE THE SIGNS AND THE GIFTS

 Jesus gave a very clear and unambiguous identifying "flag" whereby the true Church could be
recognized. He mentioned certain "signs" that would follow believers, miraculous signs. These signs
would accompany those who believe in His Name and who teach that baptism is necessary for
salvation. The record of this is in Mark 16: 15-18 where Jesus defines the true Gospel and the signs
that authenticate those who preach it:
 
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And
these signs shall follow them that believe, in my name shall they cast out devils, they shall
speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover (Mark 16:16-18).
 Now what church does this identify? If you were to go into any town and ask any knowledgeable
person where the Church was the believed in Jesus Name, practiced speaking in tongues, believed in
casting out devils, and laid hands on the sick to be healed, would they point you to the Baptist Church?
No, for they don't have those signs. Would they direct you to the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's
Witnesses? Never! Would they send you to the Catholic Church? Of course not. One church and one
church only fits that description, and that is the Oneness Pentecostal Church. But, someone says, the
Assemblies of God and the Church of God believe in tongues, healings, and expelling demons; they
might direct you there. That's true. But when you got to the door and asked the usher if this was the
Pentecostal Church that believed you had to be baptized to be saved, he would tell you no, and direct
you to a Oneness Church! Remember, Jesus not only gave a description of the signs, but He also
defined the gospel they authenticated ("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved").

 God also set certain gifts in the One true Church:

 

And God hat set some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after
that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues (I Cor. 12:28).
Now, God set them in the church; who dares to remove them? The Bible says the true church should
"Come behind in no gift; waiting for the Coming of the Lord" (I Cor. 1:7). So these gifts will be part

306
of the true body of believers till Jesus comes. I don't read anywhere that God "removed" these gifts. In
fact the Bible says they will not "cease" until we see Christ "face to face" in heaven when that which is
"perfect" is come, namely our resurrection. (See I Cor. 13:8,12 with Hebrews 12:22-24).

 Outside the ranks of Pentecost there is a terrible dearth of spiritual gifts. They just don't exist in other
churches. When you ask if they have any of the gifts, they always respond in the natural, not the
supernatural. You hear things like: "Bro. So-and-So has the gift of administering, he runs the men's
bowling team. And Sis.So-and-So has the gift of cleaning: she keeps the church spotless. And her son
has the gift of transportation, he drives the church bus. Oh yes, old deacon What's-His-Name has the
gift of information, he'll tell you anything you want to know about anyone in the church!" And so they
too have their "gifts"'
 

IT MUST BE HOLY

 Holiness is a hallmark of God's true church. You would almost think "worldliness" was the
identifying sign the way some churches preach it. We are living in an age when church members want
no intrusion into their "personal lifestyles.'' They will not tolerate anyone, be it God or man, telling
them what things they cannot do. They have their so-called "freedom in Christ" and will live how they
please and go where they want. If anyone tries to tell them they need to marry the person they're living
with, they quickly snap "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and continue in sin. If they want to take an
alcoholic drink, it's for "their stomach's sake" and down it goes. If they want to dress in their "thigh's
the limit" mini skirt, it doesn't bother them for "God looks at the heart." They have an excuse for every
low standard they sink to.

 But God's true Church is not deceived by this false liberty, which is actually an enslavement to sin.
The true church has separated itself from the world and its lusts:
 

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living
God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Almighty (II Cor. 6:16-18).
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of
the flesh and spirit, perfecting Holiness in the fear of God (II Cor. 7:1).
 Because Oneness does cry out against immodest dress, unscriptural hair style, enslaving alcohol and
tobacco, ungodly T.V. and movies,etc., it is branded "cultic," "performance oriented," and "works
obesessed." They say we are not in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and cite the names of men
like Calvin and Luther, knowing full well that these men held (and enforced!) extreme Holiness
standards far in excess of what Oneness requires. None of these "free-in-Christ" easy believers would
be able to survive ten minutes under the preaching of Calvin or Luther. They would be banished or
burned for their "live as you please" doctrines.

 The Oneness Faith is defying all religious history by maintaining high Holiness standards in every
succeding generation. The Methodists used to disfellowship people for posessing a deck of cards in

307
their homes. Now they endorse abortion, gay rights, and "goddess" worship. What next? While they do
that,we will continue "to follow peace with all men and Holiness, without which no man shall see the
Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

 Christ is coming back for his true church, and she is known by her high standards of Holiness, and
will be so known throughout eternity:
 

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and
his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine
linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints (Rev. 19:8).
 

 
THOSE WHO ARE OBEYING THE SCRIPTURAL COMMAND TO "FOLLOW...
HOLINESS WITHOUT WHICH NO MAN SHALL SEE THE LORD" (HEB. 2:14) ARE THE
OBJECT OF SATAN'S LAST DAY ATTACK.  ONENESS PENTECOSTALS HAVE
STIRRED THE OPPOSITION OF THE RELIGIOUS WORLD BY THEIR REFUSAL TO
COMPROMISE THEIR HIGH STANDARDS.

CHAPTER XXVI
LIVING IN THE LIGHT OF ONENESS

308
 
 
 
THE TIME IS COMING WHEN ONENESS WILL
BE THE ONLY RELIGION ON EARTH.
"...IN THAT DAY THERE SHALL BE ONE LORD, AND HIS NAME ONE." 
ZECH. 14:9

WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING // MODERN EXCUSES // TRUE AND FALSE MIRACLES // SIGNS
CONFIRM THE FULL GOSPEL AND THE ONENESS //  LAME WALK // DEAD RAISED TO
LIFE // NATURE OBEYS, WATERS RECEDE // BODILY PARTS RESTORED // DEAF EARS
OPENED // MIRACULOUS HEALING // BLIND EYES HEALED // DEATH REVERSED //
DUMB SPIRITS CAST OUT // EYES HEALED, WITCHCRAFT DEFEATED // DEAD ARE
RAISED // CANCER CURE SPARKS REVIVAL

309
 READ THE FOLLOWING CASE HISTORIES OF "SIGNS AND WONDERS"
OCCURRING AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED
IN JESUS NAME AND ARE WALKING IN HOLINESS !

WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING

 The true body of Christ has its message confirmed with miraculous demonstrations. We read of the
Early Church that,
 

...they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the
word with signs following (Mark 16:20).

The writer to the Hebrews says:

 

God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and
gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will (Hebrews 2:4).

This was in fulfillment of Christ's promise to his true followers:

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and
greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (John 14:12).
 

MODERN EXCUSES

 Some teach these signs and wonders were only for the Apostolic Age in order to confirm the message
of Christianity to a rationalistic and pagan world. But is our age any less rationalistic or pagan? Is the
Bible so "universally accepted" that no sign or wonder is necessary to convince the skeptics that Christ
is the same "Yesterday, Today and Forever" (Heb. 13:8). Paul taught that these miraculous gifts of the
Holy Ghost would be operative in the True Church right up until the Second Coming of Christ. He
admonished:
 

So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (I Cor. 1:7).

 Others talk of a "transition periods in which these gifts were to operate." This so called Transition
period was supposed to have ended with the death of the last Apostle. This theory is completely
without foundation in the scriptures. The Bible nowhere speaks about a "Transition Period" or a
"Jewish Church." The true Church began on Pentecost and the Gospel was immediately offered "to
them that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). Nothing has changed.
There never was two gospels, or two churches, or two Baptisms!
 

310
 TRUE AND FALSE MIRACLES

 A final objection is usually offered by those whose churches are suffering "power shortages" by
comparing Pentecostal Miracles to those of false religions. But there is a vast difference between
"lying signs and wonders," and the true Power of God. False religions produce "bizarre" and "esoteric"
type miracles, like bleeding statues, weeping Madonnas, firewalkers, and table levitators. All of these
so-called miracles do not relieve human suffering or glorify Christ. They only confirm Idolatry and
Superstition. The miracles wrought by Pentecostals exalt Christ and ease human suffering through the
mercy of God. A prime example recently occurred in India: The evangelist was preaching to a crowd
composed of Moslems and Hindus, both of which were very resistant to the message. A blind man was
brought to the platform requesting prayer.  The evangelist saw his opportunity and seized it. He
commanded the eyes to be opened in the name of Krishna, the Hindu God. Nothing happened. He then
commanded them to be opened in the name of the Prophet Mohammed, for the benefit of his Moslem
listeners. Still nothing happened. Then he commanded the blind eyes to see in the name of Jesus
Christ. To the astonishment of the crowd, the man immediately received his sight, and so testified to
the assembled multitude. Needless to say, many conversions to true biblical Christianity were made
that day as "the Lord confirmed the Word with signs following "
 

SIGNS CONFIRM THE FULL GOSPEL AND THE ONENESS

 The following true incidents, reported and validated from around the world will show that God is still
providing the signs mentioned in Mark 16:20 and Acts 8:6 :
 

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming
the word with signs following. Amen  (Mark 16:20).
And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Phillip spate, hearing and
seeing the miracles which he did (Acts 8:6).
 

LAME WALK

 
 "In 1967, we were conducting a revival for Brother G.F. Hodgson in Glendora, California. A
young woman, Glenda Dunn, came to the altar and received the Holy Ghost. Her husband was
in the Veterans' Hospital in Long Beach. He was paralyzed in one leg, caused from cancer of
the spine. He had to wear a brace from his waist down and walk with a cane. The doctors had
given him approximately six months to live.
 "We asked his wife to bring him to one of our services. He did not have the Holy Ghost or
even believe in God. One night he came to the altar and received the Holy Ghost. He then
wanted to be baptized in Jesus' name.
 "Brother Hodgson asked me to baptize him because he was afraid he couldn't handle Mr.
Dunn with all the braces he had around his waist and legs.
 "When I started to baptize him, the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and I told him that if he
would take off the braces, God would heal him the minute he was baptized. He stated that he

311
 couldn't stand the pain with the braces off. I again told him that God would heal him if the
braces were removed. He then took the braces off, and I helped him into the baptistery and
baptized him in the precious name of Jesus. He came out of the water with the power of God
upon him, and was instantly healed. He climbed out of the tank on his own.
 "Brother William Dunn now weighs over 200 pounds and works twelve hours a day."

 To verify this testimony, Rev. Hodgson has pictures of the young man and his braces. (Rev. R.R.
Robertson)
 

DEAD RAISED TO LIFE

 
 "While traveling on a business trip we came upon a serious car accident. As we parked the car
approximately 100 feet from one of the cars we heard this terrible noise which was from a man
breathing his last breath. By the time we got out of our car and reached the man, he had
stopped breathing. They checked his pulse then covered him with a blanket.

"His son and daughter-in-law reached him before we did, and somehow, through their sorrow,
I felt sorry for them, because my father had passed away just a short time before this. I asked
these people, whom we had never seen before, if we could pray for him, and they gave their
consent. When we had finished praying for him, he raised up. He wanted to know where he
was, and asked to be taken home. This man was 84 years of age" (Rev. Donald Thornton, Lee
Road United Pentecostal Church, Covington, Louisiana).

NATURE OBEYS, WATERS RECEDE

 
 (March 23, 1973). "For two months special services had been announced at Santa Maria,
Davao del Sur. Brother and Sister William Cole were conducting special Holy Ghost meetings
in the Philippines and were present, when Saturday night before the scheduled meeting, the
minister who was making final arrangements for our arrival came to Digos and told us that it
would be impossible for us to reach Santa Maria on Sunday, as the river we must cross
fourteen times was flooded over four feet. He told us he had to swim to get out of the area.

"We stayed overnight, and upon arising in the morning, we prayed that the Lord would go with
us, as we felt we must go as far as possible. In Jesus' name we continued toward the river.
When we reached the river at 11:00 a.m., it was smaller than at any other time we had seen it.
We could jump across the stones without getting our feet wet.

"People were coming from many directions, and more than 300 were present for our meeting.
Among them were 101 who were not filled with the Holy Spirit. Our service began at 1:00
p.m. and lasted until 6:00 p.m. During this five hour period 95 were filled with the Holy Ghost.
We left soon after 6:00 p.m. and returned to Digos.

312
 "Our pastor came out Monday morning and informed us the river was again flooded and he had
to swim to get out. The God of Moses and Joshua is still the same miracle worker today" (Rev.
Carl W. Adams, Missionary to the Philippines).

BODILY PARTS RESTORED

 
 "I would like to tell how the Lord healed me when I got my toe cut off in the lawn mower. I
told my wife to throw the toe over in the garden, but she said, 'No, I'm going to wash the blood
off, tape it back on and the Lord is going to heal it.' At that time I was having a revival in
Atlanta, Louisiana. My wife taped the toe on, and I never missed a night preaching. The Lord
completely healed the toe on my foot and it is on today. Praise the Lord for his power. His
power is just the same today as it was back in 1956 (Miracle received by Mr. McNeely/Rev.
Noah D. Adams (Deceased) UPC, Montgomery, LA).
 

DEAF EARS OPENED

 
 "My son, Winston (Riebel), was born with brain damage and had been sickly all his life. He
had a lot of ear trouble, and had already been through one mastoid operation. Later he had an
ear infection in the other ear, and was becoming deaf. He was using a hearing aid. I had taken
him to an ear doctor, and he said that as soon as the infection was cleared up, Winston would
have to have another mastoid operation. I was sick over this news, for this is a very dangerous
operation.

"At that time, on rare occasions, I would go to church. But one Sunday I had gone to Sunday
School at the Apostolic Church in West Jefferson, and a visiting preacher from California
asked if anyone wanted to be prayed for. I was too timid to take Winston up, so I told him to go
be prayed for. God's Word says for the ministers to lay hands on the sick and that the prayer of
faith shall raise them up. So the ministers prayed for him.

"I'll never forget the look on his face when he came back to his seat. He looked at me, and said,
'Mom, something hit my ear when they prayed for me.' I knew it was God's power. Here was a
child who knew nothing about God, for I had failed to take him to church.

"Two weeks later I again took him to the ear doctor. He examined Winston's ear and said he
couldn't see anything wrong. He took him into another room to examine him further, again, and
again said he couldn't find anything wrong. This was done four times. I finally asked the doctor
just what he meant. He said the ear appeared dry, and needed no operation.

"As I said before, Winston was wearing a hearing aid at this time, and was nearly deaf in his
ear. In the meantime, his hearing aid was broken (God's way of showing me it wasn't needed). I

313
 took him in for a hearing test and found that his hearing had improved. The hearing aid has
never been fixed, and he hears better than I. God never does anything half way.

"A short time after this I started to go to church and God performed the greatest miracle of all.
He gave me the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Praise His
Name! (Rev. Charles Pennington, Apostolic Gospel Church, West Jefferson, Ohio.)

MIRACULOUS HEALING

 
 (1965) "Brother Lianmingthanga at this time was 77 years old and was so very weak in his
body that he could not walk. He had served as a Presbyterian minister in Cachar and Tripura
Districts of North East India for many years. He had worked among very backward people who
were naked and illiterate. His love for the Lord was very great.

"One day this message of Jesus' name baptism and the Oneness of God came to this elderly and
weakened Presbyterian minister. When he heard this news, he studied the Word of God again
on the subject of water baptism and the Godhead. Finally, he was convinced that this was the
truth, and he wanted to be baptized in Jesus name.

"However, he could not walk, and there seemed no way for him to reach the river for the
baptismal service. Then the pastor, Rev. H. Tebawnga, told him that he would carry him on his
back to the river. This he did. On reaching the river they sang songs and worshipped the Lord
for sometime after which a sermon was preached on water baptism and the necessity of
obeying the Word of God.

"Finally, it was time to start the baptizing. One of the members then carried this old man down
into the river and Brother Tebawanga baptized Brother Lianmingthanga in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ. When Bro. Lianmingthanga came out of the water he stood to his feet and
began to worship and praise the Lord. He walked out of the water and to his home. He was
completely healed when he was baptized in the name of Jesus. He is still walking today and
doing all he can for the Lord even at this very old age." (Rev. Harry E Scism, Missionary to
India)

BLIND EYES HEALED

 
 (Miracle received by Mickey Caton) "In June of 1954, my son found a dynamite cap. He took
a plow bolt, which he used for a hammer and hit the cap. The cap exploded and pieces from it
lodged in the back side of his eyes. One eye had a hole in the center, and they told us the other
one was totally blind also. The doctors said that the eye with the hole in it would be removed
the following week. They told us he would be blind for the rest of his life.

314
 "It was very sad knowing that my seven year old son would never see again. When Mickey
went through the house he would walk into everything. This was a hard thing to get used to
because he kept asking me if he would ever see again. When he asked me this question, I
would say, 'Yes son, you will see again.'

"My mother said to me, 'Johnny, God is wanting you to serve him.' At first I put up a fight. The
fight didn't last long before I promised God that I would serve Him. I prayed day and night for
the Lord to heal my son. I was trying to make my way to God by going from church to church.
One day in prayer God showed me a church to go to, so I went to my mother and she helped
me find it. This church was King's Highway Tabernacle, where Brother Romine was pastor.

"I went to church on Labor Day, and never was I in a service like that one. It seemed that
everyone was singing, shouting, and praising the Lord. After the service, I told Brother Romine
about my son's accident, and that I wanted to serve the Lord. He asked me why I didn't get
baptized. That afternoon I was baptized in the wonderful name of Jesus and began tarrying for
the Holy Ghost. Then one December day, as I was driving home from the bank in Farmersburg,
Indiana, the Lord filled me with the Holy Ghost.

"A short time after I received the Holy Ghost Mickey walked up to me and started to talk.
When he approached me, I noticed that he stopped a short distance from me, as he would if he
could see. I said, 'Mickey, can you see?' He said, 'Yes, Dad, I can see again.' People who knew
he had been blind just couldn't believe that he could see again. I would pick up different
objects and he would tell me what they were, then the people knew that God had healed him.

"The following day I took him to the doctor's office, and this was very hard for him to believe
also. The doctor had him read a chart about 15 feet away and he read it with both eyes, not
missing one letter on the chart The doctor said, 'This boy has been healed by a higher power.'
Mickey went back to school and led a normal life.

"He had his eye check-up about a year ago and he has 20-20 vision in both eyes. This was a
small thing for God to do, but to me it's a great feeling. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today and forever" (Rev. Lloyd Romine).

DEATH REVERSED

 
 "In January of 1973, John Dusek, age 10, was riding his bicycle when he was suddenly hit by
a van-bus and dragged approximately fifty feet. John was hospitalized in the Imperial Valley
Hospital in Imperial, California.  He had several broken ribs, both lungs were punctured, and
he had several internal injuries. The doctors gave no hope for him to live. It was all they could
do to keep him breathing, for his lungs kept collapsing.

"We were called and asked to pray for him. I called the saints of the church to pray. We
received a call the next day from his mother telling us the doctors didn't know what had

315
 happened, but that Johnny was completely well. He went home the next day, and the doctors
said it was a miracle of God. Today Johnny is a very healthy boy, thanks to the almighty power
of God" (Rev. R.R.Robertson).
 

DUMB SPIRITS CAST OUT

 
 (April 2, 1970) "In a series of meetings I was holding for Pastor Frank Gable in Sullivan,
Indiana, the Lord had impressed upon me that I should fast a great deal. There were prayer
meetings in the church often, and it was after this that the great move came.

"Dale Kennedy had an acute stutter and, as I understand it, he had been this way most of his
life. It was so bad that when he offered a prayer request it would take a great deal of time.

"The Holy Ghost spoke to me to call this man up front and cast the dumb spirit out of him.
After the laying on of hands I asked him to read out of the Bible, and opened it to twenty-third
Psalm. He read without the slightest stutter or hesitation in his speech. He spoke as any other
man. The people shouted and rejoiced over this miracle.

"During this service a little boy, who was injured at birth, was instantly touched and moved on
by the Holy Ghost to run. Before the service all he could do was walk.

"Later a young man was brought to the front of the church. He could neither hear nor speak. He
was prayed for, and before he left he could do both.

"Going home after the service that night we learned that while we were having a great time in
the Lord, the next door neighbor was awakened by the earth shaking. He thought someone was
blasting the earth with dynamite. But after checking, he found out it was not so, for it was
Sunday night. Someone told him about the happenings at church, and he said, 'That was what
the earth was shaking about.'

"Acts 4:31 says, '...and when they had prayed. THE PLACE WAS SHAKEN...' To God be all
the glory, for He is author of it all (Rev. William L. Sciscoe, Bethel Tabernacle, Racine,
Wisconson).

EYES HEALED, WITCHCRAFT DEFEATED

 
 (1970) "Teshi is a fishing village located on the edge of the great Atlantic Ocean in Ghana.
The humble huts and shelters of the fishermen and their families are huddled together as
though seeking protection and security in closeness. It was to this village that one Ghanaian
pastor was sent with this true gospel. His message was well received by the poor villagers.

316
 "It was in this village that Emmanuel Mensah had been raised. It was in this village that he first
heard about the wonderful power in the name of Jesus Christ. For his own thrilling testimony, I
shall use his own words:

"'Praise the Lord! One day after the usual chatting with some of friends, I went to sleep. In the
morning when I awoke, I could not see! was totally blind!

"'I was immediately taken to Accra Korle Bu Hospital where I was treated for eighteen months.
I was discharged afterwards, but still I could not walk without the help of someone to guide
me. From the hospital I remained in my house for another three months still helplessly blind.

"'Finally, a distant relative came to me and talked to me about Jesus Christ and further
requested that I go with him to his church to receive prayer for my eyes. I consented, and went
along with my hand in his to guide my footsteps.

"'At his church I was told the story about Jesus. When they asked if would give my heart to
Jesus and believe Him for my salvation and healing, I agreed. The preacher then touched my
eyes and prayed. Something like an electric current passed through me and immediately I
yielded all to the Lord. My sight was restored and I was able to walk home alone that day!

"'I had been a fetish man for many years, but I thereby forsook them and yielded them for
destruction. The name of my fetish was called "Ablue," who made me his slave for many years
under his devilish influence. Jesus has now released me indeed from the power of the devil and
restored my sight! I am a fisherman, and since I was healed I can walk all the way to the beach
to help my fellow fisherman for my living.

"'I am really happy with the Lord in the United Pentecostal Church, where I am determined to
remain till death. Praise the Lord.'

"The living testimony of the miraculous power of God still can be seen in the village of Teshi.
Brother Mensah, once again, goes to the beach to earn his living or walks alone to the church
to faithfully worship his Saviour and Healer!" (Rev. Robert K Rodenbush, Missionary to West
Africa).
 

DEAD ARE RAISED

 
 "On an early December morning in 1965, one hundred and thirty-five miles back in the
Liberian Hinterland at the Fassama Mission Station, we sat down to our breakfast, with the
kerosene lamp lit, for there was a severe tropical storm raging, and we had been forced to close
our wooden shutters over our windows because of the heavy rain and wind. The rain was
pounding so hard on the zinc roof that you could hardly hear yourself think. The thunder was
roaring and the lightning flashing everywhere.

317
 "Suddenly, we heard a terrible cracking noise, and knew the lightning had struck somewhere
nearby.  We jumped up from the table, and as we did, we heard some of the boys in the mission
screaming and running toward our house. Our first thought was that the lightning had struck
the boys house, but they were screaming, 'Mother Gruse, Mother Gruse.' We did not have
screens on our windows at that time and I jumped out the window and ran as fast as I could to
Sister Gruse's house in the pouring rain.

"As I ran onto her back porch, a screened shelter on the back of her house, the sight I saw was
heart rending, and the smell of burned human flesh met my nostrils. There on the floor lay the
body of our precious missionary sister, all twisted and drawn. I fell on my knees. By this time,
my wife had arrived and several of the mission students had gathered on the outside looking in
at this sad sight. I felt of Sister Gruse's head and her arms; she was hard and rigid. I looked at
my wife and said, 'She's dead.' My wife started to cry, and I started to get up off my knees. I
have never felt so helpless in all of my life.

"As I started to rise, the Holy Ghost said to me, 'Pray.' I looked at my wife and all the people
gathered outside, and said, 'Let's pray.' Still feeling helpless and desperate, I began to try to
pray, but all I could say was, 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.' As I was saying this, we felt Sister Gruse's
body begin to move. She began to quiver and straighten out slowly from the terrible twisted
and drawn form that she was. Right before our eyes, like a slow motion film, she continued to
straighten her arms and legs, her face, that was so twisted began to straighten and take shape
again. When she had straightened out completely, I put my arm under her and helped her to a
sitting position.

"She was looking up into the heavens and began to talk, not to anyone, but as though she was
in another world. She said, 'Brother Cupples, I was dead. I came out to call one of the boys to
close my shutters (they had to be closed from the outside), and the lightning struck me. I was
dead. I looked back and saw my body lying here on the floor, and I said, 'Lord, I'm coming
home,' and He said, 'No, I'm not finished with you yet.' Then I heard you saying, 'Jesus, Jesus,
Jesus.'"

"We helped her into the house and after checking on our children at our house, my wife went
back and spent some time with her, but there was nothing wrong with her except a little burn
on one of her feet where the lightning had run in. The next day she was up in her attic crawling
around. She continued on in the work there the remainder of that term, and spent two more
terms on the field working for the Lord. This was the most outstanding miracle I have ever
witnessed" (Rev. W.H. Cupples, Missionary to Kenya, East Africa).

CANCER CURE SPARKS REVIVAL

 
 "Mrs. Jacobs, a woman who lives about seven miles outside of Winnfield, Louisiana, had
never heard of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ or of receiving the Holy Ghost with the

318
 evidence of speaking in tongues. She went to Washington and was baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ, and when she returned to Louisiana she received the Holy Ghost.

"In 1949, she had either cancer or ulcers, and the doctor removed part of her colon and
replaced some of it with plastic.

"Early one morning, her husband called and asked me to come and pray for her, saying that she
was of the same faith as I. About five o'clock, my wife and I went to her bedside. All of the
neighbors were there, as they did not expect her to live much longer. I asked all of the
unbelievers to leave the room. When they left, my wife and I anointed her with oil and began
praying. Until then, her eyes were set in her head and she had said not a word. Suddenly, she
jumped out of the bed, ran through the crowd of neighbors, started shouting and speaking in
tongues. The people were astonished.

"Her husband took her to a doctor at Jonesboro, after I left. she was in no pain, but her husband
was worried about her. At Jonesboro, the doctor ordered an enema and, at that time, the plastic
intestine removed itself from her.

"The doctor called an ambulance and transferred her to Confederate Memorial Hospital in
Shreveport, Louisiana. They immediately began to prepare her for surgery by putting tubes
down her throat. She was saying, 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,' when the doctor said, 'Gal, you had
better call on someone that can help you, because we are fixing to cut you almost in two.'

"They put her under the x-ray machine and took a picture. Suddenly they called for the
fluoroscope, and then called more doctors into the room. They rolled her back to her room and
in five days they discharged her, saying that she missed surgery by thirty minutes. The
admitted that they did not know what had happened to the plastic patch that was inside her.

"She looked at the doctor and said, 'Doctor, that man I was calling on while I was in the
operating room was the One who operated on me at five o'clock last Monday.'

"As a result of that healing, within two months, twenty eight people received the Holy Ghost
on her front porch" (Rev. C. D.Bates, United Pentecostal Church, Winnfield, Louisiana).

The preceding incidents were taken from the book Miracles in Our Day, by R.W. Johnson,
Pentecostal Publishing House, Hazelwood, Missouri.
 

319
 
 
 
THOUSANDS AROUND THE WORLD ARE PRESSING INTO THE ONENESS FAITH IN
THESE LAST DAYS. THEY ARE FINDING THAT GOD'S MIRACULOUS POWER IS
STILL AVAILABLE THROUGH THE INVOCATION OF THE NAME OF JESUS, EVEN AS
IT WAS IN APOSTOLIC TIMES. MANY CAN TESTIFY TO HEALINGS, MIRACLES AND
SUPERNATURAL DELIVERANCES THROUGH THE VERBAL UTTERANCE OF THE
"NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME."

CHAPTER XXVII
THE SEAL OF GOD IN THEIR FOREHEADS

320
  
 
 REVELATION, THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER, DEPICTS THE RAPTURED CHURCH
ON MT. ZION UNDER THE SYMBOLIC FIGURE, THE 144,000 THOUSAND "REDEEMED
FROM AMONG MEN". THEY ARE SEALED WITH THE NAME OF GOD IN THEIR
FOREHEAD. THE BIBLE AND EARLY CHURCH WRITINGS REVEAL THIS SEAL AS
THE WATER BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME.

WHO ARE THE MYSTERIOUS 144,000 OF REV. 14?

ARE THEY THE SAME AS THOSE IN REV 7?
WHAT IS THE SECRET OF THEIR "SEAL "?

CONFUSION ON MT. ZION // IDENTIFYING THE 144,000 // THE RAPTURED  CHURCH //

SPIRITUAL NUMBER // THE NAME OF THE FATHER IN THEIR FOREHEADS // BAPTISM IN
JESUS NAME -- THE SEAL OF GOD // CATHOLIC CATECHISM ADMITS BAPTISMAL
FORMULA WAS CHANGED // EARLY CHURCH HISTORY AND THE SEAL OF GOD //
"SHEPHERD OF HERMAS" AND THE SEAL // SEAL OF BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME
CHANGED // THE SEAL OF JESUS NAME BAPTISM -- THE BRAND OF CHRIST! // THE
JESUS NAME BAPTISMAL SEAL IN THE FOREHEAD // KEPT FROM THE HOUR --
THROUGH JESUS NAME // JESUS NAME BAPTISM AND THE BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE //

CONFUSION ON MT. ZION

 No group mentioned in the Bible is as controversial as to identity as the 144,000 John envisioned on
Mt. Zion in the 14th Chapter of Revelation. Everyone claims to be that mysterious host. Jehovah
Witnesses say the 144,000 are "Christ's Theocratic Co-Rulers" (who are currently operating out of the
Watchtower factory in Brooklyn!) Seventh-day Adventists insist the 144,000 are the "spiritual
remnant" of their own Judaizing sect, who abstain from eating swine's flesh and mice! Herbert
Armstrong was prepared to lead his 144,000 to the great Australian "outback!" On and on it goes
ceaselessly. The common evangelical explanation is that the 144,000 will be a select group of Jewish
"super-evangelists" who will lead revival meetings during the Great Tribulation.

 Everyone of the above mentioned notions is false exegetical attempts at cramming a foot into a shoe it
was never meant to wear. The Bible makes the real identity of the 144,000 abundantly clear.
 

IDENTIFYING THE 144,000

 The very first thing one must do to discover the true identity of this fascinating group is to
"distinguish things that differ." It is clear from the text that the 144,000 mentioned in Chapter Fourteen
of Revelation are a completely different group from the 144,000 mentioned in Chapter Seven. This is
the key to unlocking the mystery. Once this is realized, all will fall in place. The 144,000 of Chapter
seven are Jews, sealed "from all the tribes of the Children of Israel" (Rev. 7:4). In contrast, the
144,000 of Chapter Fourteen are "redeemed from the earth" and are selected from "among men." This
is a clear reference to the church (Rev. 5:9-10) and not Israel! The church is always said to be

321
redeemed from among men - every kindred, tongue and nation. Moreover, the 144,000 of Revelation
seven are sealed at the beginning of the Tribulation (Rev. 7:3) in order to immunize them against the
Tribulation plagues through which they must pass (Rev. 9:4). They are clearly on earth during the
Tribulation. However, the 144,000 of Chapter Fourteen are found in heaven, before the throne of God
(Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22), while the Tribulation is raging on earth below and God's wrath is being
poured out (Rev. 14:6-10). They undoubtedly escaped the tribulation.
 

THE RAPTURED CHURCH

 The 144,000 of Revelation 14 are without question the raptured Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They
are the Christian dead who were resurrected and the living who were translated (I Thess. 4:15-17).
They are safe on Mt. Sion, the heavenly meeting place.

 They are said to be "standing" before the Son of Man:

 

And I looked, and lo a Lamb stood on the Mt. Sion, and with him a 144,000... (Rev. 14:1).
This fulfills Christ's promise to the church concerning the Rapture.
 
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these
things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man (Luke 21:36).
Christ said they would "escape" and "stand before the Son of Man," and that's exactly what John saw
them doing on Mt. Sion!

 Again the 144,000 are said to have been "redeemed from the earth" and "redeemed from among men"
(Rev. 14:3,4). This is another direct reference to the Rapture. Christ referred to the Rapture as our
"redemption" and it was to occur at the beginning, not the end, of the Tribulation:
 

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your
redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28).
 The 144,000 of Revelation 14 are called "Virgins" (Rev. 14:4) This means they are spiritually clean
and undefiled from false doctrine and worldliness. The church is referred to in Scripture as a virgin (II
Cor. 11:2); Israel is never so designated in the New Testament. This is also indicative of the rapture,
for in the Parable of the Wedding Feast, when the Bridegroom comes at midnight the five wise virgins
are admitted to the Wedding Feast, and the door is then shut (Matt. 25:6-10). That this is a reference to
the Rapture is made clear by Christ's subsequent addendum:
 
watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh
(Matt. 25:13).
 The 144,000 of Revelation 14 are said to "follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth" (Rev. 14:4). Jesus
said of the Church: "My sheep hear my voice... and they follow me" (John 10:27). Christ was
translated to heaven (Luke 24:51), and his sheep follow him there (I Cor. 15:51-52).

322
 The final proof that we are looking at the Raptured Church in Revelation as they are called "The
Firstfruits unto God and to The Lamb" (Rev. 14:4). The church, as the body of Christ, is part of the
"Firstfruit" resurrection (I Cor. 15:20). This resurrection occurs "before" the tribulation and not
"afterward" when he comes again at Armageddon (I Cor. 15:23; Heb. 9:28).

SPIRITUAL NUMBER

 By now we can infer that the 144,000 of Revelation 7 are Jews who are sealed by God after the
Rapture of the Church, which is depicted by the other group of 144,000 on Mt. Sion in Revelation 14.
The Jews of Revelation 7 replace the raptured church as God's living witness on the earth. God is
never without a witness on the earth. It is also quite evident that the number 144,000 is a symbolic or
spiritual number. It is not a literal tally. 12 raised to the second power (12 X 12) yields 144. This
symbolizes perfection and completion. The Jews of Revelation 7 are the completion and perfection of
Israel. Blindness was to come upon Israel in part, but only until the "Fullness of the Gentiles be come
in" (Rom. 11:25-26). Revelation 7 represents the conversion of "all Israel" mentioned by Paul.
Likewise the 144,000 of Revelation 14 speak to us of the completed and perfected church standing
with Christ in heavenly glory. Even their future home, complete and perfect, is said to be "an hundred
and forty-four cubits" (Rev. 21:17).
 

THE NAME OF THE FATHER IN THEIR FOREHEADS

 The identity of the true church and its qualifying characteristic, necessary for Rapture participation, is
revealed in Rev. 14:1:
 
And I looked and lo a Lamb stood on the Mt. Sion, and with him an hundred and forty four
thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
 The true church scheduled for translation at the appearing of Christ, must have "his Father's name in
their foreheads."

 Before we learn how this name is affixed, let us determine what the name is. The Bible tells us the
name of the Son of God is Jesus (Matt. 1:21). But the Bible also says that He inherited that name (Heb.
1:4). From whom did he inherit that name? Jesus does not leave us in the dark concerning the origin of
his name. He tells us that it is his Father's name... (John 5:43). So the name Jesus, which means
Jehovah-Savior in Greek, is also the Father's name; the name He gave to His Son. So to have the
Father's name in ones forehead is to have Jesus name there. Jesus is the Father's name. This is
abundantly proven by the fact that the Apostles were told to baptize "in the name of the Father and of
the Son" (Matt. 28:19). They fulfilled this by baptizing exclusively in Jesus name (Acts 2:38, 8:16,
10:48, 19:5, 22:16). This proves that Jesus is the "name of the Father and of the Son!" That is why
Rev. 22:3-4 plainly states that "God and the Lamb" have but one throne, one face, and one name! The
name of Jesus is the one name of "God (Father) and the Lamb (Son)!" And this name must be fixed in
the forehead of each and every person who desires to stand on Mr. Sion in raptured glory. The next
thing to determine is how one receives the name "in the forehead."
 

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME - THE SEAL OF GOD

323
 The only way the Bible reveals that the name of Jesus is applied to an individual is through water
baptism in Jesus Name. This is brought out clearly in Acts 15. There we are told that God's purpose is
to actually "take out" from the Gentiles a people for his name (Acts 15:14). This "taking out" will
occur at the Rapture when "one shall be taken, and the other shall be left" (Luke 17:34-36). After this
mostly Gentile bride is taken in Rapture, then God will turn his attention to Israel and "build again the
tabernacle of David" (Acts 15:16). The Apostle James unmistakably reveals to us how this name is
affixed to the people that God is "taking out" from among the Gentiles:
 
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is
called, saith the Lord who doeth all these things (Acts 15:17).
This is accomplished every time the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is "called upon" someone in the
baptismal ceremony. A person may call upon the name of the Lord anytime. But the only time the
name of the Lord is called "upon them" is in the water baptism in Jesus name! When the administrant
says: "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" he has called the name of the Lord "upon"
the immersed candidate. That person then and there has the "Father's name" written in his forehead, is
sealed by God for translation, and will be "taken out" from among the Gentiles as a people "for his
name" at the time of the Rapture. There is no other act, ceremony, or spiritual exercise described
anywhere in the New Testament in which the name of the Lord is so invoked upon a person. This, and
this alone, constitutes the sealing of the Father's true name in the forehead. Substituting the titles
"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" will never qualify as the baptismal seal. Their usage in the baptismal
ceremony represents a departure from apostolic interpretation and usage and renders the entire act
utterly null and completely void. These titles are not the divine name and never will be. The titles were
not used in Christian Baptism until the fourth century.

324
  
 
 
IN THIS CATHOLIC CATECHISM, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECLARES THAT THE
BAPTISMAL FORMULA WAS CHANGED FROM JESUS NAME TO THE TRINITARIAN
TITLES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. EVERYBODY IN THE BIBLE THAT WAS
BAPTIZED, FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO THE EPHESIAN DISCIPLES (THE
LAST RECORDED BAPTISM IN THE BOOK OF ACTS), WAS BAPTIZED IN THE NAME
OF JESUS CHRIST. NOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT NOT ONLY THESE BUT EVERY
CHRISTIAN FOR THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS WAS BAPTIZED IN THE
NAME OF JESUS !!!
 

 This startling quote from an officially approved Catholic work entitled Bible Catechism, abundantly
proves the point:
 

325
 "There is no doubt that a signifying word belonged to the rite of Baptism (bath-immersion-
infusion). There were so many baptisms: The baptism of the proselytes (no. 2), baptism as
initiation to sects (no. 5), the baptism of John (no. 5). Somehow it should be expressed with
whom one was united by Baptism.

"Into Christ. The Bible tells us that Christians were baptized into Christ (no. 6). They belong
to Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) tells us of baptizing "in the name
(person) of Jesus." -- a better translation would be "into the name (person) of Jesus." Only in
the 4th Century did the formula "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit" become customary.

"Although the Church of the Apostolic era did not know the trinitarian baptismal "word" (in
the name of the Father...) but only the Christological one (into the name of Jesus Christ), this
does not exclude the fact that every Christian Baptism is actually a Baptism into communion
with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ( Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D.,
Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164).

 This book, written by a Catholic scholar and sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church, is yet another
'confession' coming out of Rome that they changed the baptismal formula, eliminated the true name of
God, and for Centuries brought to a halt the sealing work of God. Since 1914 however, the truth has
been revealed and God is gathering a spiritual remnant who are standing for his name and have re-
instituted the original apostolic practice of invoking the seal of God's true name in the baptismal rite.
Much opposition is heaped upon this great work, thus fulfilling the words of James, "Do not they
blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called" (James 2:7), and also the prophecy of Christ,
"and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" (Matt. 24:9). In spite of all opposition,
however, Oneness Pentecostal ministers the wide world over are daily pressing forward this great
work of sealing a people "for his name" by baptizing countless thousands of obedient believers in the
name of Jesus Christ.
 

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY AND THE SEAL OF GOD

 The doctrine that water Baptism in Jesus name is the "seal of God" in the forehead is not the esoteric
interpretation of some 20th Century sect. It was part and parcel of the early Christians' understanding
of the baptismal rite. Church history clearly testifies to this.
 

"SHEPHERD OF HERMAS" AND THE SEAL

 The early Christian writing entitled "Shepherd of Hermas" was written in Rome around 140 AD or
probably earlier. It may be the most ancient writing we have from the post-apostolic period. It was
read in many churches of the time and considered as scripture. Paul may have referred to Hermas in
Romans 16:14, thus placing him under apostolic approval. Here is what Hermas has to say:
 
"Before a man has borne the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he has received the
seal he layeth aside his deadness and resumeth life. The seal then is the water; so they go down

326
 into the water dead and they come up alive. Thus, to them also this seal was preached, and they
availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God" (Similitude 9:16.)
Baptism in water in the name of Jesus, the Son of God, is the life-giving seal that admits to the
Kingdom of God according to Hermas.
 

SEAL OF BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME CHANGED

 That the early church considered Baptism in Jesus name the true seal of God is also attested by many
scholars. That this was changed by the apostatizing church is also freely admitted! J.E.L. Oulton
writes:
 
"I submit that the use of the term 'seal' as applied to Holy Baptism underwent a change towards
the end of the second century and in the early years of the third, and that its application as in
'Hippolytus' and as a rule of Clement of Alexandria, to the laying on of hands or chrism or sign
of the Cross as distinct from immersion in water, is not the earliest use, according to which it
meant the baptism in water or the baptismal rite as a whole" (Second Century Teaching on
Holy Baptism, Theology, 1947, p. 88).
 

THE SEAL OF JESUS NAME BAPTISM -- THE BRAND OF CHRIST!

 Dr. Beasley-Murray beautifully sums up the conclusion of scholarship on this subject of Jesus Name
Baptism as the seal of God. Referring to the previously quoted citation from Shepherd of Hermas
concerning Baptism in Jesus Name as the seal, he writes:
 
"The impression gained from this statement is that the seal properly speaking, is the name
stamped on the baptized in his baptism, and that the term has become extended to cover the
baptismal act that bestows the seal. Heitmuller believed that this was part at least of the real
significance of the uttering of the name of Jesus over the baptized and that it reveals the origin
of the conception of baptism as a seal: by setting of the name of Jesus on the baptized it
stamped him as his property - put his brand or trademark upon him! - and set him under his
protection" (Beasley-Murray, p. 174).
 Dr. Beasley-Murray also has some very significant things to say concerning the "seal of the Spirit"
mentioned by Paul in Eph. 1:13 and 4:30. He writes:
 
"Thus the 'seal of the Spirit' is neither baptism in water, nor a baptism of the Spirit divorced
from the rite of baptism; it is the 'baptism of the Spirit' in association with the laying of the
Name of Jesus on a believer in the rite of baptism. This has some interesting consequences.
The association of the 'seal' with the name in baptism, and the parallel teaching in I Cor. 6:11,
12:13, renders untenable the plea of Dix that the seal is given in confirmation. The seal is given
when a man is washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of
our God, even as he is baptized to the one body in the one Spirit" (Beasley-Murray, 174).

THE JESUS NAME BAPTISMAL SEAL IN THE FOREHEAD

327
 The Baptism in Jesus Name is the seal of God in the forehead of true believers. A comparison with
the "sealing work" of Ezekiel, chapter nine, will show many striking similarities. Ezekiel saw great
destruction looming over Jerusalem. But before any of it was unleashed, God "sealed" his righteous
servants in the forehead for deliverance. We read:
 

And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of Jerusalem and set a mark upon the
foreheads of fee men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst
thereof (Ezk. 9:4).

The purpose of the sealing was for divine escape from God's wrath:
 

Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any
man upon whom is the mark... (Ezk. 9:6).

 Dr. Beasley-Murray draws this comparison:

 

"Having considered the probability that the 'seal of the Spirit' is a synonym for the possession
of the Spirit secured in baptism, it may be of value to enquire what connotation this symbolism
had for the early church. That it signified above all the idea of ownership by the one whose seal
is stamped has already been noticed; to be sealed with the Spirit is to be 'branded' as Christ's!
But the really characteristic application of the figure is eschatological, that of applying the
brand mark of Christ in view of the tribulation and Kingdom of the End. The background of
this concept is to be sought in the vision of Ezekiel, chapter nine. Six executioners advance on
Jerusalem with weapons of slaughter and with them a man with a writing case at his side; the
latter is bidden to set a mark on the foreheads of the men who sighed over the abominations
committed in the city and the executioners are commanded to slay all in the city...'but touch no
one upon whom is the mark'" (Beasley-Murray, p. 175-176).

 Therefore, the conclusion that Baptism in Jesus Name was the seal or brand of Christ, necessary for
deliverance from the Great Tribulation and into the Kingdom of God, was a common Christian
understanding in the early years of Christianity. This is attested to by a host of Biblical scholars not
any of whom are connected with the United Pentecostal Church International or the Pentecostal
Assemblies of the World. They are just unbiased and honest researchers who are not afraid to let the
facts, both historical and biblical, speak for themselves.

 Why, in all his convoluted discussion of what "in the name of Jesus" could mean, did Dr. Boyd decide
to ignore this significant contribution by well respected scholars, especially Dr. Beasley-Murray? Dr.
Boyd cannot claim "ignorance" here, for he cites Dr. Beasley-Murray's book, Baptism in the New
Testament, in his footnotes for chapter 6 (Boyd, p. 231). In fact, Dr. Boyd uses Beasley-Murray's book
to argue against the significance of the singular name in Matt. 28:19. But he completely fails to
mention to his readers that Beasley-Murray did not believe that Matt. 28:19 originally contained the
expression "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," and more astonishingly, he utterly neglects to inform his
readers that Beasley-Murray was convinced that the original baptismal formula was "in Jesus Name,"

328
and that much of Dr. Beasley-Murray's book was devoted to establishing that very point! Perhaps like
Paul, Dr. Boyd's "revelation" also contains "unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to
utter," especially if they disprove the very premise he seeks to establish!
 

KEPT FROM THE HOUR--THROUGH JESUS NAME

 Most evangelical Bible scholars are agreed that the seven churches referred to in Revelation two and
three also represent seven historical periods in church history. It is likewise conceded that the Church
of Philadelphia stands for the true body of believers in the last days just prior to the rapture. They are
promised an escape from the Great Tribulation or "hour of temptation" with these words:
 

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of
temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold
I come quickly... (Rev. 3:10-11).

 The church to which this promise is made is characterized by its particular and distinctive stand for
the name of Jesus:
 

For thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my work, and hast not denied my name (Rev 3:8).

 While other Protestant (and Pentecostal) churches freely go along with Romish apostasy in baptizing
in the titles, effectively denying the name of Jesus, The Oneness Pentecostal movements refuses to do
this. Nothing will move them from this great work of sealing the Bride of Christ through water
baptism in Jesus name, in preparation for that great day of translation from this dying world to the
lofty heights of the heavenly Sion No wonder all her rewards are name related:
 

I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God... and I will
write upon him my new name (Rev. 3:12).
 

JESUS NAME BAPTISM AND THE BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE

 Jesus Name Oneness believers are accused of being "obsessed" with the name! "That's all they ever
talk about," our enemies decry. How they mock us for our fascination with this theme. But this very
characteristic, for which they deride us, will mark us as the Lord's raptured jewels. Listen to Malachi:
 

They that feared the Lord spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened and heard it...
(Malachi 3:16).

What were they talking about when the Lord "eavesdropped?" Malachi reveals it,
 

329
 And a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that
thought upon his name (Malachi 3:16).

When you think long enough and hard enough upon the name of the Lord, you will reach the same
conclusion that Peter reached:
 

Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name, under heaven, given
among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

When you realize that, you will also be baptized in Jesus Name for "sealing" and remission of sins!
Then your name will be recorded in the book of Remembrance and the rest of Malachi's prophecy will
be fulfilled in you:
 

And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in the day when I make up my jewels; and I
will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him (Malachi 3:17).

The same pattern, over and over again; sealed through baptism in Jesus Name, spared the wrath of
God!

 At that great day when Christ appears to the "sealed ones" who are "looking for him" (Heb. 9:28), will
also be fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy:
 

Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be
glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed (Isa. 66:5).

 From the hill country of Ethiopia, to the steppes of Russia; from the paradisic islands of the South
Pacific, to the urban dynamos of New York, London, and Rio, thousands upon thousands are now
once again hearing the true Gospel being preached, and the real Jesus being revealed. Not the milk sop
platitudes of the "easy believers" and their "ABC" plans of salvation, nor the reduced Christ of the
"persons" peddlers of Nicea! Rather these fearless preachers of Oneness are offering to every nation,
real Bible salvation. A salvation that includes the apostolic rite of water baptism in Jesus Name which
affixes the Name of God in the forehead and effectively seals them "unto the day of redemption." No
wonder Paul said, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you...let him be
accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).
 

330
 APPENDIX I
THE ATHANASIAN CREED

 
 
 
THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE CREED OF TRINITARIANISM.  ALL WHO READ ITS
CONFUSING AND ILLOGICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CAN SEE WHY TRINITARIANS
CALIM THEIR DOCTRINE IS AN "IMPENETRABLE MYSTERY."
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith
except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding

331
the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and
another of the Holy Ghost. But the Gcdhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all
one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-equal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

"So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they
are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the
Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord, so are we
forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of
none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but
begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not
three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than
another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is
aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped."

APPENDIX II

332
  
 

333
  HERE WE HAVE A PORTION OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE UNITED
PENTECOSTAL CHURCH INTERNATIONAL. THE DEFINITION OF THE GODHEAD
ADHERES STRICTLY TO SCRIPTURAL CATEGORIES AND IS FREE FROM
CONTRADICTORY PHRASEOLOGY.

334