Bloggers failed attempt to correct Dr.Bernard

One blogger to whom on regular basis pen's a blog concerning all things Oneness and attempts to correct said Oneness believers in their exegesis and inform his trintiarain readers of where the Oneness folks have gotten off on their understanding of scripture(rolling of eyes) as I think of so many who do without even engaging real Oneness folks in discussion and trying their doctrines whether or not those things be so.

The following apologetic attempt this time as it has been a few times before is on a couple items written by Dr. David Bernard in his book the Oneness of God and proceeds to inform his readers where Dr.Bernard has gone wrong in his exegesis of a few passages where the trinitarain understanding is far superior(More rolling of eyes)
The following is an excerpt from Bernard's book "The Oneness of God:" where the blogger proceeds to correct.


"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever… God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The first portion of the above passage clearly refers to the deity in the Son, while the second portion refers to the humanity of the Son. The writer of Hebrews is quoting a prophetic passage in Psalm 45:6-7. This is not a conversation in the Godhead but a prophetic utterance inspired by God and looking to the future incarnation of God in flesh. God was speaking prophetically through the psalmist to describe Himself in a future role. " (bold mine)

The Blogger then writes:"The inconsistent nature of this explanation of Hebrews 1:8 is clear. Bernard is quick to attribute humanity to the Son of God, but in regards to His deity He exposes the greatest flaw of oneness theology. No consistent oneness person can affirm the deity of the Son of God".

mlculwell: Of Course we can affirm the deity of the "son of God" because his deity was given the limited man(John 3:34,Acts 2:36,Math.28:18,1st.Cor.15:45) who had a beginning as his humnaity was not eternal. What he means is his unscriptual made up doctrine of "god the son." He actually inverts the biblical term and adds to scripture his own man made doctrine.



The Blogger: "While Bernard affirms the Son's human nature, he denies His divinity thereby selecting his interpretation to suit his presupposition".

mlculwell: I would and can accuse the Blogger of the same thing, scriptually of Course, as there is no "god the son divinity" that he claims we deny. his deity was given as his humnaity had a beginning from his mothers womb.



The Blogger:"While on earth, the Son of God made it abundantly clear that He is indeed the eternal Son, God Himself".

mlculwell: the blogger does not see the clear contradiction and absurd doctrine that he proposes and more than likely does not even care that he does so flying in the face of scripture and common sense(in claiming such nonsense) as an "eternal son" as old as daddy (Eternal)and at the same time the same God as his daddy. Let's be clear! Oneness claim that Jesus is the eternal God but his humanity had a beginning(Not his deity) But their only a few passages that only Oneness believers can present to show whom Jesus deity was and those passages are found in (John 14:10)

The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works.

(2nd.Cor.5:19) God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Not that God was Christ but God was in Christ or God in him (by no measure) made him Christ and Lord(Acts 2:36)

The passages I submitted will be ignored as they always are by trinitarian's and not reconciled to their doctrine....




The Blogger:"Passages that provide a sound basis for this point are often explained away by Bernard in his book, much like what he has done here. Bernard often attributes the Son's claims to deity as Jesus communicating via His divine nature as opposed to His human nature , thereby dividing the Lord Jesus Christ into two persons".

mlculwell: According to your un-scriptural view of the term "person" where you add your definition to scripture as there is no term for God found in scripture(Which is actually imposing your doctrine upon scripture.) We would be according to your view denying Jesus real humanity and making him *a mix hybrid new species* mixing his humnaity and divinity it is clear by what tyou are saying here! But it strikes me strange you do not see this in trying to prove a point in your blind hatred.

We as Oneness are clear to make a distinction between his deity that always eternally existed and his son-ship that clearly came about in time.(To deny that fact is to deny his virgin birth and his real humanity.)Which is what you do in your false doctrine. So do we have "two persons of God" as Oneness with One real man and One real God that incarnated that real sinless son? No! Because a real man is not another person of God! That is a clear denial of Jesus real humanity!



The Blogger:"This is a concept that is devoid of both logic and scriptural backing; obviously, natures cannot communicate with each other. Bernard's explanation is also shown to be inconsistent with the Son's own identification of the object of His prayers. The Son identified the Father not simply as the divinity in Him but an actual person".

mlculwell: Dr. Bernard is clear in his book as to his meaning of nature as he uses the Webster dictionary definition for the term!(pg.320)Nature the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

Oneness are clear in our understanding and are consistent in affirming God is not two persons! As a real man given the spirit by no measure is not another person of God.