Jesus The Everlasting Father

Jesus The Everlasting Father
A Rebuttal of Carl Brumback’s God in Three Persons
By David R. Foster

CHAPTER ONE
The Old Issue
Mr. Brumback writes of the doctrine of “the trinity” and water baptism in the titles “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” as being “orthodox” and brands as “heretics” those Pentecostals in 1914 who had received the revelation of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the mighty God in Jesus, who had been baptized in the traditional formula, “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” and were rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ and began to rebaptize other Pentecostals in the name of Jesus Christ. He calls it the “new issue”. The following account is taken from the Feb. 1989 Pentecostal Herald, page 13. The second doctrinal issue to divide the Pentecostal movement had its beginning in 1913 at the Arroyo Seco World Wide Camp Meeting near Los Angeles. Ministering at a baptismal service, R.E. McAlister noted that the church in the Book of Acts always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and not in the traditional formula, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Ghost”. His observation immediately stirred the interest and hearts of many Pentecostal ministers including John G. Scheppe and Frank Ewart.

During the next several months Frank J. Ewart searched the Bible for the answer to the apparent conflict between the command Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19 and the formula used by the church in the Book of Acts. By the spring of 1914, Ewart had reached the conclusion that the singular “name” in Matthew 28:19 was Jesus Christ. To support this view, he pointed to Colossians 2:9, in which it is stated that in Jesus dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Ewart explained his “revelation” to other Pentecostal ministers; some of them rejected his teaching, but others enthusiastically embraced it. On April 15, 1914 Ewart rebaptized Cook in the name of Jesus Christ, and Cook rebaptized him. This one act set in motion an issue that would eventually divide the Pentecostal movement between the Trinitarians and the Oneness believers.

Although Parham had used the Jesus name formula as early as 1903, and A.D. Urshan began baptizing converts in the name of Jesus in 1910, no issue was raised about the practice until Ewart began rebaptizing Pentecostals in the name of Jesus Christ in April. 1914.

Following their rebaptism, both Ewart and Cook baptized thousands of Pentecostals in the shorter formula. Pentecostals from the West Coast flocked to Ewart’s church in Belvedere, California, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Glen Cook, a veteran evangelist of the Azusa Street Mission who had brought the Pentecostal message to the Midwest in 1907, returned to Oklahoma, Missouri, and Indiana in January 1915 preaching water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. He rebaptized hundreds of Pentecostals in the name of Jesus Christ, including Mother Barnes and her staff in St. Louis, and Gladstone Thomas Haywood and about five hundred members of the large Pentecostal church he pastored in Indianapolis.*

“One very important factor in the spread of the “oneness” doctrine was an Eastern preaching tour taken by Cook in 1915. Visiting the Assemblies of God Church of G.T. Haywood in Indianapolis, he converted this leading black pastor, rebaptizing him along with 465 followers according to the new formula. The news of Haywood’s defection caused consternation among the Assemblies of God leaders, since Haywood pastored one of the largest churches in this movement and was their leading black preacher.” (The Holiness-Pentecostal movement in the United States, Vinson Synan, page 155.)

With the advent of the “oneness” issue in 1914, the young Assemblies of God group was wracked by the most serious controversy of its history. In the end this “new issue” came to have deep racial overtones, resulting in the formation of one

*Taken from part of an excerpt which was taken from a paper presented at the 1988 Oneness Symposium of the most fully interracial church bodies in the United States. The father of the

“Pentecostal Unitarian” movement was a white minister from Los Angeles, Frank J. Ewart. As has been seen, his movement for rebaptism “in Jesus name” swept over the Pentecostal movement from 1914 to 1916. Of the hundreds of Pentecostal ministers who accepted rebaptism according to Ewart’s formula, none was more important in the long run than the black pastor from Indianapolis, G. T. Haywood. This man had founded one of the largest congregations in the new Assembly of God organizations. Although composed of a majority of blacks, his church was interracial. A powerful speaker, Haywood exercised a great influence in the councils of the church.

When Cook, one of Ewart’s converts, took his fateful Eastern tour from Los Angeles in 1914, one of his first stops, it will be recalled, was at Haywood’s church in Indianapolis. One Assembly of God official, J. Roswell Flower, became disturbed upon hearing of Cook’s doctrine and attempted to prevent his progress by warning pastors of his coming. Writing Haywood in alarm after hearing Cook in St. Louis, Flower warned him that the touring evangelist was coming to his city “with an erroneous doctrine.” Haywood answered, “Your warning came too late. I have already accepted the message and have been baptized.” With the winning of Haywood, many black Pentecostals were destined to become Pentecostal Unitarians”.* (Ibid, pages 170 & 171) Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is the second Person in the Trinity; neither do Oneness Pentecostals. But after rejecting this one error concerning Jesus, Unitarians fall prey to many others. They repudiate the Virgin Birth, thus denying his Divinity…They reject the “atoning or sacrificial character of the death of Christ as a means of man’s recovery”.

*Oneness Pentecostal believers are not Unitarians. It is well-known that Unitarians disavow the doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the majority of so-called orthodox Christians. And so do we as Oneness Pentecostals. But there the similarity between the two groups ends abruptly.

Oneness Pentecostals believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and that He was therefore divine. He was God manifest in the flesh.
They further believe that without the shedding of His blood there could have been no redemption”. (From “We Are Not Unitarians” editorial. The Pentecostal Herald, March, 1967, Page 5).

The truth to the heresy was the very opposite to what Brumback claims according to the scriptures and history.

It might do Carl Brumback and other Trinitarians well who are so quick to brand as heretics those Oneness believers who differ with them on the Godhead and water baptism. Some go so far as to say it is a doctrine of demons, to take note that Jesus himself was branded as a “heretic” even devil possessed, because he dared to question tradition (that which was accepted as “orthodox”) and claimed He was the Father (John 8:24,27, John 14:8,9). Paul himself who wrote much of the N.T. was branded a heretic because he believed that Jesus was Jehovah (Acts 9:5. 24:14).

Mr. Brumback does not mention the issue of the Godhead among the Trinitarians themselves that was the greatest factor in the split of Eastern and Western “Christendom”. History tells us, “Most historians have fixed on 1054 as the date when the definitive religious breach between Eastern and Western Christendom occurred…Doctrinally, the greatest stumbling block was the dispute over the Western addition of the phrase filioque* to the Nicene Creed. As formulated in the officially accepted creeds of 325 and 451, the third person of the Trinity, The Holy Ghost, was defined as proceeding from the Father. As we have seen earlier, in the mid-sixth century, in order to combat the Arian heresy then strong in Visigothic Spain, the Catholic clergy had added to the creed the phrase filioque, thereby making it read that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son. To the Greeks any addition to the officially proclaimed creed was tantamount to heresy; the Latins however, believed that the addition was a necessary clarification of dogma, whether or not the addition was

* “and from the Son.”
Canonically right or wrong, a vital point of doctrine was involved. The Greeks maintained that the addition of filioque actually changed the original meaning of the creed by implying that there were two first principles (that is, in effect, two Gods). The Latins, on the other hand, maintained that the Greek view seemed unduly to subordinate the Son to the Father, thereby making the persons of the Trinity no longer co-equals.”

It is interesting to note that those Trinitarians branded each other as heretics: “Leo insisted that the Southern Italian Greeks owed ecclesiastical allegiance to the patriarch of Constantinople, forswear that allegiance and instead accept the Latin ritual with insertion of the filioque clause into the creed. A sharp clash developed between Leo and the patriarch, and Leo finally sent three legates headed by the intransigent Cardinal Humbert, to Constantinople. The equally strong-willed Patriarch Michael Cerularius received them scornfully. The result was that on July 16 of 1054 the Papal legates entered the cathedral of St. Sopiah in Constantinople during the service, deposited a bull of excommunication against Cerularius followers on the main altar, and, departing haughtily from the church, “shook from their shoes the dust of the heretics”. The Greek clergy were at first astounded, then angered, at this unexpected act. Michael, in retaliation, immediately convoked the synod of Greek bishops in Constantinople and anathematized the legates. It is this event that has traditionally been taken to mark the definitive schism between the Greek and Roman Churches.”

* Western Civilization, Langer, MacKendrick, Geanakoplas, Hexter, Pipes. Page 567
Ibid, pages 567 & 568

CHAPTER TWO

Is The Doctrine of The Mighty God In Jesus and Water Baptism In The Name of Jesus Christ of Heretical Origin?

Mr. Brumback claims that the doctrine of the Mighty God in Jesus and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is of heretical origin. Also he tries to disassociate the doctrine of the trinity and baptism in the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost from Romananism, which later we shall give historical documentation that repudiates this claim.

Brumback says. “Tertullian, who wrote during the early years of the Church (190211), is generally credited with being the “first to use the term Trinity” (page 20). It is interesting to note Tertullian’s use of Matthew 28:19. “Since idol worshippers believed in many gods and practiced dipping three times in water for cleansing, it was Tertullian’s purpose to make it simple and more easily understood by the Latin speaking people. He advocated that baptism should be done by dipping the candidate three times, once for each person in the Godhead. Trine baptism continued until the new organization of the Roman Catholic Church adopted the method of dipping once, but using the triune formula of “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, Page 366” Under the caption of “Baptism” to find reference about trine immersion.

Which interpretation of Matthew 28:19 by Tertullian and Roman Catholic Church is right? Or are both interpretations wrong? We believe Peter’s interpretation, whom the Lord had given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18, 19), with the other apostles standing with him is the correct one. They knew that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was Jesus Christ.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19)” “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”. (Acts 2:38)

On page 23, Carl Brumback says, “What strange bedfellows recline in the doctrinal statements of ‘Jesus Only’ publications.”

In subsequent chapters, the three major beliefs will be documented and dealt with thoroughly. Here I desire to list them with three others, and to give a brief definition of each.*
1. Sabellianism: God is a unity. There are no distinctions of the Divine Being, no trinity of persons. The one God has revealed Himself in three different forms or modes. Once the purpose of these manifestations is accomplished, the triad will be contracted and become the monad again.

2. Arianism: The Logos, or Word, or Son is divine but not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. Created before all creatures, yet participating in the work of creation, redemption and government.

3. Baptismal Regeneration: By the entrance of the virtue of Christ into the water, water baptism, became the regenerating element.

I want to make some comments on each of the above teachings as compared to what Oneness believe and scripture. I will have more to say concerning our position on water baptism with scripture later on.

Sabellianism: Sabellius advocated a strict Jewish monotheism of One God, or one Divine substance. He taught that the one Divine substance simply assumed three forms (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost). These three forms were manifestations of the One God. As each new form was manifested, the previous one ceased. When finally all three stages have passed, the Divine substance will again be all and in all. What an uproar this teaching caused! Sabellius did not recognize the two separate natures in Jesus Christ as we see today.

* We give Brumback’s first three, his major ones.

He taught that Christ was fully God but not human. However, this was much closer to truth than the heresy that was beginning to develop!”

We do believe God is a unity, He cannot be divided, “Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4), “Is there a god beside me? Yea, there is no God: I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8).

That one God has manifested (revealed) Himself as Father, through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. (I Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:19; Joel 2:28). The office of the Sonship is temporary. When redemption has been completed “then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all”. (I Cor. 15:24-28). The office of the Sonship will have served it a purpose; redemption will have been completed and fulfilled. Of course, the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Christ (Jo. 14:18, Ro. 8:9 etc.) will no longer be active in redemption, men no longer will be regenerated by the Holy Ghost.

2. Arianism: Oneness believes “The one true God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, took upon Himself the form of man, and as the Son of man was born of the Virgin Mary” and without controversy great in the mystery of Godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (I Timothy 3:16). “We believe that,”…in Him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). “For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell (Col. 1:19).
Therefore Jesus in His humanity was man; in His deity was and is God. His flesh was the lamb, or the sacrifice of God. He is the only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5). “Jesus on His father’s side was divine, on His mother’s side, human. Thus, He was known as the Son of God and also the Son of man, or the God-man”.

* When Did the “Trinity” Begin? Search for Truth Publications, Inc.

3. Baptismal Regeneration: Carl Brumback’s definition of baptismal Regeneration is misleading as to what we believe concerning water baptism. We do not believe that regeneration is in water. We believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins and is part of the new birth (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).

Carl Brumback says, “One glance at this astounding conglomeration of beliefs (his list on page 23) certainly substantiates the statement that “a wrong view of the nature of the Godhead leads to a whole chain of errors”. To this statement, I say Amen’. Where did the errors of Triune baptism, Transubstantiation, Indulgencies, Mariolatry, etc. come from? They came from Trinitarians. It is said of Origen (185-253), “He himself was prepared to strain even the concept of monotheism, not shrinking from describing to a surprised audience the deity in terms of “two Gods” united however in love and power. His definition, too, of the Holy Spirit as “the highest of the angels” opened the way to a veritable galaxy of angelic beings to whom the lesser deities of paganism could be likened”. (The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, page 283) . “Creation, however, was always sustained by God, who destined it for ultimate restoration. Human was in this world to be educated in the love of God. None of God’s creatures therefore could be so depraved as to be incapable of any goodness. The sending of the Word, Christ, united to the one soul that had remained pure and undefiled in the rebellion of the angels was the decisive step in the process of restoration. Even-so, all creation moved forward to that goal; “for there was no part of creation entirely out of harmony with the final unity and concord”. Only the good element in nature truly existed. Evil, like death, was not a positive force, and so even the blackest devils and Satan himself could be restored. The fires of Hell, said Origen elsewhere, were purging and refining fires. “Everlasting Fire” was not to be taken literally. Humanity was educated and prepared for salvation and this was the destiny of all. Some souls would “endure severe punishment” on the way. There was no final damnation, only an endless vista of worlds and existences. All penalties were ultimately remedial and all things would one day be restored to their original harmony” (Ibid, page 377). “Basically it reflected the outlook of contemporary platonists. Plotinus’s concept of the Divine existing in three separate hypostases or entities paralled by Origen’s concept of the Trinity as three distinct and graded beings”. (Ibid, page 377).

CHAPTER THREE
Jehovah Is One

“Jesus Only” devotees fancy themselves to be the modern champions of monotheism (mono-one, theos-God). Their name which they proudly bear, “The Oneness Movement”, their incessant dwelling upon scriptural passages which speak of the oneness of God, their constant accusation that the orthodox faith is tritheism (tri-three, theos-God): all these reveal that their claim to be the only present” day defenders of the true faith in one God is genuinely believed by them.

There are others who would dispute their extravagant claim. The Jews, for instance, who for countless centuries have regarded their belief in the “One Only God” as their special distinction among the nations. Surrounded by polytheism since their beginning as a nation, they stood alone throughout the Old Testament period as a monotheistic people. Whatever inclination the Jews had toward the polytheism of their pagan neighbors was uprooted forever by the Babylonian captivity. Many of them suffered martyrdom rather than to accept the heathen belief in “gods many and lords many”. (God In Three Persons, Carl Brumback, Page 25)

Many Jews have suffered martyrdom rather than to accept the belief in the trinity, “Although Jews are able to understand Jesus, the Jew of Nazareth; they have never been able to understand or accept the idea of the trinity. Down through the ages, innumerable Jews suffered and many were put to death for rejecting this church doctrine”. (What the Jews Believe. Bernstein, page 12).

“Adam Clarke, the famed commentator, gives an enlightening detail concerning the intensity of Jewish feeling about the absolute oneness of God.” When this passage (“Hear, 0 Israel: Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One”- Deut. 6:4) occurs in the Sabbath readings in the synagogue, the whole congregation repeats the last word, “One” for several minutes with the loudest vociferations, this I suppose they do to vent a little of their spleen against the Christians, for they suppose the latter hold three Gods, because of their doctrine of the Trinity” (Ibid, page 25).

It is interesting to note what Adam Carke had to say about the doctrine of the “Eternal” Son, which he rejected. I would like to give from his comments on Luke 1:35, (which read, “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”) two valid and scriptural reasons for his doing so. They are his 4th and 5th reasons.” (4th) Again, if this divine nature was begotten of the Father then it MUST BE IN TIME, i.e. there was a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs Him at once of His Godhead. (5th) 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 supposes time, generation, and Father; and time is also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of the two terms, SON and ETERNITY is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.”
I John 5:7

Carl Brumback says, “Jesus only” rejection of I John 5:7 is undoubtedly motivated to a great extent by the fact that the verse constitutes one of the most explicit declarations of the Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible!” (Page 30 & 31).
It was a Trinitarian editor, not “Jesus only”, that made the following statement concerning I John 5:7: “The nearest thing in the Bible to an explicit doctrine of the Trinity is found in I John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven–the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” But the textual problem regarding this verse is so severe that even many devout evangelical scholars do not believe it was a part of the original epistle.

* Taken from, “Is an Eternal Sonship Taught In the Bible?” by David Campbell from Adam Clark’s 6th Vol., 1859 edition.

If their conclusions are valid, the only verse in the Bible clearly teaching the Trinity is not : really part of the Bible”. (Christianity Today, Dec. 11, 1981, page 11, “I Believe: 1,600-year-old confession of faith”).

The conclusions of many devout evangelical scholars is valid, I John 5:7 is a spurious trinitarian text, “A Latin interpolation certainly spurious. (1) Found in no Gk. MI. except two late minuscules–162 Vatican), 15th c., Lat. Vg. Version with a Gk. text adopted thereto; 34 (Trin., Coll., Dublin, 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk. Fathers. Had they known it they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). (3) Found in none of the early versions in Vg. but not as it left the hands of St. Jerome (4) Quoted by no Latin writer until Priacillian (close of the 4th c.) “The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. Five, page 195).

Thus Carl Brumback’s claim that John 5:7 constitutes one of the most explicit declarations of the Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible falls to the ground.

Use of The Hebrew Words “yachid” and “achid” “The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been generally misunderstood among Jewish’ people, with the result they believe we worship three Gods. To set forth this misconception and the reason for its strong hold on the Jewish people today, I should like to quote from the writings of one who is in a position to understand the problem, ex-Rabbi Leopold Conn:

The reason that the Jews have become estranged from the doctrine of the Triune God is found in the teachings of Moses Maimonides. He compiled thirteen articles of faith which the Jews accepted and incorporated into their liturgy. One of them is “I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be his name, is an absolute one” (Hebrew, yachid). This has been repeated daily by Jews in their prayers, ever since the twelfth century, when Moses Maimonides lived”. (God In Three Persons, page 31) .
According to Brumback and Cohn the Jews became estranged from the doctrine of the Triune God when Moses Maimonides complied thirteen articles of faith which the

Jews accepted and incorporated into their liturgy, one of them stating that the Creator is an absolute one (Hebrew, yachid), which they have repeated daily in their prayers since that time .

However, history verifies that the Jews were never Trinitarians (See statement this article. What The Jews Believe, Bernstein). When, in 1095, Pope Urban proclaimed that First Crusade, some Christians thought it desirable to kill the Jews of Europe before proceeding so far to fight Turks in Jerusalem. Godfrey of Bouilon, having accepted the leadership of the crusade, announced that he would avenge the blood of Jesus upon the Jews, and would leave not one of them alive; and his companions proclaimed their intention to kill all Jews who would not accept Christianity”. (The Age of Faith, Will Durant, page 389).

“Arrived at Speyer, Crusaders dragged eleven Jews into a church and ordered them to accept baptism, refusing, the eleven were slain (May 3, 1096).” Ibid, page 390.

“At Mainz, Archbishop Ruthard hid 1300 Jews in his cellars; Crusaders forced their way in, and killed 1014…” (May 27, 1096). Ibid page 390.

This is therefore the belief of the true Christian. He does not have three Gods, but “one”, a scriptural one, which is in Hebrew “achid”. (God In Three Persons, page 32).*

Brumback quotes ex-Rabbi Leopold Conn to try to Prove “one” (Heb. echad, Young’s) means three are “three persons” in the Godhead. He uses Gen. 1 & 2:24 in support of this where it refers to more than one thing or person, (his use in Gen. 1 is questionable). Of course there are places that “echad” does refer to more than one person, but there are places that “echad” definitely refers to one person, i.e. Gen. 4:19, 10:25, Deut. 25:11). Deut. 6:4 does not refer to “three persons” in the Godhead as Brumback & Cohn alleges.

* The Trinity in the Old Testament, pp. 3, 4.

Long before Moses Maimonides compiled the thirteen articles of faith, the Jews who wrote the 0. T., never believed in a plurality of persons in the Godhead, but were strictly monotheists.

Cohn & Brumback use “yached” (youngs) in Zech. 12:10, which Cohn says is “an absolute one”. In Zech. 12:10, it was Jehovah that was speaking, it was Jehovah God that hung in that body on the cross. (Jo. 19:37).

CHAPTER FOUR
ELOHIM

“The Heb. pl. elohim is generally known as the pl. of “majesty” and is the ordinary name for God”. (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, page 1270.) Elohim is translated God in our Bible; it indicates a plurality of attributes and not of persons.

Gen. 1:26 reads “And God (elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”.

We notice in the verse that it says “our” image (singular) not “images” (plural), speaking of the two fold relationship of Father and Son in one image. Who is the image of the invisible God? Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15) “Who is the image of the invisible God”.

Verse 27 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he, him; male and female created he them”.

Elohim is applied to Christ, thus proving that it does not mean a plurality of persons. Elohim was sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:4, 12, 13); Elohim was pierced at Calvary (Zech 12:10); Elohim is coming back as King (Zech. 14:5). Do Trinitarians think that three persons were betrayed, crucified, and are coming again?

PLURAL PRONOUNS

It is said that “a verse without a context is a pretext”. Brumback tries to prove (page 39) “Three persons” created man because plural pronouns are used in Gen. 1;26 referring to God. Look at the singular pronouns in verse 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he (God) him; (Adam) male and female created he (God) them (Adam & Eve)”.

Brumback says speaking of plural words being applied to a single person, “Nor is there any example applied elsewhere in the Scriptures, except where a clear-cut plurality is involved”, (page 40).

Daniel refers to himself in the plural (see Dan. 2:36) and Paul (I Thess. 3:1).

DIVINE CONVERSATIONS

Brumback says on page 42, “Here are additional conversations which are undeniably between distant persons”: He then lists Hebrews 10:9, Heb. 10:5, John 12:28, Psalms 16:10, Ps. 2:7, Ps. 45:6, Ps. 110:1.

These verses refer to prophecy and Jesus as man with the eternal Spirit (The Father), not conversations among three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead.

ONE SEATED BESIDE ANOTHER

According to Carl Brumback “Right hand” means a literal spatial position. John 1:18 says, “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father”. Re. 3:21 says “and am set down with my Father in his throne”. He. 12:2 says “is set down at the right hand of the throne of God”. “Right hand” is a “figurative expression.

ONE TAKING FROM ANOTHER

“And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne…” (Rev. 5:7). Again the language compels us to understand that there are two distinct persons…” (page 50)
I will let Bro. 0. F. Fauss, who has gone on to be with the Lord, answer the trinitarian interpretation: “First, let me remind you that the Book of Revelation is always to be remembered as a book of prophecy; a book of symbols setting forth in a prophetic manner God’s plan, and future events.

The first four verses of the passage picture a book in the hand of ONE who sat on the throne…

. . . Revelation 5:6 symbolically pictures the plan of redemption with a “Lamb as it has been slain”. Revelation 13:8 also refers to “. . .the lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Here is pictured God’s plan of redemption from the beginning. He would veil Himself in a body of flesh (John 1:14), and be a spotless Lamb, to be offered for the sins of all mankind (Hebrews 10:9-14).

Though this was in God’s plan “from the foundation of the world”, it became real only when Jesus went to Calvary. In the mind of God, He was also begotten from the foundation of the world, but was actually born of a woman at Bethlehem. This was “God manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:16, and His death”… condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3) .

In Revelation 5:4-5 John heard that the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David” had prevailed to open the book he saw in the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne. When John turned to see the Lion (a symbol of the King of kings and Lord of lords), he saw a “…Lamb as it had been slain” (a symbol of redemption-Emmanuel, or Jehovah-Savior called JESUS. John never saw two persons; he saw Jesus as both Lord and Savior.

Now let us look into the question: Who was the one that sat on the throne? (Revelation 4:2, 5:1). The God who sat on the throne, and who is worshipped in Revelation 19:4, is the same ONE seen in Revelation 21:5, and the same one who shall”…be their God, and shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” (verses 3, 4). He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Revelation 21:6, 22:13, and in verse 16. He tells us that his NAME is JESUS. Also, in Revelation 22:3 the throne is called “the throne of God and of the Lamb”. Verse 4 says “And they shall see HIS face (not their faces)”. Again verse 3 says “his servants shall serve HIM” (not them).

So when “the mystery of God shall be finished” (Revelation 10:4), when the work of redemption is completed, when the last enemy (death) is destroyed, when the need of a Mediator shall be no more, then we shall see Him as He is–the One who sits upon the throne, the Alpha and Omega, the FIRST and the LAST, the BEGINNING and the END. He that liveth and was dead, but who is alive forevermore-the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY (Revelation 1:17, 18, 8).

Paul declared “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:9, 10). He also said, “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell” (Colossians 1:19).

Throughout eternity we shall behold the invisible God, made visible in that glorified body of the only begotten Son of God, the man Christ Jesus, born of a woman; the Lamb of God who alone sits on the throne, revealing the glory of the eternal God”. That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us (in redeeming us) through Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7).

Jude said, “To the ONLY wise God our SAVIOR (the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘our’ EVERLASTING FATHER be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen” (Jude 25).*

THE PRAYERS OF CHRIST

Carl Brumback says “His prayers alone justify the belief in a plurality in the Godhead” (page 51).

According to Trinitarians, “God the Son” prayed to “God the Father”. God does not pray to God, as a man, Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit (God the Father).

Direct References By Jesus To A Plurality

“1. Both: …But now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:24; see also 2 John 9) (Ibid page 51).
When those Jews saw both the Son and the Father at the same time, how many persons did they see?

“4. Another: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever (John 14:16).” “Another” can only mean one more, not the same”. (Ibid page 51).

* An excerpt from Brother Fuss’ answer to a question concerning Revelation 5:1-7 (The Pentecostal Herald, March, 1966, page 23

In John 14:17 Jesus told his disciples “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”. Then he said “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (verse 18).

CHAPTER FIVE
God In Three Persons?
Manifestations

B. Reasons the Term Manifestation Is Inadequate.

2. The Father and the Holy Spirit are never spoken of as manifestations”. (God In Three Persons, Brumback, page 57).

In John 14:16-26, (see verses 21-23); it speaks of the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is the Holy Ghost (verses 17 & 18). “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (verse 18).

“…I Timothy 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen I of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”.) can refer only to the Son, for it was not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son who was incarnated (Luke 1:32, 35)”…(l bid, page 57). I Timothy 3:16 says that God was manifest in the flesh. “In his deity Jesus was “The everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6), in his humanity the only begotten Son (Jo. 3:16).

Jesus Is The Only Person In the Godhead: and He Is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit

A. Jesus is the Father
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, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). The Father is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Matt.11:25); Jesus Christ is Lord of all (Acts 10:36); there is only one Lord! (Eph. 4:5). Jesus was and is The “Everlasting Father”: God was made flesh and dwelt among us…l Tim. 3:16, St. John 1:1, 14). God was the Father: “But to us there is but one God, the Father…” (I Cur. 3:6). There is only one Father: “Have we not all one Father?” (Mal. 2:10). Therefore the Father was made flesh and dwelt among us. (Not all of the Father took, part in the incarnation).

B. He is the Son (See above scriptures).

C. He is the Holy Spirit
There is but one Spirit (of God) Eph. 4:4. Who is that one Spirit? Paul said in another place “Now the Lord is that Spirit” (II Cor. 3:17).
Who is the Lord? “And the Lord said. I am Jesus”. (Acts 9:5).
Jesus is the Holy Spirit, too.” . . .Our Lord Jesus Christ is not just a “person” in the Godhead, but that He is all of God there ever can be. Notice these verses where He is:

“Head of all principality and power”
Col. 2:10
“The blessed and only Potentate ”
I Tim. 6:15
“The only wise God our Saviour
Is. 43:11,
Matt. 1:23, Jude 25
“The King eternal..the only wise God” Rev. 17:14,
Eph. 4:5, Acts 9:5.
I Tim. 1:17
“The Almighty”
Rev. 1:8
“He that cometh from above is above all” St. John 3:31
“In him dwelleth all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily”
Col. 2:9
“He is before all things and by Him all things consist”
Col. 1:22*

THE WORD WAS WITH GOD (John 1:1)

On page 68 Carl Brumback says, “5”. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was “God” (John 1:1). This verse which reveals the coexistence of the Son with the Father “in the beginning” is a death blow to Sabellian theology … let us consider what this thorny text does to their theory of the absolute identity of the Father and Son”.

Let us see what this verse does to the absolute identity of the Father and Son and that Jesus the Word was a distinct Divine Person from the Father. I would like to quote Bro. Magee from his book, “Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus” (page 27). “I can well remember a dear brother quoting this verse to me to prove that Jesus the Word was a distinct Divine Person from the Father. I asked him “Who is your God?” He answered, “The Trinity”. I said let us read the verse in the light of your answer–In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity and the Word was the Trinity. “Oh!” He cried, “in that verse God stands for the Father. “all right” I replied. “Let us read it again–in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Father and the Word was the Father”. He could say no more. The meaning of the verse became clear to him, and it is this–the Word was God. Any idea that the Word was a distinct personality from God is destroyed by John when he emphatically declares, “And the Word was God”. I know of no stronger Oneness verse in the whole Bible. How can we make a difference of person between God and His Word?”

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY? (John14:8,9)

“Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet has thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father: and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:8, 9). “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. These words are claimed by the Oneness People as their proof text” Jesus Christ is the Father. A shallow understanding of the gospel of John and o f the Scriptures, as a whole, and a superficial reading of this passage, in particular, might lead some to the belief that Jesus is the Father. I am

* (God In Christ Jesus, Paul Ferguson) persuaded, however, that the following reasons will convince the open” minded that such a doctrine is a case of mistaken identity. (Brumback, page 70).
Is such a doctrine a case of mistaken identity? Was the Prophet Isaiah mistaken about Jesus being “The everlasting Father?” (Isaiah 9:6). Was Jesus himself mistaken about identity as the Father in John 14:8, 9, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father?”. Was John mistaken in his identity of Jesus as the Father in these verses? (See also John 1:1, 3:16) or was Carl Brumback and other Trinitarians mistaken in their identity of Jesus as an “Eternal Son” in
his deity, rather than in his deity “The everlasting Father”? And in his humanity the only begotten son?

Carl Brumback says “this passage is not to be interpreted contrary to John 20:31: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…Forty four times in unequivocal language he calls Jesus the Son (not the father) (page 70) .
We oneness people do not believe that the Father is the Son. We believe that the Father is in the Son. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father (John 14:9, 10

Carl Brumback says, “God is a spirit” (John 4:24). This is a statement which defines God as a Being who is apart from matter, and hence, not subject to the conditions of material existence. Romans 1:20 speaks of “the invisible things of him…even his eternal power and Godhead”. I Timothy 1:17: “Eternal, immortal, invisible”. Colossians I:15:”the Invisible God” “the invisibility of God is a direct result of His being Spirit”.

One point should be made clear: The incarnation is the only permanent manifestation of the invisible God. All other appearances were impermanent in both form and time, but the incarnation is an everlasting fact…The Incarnate Word was “God…manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:16). (pages 70,71).

Oneness believes “God is invisible, incorporeal, without parts, without body, and therefore free from all limitations. He is Spirit (John 4:24), and…a spirit hath not flesh and bones…” (Luke 24:39). We believe that the One True God manifested Himself in the Old Testament in divers ways, that Jesus is the permanent manifestation of the invisible God. That the Incarnate Word was God manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16).

Burmback goes on to say that the Son was the image of the Father before His Incarnation. “In Hebrew 1:3 we read that the Son is “the express image of his person”. This is an eternal fact, not something that originated when the Son “was made in the likeness of men”. He was the image of the Father before His Incarnation”, (page 71,72).

The Son was the express image of the invisible God in the Incarnation (Hebrews 1:3) but the Son was not the express image of the invisible God before the Incarnation. The Son was begotten at Bethlehem. “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 as a Father, and he shall be
to me a Son?” And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him”. (Hebrews 1:5,6).

WAS THE HOLY GHOST THE FATHER OF JESUS?

“Oscar Vouga whose booklet, Our Gospel Message, is commended by the Oneness leader, Howard A. Goss, as a “sane and logical exposition”, says of page 29: “The Holy Ghost is the Father”. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:20). In the tract, Jehovah God of the Old Testament Is Jesus Christ of the New Testament, written by Bishop S.C. Johnson who is ready to answer the world on this subject, Bishop Johnson says: “5 Matthew 1:20-Luke 1:35-1f God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which one is the Father of Jesus? For the Scriptures say, God is His Father and the Scripture says the Holy Ghost is His Father. Did He have two fathers?’ (God In Three Persons, Brumback, page 78) .
Carl Brumback denies that the Holy Ghost was the Father of Jesus, “The Scripture does not say the Holy Ghost is His Father”. (Ibid, page 78). “The Scripture does not say the Son of God was begotten by the Holy Spirit” (Ibid, pages 78,79). “As the doctor or veterinarian who presides in instances of artificial insemination today is an agent but not the actual father of the child who is thus conceived, so the Holy Spirit was the immediate Agent of the Godhead who presided at the conception of the humanity of Jesus…” (Ibid, page 79).

Matthew 1:20 says “that which is conceived (Greek, begotten) in her is of the Holy Ghost “. (see also Luke I:35i. John 1:14 says “the only begotten of the Father”. The Holy Ghost was the Father of .Jesus.

THE EVERLASTING FATHER (Isaiah 9:6)

Carl Brumback does not believe that Jesus in his deity was the everlasting Father, but “the everlasting Son” which term we do not find in the scriptures but we do find “begotten Son” (John 3:16, He. 1:5). He claims that we have no supporting scriptures, but we have John 14:8,9 as well as other scriptures. John 14:8,9 says “Phillip saith unto him, Lord shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? He hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?”

I Am Come In My Father’s Name (John 5:43) “Jesus” is the Graecized form of the Hebrew JAHOSHEA and means “Jehovah, the Saviour”. In Numbers 13:16 Moses changed the name of Oshea the son of Nun. His name meant “saviour” and such he was to Israel’s national life but Moses being a prophet recognized him as a type of a greater Saviour and added the Covenant name JAH (the abbreviated form of Jehovah (see Psalm 68:4) hence Jahoshea or Joshua (Nu. 14:6).

“J. and the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one (Zechariah 14:9). Another favorite Oneness verse-advanced as proof that the name of the Son is the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit”. (God Is Three Persons, Brumback, page
85).

1. Zechariah 14:9 is a prophecy, to be fulfilled at some future time-not at Pentecost when the “revelation of the one name” is supposed to have occurred, *but at the last coming of the Lord”. (Ibid, pages 85, 86).

2. Neither will the second coming and reign change the fact that there exists a plurality of persons within the Godhead.” (Ibid, page
86). See last six paragraphs under “One taking from another”.

* The name of the Father was revealed to Peter and the other disciples before Pentecost (John 17:6).

“K.” The neighbors and cousins of Elizabeth must have had a touch of Oneness temperament in them, for they insisted that the name of the father was also the name of the Son. The only effective answer to their well-meaning objections to a distinct name for the son was written by Zacharias (Luke 1:63):”And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marveled all “Thank God!” “It is written” of the Son, of whom John was the forerunner, that “his name was called Jesus” which is not the name of His Father. May God reveal this fact to our Oneness friends today, and cause them to marvel as they discover the truth”. (Ibid, page 87.)

1. Zechariah 14:9 is a prophecy that will have its complete fulfillment in the future at the second coming, so is Zech. 12:10 which applies to His coming also, “And again another scripture saith, they shall look on him whom have pierced”. (Jo. 19:37) You can be sure at Pentecost, that the name of Jesus Christ was the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (Matt. 28:19, Acts 2:38, Col. 2:9).

K. Carl Brumback says that “Son” is the proper name of the “Son” “…but when applied in capitalized form to two distinct persons in the Godhead, these two terms can, and must, be regarded as proper names”. (Ibid, pages 146,147). John was a son, but when Zacharias wrote his name down he did not write, saying “His name is son”, he wrote saying. “His name is John”. (See Luke 1:57-63). “Son was not the name of the “Son”. He was named Jesus (Matt.1:21. 25, Luke2:21).

Carl Brumback says “the Father” never prays but he teaches that “God the Son” “the second person” in “the Trinity” and “Bod the Holy Ghost” “the third person” in “the Trinity” prays to “God the Father” “the first person”. “And although prayer is offered to Him (the Father), He never prays”, (page 88). “The Holy Spirit is the Person who maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26). Note that a distinct “mind” is possessed by the Spirit, and it cannot be attributed to the humanity of the Spirit, for He has not been “made in the likeness of men”, (page 92).

God does not pray to God. As a man Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit, (the Father) (John ch. 17).

Romans 8:26 most certainly does not refer to God praying with himself. Paul said in I Cor. 14:14,15 “For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth…What is it then I will pray with the spirit”. The Holy Ghost inspires us to pray to “Him that searcheth the hearts”. “He that searcheth the hearts knows the mindset produced (in us) by His Spirit. God would not search hearts to find out what His own Spirit meant.

“10. What is our answer to the Oneness inference from John 14:10-” the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” ”that it is actually the Father who is responsible for all the works ascribed to the Son? It is a farfetched inference which is totally lacking in a definite statement to that effect, as far as any specific work is concerned”. (Ibid page 89)

Jesus in John 5:30 said, “I can of my ownself do nothing”. As a man he prayed at the grave of Lazarus; as God he raised Lazarus from the dead. As a man he died: as God he raised himself from the dead (John 2:19).

CHAPTER SIX
“THE TRINITY RATIONALE”

“The triangle was used by Raymond Lull, a great and well known missionary to the Moslems who was martyred in 1315, to explain the Trinity. Of course, it too, has its inadequacies, but it has several features which do help us to understand the doctrine. A triangle combines coherent unity and distinct three-foldness without confusion, and both are essential to the idea of a triangle. Moreover, each of its three angels exhibits a point, mathematically speaking, without dimensions, and each is what it is in the triangle by reason of the mutual relations which the sides represent. See Mr. Lull’s splendid diagram on the next page.

Surely, “one picture is worth ten thousand words.” So simply and yet so graphically, the doctrine of the Trinity is exhibited in this triangle. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is rot the Father. One life substance, God, existing consciously as three persons. The three persons are not related to the divine substance, as three individuals to a common species, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Human nature; for the three constitute only one God, not a triad, but a Trinity. In the innermost depth of their being they are inherently and inescapably one”. (God In Three Persons, Brumback, page 97 & 98).

It might be of interest to readers to know that the triangle which Brumback praises so highly as explaining the doctrine of the trinity was used by the Babylonians to symbolize their trinity (or triad).

“…To symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish church does at this day”* (The Two Babylons, Hislop, page 16) .

“In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, “To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness shall ye compare unto Him?”** (Ibid pages 16 & 17).

Mr. Brumback rejects Jesus as The Everlasting Father (Is. 9:6, Jo. 14:8-9), but calls such a monstrosity “splendid” and says “How intellectually satisfying is the doctrine of the Trinity”.

Carl Brumback writes “4. Redemption’s Plan Made Plain. That God exists in three Person’s, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the only basis on which the Christian doctrine of redemption can be intelligently set forth. Hence, the revelation concerning the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is not given for the mere purpose of presenting something which shall be puzzling\and in inscrutable to human minds, but as a necessary step in the much fuller revelation concerning the plan of salvation”. (Page 99).

Brumback speaks of “the revelation” concerning the plurality of Persons in the Godhead”. What revelation? No such “revelation” comes from the word of God and there has never been a human mind that could understand “the mystery of the Holy Trinity” according to trinitarian scholars themselves. See under “One Taking From Another” for the truth of the Godhead concerning the plan of redemption, See Acts 2:38 for the plan of salvation.

* Layard’s Babylon and Nineveh, page 605 ** (Isaiah 40:18).

TRUE WORSHIP

Carl Brumback speaking of what he calls true worship says, “6. True Worship. The concept of the one God dwelling externally in Three Persons has inspired awe and wonder in the heart of man, enlightening, enriching, and elating his view of Almighty God. It is a truth which has provoked worship and adoration to the blessed Trinity”. (Page 100).

Trinitarians in their ignorance may think that the worship of “the trinity” is “true worship” but the worship of “the trinity” was unknown by the Jews in the Old Testament and to the early church.

This is not to say that there are not people in the Assemblies of God and other churches who have never received the revelation of the mighty God in Jesus that love Jesus and worship God in their knowledge of him. There are many fine ministers and saints of God in the Oneness movement that came out of the Assemblies of God (some have gone on to be with the Lord, such as Brother Andrew D. Urshan).

Carl Brumback uses Rev. 4:8 as one of the scriptures to prove that “the trinity” was worshipped, (page 101) it reads: “And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come”.

According to Carl Brumback, this is “the three persons of the trinity” that is worshipped because it says, Holy, holy, holy”. Is this what we find in the scriptures? No it is not! Rev. 4:2 says that “One sat on the throne”, this is the same one that is worshipped by the four beasts as well as the twenty four elders (4:10). Who was the one that sat on the throne? (Rev. 4:2,10). The God who sat on the throne, and who is worshipped in Rev. 19:4, is the same ONE seen in Rev. 21:5, and the same one who shall “…be their God, and shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” (verses 3,4). He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6, 22:13), and in verse 16 He tells us that his NAME is JESUS. Also, in Rev. 22:3 the throne is called “The throne of

God and of the Lamb”, Verse 4 says, “And they shall see HIS face (not their faces)”. Again verse 3 says, “his servants shall serve HIM (not them).

CHAPTER SEVEN
The Eternal Son?

Carl Brumback asks the question “can the Son be begotten and be eternal
too? (page 123) .
No place in the scriptures do we find to term “the eternal Son ” but we do find “begotten Son”( Jo. 3:16,18)”. If you are “eternal” you have never been “begotten”. IA you have been “begotten” then you are not Eternal”. Two things cannot be true of Jesus as the Son…He cannot at the same time be the-“eternal Son” and the “begotten Son”, (is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus?, Gordon Magee, page 20).

Carl Brumback has spent much time and space refuting what the United Pentecostal Church does not teach i.e. that Jesus was a created angel or Son before he was begotten a Bethlehem (See U P C Articles of Faith).*

Carl Brumback believes that since God is called “God the Father” or “the Father” then the Son must also be eternal (pages 124, 125

There is only one plain reference in Old Testament where God is called a Father relative to the Son. That is 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”. Notice! This again is a prophecy. It is a prophecy of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ…A child is born…” Here Isaiah says Jesus is the Father. Does not this deal a death-blow to the theory that the Son is a Person, eternally distinct from the Father?” Is Jesus In the Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus: Gordon Magee, pages 23, 24.

Carl Brumback alleges the testimony of scriptures teach an “eternal Son.”

The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ does not teach this (See Articles of Fatith)

“1. Pre-Bethlehem Existence.” And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Daniel 3:25) This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me (John 1:30). Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)”. )(page 129).

We Oneness people do believe in the preexistence of Jesus, but not is an “eternal Son”, we believe he was the eternal God.

It was an angel in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:25), not the Son of God (see verse 28).

“This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for he was before me” John 1:30). As God Jesus was before John but not s an “eternal Son” (Isaiah 9:6, John 3:16, He. 1:5,6).

“Jesus said unto them verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). In verse 57, the Jews said “Thou art not yet fifty years old”. The Jews were right as far as the humanity of Jesus, as the Son he was not yet fifty years of age, but as God he was eternal, “before Abraham was I am” (verse 58). God is “I am” (Ex. 3:14), Jesus is “I am” (John 8:58), there is only one “I am”.

“2. Present at Creation.” “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3) “…which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in -God, who created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9).”For by him were all things created” (Colossians 1:16 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son,…by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2). (Ibid. 129) .

As God Jesus created all things. There is only one creator (Isaiah 44:24, Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:16 etc.).

“3. Pre-Creation Existence…” “The glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). “For thou loves me before the foundation of the world”. (Jo. 17:24)

This glory was yet future. (John 7:39, 1 Tim.3:16). Was the Son also crucified back there? (Rev. 13:8).

“4. From Everlasting” “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”. (Micah 5:2).

See Is. 9:6 As God he was from everlasting (Micah5:2).

“5. In the Beginning: “In the beginning was the word (John 1:1).

See our answer under The Word Was With God”. (John1:1)

CHAPTER EIGHT
The Son Equal With The Father?

” 2. The son is addressed as “God”.. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever”. “Unto the Son!” (God In Three Persons, Brumback, page 132).

In this prophecy the Son is called God because he was God made flesh.

“All must concede that it is God the Father speaking to the Son. It was God the … . Father who said, “This day I have begotten thee”. It was God the Father who said “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. It was God the Father who addressed the Son as “God”. (Ibid page 132).

“This day” have I begotten thee and I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (future tense), (see He. 1:5,6).

“4. Brumback asks “Is” God the Son” unscriptural?… In the next paragraph he says, “The term may not be in the scriptures, but it is definitely scriptural” (Ibid page 133).

The term is not in the scriptures, we find the term “The Son of God” many times, but not “God the Son”, which is completely diametric to the scriptures.

Brumback says, “The Son Is Equal To The Father” (Ibid page 133).
Jesus said, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in the heaven, neither the Son , but the Father” . (Mk 13:32)

Jesus Said , “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)

Brumback says on page 134, “1. The Jews understood That The Son Was Equal . “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18)”.

The Jews did not understand Jesus to be eternal Son” of God, the “second person” trinity, they believed in only one God (Deut. 6:4, Mk . 12:29,32). In verse 19 Jesus said” The Son can do nothing of himself”.

“2. The Son, conscious of His Equality With the Father. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God ( Philippians 2:6)…” (Ibid page 134).

See Deut. 6:4, Gal. 3:20, Isa. 46:5,9) I believe Ph. 2:6 speaks of one who and man and says that by right He .^as “equal with God”. Jesus as God incarnate, was fully equal in every way to God before the incarnation. God incarnate is the same as God preincarnate . In the incarnation God did not lose any of His nature or attributes. (See Jo. 1:18, Gal. 4:4, Col. 1:15).

CHAPTER NINE
The Mediatorial Son

I Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus not an “eternal Son”.

In the previous chapter Carl Brumback argued that “the eternal Son” is
equal with the Father, but now he says “The Father Is Greater Than The Son”. (page 137)”….He declared, “my Father is greater than I (Jo. 14:28)”. (page 138)

Carl Brumback says on page 138, “The mediatorial office includes the incarnate life of the Son, in which the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence were held in abeyance”.

Wrong. See JO. 1:48, 3:13, etc. Mr. Brumback has denounced some Oneness writers quoted as teaching Jesus was created an angel back in eternity, but he has himself created a demigod on earth. What Jesus did not know as man, He knew as God; what He did not know as the Son, He knew as the Father.

Hebrews 1:5,6 tells us the very day in which the Son was begotten and I Cor. 15:28 tells us when the Sonship will cease (See I Cor. 15:24,28).

Brumback says “God will be “all in all”-not an absolute Monarch” (page 142).

After the 1,000 years period when the need for a Mediator no longer exists, when God is all in all”, how many persons are seated on the throne of God and of the Lamb?” And his servants shall serve Him: (not them) And they shall see his face; (singular) and his name (singular) shall be in their foreheads” (Rev. 22:3,4).

CHAPTER TEN
The Formula

Mr. Brumback makes the blasphemous statement that to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), which Peter who had the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18,19) knew to be the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is heresy.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established (Matt 18:16). We shall list any witnesses Mr. Brumback has in the Word of God where anyone was baptized “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” on the left and the witnesses for those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ on the right:

“Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

“In the Name of Christ Jesus” Witness No. 1 The Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2:38, 41). Witness Mo. 2 The Samaritans were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:12, 16). Witness No. 3 The Gentiles at the household of Cornelius were baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 10:43-48, 9:5). Witness No. 4 Paul was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 22:16, Ro. 6:3) .

“Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

“In The Name of Jesus Christ” Witness No. 5 Believers in the church at Rome were baptized into Jesus Christ (Ro. 6:3-5). Witness No. 6 The Corinthians were baptized in the name of Jesus (I Cor. 1: 12, 13, 6:9-11) . Witness No. 7 The Galatians were baptized in the name of Jesus (Gal. 3:27). Witness No. 8 Ephesians believers were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5) Witness No. 9 The Colossians were baptized in the name of Jesus (Col. 2:12 cf Ro. 6:3, 4).

Carl Brumback has no witnesses in the word of God where anyone was baptized “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” but we have nine witnesses to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ”.

Titles Or Names?

Mr. Brumback can find no support from the Bible for his doctrine of the trinity and water baptism in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so he has gone to the dictionary to try to find support for his doctrine, he says, “In the first place, why not go to the recognized authorities on matters of speech-dictionaries, grammars and the best works in literature for the classification of these terms?”. (page 145)

Mr. Brumback thinks “Son” is the name of the Son. “And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus” (Matt. 1:21)

Mr. Brumback ought to stay away from Isaiah 9:6. He does not believe what it says, i.e. that Jesus is the Son and the everlasting Father, but yet he tries to prove by it (page 147) that Jesus is not the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Was he named “Son and Father” at his birth? No, he was named Jesus (Matt. 1:20, 21, 25).

Mr. Brumback says concerning Matt. 28:19, “Matthew 28:19 definitely states that “Father” is a name, that “Son” is a name, that “Holy Ghost” is a name”. (page 147).

It states no such thing, it says “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost”. (See also Lu. 24:47).

Mr. Brumback tries to prove by Isaiah 9:6 that the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not Jesus. (Page 148). This verse along with Matt. 1:20, 21, 25 proves the very thing that Brumback is trying to disprove i.e. Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Mr. Brumback says “…by their own admission, Oneness baptizers use a formula of which two-thirds is composed of titles, the very thing which they abhor in our orthodox formula’ (page 149).

Oh! but what a difference the name of Jesus makes: “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) “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone 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).

There is no set formula in the scriptures only as long as the name of Jesus is used.

Is Jesus A Title Or A Name?

Mr. Brumback flaunts his ignorance and flouts the word of God when he says on pages 149 & 150 that the name of Jesus is not a name but a title.

“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). “And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus”. (Matt. 1:25).

“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)

“Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”.
Before we leave this chapter on the formula for water baptism, I want to give historical documentation that the early church baptized using the name of Jesus and was later changed to “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church.

The following information is offered as proof that Church History as well as the scriptures proves water baptism in Jesus Name was practiced for 300 years after Christ, and was changed by the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Dictionary of the Bible by Scribners Page 241, Vol. 1-The original form of words were into the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. Baptism into the Trinity was a later development.

2. Canney Ency. Page 53-The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity, afterward they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

3. The New International Standard Bible Ency. Vol. 1, pages 395-396-The formula for baptism: The formula for Christian baptism or mode which prevailed is given in Matt. 28:19: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost”. 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, where Paul asks them “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 Fathers.

4. World Book Ency. Vol. 16, page 7270-But the Doctrine of the three in one is considered to be a mystery for which there is not adequate explanation. The first authoritative statement of belief in Father, Son and holy Ghost was made by the earliest council of churches held at Nicea in 325 which also declared the son to be of equal substance with the Father

CHAPTER ELEVEN
Baptismal Regeneration

On page 166 Carl Brumback says, “What else could he, or any other Oneness writer, say about these Trinitarian Ministers who, together with their colleagues and their congregations, have met the Scriptural requirements for genuine salvation? Let me list these requirements which, by the grace of God. we Trinitarians have fulfilled:”

He then lists eight things, number eight being water baptism, 8. Water Baptism: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16: 16) .
He has not given the Born Again Plan of Salvation, it is Acts2:38. (See Acts 2:37-39) .

Mind you Carl Brumback sates that Water Baptism is a Scriptural requirement for genuine salvation, but ” he is talking out of both sides of his mouth”, for he really does not believe that it is, for on pages 169 & 170; ” It is clear to me that Mark 16:16 emphasizes that he that believeth has met the vital requirement for salvation. The most dogmatic Oneness preacher would probably demonstrate his acceptance of this truth, if he were called upon to give instructions to a dying penitent to whom it would be impossible to administer baptism by immersion. Undoubtedly he would point the sinner to the Cross of Calvary, ( where ” the dying thief rejoiced to see the fountain in his day “, and exhort him, by simple faith, to take Christ as his Saviour. If it be argued that this would be an exceptional case, I answer that is introduced only to support the position that the absence of baptism does not automatically exclude one from heaven

The thief on the cross died under the law, he did not live to see the church age (see He 9:16,17 ). A person today cannot be saved by such an experience (See Acts 2:37-59)

Carl Brumback lists also ten things on pages166 & 167 which he says are “the evidences of true salvation ” ( page 166 ).

Among them are “7. Filling with the Spirit: And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, the Spirit gave them utterance “( Acts 2:4) .

His footnote says, ” While not required for salvation, the infilling with the Spirit is certainly one evidence of salvation….”

He lists as number 10 Supernatural Signs “10. Supernatural Signs:” And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues “.

Carl Brumback asks, ” How could one possibly be in the Church and not be saved, when the Word declares:” And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved ” ( or such as were being saved ” ( Acts 2:47 )? How were they saved ? They obeyed the plan of salvation, Acts 2:38, See Acts 2:37-39.

Mark 16:16

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned “.

Carl Brumback says, ” It was always a positive factor-” he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved “, and never, ” he that is not baptized shall be damned “. ( page 169 )

Luke 7:29-30 says, ” And all the people that heard him and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of Him “.

See also, this chapter concerning what Brumback has to say about Mark 16:16 and our reply.

Acts 2:38

“Repent, and be baptized everyone you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” Here is another instance in which Oneness interpreters fail to see the one point upon which the Holy Spirit lays emphasis; Repentance is the basis for remission of sins “. ( Brumback, page 170 ).

A person must both repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to obtain remission of sins ( Acts 2:37-39 ).

Brumback says, ” This is in harmony with Luke 24:47 and Acts 3:19, which specify repentance, but do not mention baptism, in connection with remission. I do not write this with any desire to omit water baptism ( nor did Luke ), but merely to show that salvation does not begin and end with water baptism “. ( Page 170 ).

Carl Brumback says Luke 24:47 does not mention water baptism. “Remission of sins ” in Luke 24:47 definitely refers to water ; baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. ” And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem “. This with verses 46,48,49 records the Great Commission, also recorded in the other Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Compare Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost, Peter supported by the rest of the Apostles, including Matthew (Acts 2:14, 37) said ” (1) Repent. (2) be baptized every one of you In The Name Of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins, and (3) Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the Promise is unto you, etc “. ( Acts 2:38,39 ). Jesus said that they should preach “(1) Repentance, and (2) Remission of sins In His

Name, and (3) behold, I send the Promise of my Father upon you “(Luke 24:47-49).

Acts 22:16

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord ” .

Carl Brumback says, If ” wash away thy sins ” refers to the effect of water baptism, it is strange indeed that Paul does not speak of baptism, but on the contrary, informs the Corinthians that he was not sent to baptize, having baptized only a few Corinthian believers. Think of it’ Paul ” Thanked God ” that he had deliberately refused to administer unto many of them that which some literally insist washes away sins! (Pages 170,171 ).

Paul was not sent to baptize exclusively, the Great Commission applied to Paul as well as the other apostles ( Matt. 28:18-20 etc. )
Paul thought water baptism so important that he and Silas baptized the Philippian jailer and his household at midnight with bruised backs (Acts 16:25-34 ).

Paul did not deliberately refuse to baptize anyone. Paul said, “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius” ( I Cor. 1:14 ) because of the division in the Corinthian church. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ “. ( Verses 11 & 12 ) .

The Corinthians were baptized in the name of Jesus ( verses 13-15) . Paul must have been a “literalist” (Acts 22:16, I Cor. 6:9-11).

Brumback asks, “What is it that washes away sins? The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin ( I John 1:7 )” 171) –

The blood of Jesus does wash away sins, but the blood is applied in water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ( Acts 2:38, 22:16 I John was written to Christians.

Brumback says, it stands to reason that no mearly outward work, like baptism, can remove that which is inward. (!bid, page 171 ).

Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 wrote, “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 .

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

Paul in Romans 2:29 said, ” But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God “.

Does this sound like water baptism is “merely” an outward work as Brumback and others claim?

“Oneness teachers stress the words of Ananias,” calling the name of the Lord;”… ” None other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved “. However, they mean the ” calling ” by the preacher of that name over the baptized one in the Oneness formula; whereas Ananias instructed Paul to do the calling on the name of the Lord; which is according to Romans 10:13; ” For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved “. ( !bid, page 171 ).

Ananias did instruct Paul to call on the name of the Lord at water baptism ( Ro. 10:13, Acts 22:16 ). And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” The name of Jesus was then called over Paul, (See Acts 15:17, James 2:7), and his sins were washed away by the blood of Jesus (Acts 2:38,22:16)”

I Peter 3:21

“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.” Baptism regenerationists seem to have a strong case here “baptism doth also now save us”. This approximates the Oneness doctrine more closely than any other text” (Brumback, page 172).

We oneness people do not believe that water baptism alone saves anyone, but it is in God’s plan (Acts 2:38). We believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is part of the New Birth (John 3:5, Acts 2:38).

Brumback says “This approximates the Oneness doctrine more than any other text” (Ibid, page 172). On page 168 Brumback said, “The apparent identification of water baptism with regeneration in these passages does not mean that we are to interpret them in a manner which is contrary to explicit statements elsewhere in the Word, or in a manner completely out of harmony with the general ; teaching of the Word”.

These verses contain or are explicit statements that teach water baptism is essential to salvation or being Born Again and are part of the general teaching of the Word of God:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16)

“be baptized everyone of you in the name Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

“be baptized, and wash away thy sins”( Acts 22:16) .

“baptism doth also now save us” (I Peter 3:21).

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Ro. 6:3).

“Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. (John 3:5).

Brumback says “Verse 20 sheds some light upon verse 21. We read here that “eight souls were saved by water”. Did the waters of the flood actually save them (the same waters that were the cause of death for all others), or was it being in the ark that saved them? In a figurative sense, the waters of baptism save us, but it is our being in the true ark, the Lord Jesus Christ, that actually saves us.

Baptism is a “figure”, a symbol, a type-it is not the reality itself. In order to be a “figure” baptism cannot possibly be that of which it is the figure. (Page 172).

It is interesting to note what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. II, page 1110 has to say about I Peter 3:21,”I Peter 3:21, the like figure whereunto (even) baptism doth also now save us, i.e. baptism is the antitype of the ark wherein… eight souls were saved (or brought safely) through water.”

Also from Brother E.L. Holley’s article on Water Baptism, the Pentecostal Herald, August 1988, page 21. “Peter amplified the beauty of baptism by relating how that “once, the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…by the resurrection”. (Peter 3:20-21). The “like figure” refers to the similarity between the salvation of Noah “by water” and water baptism which “doth also now save us”.

Noah’s old life-the world and all that An it-was destroyed by water, but when the W k rested on Mount Ararat, a new life began! We were “baptized into his death” when we were baptized into Jesus Christ” (Ro. 6:3) He died and we laid down our old life in repentance, being baptized into His death. But we were also made partakers of the resurrection! The world, with all of its snares and entanglements, is under the curse of death and we are made aware of it. We are in the world, but not of the world.

When we went down into the baptismal water, the world system that is contrary to God went with us. We came forth washed in the blood of the Lamb; but the world and all that is in it was overflowed with the water. There is the “figure” and it is beautiful!”. .. ,

Romans 6:3

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” This is purported to be a conclusive passage for the teaching that water baptism brings us into Christ, but again, the extreme literalists overlook the symbolic nature of the ordinance”.

It should be obvious that we cannot be literally baptized into Christ, just as we cannot be literally baptized in His death. Can water baptism transport us back through the centuries, and actually nail us to the Cross . with Christ, or bury us with Christ in Joseph’s new tomb? Certainly not. Neither can water baptism transport us through the skies and place us, in a physical sense, into the Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father.

If it be objected that “baptism into Christ” means that we are baptized into Christ in a spiritual sense, I state again that water baptism being a physical act, by its very, nature cannot place us in a spiritual sense into Christ, or into the spiritual Church, or .into the spiritual Kingdom”. (Brumback, pages 172 & 173).

Isn’t it strange that Carl Brumback accuses we Oneness people of being “extreme literalists” because we believe the scriptures that teach water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is essential to salvation, to being born again, which scriptures he labels “The Literal Passages” but he takes literally the expression. ‘Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father” which is definitely symbolic.
“Jesus at the right hand of God does not mean that God and Jesus are two persons sitting side by side on a throne in heaven, both of them sitting there stationary for centuries. That is a ridiculous and unscriptural idea of God. A preacher once said Jesus had stood up only one time since he ascended into heaven, and that was when he stood up to welcome Stephen, because Stephen saw him “standing” at the right hand of God.

But that is not the meaning of the right “and. The right hand is a symbolic term which means power and authority. Jesus said: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”. When God became Incarnate Man on earth he did all of his mighty works through the power and authority of that Man. And now that Jesus has ascended to heaven he has all the power in heaven. (Matt. 28:18). Therefore Jesus at the right hand of God, means that Jesus has all the power. It means that Jesus is the power of God.(I Cor. 1:24)”.

“My right hand hath spanned the heavens, (Isa. 48:13)”. (When God Became A Man, tract, A.T. Surratt, pages 4 & 5).

“Thy right hand, 0 Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, 0 Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy”. (Exodus 15:6).

Mr. Brumback believes that a person who repents receives “remission of sins”, that the blood of Jesus cleanses from sins, does he believe that they are transported back through the centuries to Calvary where Jesus shed his blood? Why of course not, he knows that “baptized into Christ” means in a spiritual sense.

John 3: 5

“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”. According to Oneness teaching, “born of water” refers to water baptism, and “born…of the spirit” refers to the baptism or infilling with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4). Let us consider first the “water”.

The theme of the entire context is the new birth.” (Brumback, page 173).

“It is my belief that John 3:5 is but one of the frequent scriptures which reveal that the Word, spoken of here as “the water” and the Holy Spirit are the two divine agents which combine to effect this glorious miracle, called the new birth.

Water is a scriptural symbol for the Word: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word Ephesians 5:26…” (Ibid, page 174).

Ephesians 5:26-“That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water, by the word”. Brumback uses this verse with others to try to prove that “born of water” (Jo 3:5) does not refer to water baptism (Acts 2:38). (See God In Three Persons, page 174). Eph. 5:26 refers to water baptism, see also Titus 3:5. It is the blood of Jesus that washes away sins, in water baptism, (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16), not the water. The word of God certainly plays a part in the cleansing and regeneration by the Spirit, but without obedience to God’s Born Again plan of salvation (Acts 2:38, ct John 3:5) a person cannot receive remission of sins and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

On page 177 Brumback says “The heart of the Oneness baptism, then is the insistence upon the rejection of belief in the trinity and the acknowledgement of Oneness theology. How different was Philip’s answer to the earnest query of the Ethiopian: “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”. But notice the Ethiopian’s definition of his faith: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God!” That would not have been enough for the “Jesus Only” preacher today. Thank God it was enough for Philip, “and he baptized him!”.

The Ethiopian’s “confession of faith” is not in the original text of Acts and Philip baptized the Ethiopian in the name of the Lord Jesus, he had just baptized the Samaritians in the name of the Lord Jesus, “only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).

Born of the Spirit

According to Carl Brumback “The Trinitarian Pentecostal movement believes in the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the new Birth”. (page 178).
“Baptized: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (I Cor. 12:13). (Ibid, page 178).

But according to them, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (I Cor. 12:13) is not the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues for he goes on to say :

“We also believe in the baptism or filling with the Holy Spirit with its initial, physical evidence of speaking with other tongues”. ( Ibid, page 178).

I Cor. 12:13 is certainly the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but according to them there are two Baptisms of the Holy Ghost taught in God’s word.

Brumback himself said on page 173 “It (speaking of water baptism) is also a symbol ‘A spiritual baptism: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body”. (I Cor. 12:13). This is the positional placing of the believer at conversion into the Body of Christ, the “one baptism” of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:5″.

Brumback says, “However while we cherish the baptism with the Spirit, we must reject the insistence of the Oneness people that the experience is necessary for salvation. We cannot accept the view that “born…of the Spirit” in John 3:5 refers to the experience depicted in Matthew 3:11: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Ibid, pages 178 & 179).

“Born of the Spirit” John 3:5 refers to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 3:11, Acts 2:4, 2:38, 10:43-48). The Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance is essential to being born again .
Brumback says, “Non-Pentecostal Christians have, for many years, made the mistake of confusing the ministry of the Spirit at the new birth with the baptism or infilling with the Spirit. They have attempted to make these two separate experiences identical, re-translating Acts 19:2 to read: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” However, the Book of Acts itself clearly authenticates the translation of the Authorized Version: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? By showing so plainly in the case of the Samaritans that the Holy Spirit was received subsequent to their conversion (Acts 8:5-17). (Ibid, page 179).

It is Carl Brumback and other Trinitarians in his movement that have made the mistake of confusing the ministry of the Spirit at the birth i.e. the Baptism or infilling with the Spirit (John 3:5, Matt 3:11, Acts 2:4,
2:38, 10:43-48, Acts 19:1-7, I Cor. 12:13) with a hypothetical baptism that is not found in the scriptures, it exists only in the figment of their imagination.

The rest of the verse (Acts 19:2), Brumback uses to try to prove that the Ephesians had the Holy Spirit already says, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost”. They did not receive the Holy Ghost until Paul had laid his hands upon them, after they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (verses 5 & 6). This brought them unto the one Bible standard of salvation (Acts 2:38).

The Samaritans likewise had not yet received the Holy Ghost as Brumback tries to prove. Acts 8:15-17 says, “who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he has fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus), Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost”. This brought them up to the one Bible standard of salvation (Acts 2:38).

Brumback claims, “The baptism with the Spirit is not given as a cause of salvation, but as a consequence of salvation. Peter gave a clear indication of this on the Day of Pentecost, when he said: “Repent, and be baptized everyone 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). The gift of the spirit was bestowed as a result of the remission of sins. Paul also declares:”…After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13)”. (Ibid, page 179).

Concerning Acts 2:38 on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost was received following water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Again Carl Brumback quotes part of a verse (Ephesians 1:13). The whole verse reads “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise”.

Paul, who founded (Acts 19:1-7) preached indirectly or directly baptism in the name of Holy Ghost. In Ephesians 1:13 he called what he had preached to them “the gospel of your salvation”.
Brumback says on page 179, “If you will examine carefully the outpouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his household, you will note that the six brethren who accompanied Peter associated the speaking with the tongues with the “gift of the Holy Ghost” and not with the experience of salvation. Peter, too, related their supernatural utterance to “the like gift”, which God had given us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:17). Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles were “saved” by believing the words told them by Peter, and then God poured out His Spirit upon them”.

Cornelius and his household were not saved by merely believing the words which Peter space, though faith is certainly essential to salvation and the Spirit which, they received through faith was none other than the Gift or Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidences of speaking with tongues, compare these verses: ” While Peter yet spake words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, and many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. (Acts 10:44-46)

“Who shall tell thee words, thereby thou and all thy household shall be saved. And as I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”. (Acts 11:14-16)

” …that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which Chynoweth the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us” (Acts 15:7,8).

The six brethren who accompanied Peter, and Peter, knew that Cornelius and his household had received the Holy Ghost, which is in God’s salvation plan, Acts 2:38, for they heard them speak with tongues.

Brumback says on page 1 B9, “The disciples were not commanded to “tarry in Jerusalem” until they received an enduement of power which saved them, but to tarry for an enduement of power which would enable them to be “witnesses”. In John 1:11-13 we read, “He” came unto his own, and his own, received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God “.

The power to become the sons of God (regeneration) (John 3:5) was given to the disciples on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4-) and of course with it an endument of power which enabled them to be witnesses.

Carl Brumback claims that I Cor. 12:13 and Matt. 3:11 are two separate baptisms of the Holy Ghost because he claims the Holy Spirit (which they believe is the third person of a trinity) is the Baptizer in Cor. Spirit (which they believe is the third person of the trinity) in the baptizer in Cor. 12:13 and the Son (which they believe is the second person of a trinity) is the Baptizer in Matt 3:11. ” We do not expect Oneness believers to distinguish, as we do , between
The Baptizer” in the first instance, the Holy Spirit, and in the second the Son…” (Page 180).

There is only one Baptizer and that is Jesus and only one Baptism of the Spirit. Jesus is the Holy Spirit.” Jesus called his disciples together one day and told them he was soon going away but that he would send another Comforter who would abide with them forever”.

Who then is this other Comforter? What is his name? Is he someone else other than Jesus? If the Comforter is someone else, then Jesus is not here, he is not in us. But Jesus said, ” Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world “.

” Jesus did not leave his disciples in the dark; he told them very plainly who the other Comforter is. Said He; ” I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to “. John 14:18. And he further told them that the other Comforter was he who was dwelling with them and would be in them when he Came again. He was WITH them in the flesh and went away to heaven in flesh, but he came back in spirit on the day of Pentecost to be IN them. So we may rightfully sing: Since Jesus came into my heart. Therefore the name of the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, IS Jesus, John 14:26.

There is no other name*

Brumback goes on to say “…but even they must admit that the two elements, into which we are baptized, the body and the Holy Spirit, are not the same. The Holy Spirit is not the church! This is irrefutable proof that the experience of regeneration, in which we are ” born of the Spirit ” and baptized by the Spirit ” into one body, is utterly distinct from our being baptized by the Lord Jesus with the Holy Ghost “. (Page 180)

“For one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we bond or free; and have been a I made to drink into one Spirit” (Cor. 12:13, same as Matt. 3:11).

Carl Brumback says, ” To indicate the Untenable nature of the Oneness view, let me illustrate it from my own experience. I have been baptized with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4, which by their definition, means that I have been ” born of the Spirit “. I have not been baptized in water according to their precise formula, so consequently, I am informed that I have not been ” born of the water”.

What does this mean? That for twenty five years I have been only half-born! Some people have called me ” half-baked “, but not even my worst detractors have ever called me ” half-born “! I am not too frightened by this Oneness label, however, for I know that there is not one verse of scripture by which they can substantiate this false notion that a person can be ‘ half-born ” or a half child of God. The Lord spoke of one ” who was not far from the Kingdom but never of one who was half in the Kingdom”. ( Pages 180 & 181 ).
Carl Brumback says he was “baptized with the Holy Ghost according to Acts 2:4 twenty five years ago. ” that was essential to being Born Again, but the New Birth was not complete without water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 10:4348).

* When God Became A Man, A.T. Surratt page 5, tract.
Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues, but the New Birth was not complete until they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

I saw a picture of Jim Baker, the well known Assemblies of God minister who fell in disgrace and who is now serving time in prison and his wife Tammy Faye made while they were going to Bible school. They were innocent looking kids. They too were baptized with the Holy Ghost years ago. My heart was moved with compassion for him and I sent him and Tammy Faye some tracts on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the Godhead. I later received a very touching letter from Jim Baker telling me how much he appreciated my concern.

Jimmy Swaggart, another well known Assemblies of God minister, who also fell in disgrace, too was baptized with the Holy Ghost years ago. Jimmy Swaggart like Carl Brumback fought water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the Oneness of God for years. He made the statement that “their heads are wrong but their hearts are right,” well “his head and heart were wrong”.

CHAPTER TWELVE
Love of the Truth

Carl Brumback calls the truth of the mighty God in Jesus calls the truth of the mighty God in Jesus and God’s Born Again plan of salvation Acts 2:38. “The two minded theology of the Oneness Movement” and “this double-minded doctrine” (page 183) but it is Carl Brumback’s doctrine that is double-minded as we have shown, he has added two more persons to the One Person Godhead Jesus (Colossians 2:9, 10). He has made two baptisms of the Holy Ghost, whereas the scriptures only know One, (Matt. 3:11, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:38, Eph. 4:5, I Cor. 12:13). He has made two baptisms of the Holy Ghost, whereas the scriptures teach only One Born Again plan of salvation (Acts 2:38, 37-39.)

Carl Brumback wants to be Pentecostal, but he doesn’t want to accept the Pentecostal doctrine in its essential place and fullness. He has wrested the scriptures to make God’s Only Born Again plan of salvation, Acts 2:38,to take all in all people even though they reject water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance.

Brumback says, “In a final word to the Oneness reader, Truth is a pearl of great price, many are willing to suffer the loss of material blessings, the severing of family ties, and the reproach which an unpopular doctrine engenders from fellow Christians, in order to buy this pearl. Some of these sacrificial souls, however, pull back from paying all the price. . .When we can set aside our opinions of the truth for the truth itself, then can we be said to love the truth” (pages 183-184).

What does Carl Brumback know about suffering for the name of Jesus Christ? (read in the book of Acts what the suffered for the name of Jesus), all he has done for years is fight the name of Jesus. It is Carl Brumback that is not willing to pay the price for the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. (II Thess. 2:10, 11).

What about the Oneness Pentecostal people who have gone back into the Assemblies of God and joined hands with the Trinitarians and thereby denied what God has done for them and the revelation He has given them concerning His name and deity? “There is an awful day of fiery indignation and judgment awaiting them”. (Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-29).

As we come to the end of this rebuttal, my Trinitarian friend, I leave with you God’s Born Again plan of salvation, Acts 2:38, and may God reveal to you who Jesus really is (Coll. 2:9-10).

Please Login to Comment.

Subscribe Today!

Archives