Jump to content

Bernard's The Oneness of God - Chapter 9

From BelieveTheSign


Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.


Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham



This is our series of articles analyzing David Bernard's book, The Oneness of God. You are on the page that is in bold. Click on the links to go to a particular chapter:

A Critical Analysis of Chapter 9 of The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard

"New Testament Explanations: Acts to Revelation"

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Paul wrote this blessing to the Corinthians around AD 55 — twenty-five years before the apostle John finished writing. No council had convened. No creed had been composed. And yet Paul reaches instinctively for three names in a single sentence, associating each with a distinct gift: grace with Jesus Christ, love with God, and fellowship with the Holy Ghost.

Bernard says this is just one God described in three useful ways. The grace, love, and fellowship all come from the same person — Jesus — who happens to have three relevant titles. Chapter 9 works through passage after passage from Acts to Revelation with that same move: what looks like three distinct persons is always, on examination, one person seen from three angles. The technique is consistent. Whether it works is another question.

What Bernard Gets Right

Bernard is correct when he states that "the right hand of God" is figurative language, and he handles that point well. The Bible speaks of God's right hand, God's arm, God's finger, and God's nostrils — none of which require that God has literal human anatomy. When the text says Jesus sat down at the right hand of God, it is using the language of power and honor, not positioning two physical bodies next to each other in a room. Bernard is correct, and no serious Trinitarian would argue otherwise.

He is also right that Revelation is a highly symbolic book and that the Lamb in Revelation 5 is not a literal animal. The seven eyes, seven horns, and slain-yet-living description make clear that symbolic vision is at work throughout. Trinitarians should resist reading Revelation 5 as a simple visual photograph of God the Father and God the Son sitting side-by-side in human form.

And his handling of Colossians 2:9 versus Ephesians 3:19 raises a real question that Trinitarians should engage honestly: if Christians can be "filled with all the fullness of God" (Ephesians 3:19), does that mean they share in the same divine fullness that belongs to Jesus? Bernard is right that the two verses don't mean the same thing, and he explains well why Colossians 2:9 describes something unique to Christ's Incarnation.

The Right Hand of God: Figurative Language, Real Relationship

Bernard rightly establishes that "right hand" is symbolic throughout the Bible. But he then makes a jump the text doesn't support: he concludes that because the spatial description is figurative, no genuine personal distinction between Jesus and the Father is indicated.

The symbol points to something real. The question is what.

Psalm 110:1 is the key passage. "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Jesus himself quotes this psalm in Matthew 22:41-45 and poses a question the Pharisees cannot answer: if David calls the Messiah "my Lord," how can the Messiah be merely David's human son? The psalm describes the LORD (Yahweh) speaking directly to David's Lord (the Messiah). This is not just symbolic positioning — it is a personal divine speech act, one person addressing another. Bernard explains the symbol but leaves the speech act untouched. Even if "right hand" means honor and authority rather than a physical location, "the LORD said" still requires a speaker and a hearer. One cannot replace that relational content with omnipresence and a manifestation.

Bernard's analysis of Stephen's vision (Acts 7:55-56) also has a gap. He correctly points out that Stephen saw "the glory of God, and Jesus" and then prayed only to Jesus — arguing this shows there was no separate person beside Jesus. But look at the text's exact words: Stephen saw "the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Bernard's reading requires "the glory of God" to be simply what Jesus radiates as the divine-human person he is. That is possible. But the text presents Stephen beholding two things — the glory and Jesus — and then describing Jesus as standing at a position in relation to God. None of this requires two separate physical bodies. It does, however, describe something other than one person looking at himself.

The Epistles' Greetings and the Kai Argument

Bernard builds a careful argument from the Greek word kai in Paul's greetings. Kai is usually translated "and" — "grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." But Bernard notes that kai is sometimes translated "even" in the KJV. So "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" could be read as "God our Father, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ" — identifying Jesus with the Father rather than distinguishing them.

While it's a clever argument, it doesn't work.

Boyd identifies the core problem: the context of every salutation immediately contradicts the identification. In Romans 1:7 Paul writes "from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." But just three verses earlier (Romans 1:4) he referred to God's "Son" — Jesus Christ. Then just two verses later (Romans 1:9) he thanks "God through Jesus Christ." One cannot read kai as an identifying "even" in verse 7 ("God our Father, that is, Jesus Christ") while Paul has just spoken of Jesus as God's Son and is about to thank God through Jesus. The grammar may permit "even," but the context of the entire letter, as Boyd demonstrates, demands "and."

The same is true of every salutation. In 2 Corinthians 1:2 Paul uses the disputed kai. But the very next verse blesses "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" — where the Father is explicitly of Jesus, distinguishing them. Does Paul switch identities between the second and third verse of the same letter, with no signal to his readers that anything has changed? Bernard's argument requires exactly this kind of unmarked oscillation.

Boyd puts it plainly: there is not a single recognized Bible translator in history — Trinitarian or otherwise — who has ever rendered kai in the Pauline salutations as "even" to identify Jesus with the Father. This is not a case of overlooked translation evidence. It's a reading imposed on the text from the outside.

Bernard also argues that if "and" in the greetings separates distinct persons, then passages like "God, and of the Father, and of Christ" (Colossians 2:2) would yield four persons: God, Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. But this argument misunderstands what Trinitarians claim. Nobody says every use of "and" between divine names names a new person. "God and Father" can clearly identify one person by two names. The Trinitarian reading is that "God our Father" and "the Lord Jesus Christ" are distinct — not that every term after "and" introduces a new divine person.

One more problem with the greetings argument that Bernard raises but doesn't resolve: the Holy Spirit is almost entirely absent from these greetings. Bernard says this is because the concept of God as Spirit was "wrapped up" in the title "God the Father" for Jewish readers, making the Holy Ghost unnecessary to mention. But if the Spirit is so thoroughly identified with the Father that he doesn't need to be named, why does Paul name him separately in 2 Corinthians 13:14? Bernard's own chapter can't consistently account for when the Spirit appears and when he doesn't.

The "Apostolic Benediction": Three Sources, Not Three Names

2 Corinthians 13:14 is the most important text in the chapter, and it receives the least critical attention from Bernard. His explanation: "the Bible uses the most logical way to describe these attributes or works of God, namely, by associating them with relevant roles, names, or titles of God." Grace is associated with Jesus, love with God, and fellowship with the Spirit — not because these are three persons, but because each title fits the work described most naturally.

That explanation would work if the text said "the grace, love, and fellowship of God, available through Jesus, by means of the Spirit." But that's not what it says. The grammar in 2 Corinthians 13:14 is structured as three separate genitive constructions — "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ," "the love of God," "the communion of the Holy Ghost." Genitive here describes source or possession. Each blessing is attributed to a distinct source. Paul isn't saying one God provides three things and here are three labels for the one provider. He's saying three distinct persons are each the source of a distinct divine gift flowing to the Corinthians.

Boyd captures why the Oneness reading makes Paul's sentence strange: it requires Paul to be saying "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God (who is also Jesus Christ), and the communion of the Holy Ghost (who is also Jesus Christ) be with you all." If that is what Paul meant, why didn't he say it? He could easily have written, "May the grace, love, and fellowship of God, revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ, be with you all." He didn't. He named three persons in deliberate sequence as distinct sources of distinct gifts. It's hard to explain this phrasing unless Paul understood himself to be addressing three genuinely distinct divine persons.

Threefold References and Hebrews 9:14

Bernard works through several other triadic passages — Ephesians 3:14-17, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2, 1 Peter 3:18, Jude 20-21, and Revelation 1:4-5. His consistent claim is that in each case the three titles describe roles or attributes of one person, not three distinct persons. There isn't space to address every passage, but Hebrews 9:14 demands special attention because Bernard makes an argument there that visibly doesn't hold.

Hebrews 9:14 says: "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Bernard says this describes Christ's humanity offering itself through the help of the Spirit (Father) to God — all roles of one person. The verse "simply teaches that Christ was able to offer up His human body to God through the help of the Spirit of God."

But the verse has three distinct participants in a single transaction: Christ who offers, the eternal Spirit through whom he offers, and God to whom he offers. If Father = Spirit = Christ, this verse becomes "Christ offered himself through himself to himself." That isn't a description of atoning sacrifice — it's a theological tautology. The entire power of the verse depends on there being a genuine offering to a genuine recipient, mediated by a genuine divine presence. Collapse those three into one person and you've drained the verse of its meaning. Why would the author of Hebrews write a sentence this convoluted to describe one person doing something to himself?

Ephesians 4:4-6 is worth a brief note as well. Bernard argues that "one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father" proves the oneness of God, not a threeness. He's right that the emphasis is on unity — but unity of what? Paul is not defining the inner structure of the Godhead here; he's calling the church to unity on the basis of God's own unity. Yet notice the structure: Paul names one Spirit, one Lord (Jesus), and one God and Father in sequence, linking each to a different dimension of church life. This triadic pattern — Father, Lord/Son, Spirit — appears in at least sixty-five distinct New Testament texts, according to Boyd's count. At some point, a pattern this consistent stops looking accidental.

The Fullness of God: A Good Argument That Proves Too Little

Bernard's treatment of Colossians 2:9 ("all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus") against Ephesians 3:19 (believers can be "filled with all the fullness of God") is one of the stronger sections of the chapter. He correctly distinguishes the two verses: Colossians describes the incarnation of God in Christ — Christ is the bodily expression of everything God is. Ephesians describes believers receiving God's fullness into their lives through Christ dwelling in them. Christians don't become God incarnate. The passages are not equivalent.

However, Bernard uses this to argue Colossians 2:9 supports Oneness — that all of God literally dwells in Jesus, making Jesus the sum total of the Godhead. But Trinitarians have always said the same thing: all the fullness of God's nature dwells in Christ. The Father and Spirit don't dwell somewhere else while Jesus is on earth; in Christ "all the fullness of the Godhead" is truly present. The disagreement isn't about whether all of God is in Jesus. It's about what "all of God" means — whether God is one undifferentiated person or three co-equal persons sharing one divine nature. Colossians 2:9 doesn't settle that question. It confirms the full deity of Christ, which Trinitarians fully affirm. It doesn't prove that Christ therefore is the Father.

Bernard also notes that Paul was opposing Gnosticism, not Trinitarianism, when he wrote Colossians 2:9. He acknowledges this, but then says "it does not matter what false belief Paul was opposing; his positive doctrine still stands." That's a fair point as far as it goes. But it also means that reading Colossians 2:9 as a proof text against Trinitarian theology is a stretch — Paul wasn't addressing that question.

Philippians 2:6-8: "Equal" Cannot Mean "Identical"

Bernard's reading of Philippians 2:6 turns on one word. He says "equal with God" means "the same as God" — that Jesus is equal to the Father in the sense of being identical to him, not in the sense of being a distinct but co-equal divine person.

The problem is that "equal" is a relationship term, not an identity term. You cannot be "equal with" yourself. Equality requires two things being compared. If I say my strength is equal to yours, I'm describing a relationship between two distinct things. If I say my strength is equal to my strength, I'm saying nothing. Bernard's reading of "equal with God" as "identical to God" would eliminate the point of the comparison entirely.

Boyd makes this precisely: neither in Greek (isos) nor in English does "equal" mean "identical." If Paul had meant to say Jesus was simply God himself in a human body, he had clearer ways to say it. What he actually says is that the one who was "in very nature God" chose not to exploit that equality — "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." The grasping language implies that equality with God was a status that could be clung to or relinquished. A person cannot grasp or not grasp their own identity.

Bernard also notes that many Trinitarian scholars agree the kenosis (self-emptying of verse 7) did not mean Christ shed his divine attributes. He quotes one scholar to this effect and seems to take this as supporting his position. But agreement on what the kenosis doesn't mean doesn't settle what it does mean. Trinitarians and Oneness believers disagree not over whether Christ divested himself of deity but over who exactly chose to become flesh. For Trinitarians, the eternal Son — a genuinely distinct divine person — took on human nature. For Oneness theology, the Father himself took on flesh as the Son. But if that's true, who was in the form of God before the Incarnation began? In Oneness theology, the Son only began at conception. So Philippians 2:5-8 is describing a pre-Incarnate taking-on of human form — which, on Oneness terms, hadn't existed yet.

A final observation about verses 10-11: "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." If Jesus is the Father, confessing Jesus as Lord gives glory to whom exactly? The verse says it gives glory to "God the Father" — presented as someone distinct, someone who receives glory from the confession. One doesn't give glory to oneself through the confessions of others. The verse only makes sense if the Father who receives glory is genuinely other than Jesus who is being confessed.

The Lamb in Revelation 5: A Scene That Can't Work as Described

Bernard argues that the One on the throne in Revelation 5 is Jesus in his deity (the Father) and the Lamb is Jesus in his humanity (the Son). The vision symbolically depicts two natures of one person, not two divine persons.

Boyd identifies the most basic problem with this reading: the Lamb approaches the one on the throne and takes the scroll from his right hand. If the Lamb and the One on the throne are both Jesus — one his humanity, the other his deity — then Jesus's humanity approached Jesus's deity and physically took something from himself. That reading strips the scene of its entire narrative content. The dramatic power of the vision is that something happens between two parties: one holds what only the other can open. An encounter with oneself has no such drama.

More revealing is the question Boyd raises: why does Revelation never resolve the distinction between "God and the Lamb"? The phrase occurs at Revelation 22:1 and 22:3 — in the final chapter, describing the eternal state. Even in the new creation, it is "the throne of God and of the Lamb," with servants worshipping and a singular pronoun ("his servants shall serve him" — singular, expressing unity) that points to their oneness as one God without ever collapsing the compound expression into one name. If the Lamb's distinct identity were only a temporary symbol for the Incarnation's duration, why does it persist into eternity? Why does the eternal city still have "God and the Lamb" as its light and its temple? The persistence of the compound expression through to Revelation's last chapter is not what you'd expect if the Lamb were simply a temporary symbol for Jesus's humanity, now reintegrated into undifferentiated deity.

Bernard's argument that some Trinitarian scholars identify the One on the throne as the "Triune God" rather than God the Father specifically is true — but it doesn't help his case. If the One on the throne is the Triune God, then the Lamb is a part of what sits on the throne, not a separate figure. That still doesn't make the two identical in Oneness terms.

Three Sections Bernard Dismisses Without Engaging

Chapter 9 is remarkable for what it doesn't do. Three significant passages — Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1, and 1 John 5:7 — are each handled with a cross-reference to an earlier chapter. "We have explained this verse in chapter 5." "We have discussed many parts of this passage in chapter 5." "Chapter 6 explains this verse."

Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 are among the strongest passages for the eternal, distinct preexistence of the Son — we addressed the problems with Bernard's earlier treatment of them in our analysis of Chapters 5 and 8. The point to note here is that in the chapter specifically dedicated to explaining hard New Testament passages, Bernard doesn't actually explain these. He points backward. This matters because Colossians 1:15-17 contains some of the most demanding language about Christ's pre-Incarnate role in creation, and Hebrews 1 applies Psalm 102 (a psalm directly addressing Yahweh) to the Son. These are not peripheral. They're central. Deferring to earlier chapters in a chapter meant to address exactly these kinds of texts is a notable gap.

"Why Did God Allow Confusing Verses?" — The Most Dangerous Section

Chapter 9 closes with a question Bernard says many people ask: if Oneness theology is correct, why does God allow verses that seem to teach the Trinity? His answer draws on Matthew 13 — Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who truly hunger for truth would understand. God hides things from the spiritually dull and reveals them to sincere seekers. "Could it be that God allows some verses of Scripture to be a stumbling block to those who are satisfied with human traditions?" In other words: the passages that appear to teach the Trinity are veiled tests. Those who find the Oneness reading are the true spiritual seekers. Those who find the Trinity are satisfied with tradition and dull of heart.

This argument has serious problems.

First, it puts the Oneness position beyond any possible challenge. Any passage that appears to support the Trinity can now be explained away as a divine veil placed there to test the spiritually uncommitted. No counter-evidence can count against Oneness theology once this move is made. That's not a sign of a strong position — it's a sign that the position has insulated itself from examination.

Second, it applies Matthew 13 wrongly. Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds — the spiritually uncommitted who came without seeking. But he explained those parables plainly to his disciples (Matthew 13:10-17, 36). Paul's letters, where the triadic formulas appear, were written to churches — not to spiritually dull outsiders being tested. The epistolary greetings were addressed to the "saints in Rome," to "the church of God in Corinth." If God is veiling the Trinity from these letters as a test of spiritual hunger, he is veiling it from the very people the letters were written to instruct. That's the opposite of what Jesus did with his disciples.

Third, the argument works against Oneness theology just as easily as it works against the Trinity. If God sometimes hides truth to test seekers, how does Bernard know the Oneness reading is the revealed truth and not the veil? How does he know the plain language of John 14 — where Jesus prays to the Father, promises another Comforter, and the Father sends the Spirit — is not the true reading, with the Oneness interpretation being the clever alternative available to those who search the text carefully?

Fourth, and pastorally, this framing is manipulative. It tells Oneness believers that anyone who reads these texts and arrives at Trinitarian conclusions is spiritually dull, unseeking, or tradition-bound. It tells Trinitarian Christians who leave Oneness churches that they have moved toward blindness, not away from error. This framing makes honest examination emotionally costly and spiritually dangerous. That's not the spirit of the One who said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Do we have to read between the lines?

Paul said in 2 Corinthians 1:13:

For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end; As also ye have acknowledged us in part... (KJV)
Our letters have been straightforward, and there is nothing written between the lines and nothing you can’t understand. I hope someday you will fully understand us, even if you don’t understand us now. (NLT)
For we do not write you anything other than what you can read and also understand. But I hope that you will understand completely just as also you have partly understood us... (NET)

Paul is saying here that the Bible is not written to say one thing when something else is really meant. Paul’s integrity and the integrity of the Bible as a whole is based on God always letting people know exactly where He stands on all matters.

Luke 10:21

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
At that, Jesus rejoiced, exuberant in the Holy Spirit. “I thank you, Father, Master of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the know-it-alls and showed them to these innocent newcomers. (The Message)

Isaiah 5:21

Woe unto them that are pwise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

1 Cor. 1:19

For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.

Isaiah 29:14

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

We don't need to add anything to the Bible by "reading between the lines". The truth of the Gospel is there for the simplest person to see.

The Conclusion Bernard Draws — and the Argument It Reveals

The chapter's conclusion makes a claim worth examining closely. Bernard says that "most so-called trinitarian proof texts must be explained in a way consistent with Oneness or else they lead to doctrines that trinitarians themselves do not believe." His argument is that if you interpret the prayers of Jesus as the Son-person praying to the Father-person, you end up with a subordinate Son — which Trinitarians reject. If you interpret Stephen's vision as two literal bodies, you end up with two Gods — which Trinitarians reject. Therefore, he says, the Trinitarian interpretation collapses into error, and only the Oneness reading is consistent.

This argument is worth engaging honestly. Bernard is right that some popular Trinitarian arguments, taken too far, do create problems. The prayers of Jesus can't prove subordinationism — a lesser God praying upward to a greater one. The vision of Stephen can't prove two physical divine bodies in heaven. These are real cautions.

But Bernard's conclusion doesn't follow from these cautions. The Trinitarian reading of the prayers of Jesus doesn't require a subordinate God-Son. It requires a Son who, in genuine personal relationship with the Father, prays with real dependence — not because the Son is a lesser God, but because that's what genuine sonship looks like within the one divine being. The Trinitarian reading of Stephen's vision doesn't require two literal bodies. It requires a genuine personal distinction that can be represented visually. Bernard's conclusion only holds if "consistent Trinitarian reading" means "the reading Trinitarians with bad arguments use." That's not a fair test.

Meanwhile, Bernard's own conclusion in the chapter — that nowhere in the Bible is there a distinction of persons in the Godhead — requires him to explain Psalm 110:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Hebrews 9:14, Revelation 5, Philippians 2:10-11, and sixty-five other triadic New Testament texts as all referring to one person with multiple names. At some point, the density of the evidence matters. An explanation that requires this much parallel work on this many texts is carrying a heavy load.

The Real Logical Problem

Step back from the individual arguments and the chapter's structural weakness becomes visible. Bernard's method in Chapter 9 is the same as in Chapters 7 and 8: take each passage that appears to describe more than one divine person, apply the humanity/deity grid or the roles-and-manifestations grid, and show that no single passage forces you to see distinct persons. The method is individually effective but cumulatively question-begging.

The Trinitarian doesn't say any single passage by itself proves three persons in the Godhead. The case for the Trinity is cumulative: a voice from heaven addresses Jesus at his baptism; Jesus prays to a Father who is genuinely other than himself; the Spirit is sent as "another" by both Father and Son; Paul's blessings coordinate three distinct divine sources of three distinct gifts; Revelation distinguishes God and the Lamb through to the eternal state without ever collapsing the distinction. Read any one of these passages in isolation and a Oneness explanation is possible. Read them together, and the consistent pattern of genuine relationship, genuine distinction, and genuine personal interaction across every layer of the New Testament is harder to set aside.

Boyd identifies the broader problem with the Oneness interpretive approach: it requires that all language of the Father speaking to the Son, sending the Son, loving the Son, receiving the Son's prayer, being glorified by the Son — is an "illusion." The divine choreography is a performance designed to reveal God to humans, not a window into real divine relationship. But when so many texts must be reread as illusory performance to make the Oneness framework work, one has to ask: what would genuine divine relational language look like? If the language of John 14-17, or 2 Corinthians 13:14, or Hebrews 9:14 is not describing real relationship, what would? The Oneness framework has no answer. It can explain away all of it. And that is precisely the problem.

A Word to the Reader

If you've been in a Oneness church, you've probably been taught that the Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible — that it's a later addition, an imposition on the apostolic faith by Greek-influenced councils. Chapter 9 is the most detailed attempt in the book to walk through specific passages and show they don't require the Trinity. At surface level, the explanations are coherent. The kai argument sounds scholarly. The "right hand" analysis sounds careful. The claim about confusing verses has a kind of spiritual humility to it.

But pay attention to what the last section actually does. It tells you that if you look at these passages and see three persons, you might be spiritually dull, tradition-bound, or failing God's test for sincere seekers. That is a significant claim. It means that examining the evidence honestly and arriving at a different conclusion is not just an intellectual error — it's a spiritual failure.

That framing should make you stop and ask: is that how Jesus handled people who disagreed with him? Is that how Paul treated believers who needed instruction? The New Testament's approach to truth is that it makes things plain, not that it hides them as a sorting mechanism for the spiritually worthy. "God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). A sound mind can examine the evidence. It can read 2 Corinthians 13:14 and ask why Paul named three distinct sources. It can read Hebrews 9:14 and ask why a transaction requires three parties. It can read Revelation 5 and ask why the Lamb approaches the throne to take the scroll — and from whom.

Those questions have answers. The Trinity is the one framework that takes the language at face value without requiring you to decide in advance that it must mean something other than what it says.=Navigation=

Retrieved from "https://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Bernard%27s_The_Oneness_of_God_-_Chapter_9&oldid=27824"