This book holds a great deal of historical interest for me because I once found the arguments it presents to be convincing and, as a result, once held to the same beliefs as the author. Those beliefs have their roots in the "Oneness" theology of the United Pentecostal Church (the UPC), as significantly modified by an independent Pentecostal pastor named Don Barnett, who pastored a church named Community Chapel and Bible Training Center that existed in the Seattle area from 1967 until 1988. The author and I were both members there in the 80's.After reading his book, I believe it represents the author's attempt to reconcile the Chapel's theolgy with the older UPC theology. It is obvious he is very strongly upholding the original "dual nature" doctrine of the Chapel in which Jesus is said to be both fully man and fully God, consistently giving the reasons that it is because Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by God, and God dwells in him (and also consistently emphasizing Jesus could not be personally the Logos, the Son of God, who existed in the beginning with God and as God). But it also seems he is trying to reconcile this view of Jesus' nature with traditional UPC doctrine, for he frequently makes references to God assuming "a body" (instead of "human nature"); he also makes statements like, "There is only one person of God and that is the person of Jesus Christ" (p. 110) that are strongly reminiscent of formal UPC doctrine. In general, I feel that the author's synthesis, like its UPC and UROG parents, fails to make an intelligible case out the Biblical statements on the subject. Trinitarianism is still the only theology that adequately accounts for everything the Bible says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.