I am not getting on here to discuss the doctrines presented in the book. What I am here to say is that this book was written as an expose of Oneness teachings, but clearly Dr. Boyd must not have known them very well in his stint as a oneness believer. The things he accuses the Oneness people of believing is not at all what they believe and further he portrays his own beliefs in very contradictory ways.
In one place he describes his beliefs as one thing and in other places he says it in a totally different way, changing his belief entirely. From page 190-200 his beliefs are totally different than they are on pages 20-35. I don't know where Dr. Boyd's affiliation was, because apparently it was not a very oneness circle he traveled with.
If you would like to read the response to this book (and by far the winner of the debate) you should read it's rebuttal. "If Ye Know These Things" by Rev. Ross Drysdale
It is the other side to this debate that everyone must read. Oneness and Trinitarian alike.
Boyd hits right on target with this. He can say the truth about the "movement" that others can't having once belonged to them. I, too, travelled along that road for awhile many years back and see to this day the problems it creates. The explanation of the love between Father and Son in John 17 (the essence of the trinity) is worth the price of the book. I recommned this to any open-minded and open-hearted person seeking liberating truth.Pastor Tom.
I agree with Rev. Ballard that the book is fundamentally wrong(Duet 6:4), The Bible is clear there is 1 God, only 3 manifestations of him. To believe there is more than one is to deny the Deity of Jesus, since God the Father is a jealous God and praising Jesus the Son is not praising God the Father. The author claims there is more than one, yet the bible states God is not the author of confusion, therefore Duet 6:4, James 2:19, Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 needs to be removed from the bible, as well as other scriptures. The Trinity is man made and was made up after the Oneness was being preached. and there were oneness martyrs by trinity believers in that time. If the Bible was read and quoted like is was written, discussions of this nature would never occur.....
This work -- like similar books written by persons once associated with the movements or groups they write about -- is credible, Biblical and persuasive. Though I disagree with Dr. Boyd on other items on which he has written (namely, the openness theology of his "God Of The Possible"), this particular work is without peer in its consideration of the proffered supports and weaknesses of oneness theology (though I wish it occasionally went further). Also, I must add, in response to the scathing review by Rev. Ballard, who obviously is a oneness follower: It is one thing to allege that an author has made "blatant false accusations," and another thing entirely to specify which "accusations" are false, and then to support the claim of falsity with cogent argument based on a careful, proper examination of the Bible -- which, incidentally, is precisely what this book does. Also, if Rev. Ballard and other oneness Pentecostals have not "deviated from ... central truths," as stated in the book description, then they should explain why not, and why their view is right, in the proper apologetic, studious and gracious fashion. Simply blasting an opposing view and labeling it as "offensive" accomplishes nothing (except, perhaps, to cheer the already convinced), nor does Rev. Ballard's suprising, unsupported broadside alleging "centuries" of oneness murders by non-oneness Christians. As a still-learning believer who wants to live by the truth of the Bible, I am quite willing to be convinced that the (distinctly minority) oneness position is correct in light of a cogent and fair Biblical examination. Is Rev. Ballard willing to be convinced, in light of the same kind of examination, that he is wrong? If so (which I truly hope but sadly doubt), let the dialogue and spiritual growth begin.
The Author has made blatant false accusations of Oneness Pentecostals. The Trinity has been proven to be man made non-biblicaldoctrines by the Catholic Church in AD325. Early Hebrew Matthew Texts did not contain any Triune phrases in Matthew 28:19. I can back all of this even with Catholic writings and the Bible itself. The very description of the book is offensive. Why not mention the One God Pentecostals murdered by Trinitarians through the centuries? I take great offense.