So I'm listening to this debate as I type on the Trinity between Oneness Pentecostal author and Pastor David K. Bernard and Calvinist Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. and to be honest, I'm not impressed with either. As far as debates go, Bernard is winning (correction, 'won' -- It just ended) because his arguments are better and he is more prepared, but winning a debate doesn't mean that the winner is correct.
I think we can just chalk this up to Pastor Cook not being all that well educated on the topic or not being prepared. It seems as though he gathered his information from apologetic web sites or maybe some elementary level books such as Morey's The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, but without speaking with Cook personally I can't know that for sure. I do however know that he much like myself is without formal education past high school. He has not attended college or seminary and perhaps he should in order to gain a better understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
In his opening statement Cook made the mistake of describing the Persons of the Trinity as 'separate' which Bernard noted and pointed out in his rebuttal. Cook replied by saying that he didn't believe that he had said that, but if he did he didn't mean it. OK... fair enough, mistakes happen. Cook also presented the weak argument that Genesis 1:26-27 somehow shows the Trinity from the very beginning of scripture when in fact all it does is help to build a case for it. At best we can say that it supports plurality but that can be 2 to infinity... 3 is not expressly mentioned by the uses of 'us' and 'our' in that passage.
When it came to the question and answer session Cook failed miserably to adequately answer Bernard's questions (he answered them, but not even to my satisfaction and I'm a Trinitarian!). Bernard asked Cook to define how he was using the term 'person' in reference to God and Cook's answer was along the lines of saying that a 'person is distinct' (which doesn't actually define what 'person' means.) And to top it off, at the end of Bernard's questioning he somehow tricked Cook into saying that Jesus was the name of the One God by asking what the one name of Matthew 28:19 was to which Cook said 'God' (notice he said God, not Yahweh) and then Bernard jumped over to Acts 4:12 asking what that name that could save was and Cook said Jesus. Fallacious as it was, it seemed to make Bernard's point... I found myself frustrated to say the least.
And what was worse is that when it came time for Cook to question Bernard, Bernard was ready with answers (wrong as they were, he was still ready). At one point Cook asked the question does God dwell in Satan. Bernard said no and was then asked if that limits God's omnipresence which of course he answered saying no, it doesn't. Bernard then proceeded to differentiate between omnipresence as meaning present in all physical locations at one time and indwelling as having a controling relationship with the one being indwelt (both adequate definitions and at least he defined his terms!) -- Cook then asked the same question again and Bernard replied that no, God does not indwell Satan and no God is not in Satan (in reference to omnipresence) because Satan is not a physical location. Cook then proceeds with this line of question and then really stuck his foot in his mouth by saying, well you've just given an example of where God is not physically present in Satan to which Bernard replied, but Satan isn't a physical being. Then the audience began to laugh and I just sat there shaking my head.
Cook then closed out by jumping off the topic of the Trinity and jumping on Oneness Pentecostalism in general saying that it's built on a faulty foundation, that they have the wrong baptismal formula, that tongues isn't necessary for salvation, and that one can't be saved in it. True as those statements may be, they had nothing to do with the topic of debate which was the Trinity. I was very disappointed to say the least with Cook's performance. In conclusion, Bernard won the debate with a false doctrine and a terrible understanding of the nature and persons of God. It just so happens that his opponent was a worse debator than he was.
