Robert S a Trinitarain writes and asks the following question on the Carm boards he thinks is a fool proof argument that refutes the Oneness view because he uses scripture and the grammar, void of any meaningful context found in other passages with the grammar alone :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you gratmmically explain what the bible means when it says 1st John 4 vs 10. Herin is love,not that we loved God but that he loved us and
sent his Son into the world that we might live through him."
Explain sent his Son.
Where was the Son before he was sent.
Who sent and who went.
Thanks Bob
The grammar is important.
And some of you wouldnt pass grade 3 grammar.
The Son was sent into the world that means he wasnt in the world before he was sent, he was somewhere eles before someone sent him.
Where was he before he was sent hint it wasnt the world.
And who sent.
And who went.
Can you awnser I know your not stupid.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If that is not enough, then he answers himself and demeans the Oneness view like he actually has a meaningful argument, all the while ignoring other passages that deal with the same subject and explains what Jesus being *sent and him coming* actually is, which has absolutely nothing to do with pre-existence of "god the son" whatsoever.
What the trinity folk do is ; isolate the passage in a vacuum, ignoring the context and other passages and then ask us about the grammar which would prove their point devoid of anything else (Which is meaningless) without the full context and other passages that speak of the same subject. Actually Jesus being sent has to do with God providing a sacrifice of sinless flesh in his only begotten son. John also wrote (John 6:51)
Jesus is the bread which came down from heaven and the bread that came from heaven was his flesh. What the passage is telling us is that God provided Jesus flesh for us, like he provided manna in the wilderness for the children of Israel.
Then to try and prove this wrong, our trinitarian friends will turn to (John 6:62)that speaks further of His sacrificial flesh by stating what and if you shall see *the son of man*(That born of Mary in his flesh) ascend up where he was before?(They do not get it, "his flesh was not there before!" the key phrase is:* son of man* but they ignore that!)
It is impossible for the son of man to ascend up where he was before and that is the clue Jesus gave us in the sentence as the scriptures teach flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom.(In other words, Jesus flesh was provided for us from heaven) not that he literally came from there anymore than he was literally slain in eternity.(Rev.13:8,1st.Peter 1:19-20)
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
John 3:5 Baptismal regeneration?????
John 3:1-15 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.(esv)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that a person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name to receive the forgiveness of sins. The oneness doctrine of baptism is commonly known as baptismal regeneration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This is absolutely untrue, we are very much against "Baptismal regeneration"(Making Baptism the savior.) What Michael failed to tell anyone in truth is; that they refer to our teaching as such, as we deny their view as unscriptural.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The regeneration of a person in the oneness view, can only be accomplished by this prescription, and according to the largest oneness denomination, all other forms of baptism are illegitimate and ineffective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: The regeneration of a person is not up to the Onenenss view or the Reformed View but rather scripture and it is for this reason I am answering Michael as to what scriptures teach.( to do a comparison of the two doctrines) to see who actually contradicts the scriptures and who does not. We have simply gotten a rehashing of their redundant view of *being born of the water is refering to being born.* This will be looked at further down when Michael actually deals with that part of John 3;5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not unique to Oneness Pentecostalism; Roman Catholicism teaches a similar view that also includes infants in it's redemptive effects, although the Triune formula is used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: It is not unique to us at all as Baptism without the name Jesus, literally spoken over the one being Baptized does absolutely nothing but get one wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
I do believe that the Jesus name formula is an outright rebellion against the clear teaching of the Lord Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: As do I believe that using the titles: Father, Son and Spirit are the actual rebellion and not doing what the Lord Jesus actually stated to do in (Math. 28:19) that being: Go and find the One name and Baptize in that name. We get another account fo the great commission from Lukes view(Who wrote the book of Acts) In Luke 24:47 .
And that repentence and remission of sins be preached in HIS NAME among all nations BEGINING at Jerusalem.
(Where The first true message of salvation was preached) The Acts 2:38 message began at Jerusalm by Peter and Jesus sanctioned it in Lukes account... Peter said nothing about Baptizing the titles as he knew jJesus name was the fulfilment of all three titles,the name of the father, and of the son, and of the spirit.
But notice, that Michael makes a statement for the purpose of appealing to the emotions of those who hold to the false view of Math.28:19 as truth instead of appealing to what the text actually says and further reveals in( Luke 24:47) which points to( Acts 2:38) as the truth and ties in the math.28:19 passage and Michael makes an appeal to only a single passage in spite of the others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus uses the definite article before each name, and in doing so, He identified each name to be used respectively (the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I know this argument better than that and have heard it many times and he has actually gotten it wrong, but it makes no difference and it does not teach what he is saying as a pat, fool proof ,argument... What he means is the use of the preposition( *of *)before the definite article(*The*) somehow teaches his doctrine of distinct names...
The Apostles only used One name(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:45,19:1-6 , Paul called on that name: Acts 22;16) as there is only One name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved(Acts 4:12) and it is all inclusive of the titles Father, Son, and Spirit, as there is Only one name of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named(Eph.3:15) And there shall be One LORD(YHWH) and his name One (Zech.14:9) Jesus is the fulfilment of that name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The various cross references employed to defend the oneness position do little to support the Jesus only formula simply because they are all descriptive accounts divorced of context, and not prescriptive commands. There are volumes more that can be said on this subject, but my focus here is to identify the role of baptism , if any, in our Lord's encounter with Nicodemus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Jesus would leave the detailed teaching of salvation in the new covenant to his disciples which was not the era that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The Lord Jesus is specifically speaking of the regenerative work of the Spirit of God in this account, and I can think of no better place to affirm or replace our understanding of this pivotal subject.
In verse 5 Jesus issues His emphasis to Nicodemus when He states "Truly, truly, I say to you." This strong Hebraic expression indicates to us that His following teaching is of paramount importance. He follows His emphasis by saying "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The assumption of water baptism as a requirement for salvation cannot be made at this point since our Lord continues by saying in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The correlation of water and flesh, and the spirit to the Spirit is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here is what Michael and the Reformed are trying to make us swallow: That Jesus was somehow telling Nicodemus he must be born(You must be born of water verse 5) Michael has tried very hard to shirk the fact, as I pointed out to him once before, that this is redundandcy compounded and somehow he refuses that strong argument that reveals his contradictory interpretation to continue in his folly of eisigesis. It is not Jesus contradicting scripture, telling us that :"we must be born of water (* flesh* according to Michael and the Reformed) and then in the same breath refuting it it is Michael's very bad interpretataion so that his doctrine might work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
Should Jesus had been referring to water baptism at this point, we would assume that He would have provided further instruction since Christian baptism , that is the command and teaching of baptism (as seen in Acts 2:38), had not yet been instituted. Nicodemus would have been ignorant of the ordinance since it had yet to be issued, and John's baptism is no where to be identified as a requirement for salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I am amazed as Michael is actually right on two points above Christian Baptism was not yet instituted and John's Baptism was not a requirment under the new. But that is all he right about. Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the coming New will, later to be expounded upon by the disciples .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of this fact is further supported by Jesus' own response to the question Nicodemus asked; " How can these things be?" Jesus responds by issuing a question of His own; "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" This question Jesus poses indicates that Nicodemus should have already known about the correlation, if any, between water and the Spirit of God. Therefore, we can assume that the Old Testament contained within it enough information to provide Nicodemus with ample understanding about this subject.
If the water Jesus spoke of in verse 5 is the waters of baptism, where is the Old Testament text that identifies it? A careful survey of the Old Testament identifies Ezekial 36:25-27 as one of but a few (the others are Isaiah 32:15, 44:3), that correlate water with regeneration or salvation.
Ezekial 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here we have a fine example of Michael contradicting himself ; in another discussion with Michael on the Godhead(Oneness vs. the false view of the trinity) Michael made a point to tell me:" that the New Testament explains the Old. " I could not agree more! But what he wants his cake and eat too! when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus they were still in the Old covenant as the blood of the testator had not been shed . Jesus simply stared revealing Gems of truth that they could not yet understand. He even opened the disiples understanding.(Luke 24:45)
Michael here in Exekial sets up his very false strawman (An argument he devised for us and sets himself to knock it down.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
This text detracts from the oneness doctrine of baptism since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed. "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." does not support baptismal regeneration because sprinkling is not the oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."
John 3:6 correlates water with flesh. Given the context of Jesus' statement, "you must be born again," we can safely assume that the water spoken of is the water released during bearing. "Flesh gives birth to flesh" provides us with the correct context of His reference to water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mlculwell: The intricacies of Baptism are not at all being taught for New testament salvation here that is done in the New testament and passages abound and I guarantee he does not want to actually go there as it will refute his false doctrine. Not only did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he MUST BE BORN AGAIN. But that he also: MUST BE BORN OF THE WATER (But according to Michael that means:" being Born") Can you imagine Jesus saying such a redundant statement? Again the detail teaching on the subject would be taught by the disciples later to be Apostles and then Nicodemus would recognize those whom Jesus commissioned as truth preachers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
During a recent debate, a oneness adherent opposed this interpretation by suggesting that since all humans undergo birth, the notion of Jesus referring to the water released during child birth in John 3:5 would be redundant. In light of this assertion, I think it is important to keep in mind who it is that Jesus was actually speaking to. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a zealous Jew, who like other Jews, might have believed his Judaism or Jewish birth was enough to merit eternal life (Matt 3:7-9, John 5:39). Jesus does not say that being born of water is a simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit, but instead He contrasts the two. Being born again refers purely to spiritual rebirth, whereas Nicodemus mistook Jesus' words to mean a needed additional physical birth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: both Michael and Nicodemus are mistaking being born of the water as child birth! Does anyone see the blatant contradiction Michael is actually doing the same thing Nicodemus is doing this is how we know he has zero truth! It is redundant and a carnal non spiritual interpretation.
Nobody is saying that being born of water is a "simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit." But rather being born again constitutes being born of the water and the spirit. A unity of the two. The only contrast being made is of the flesh and the spirit and being born of the water is not being born of the flesh. The spiritual birth is inclusive of being of being born of the water and of the spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
(vs 4). "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" identifies the spiritual nature of being born again. Therefore, the contention of Jesus is that you must be born not simply physically but spiritually. This spiritual birth is what regenerates, as opposed to the ethnicity or tradition one is born into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: But Michael goes headlong into his false interpetation and tries to tell us when Jesus said: you MUST be born again of the water , means: being" born of flesh" as opposed to what? It clearly is not at all as he(Michael) says! Certainly the contrast is of being born of flesh and Spirit but being born of the water has nothing to do with that contrast!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
In conclusion, the focus of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is underscored in verse 8 where the sovereignty and volition of the Spirit is metaphorically compared to the nature of wind. Baptism is a human undertaking,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
All of Acts 2:38 taught by the Apostles and sanctioned as truth by the Lord Jesus in Luke 24:47 as the great commission are not excluded from The regenerative work of the spirit because it does not fit your skewed view. It is not a work produced by the Apostles but given by the Lord himself(grace)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos: whereas regeneration is the prerogative of the Spirit alone (Titus 3:5). Obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37). This is exactly why Jesus uses the metaphor of physical birth to explain regeneration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Obeying is of Grace. We are not talking about something given by men and demanded to be blindly obeyed but by the Lord himself and No matter how you wish to twist that fact does not make your view any less the twisting of scriptures that it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
To suggest that water baptism regenerates negates the entirety of our Lord's metaphor and puts emphasis not on the sovereign will of God, but the freedom of men to obey an ordinance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
Nobody is suggesting "water Baptism regenerates". You better take that up with the Catholics, and the Churches of Christ! We are saying the literal spoken Jesus name in water Baptism is being born of the water and remits sin! Your problem and the biggest weakness of your Reformed(Deformed )view is that God is not all powerful enough to create men with free will and God still be and remain sovereign(That shows me your view of God is weak!)You must attempt to cheapen what God has given through grace to make your pathetic view look somewhat viable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.(esv)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that a person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name to receive the forgiveness of sins. The oneness doctrine of baptism is commonly known as baptismal regeneration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This is absolutely untrue, we are very much against "Baptismal regeneration"(Making Baptism the savior.) What Michael failed to tell anyone in truth is; that they refer to our teaching as such, as we deny their view as unscriptural.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The regeneration of a person in the oneness view, can only be accomplished by this prescription, and according to the largest oneness denomination, all other forms of baptism are illegitimate and ineffective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: The regeneration of a person is not up to the Onenenss view or the Reformed View but rather scripture and it is for this reason I am answering Michael as to what scriptures teach.( to do a comparison of the two doctrines) to see who actually contradicts the scriptures and who does not. We have simply gotten a rehashing of their redundant view of *being born of the water is refering to being born.* This will be looked at further down when Michael actually deals with that part of John 3;5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not unique to Oneness Pentecostalism; Roman Catholicism teaches a similar view that also includes infants in it's redemptive effects, although the Triune formula is used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: It is not unique to us at all as Baptism without the name Jesus, literally spoken over the one being Baptized does absolutely nothing but get one wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
I do believe that the Jesus name formula is an outright rebellion against the clear teaching of the Lord Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: As do I believe that using the titles: Father, Son and Spirit are the actual rebellion and not doing what the Lord Jesus actually stated to do in (Math. 28:19) that being: Go and find the One name and Baptize in that name. We get another account fo the great commission from Lukes view(Who wrote the book of Acts) In Luke 24:47 .
And that repentence and remission of sins be preached in HIS NAME among all nations BEGINING at Jerusalem.
(Where The first true message of salvation was preached) The Acts 2:38 message began at Jerusalm by Peter and Jesus sanctioned it in Lukes account... Peter said nothing about Baptizing the titles as he knew jJesus name was the fulfilment of all three titles,the name of the father, and of the son, and of the spirit.
But notice, that Michael makes a statement for the purpose of appealing to the emotions of those who hold to the false view of Math.28:19 as truth instead of appealing to what the text actually says and further reveals in( Luke 24:47) which points to( Acts 2:38) as the truth and ties in the math.28:19 passage and Michael makes an appeal to only a single passage in spite of the others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus uses the definite article before each name, and in doing so, He identified each name to be used respectively (the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I know this argument better than that and have heard it many times and he has actually gotten it wrong, but it makes no difference and it does not teach what he is saying as a pat, fool proof ,argument... What he means is the use of the preposition( *of *)before the definite article(*The*) somehow teaches his doctrine of distinct names...
The Apostles only used One name(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:45,19:1-6 , Paul called on that name: Acts 22;16) as there is only One name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved(Acts 4:12) and it is all inclusive of the titles Father, Son, and Spirit, as there is Only one name of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named(Eph.3:15) And there shall be One LORD(YHWH) and his name One (Zech.14:9) Jesus is the fulfilment of that name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The various cross references employed to defend the oneness position do little to support the Jesus only formula simply because they are all descriptive accounts divorced of context, and not prescriptive commands. There are volumes more that can be said on this subject, but my focus here is to identify the role of baptism , if any, in our Lord's encounter with Nicodemus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Jesus would leave the detailed teaching of salvation in the new covenant to his disciples which was not the era that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
The Lord Jesus is specifically speaking of the regenerative work of the Spirit of God in this account, and I can think of no better place to affirm or replace our understanding of this pivotal subject.
In verse 5 Jesus issues His emphasis to Nicodemus when He states "Truly, truly, I say to you." This strong Hebraic expression indicates to us that His following teaching is of paramount importance. He follows His emphasis by saying "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The assumption of water baptism as a requirement for salvation cannot be made at this point since our Lord continues by saying in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The correlation of water and flesh, and the spirit to the Spirit is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here is what Michael and the Reformed are trying to make us swallow: That Jesus was somehow telling Nicodemus he must be born(You must be born of water verse 5) Michael has tried very hard to shirk the fact, as I pointed out to him once before, that this is redundandcy compounded and somehow he refuses that strong argument that reveals his contradictory interpretation to continue in his folly of eisigesis. It is not Jesus contradicting scripture, telling us that :"we must be born of water (* flesh* according to Michael and the Reformed) and then in the same breath refuting it it is Michael's very bad interpretataion so that his doctrine might work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
Should Jesus had been referring to water baptism at this point, we would assume that He would have provided further instruction since Christian baptism , that is the command and teaching of baptism (as seen in Acts 2:38), had not yet been instituted. Nicodemus would have been ignorant of the ordinance since it had yet to be issued, and John's baptism is no where to be identified as a requirement for salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I am amazed as Michael is actually right on two points above Christian Baptism was not yet instituted and John's Baptism was not a requirment under the new. But that is all he right about. Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the coming New will, later to be expounded upon by the disciples .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of this fact is further supported by Jesus' own response to the question Nicodemus asked; " How can these things be?" Jesus responds by issuing a question of His own; "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" This question Jesus poses indicates that Nicodemus should have already known about the correlation, if any, between water and the Spirit of God. Therefore, we can assume that the Old Testament contained within it enough information to provide Nicodemus with ample understanding about this subject.
If the water Jesus spoke of in verse 5 is the waters of baptism, where is the Old Testament text that identifies it? A careful survey of the Old Testament identifies Ezekial 36:25-27 as one of but a few (the others are Isaiah 32:15, 44:3), that correlate water with regeneration or salvation.
Ezekial 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here we have a fine example of Michael contradicting himself ; in another discussion with Michael on the Godhead(Oneness vs. the false view of the trinity) Michael made a point to tell me:" that the New Testament explains the Old. " I could not agree more! But what he wants his cake and eat too! when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus they were still in the Old covenant as the blood of the testator had not been shed . Jesus simply stared revealing Gems of truth that they could not yet understand. He even opened the disiples understanding.(Luke 24:45)
Michael here in Exekial sets up his very false strawman (An argument he devised for us and sets himself to knock it down.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
This text detracts from the oneness doctrine of baptism since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed. "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." does not support baptismal regeneration because sprinkling is not the oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."
John 3:6 correlates water with flesh. Given the context of Jesus' statement, "you must be born again," we can safely assume that the water spoken of is the water released during bearing. "Flesh gives birth to flesh" provides us with the correct context of His reference to water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mlculwell: The intricacies of Baptism are not at all being taught for New testament salvation here that is done in the New testament and passages abound and I guarantee he does not want to actually go there as it will refute his false doctrine. Not only did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he MUST BE BORN AGAIN. But that he also: MUST BE BORN OF THE WATER (But according to Michael that means:" being Born") Can you imagine Jesus saying such a redundant statement? Again the detail teaching on the subject would be taught by the disciples later to be Apostles and then Nicodemus would recognize those whom Jesus commissioned as truth preachers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos
During a recent debate, a oneness adherent opposed this interpretation by suggesting that since all humans undergo birth, the notion of Jesus referring to the water released during child birth in John 3:5 would be redundant. In light of this assertion, I think it is important to keep in mind who it is that Jesus was actually speaking to. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a zealous Jew, who like other Jews, might have believed his Judaism or Jewish birth was enough to merit eternal life (Matt 3:7-9, John 5:39). Jesus does not say that being born of water is a simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit, but instead He contrasts the two. Being born again refers purely to spiritual rebirth, whereas Nicodemus mistook Jesus' words to mean a needed additional physical birth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: both Michael and Nicodemus are mistaking being born of the water as child birth! Does anyone see the blatant contradiction Michael is actually doing the same thing Nicodemus is doing this is how we know he has zero truth! It is redundant and a carnal non spiritual interpretation.
Nobody is saying that being born of water is a "simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit." But rather being born again constitutes being born of the water and the spirit. A unity of the two. The only contrast being made is of the flesh and the spirit and being born of the water is not being born of the flesh. The spiritual birth is inclusive of being of being born of the water and of the spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
(vs 4). "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" identifies the spiritual nature of being born again. Therefore, the contention of Jesus is that you must be born not simply physically but spiritually. This spiritual birth is what regenerates, as opposed to the ethnicity or tradition one is born into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: But Michael goes headlong into his false interpetation and tries to tell us when Jesus said: you MUST be born again of the water , means: being" born of flesh" as opposed to what? It clearly is not at all as he(Michael) says! Certainly the contrast is of being born of flesh and Spirit but being born of the water has nothing to do with that contrast!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
In conclusion, the focus of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is underscored in verse 8 where the sovereignty and volition of the Spirit is metaphorically compared to the nature of wind. Baptism is a human undertaking,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
All of Acts 2:38 taught by the Apostles and sanctioned as truth by the Lord Jesus in Luke 24:47 as the great commission are not excluded from The regenerative work of the spirit because it does not fit your skewed view. It is not a work produced by the Apostles but given by the Lord himself(grace)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos: whereas regeneration is the prerogative of the Spirit alone (Titus 3:5). Obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37). This is exactly why Jesus uses the metaphor of physical birth to explain regeneration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Obeying is of Grace. We are not talking about something given by men and demanded to be blindly obeyed but by the Lord himself and No matter how you wish to twist that fact does not make your view any less the twisting of scriptures that it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
To suggest that water baptism regenerates negates the entirety of our Lord's metaphor and puts emphasis not on the sovereign will of God, but the freedom of men to obey an ordinance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
Nobody is suggesting "water Baptism regenerates". You better take that up with the Catholics, and the Churches of Christ! We are saying the literal spoken Jesus name in water Baptism is being born of the water and remits sin! Your problem and the biggest weakness of your Reformed(Deformed )view is that God is not all powerful enough to create men with free will and God still be and remain sovereign(That shows me your view of God is weak!)You must attempt to cheapen what God has given through grace to make your pathetic view look somewhat viable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 23, 2009
Discussion with Michael who denies Jesus real Humanity, saying: "Jesus does not have a human spirit."
(Hebrews 1:8-9) is about the incarnation Michael(a blogger of trinitarin persuasion) is denying that here. It is clear the text continues in that thought and includes the son as the eternal deity because he was made YHWH. Of course the only part he sees is the YHWH so that he must have always existed as "God the son" but that is not what is being stated at all otherwise God would have fellow God's there(he does not see his inconsistency either in using the passage all the way to verse 10 as the context continues the thought from verses 8-9-10 Also we have a clear denial by Michael concerning Jesus humanity(Which is the doctrine of Antichrist) Michael contends Jesus had no real human spirit(thus it was one third God animating a dead shell) and could not have really died as a shell cannot die neither can God experience death..... Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:" Maybe you would not mind showing me where the scriptures or any writer of the NT said such a thing?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Hebrews 1:10 And,(speaking of the SON the Father says) “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: We have already went over this! (Hebrews 1:8-9) But unto the son he saith they throne oh God is forever. It says the same thing as (verse 10) and this is a continuation of the context it is dealing with his deity and is including his son-ship or humanity as God because of the incarnation not as some fictitious nonsense that you misunderstand of "god the son".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:Psalm 102:25 (speaking of YHWH the psalmist says) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,and the heavens are the work of your hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I also Believe Jesus is the creator because he was made the creator, as humanity had a beginning. You have proven nothing by repeating your worn-out shallow argument!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:The author of Hebrews clearly identified the SON as YHWH.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; The son Is YHWH because he was made YHWH I gave the passages that say so but I do not blame you for ignoring them everytime!
(Acts 2:36) Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.
Now the Lord is that spirit(2nd. Cor.3:17)
(John 3;34) Jesus was *given* the spirit by no measure.
Jesus was *made* the Life giving spirit.(1st.Cor.15:45-46)
"Your version of the incarnation is of a god animating a puppet body and God the son went back to the comfort of heaven not dying at all or experiencing death how does God experience death?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:God animating a puppet? That is exactly what you believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: What other real man can you name that does not have a human spirit as does your ridiculous version of Jesus does? So that you have a god puppet faking everyone out and not a real man!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So far as the eternal Son going back to heaven, that is exactly what the text says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: No it does not say any such thing! Your doctrine is foolishness and can be proven nonsense! You deny Jesus was a real man as you have a man with no human spirit but a hybrid Mix you simply deny it! You have a Hercules Demi god! Neither man nor god but a hybird new species.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:He says "Father, into your hands." No, He did die and remember, the atonement was finished on the cross. Your ridiculous question "how does God experience death?" doesn't even deserve an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Because you cannot answer it! God cannot die so you have a fake atonement also. Your doctrine is a total sham.
By man came sin ad by man came also the resurrection.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son cannot redeem us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer! He is not like us but a Hercules hybrid bunch of nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:As I said, you can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I can affirm both because his deity was given him by no measure(John 3:34) so that it was the deity of the son that of God the father(John 14:10) as the real son had no power of his own and could do no works or miracles as a real man(John 5:30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:which is a denile of the deity of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology is essentially cloaked Arianism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! We are the Only ones with One God and Jesus is that One God! Arian's do not make that claim. We do deny your false polytheism and denial of Jesus real humanity having only a puppet or shell animated by deity!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"natures do not die people die!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Who died on the cross? Was it not the Son? You contend that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt. Would this not be God's real human nature? You are indeed engaging in a little hipocrisy. You have to make Jesus Christ out to be two persons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I am afraid not! We do not have "two persons of God" as that is false doctrine! We do have one real man with a real human will, and One real God with a superior will and mind but it is not two persons of God, because a real man is not another person of God. That is how I know you do not believe Jesus is a real man and you only think of him in terms of your fake deity known as God the son. A man without a human spirit is no real man at all but dead(James 2:26) You have a dead body animated as a puppet by "god the sons deity spirit" and deity spirit cannot experience death or he would have already!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Natures cannot communicate. His flesh could not communicate with the indwelling deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! Where I have said such foolishness concerning natures? I believe a real man communicated with his real God that was both indwelling him and in heaven. His real human will mind, will, and emotion communicated as a lessor human being to the deity Given him as the superior being of God it was not two human beings or two God beings but One real man and one real God all in Jesus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:I do not contend that the dual natures of Christ were mixed. The divine nature and human nature were both real and full, and they were held by one person. Your "hybrid mix" idea has no application with me or any Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of course it does! that is all I get from you guys is a denial but there is no way for you to deny it as your version of Jesus denies his real humanity in not having a real human spirit the only men that do not have human spirits are dead men per 9James 2:26, and Eccl.3:21 which says all human spirits return to God at death)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Our own confesssion (Council of Chalcedon) refutes your accusation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: My Bible refutes your man-made creed! Keep your creed which is on the same level as the book of Mormon!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: The oneness position and the Trinitarian position, in regards to the hypostatic union are actually very similar (not totally). This is why Bernard said in "the oneness of God" that at some point the oneness churches may adopt Chalcedon. But let us stay on topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This Oneness person will not adopt any creed! I could care less What Bernard adopts because I will not adopt any man-made creed that is why and how all your trinity churches fell away from the truth and accepted the false doctrine of the trinity! If Bernard does that, then he has fell into the same false doctrine the same exact way your folks did! I( do not believe he would such a stupid thing!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"The Omni present God went to be with the omni present God"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Remember, the eternal Son emptied Himself (phil 2) prior to the incarnation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Remember, this is why I said your doctrine was polytheism? because you have God(The son) equal to God. nothing is said in that passage about two persons but rather the term God is used and you have Jesus in that passage as God equal to God(As another God) not person
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell said...
"Jesus soul was not left in hell"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Oh really? This is rich! So, are you saying that Jesus went to hell, as in the afterlife, or that He went to hell as in the place where the rich man went to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Your ignorance is showing and has throughout this entire discussion.
"That was his human spirit that went back to God"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So, Jesus' human spirit eh? Ridiculous. HE WAS GOD! HE DID NOT HAVE A HUMAN SPIRIT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; Here again we have a clear denial of his real humanity which is just as bad as denying his real deity(That of God the Father John 14:10, 2nd.Cor.5:19) To not have a human spirit is to deny his real humanity! You do have a fakery and God animating a shell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Human spirits are created, His spirit was not created.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: You have the doctrine of Apollonarinism and I have dealt with you about this before, here on this blog!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:He is God and He took on human flesh. Jesus, as the Son, claimed to be God and eternal: John 8:58.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of Course he did! But he was standing before them as a real man claiming to be the I am because of the incarnation... He never made any claim about "God the son" Ancient false prophet made that false doctrine up and you bought into it hook line and sinker you have been duped by false prophets to believe false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise PARTOOK OF THE SAME THINGS, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I use this same passage and it does not deny the incarnation but rather affirms it and there are only two scriptures that clearly tell us who incarnated the son. You do not have a single passage!
2nd Cor.5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Which God?
John 14:10 *The Father* that dwelleth *in me* he doeth the works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
Nowhere does the scripture speak of a human spirit. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: That is why you have no real human man and your doctrine is antichrist and the old heresy of Apollanarianism.
Michael: You make Jesus Christ out to be TWO people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I explained that above but let's go ahead and say I do! Do (I have two persons of God,) as One real man and one real God? absolutely not! I do not believe God is a person out side the person of the son anyhow! Persons die God does not! when I say the word person am I speaking of God or man? You have forced your false definition for God upon the scriptures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: NATURES CANNOT COMMUNICATE. Is this suppost to be comedy? Am I on film? I need an Advil.You have got to be kidding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I said nothing about natures communicating! You better take that Advil.
"But it was his own eternal deity because it was given him!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:This statement is a contradiction in the most basic way. You should proof read your comments. How could something be eternal, and at the same time have a beginning? The Son is eternal: Heb 7:3, John 8:58, John 17:5, John 1:1-2 etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I think you better take your own advice because as you see i will contradict everything you have to say. none of the passages you submit proves anything you have to say!
John 17:5 does not prove anything for you as in verse 24 Jesus says the Apostles or disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father (Which was his passion) Jesus was no more literally back there with the father then he was literally slain but that is what he was talking about! Read Revelation 13:8 as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
John 1:1 proves nothing for you either as that is refuted in psalm 33:6 as the word/logos came from the breath of God's mouth as his creative power the day you can make the breath of Gods mouth another person of God known as the son is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:" Maybe you would not mind showing me where the scriptures or any writer of the NT said such a thing?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Hebrews 1:10 And,(speaking of the SON the Father says) “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: We have already went over this! (Hebrews 1:8-9) But unto the son he saith they throne oh God is forever. It says the same thing as (verse 10) and this is a continuation of the context it is dealing with his deity and is including his son-ship or humanity as God because of the incarnation not as some fictitious nonsense that you misunderstand of "god the son".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:Psalm 102:25 (speaking of YHWH the psalmist says) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,and the heavens are the work of your hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I also Believe Jesus is the creator because he was made the creator, as humanity had a beginning. You have proven nothing by repeating your worn-out shallow argument!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:The author of Hebrews clearly identified the SON as YHWH.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; The son Is YHWH because he was made YHWH I gave the passages that say so but I do not blame you for ignoring them everytime!
(Acts 2:36) Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.
Now the Lord is that spirit(2nd. Cor.3:17)
(John 3;34) Jesus was *given* the spirit by no measure.
Jesus was *made* the Life giving spirit.(1st.Cor.15:45-46)
"Your version of the incarnation is of a god animating a puppet body and God the son went back to the comfort of heaven not dying at all or experiencing death how does God experience death?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:God animating a puppet? That is exactly what you believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: What other real man can you name that does not have a human spirit as does your ridiculous version of Jesus does? So that you have a god puppet faking everyone out and not a real man!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So far as the eternal Son going back to heaven, that is exactly what the text says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: No it does not say any such thing! Your doctrine is foolishness and can be proven nonsense! You deny Jesus was a real man as you have a man with no human spirit but a hybrid Mix you simply deny it! You have a Hercules Demi god! Neither man nor god but a hybird new species.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:He says "Father, into your hands." No, He did die and remember, the atonement was finished on the cross. Your ridiculous question "how does God experience death?" doesn't even deserve an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Because you cannot answer it! God cannot die so you have a fake atonement also. Your doctrine is a total sham.
By man came sin ad by man came also the resurrection.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son cannot redeem us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer! He is not like us but a Hercules hybrid bunch of nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:As I said, you can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I can affirm both because his deity was given him by no measure(John 3:34) so that it was the deity of the son that of God the father(John 14:10) as the real son had no power of his own and could do no works or miracles as a real man(John 5:30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:which is a denile of the deity of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology is essentially cloaked Arianism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! We are the Only ones with One God and Jesus is that One God! Arian's do not make that claim. We do deny your false polytheism and denial of Jesus real humanity having only a puppet or shell animated by deity!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"natures do not die people die!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Who died on the cross? Was it not the Son? You contend that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt. Would this not be God's real human nature? You are indeed engaging in a little hipocrisy. You have to make Jesus Christ out to be two persons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I am afraid not! We do not have "two persons of God" as that is false doctrine! We do have one real man with a real human will, and One real God with a superior will and mind but it is not two persons of God, because a real man is not another person of God. That is how I know you do not believe Jesus is a real man and you only think of him in terms of your fake deity known as God the son. A man without a human spirit is no real man at all but dead(James 2:26) You have a dead body animated as a puppet by "god the sons deity spirit" and deity spirit cannot experience death or he would have already!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Natures cannot communicate. His flesh could not communicate with the indwelling deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! Where I have said such foolishness concerning natures? I believe a real man communicated with his real God that was both indwelling him and in heaven. His real human will mind, will, and emotion communicated as a lessor human being to the deity Given him as the superior being of God it was not two human beings or two God beings but One real man and one real God all in Jesus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:I do not contend that the dual natures of Christ were mixed. The divine nature and human nature were both real and full, and they were held by one person. Your "hybrid mix" idea has no application with me or any Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of course it does! that is all I get from you guys is a denial but there is no way for you to deny it as your version of Jesus denies his real humanity in not having a real human spirit the only men that do not have human spirits are dead men per 9James 2:26, and Eccl.3:21 which says all human spirits return to God at death)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Our own confesssion (Council of Chalcedon) refutes your accusation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: My Bible refutes your man-made creed! Keep your creed which is on the same level as the book of Mormon!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: The oneness position and the Trinitarian position, in regards to the hypostatic union are actually very similar (not totally). This is why Bernard said in "the oneness of God" that at some point the oneness churches may adopt Chalcedon. But let us stay on topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This Oneness person will not adopt any creed! I could care less What Bernard adopts because I will not adopt any man-made creed that is why and how all your trinity churches fell away from the truth and accepted the false doctrine of the trinity! If Bernard does that, then he has fell into the same false doctrine the same exact way your folks did! I( do not believe he would such a stupid thing!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"The Omni present God went to be with the omni present God"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Remember, the eternal Son emptied Himself (phil 2) prior to the incarnation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Remember, this is why I said your doctrine was polytheism? because you have God(The son) equal to God. nothing is said in that passage about two persons but rather the term God is used and you have Jesus in that passage as God equal to God(As another God) not person
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell said...
"Jesus soul was not left in hell"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Oh really? This is rich! So, are you saying that Jesus went to hell, as in the afterlife, or that He went to hell as in the place where the rich man went to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Your ignorance is showing and has throughout this entire discussion.
"That was his human spirit that went back to God"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So, Jesus' human spirit eh? Ridiculous. HE WAS GOD! HE DID NOT HAVE A HUMAN SPIRIT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; Here again we have a clear denial of his real humanity which is just as bad as denying his real deity(That of God the Father John 14:10, 2nd.Cor.5:19) To not have a human spirit is to deny his real humanity! You do have a fakery and God animating a shell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Human spirits are created, His spirit was not created.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: You have the doctrine of Apollonarinism and I have dealt with you about this before, here on this blog!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:He is God and He took on human flesh. Jesus, as the Son, claimed to be God and eternal: John 8:58.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of Course he did! But he was standing before them as a real man claiming to be the I am because of the incarnation... He never made any claim about "God the son" Ancient false prophet made that false doctrine up and you bought into it hook line and sinker you have been duped by false prophets to believe false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise PARTOOK OF THE SAME THINGS, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I use this same passage and it does not deny the incarnation but rather affirms it and there are only two scriptures that clearly tell us who incarnated the son. You do not have a single passage!
2nd Cor.5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Which God?
John 14:10 *The Father* that dwelleth *in me* he doeth the works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
Nowhere does the scripture speak of a human spirit. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: That is why you have no real human man and your doctrine is antichrist and the old heresy of Apollanarianism.
Michael: You make Jesus Christ out to be TWO people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I explained that above but let's go ahead and say I do! Do (I have two persons of God,) as One real man and one real God? absolutely not! I do not believe God is a person out side the person of the son anyhow! Persons die God does not! when I say the word person am I speaking of God or man? You have forced your false definition for God upon the scriptures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: NATURES CANNOT COMMUNICATE. Is this suppost to be comedy? Am I on film? I need an Advil.You have got to be kidding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I said nothing about natures communicating! You better take that Advil.
"But it was his own eternal deity because it was given him!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:This statement is a contradiction in the most basic way. You should proof read your comments. How could something be eternal, and at the same time have a beginning? The Son is eternal: Heb 7:3, John 8:58, John 17:5, John 1:1-2 etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I think you better take your own advice because as you see i will contradict everything you have to say. none of the passages you submit proves anything you have to say!
John 17:5 does not prove anything for you as in verse 24 Jesus says the Apostles or disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father (Which was his passion) Jesus was no more literally back there with the father then he was literally slain but that is what he was talking about! Read Revelation 13:8 as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
John 1:1 proves nothing for you either as that is refuted in psalm 33:6 as the word/logos came from the breath of God's mouth as his creative power the day you can make the breath of Gods mouth another person of God known as the son is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tongues,TurretinFan, and Trinity versus Oneness
A Reformed Blogger that goes By the pseudonym *TurreTinfan* was recently on an internet radio program called Iron sharpens Iron and tried install a fellow by the name of Harold Camping into the Oneness camp(Dishonestly so) by taking half of his confesssion. Here is my reply to him after listening.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
At the end of the discussion you can clearly hear Camping say: "God is three persons." I listened very Closely and I am getting tired of James Whites lying! He does not seem to care that he blatantly sins against God But I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
I recall how much you exploded when Dr. White used the term "Unitarian" to describe you (because, apparently, you wish to have that considered as a different heresy), and now you seem to be exploding because you feel that the term "modalism" should be applied only to your particular heresy.
I didn't call him a Oneness Pentecostal - and if I did, I would be wrong to do so. His theology is more orthodox than that.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
We do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Your group is not the only modalistic group out there. I realize that may serve as a certain amount of rain on your parade, but c'est la vie.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
My group is not is not "Modalist" at all TF as we reject the name you have given us and your dishonesty and lying is seen from 1oo miles away! Again, Camping is more trinitarian than Oneness. but since you are picking only one part of his confession you choose that which is farthest away from your ilk to distance yourself, but that does not work since he is Reformed...LOL!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
ROFL Manuel. You are inimitable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
I would not think you would not have a comeback Because
my arguments was "inimitable"! Glad I could make you laugh though. but was serious as a heart attack.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Whoops double negatives...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
One rarely ends "serious as a heart attack" comments with "LOL"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh I am serious as a heart attack! but it seems you are not. Thus my LOL(Laughing at you) You are still trying to push your nonsense that Camping was Oneness(Or what you term as Modalist.) You are hiding in plain sight. Camping Taught Reformed Doctrine and God is three persons there is no way for him to be Modalist! Pure dishonesty on your(AOMIN) part!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Are you under the impression that Camping uses the term "persons" in the standard Trinitarian sense?
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh Please? The term anyhow in the way you impose your definition of "person" for God upon scripture is not found anywhere in any passage of scripture. You argue from silence.
I could care less How he uses that un-scriptural definition for God. What matters is that he said it, just like you would... No Oneness would even allude to such nonsense.
Let me ask you a question? When I use the term person what determines if I am speaking of God or men? Your made up term your rules you cannot do that with God's word.
Hasta La bye bye.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
If there was anyone who still thought that you were seriously concerned that Camping had been misrepresented, I think they see from your response above that such a thought was mistaken.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Why don't you deal with what was stated instead of running away.Why would waste my time with 15 posts if I were not concerned with your out right lies and deceit .
Harold Camping is a Reformed teacher who does not teach your version of the trinity the way in which you like so you dishonestly pawn him off...
He cannot teach Oneness or what you have termed Modalism with his "three persons of God"..
He definitely teaches the doctrine of the trinity but Just a little differently than you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh, I was never concerned at all that "Camping was misrepresented"!
You are trying to Lump him with Oneness by lying and saying he is a "Modalist" A term Trinitarian's have named contemporary and ancient Oneness. I concerned you have lied on God's people (Christian's, Oneness believers)
Here is one for ya? "Persons die", God does not! when I use the term person am I speaking of God or men?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Imagine that? TF and the Reformed to whom he represents is playing it safe?? Guess what TF? I also believe (Acts 20:28.) Jesus was given the Spirit by no measure(John 20:23)
How many beings do you have? Is Jesus a new being? Is he a real human being?( Or A hybrid New species?) Or was he made both Lord and Christ like (Acts 2:36) states because his humanity had a beginning. there was a real distinction that you do not make and only Oneness makes! we do not have God Dying! You want to debate that? Bring it on! I know what I believe and I can defend it..
Once more, stop with your trying to lump one of your own Reformed us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
I meant to put John 3:34 but wrongly wrote John 20:23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
It does not help you much to throw out a prophetic passage of the coming son in the incarnation's name and that of the Father that would be the same name and the father is that which incarnated the real man or son (John 14:10 KJB) The Father that dwelleth in me(The son) He doeth the works. Read (Zechariah 14:90 In that day there shall be one LORD and his name One("That day" was the incarnation.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
"The form of the fourth is LIKE the son of God" is not saying; "it is the son of God".
"The son of God" refers to the flesh. that born of Mary(Math.1:19-20) Deny that or tell us God has two sons one flesh, and One in name only as spirit?
The son of man is That which God referred to in the plural pronouns and was included in creation when God said: "let us make man in image after our likeness" he was referring to the coming incarnation( Romans 5:14)Tell us so as one of the single greatest creation passages that exist in scripture! (Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Meaning he was not back there! We have a clear passage in the New testament tell us Jesus was not there!
The Daniel passage of the four men in the fire was also prophetic and alluding to the time of the coming incarnation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
What are you trying to do TurretinFan? It is not me versus the scriptures! I love everyone of these passages you have given... what not a one of them has said though is anything about your "God the son" or the false doctrine of the "trinity."
Let me remind you, we were speaking of your dishonesty in lying about the Reformed trinitarian *Harold Camping* and how you were trying to make him Oneness with his three persons of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TurretinFan writes:
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
First of all, Jesus slain flesh(Not "god the son")purchased our right to have his spirit in our Hearts. or sending it too us from the Father by buying it for us.
We do not see "three persons" from the above passage, we see three ways in which God deals with mankind that absolutely had to be!
First, as God who gives grace in choosing mankind through election in him not as individuals willy nilly bypassing preaching and grace apart from our response.
Second, as slain flesh that was sacrificed to atone the sins of mankind that a holy God as spirit could not do as that holy spirit(God the Father's title in dealing with man) was not our kinsmen redeemer, we needed our own kind, but with no sin. If he could then he should have done it immediately.
Third, God as Holy lawgiver would be in us.
For the Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was not yet Glorified (or slain in his flesh. John 7:38-39)
By man came sin and by man came also the resurrection from the dead.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son could not purchase anything for us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:36)
So that now, the Lord is that spirit (2nd Cor. 3:17)
He was the first comforter in the flesh and would Be the other Comforter in the spirit.
That He might abide with you Forever even the spirit of truth: Whom the world cannot receive,because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.: BUT YOU KNOW HIM: FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU (NOW IN FLESH) AND SHALL BE IN YOU.(AS SPIRIT)
I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless(or as Fatherless Orphans),I(Jesus) will come to you.(As the father or Spirit of God)(John 14:17-18)
(1st. Cor.15:45-46) The Last man Adam(Jesus) was made the quickening (Life giving) Spirit. because his humanity had a beginning.
How-be-it that was not first which was spirtual?(Adam came before Jesus) But that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.(God came to us as Jesus in the incarnation) or the second man.
from Robert Sabin:
"He shall not speak of himself," is a common Johanine
phrase, most often applied to Jesus Christ as a sort of hallmark of
his ministry. It was Jesus while on earth who did "not speak of
himself," who in all things that he spoke attributed his words to an
enabler, to the Father, who enabled him to speak and gave him the words".
(John 14:10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me? the words that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether I speak God, or WHETHER I SPEAK OF MYSELF.
John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both
know me, and ye know whence I am: and I AM NOT COME OF MYSELF, but he
that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him
not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day. 49 For I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only(Mark 13:32) Because the Father only was that divine one spirit that knew all things and gave his spirit to the son by no measure(John 3:34) and made him the one true God and spirit but did not reveal all things to the limited in knowledge real man.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Psa 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
LOL! You better read Hebrews 9::17-24 again!
Then read Romans 10:13-17
Again, you bypass grace and say you are worthy by God choosing you willy nilly not in him but randomly as an individual not by the grace he has given.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Lest we forget, Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
Manuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Blogger Turretinfan said... Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
Manuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
Manuel: That is what this whole thing is about! I have been trying to get you stop with your nonsense about calling Harold Camping Oneness or what you also term as Modalist. You would not do that, you continued to dishonestly call him a Modalist to distance yourself! I was giving you a taste of your own medicine!
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Manuel: Of Course the father is greater that the son! The father Only knew the time of the second coming and not the son.(Mark 13:32) The father was the deity that Incarnated the son and did the works and miracles(John 14:10) The son could do no works or miracles of Himself(John 5:30)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
(John 5:30) I can of mine ownself(as the son of God) DO NOTHING!
The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works(John 14:10)
Mark 13:32 But that day and that hour knoweth no man,no not the Angels which are in heaven,neither the son, but the Father.
"Son of God" does not mean: deity as God the son and they are not inter-changable terms! God the son does not exist and neither does the son of God as either a separate or a distinct person of God.. You add that false doctrine to scripture "son of God" is that which includes God the Father as his Deity in the incarnation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
2:08 PM, October 02, 2009
Blogger mlculwell said...
TurretinFan:"Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one".
Mlculwell: Come on at least try? Anybody can give passages they think that are on their side with no commentary. There are two reasons you do this 1.) is to play it safe.
2.) Is to make it look as though you have scripture on your.
since I already know what you teach concerning these passages(Very much in error of Course) do not need for you to give me your commentary therefor making it look as though the truth of the scriptures are yours which is not the truth.... LOL!
Anyhow neither of those passages are trinitarian. (1st John 5:7) is supposed to be suspect for authenticity but I do not need that argument as it does no harm to the truth of God's word or his Oneness!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Once again, TF dishonestly attempts to pawn Harold camping off on Oneness folks by calling him a "Modalist"(A name that Trinitarian's have given Oneness.) Because of half of his confession that: "Jesus was the Father." but somehow conveniently forgets about the other half of his confession: "that God is three persons." He ignores the Both quotes and takes the half that fits his need.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mr. Culwell,
We already exposed the facts that (1) I fully agree that Mr. Camping is not Oneness and (2) you are not really interested in what Mr. Camping believes.
Why do you continue to slander?
Jeremiah 50:36 A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Sir, the Sword is Upon you and James White for your Lying, slanderous, dishonesty and I aim to expose the both of you..It was Mr. White that has put you up to it, starting with his debate with Camping! You have been trying to turn this around on us.
You dishonestly have been telling everyone Camping is a "Modalist" a name you have given both ancient and contemporary Oneness. It seems now, you have also added a new category and lump him in with us as Oneness(I do not want to hear you lie again about it!) You take part of what he has said and throw away what you do not need just like you do in scripture to come up with your false doctrines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes:"Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not".
Yeah, Ancient Oneness! "Modalism" is a term you gave the ancient Oneness! Just because you deny the experience does not mean it did not exist or that it somehow cahnged over into your false doctrine.
We get our jaded history from their enemies who hated truth, Because of men through History who fell from truth.
You make a claim of men who also could be claimed of us, who made no "trinitarain confession" in history. History is not that which determines truth, the scriptures alone are.
LOL! You crack me up!~ Look at (Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your false doctrine and establishes mine By asking the following question! Paul Asks:"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
He did not ask; have you believed on Jesus? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) Belief that God gives you or otherwise(*Rolling of eyes*) does not get you the Holy Ghost! It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know who they were) your false doctrine would have been understood!
"Ancient Modalists" get a clue man. There were only ancient Modalists because that is what you named them like you falsely named God a "trinity"! You sir continue in your lies and deceit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF Writes:"Manuel:
Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?"
What I have noticed is that what you are trying to tell everyone and pull off are two different things!
Ask Anyone what a so called "Modalist" is? They will then refer to us,(Oneness Ancient and contemporary) not the New designation you have given Harold Camping to try and distance yourself pull your dishonest Okie Doke!
You do not give up and neither do I!
Once more, you have taken half of his quote where states: "Jesus is the Father." All the While ignoring where states: "God is three persons."
If half of His statement makes Him a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" then the Other half makes him a Trinitarain but that is as ridiculous as what you are trying to do!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God. I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God. That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
"Manuel:
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God."
mlculwell: I was not shocked as Know what you are doing. Which is distancing yourself from someone who is clearly Trinitarain otherwise you would not be trying so hard.
TF: "I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God."
mlculwell: If you are somehow basing that from half of what he said which your clearly are then "The appropriate label to describe his errant view of God." Could just as well be Trinitarain. It is the most errant view of God.
TF:"That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
mlculwell: I believe the label also belongs to you! "Irrationality" would be your thinking, as you are the one who takes half of what he says and makes him a "Modalist" when he said: "God is three persons." No Oneness or who you term "Modalist" would ever say such thing!
If he would Denonunce the "three persons of God" and stop with his date setting Etc. we Might take him into our fold..LOL!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes: Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
mlculwell: You better believe it! That is how we all come "into the fold"! God can even fill you and James White with the Holy Ghost!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation"?
mlculwell: Yeah, I can tell you without batting an eye, there is not Oneness person anywhere that believes the "GIFT OF TONGUES is necessary for salvation!" LOL!
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Just like every other Reformed person I speak with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead"?
mlculwell: Yeah, of course I am quibbling over "the gift of tongues"! This tells me much, for one thing you do not have any understanding of scripture and I will be spending my time trying to teach you something you will not accept.
This started out about you dishonestly, trying to somehow connect Harold Camping to the Oneness view, or to those you term "Modalist."
That was not working well so then you wanted to go toe to toe concerning our two views of God(Trinity Versus Oneness.)
Now you want to talk about receiving of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your doctrine By asking the following question! "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
Once more he did not ask; "have you believed on Jesus"? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know whom they were) your doctrine would have been understood and he would not have asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed!
They then spoke in tongues as evidence they received the spirit(Acts 19:6) They spoke in tongues first as that evidence(Not as the gift of tongues) there was no interpretation in (Acts 2:4) or in (Acts 11:15 it fell on Cornelius household as on us(the 120 not just the twelve) in the begging which referred to Acts 10:46)
in (Acts 19:6) This is not the gift of tongues! This is the gift of the spirit!(the Holy Ghost)
There are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased...
Please give the passage that says it changed to silent(Mental assent "faith") especially when Paul refutes that doctrine in Acts 19:2 with his question... For sure reception is by faith but not your but not your version of it which bypasses Grace, faith, the blood and preaching.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes:"So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
mlculwell:What difference does that make?
Historical figures do not determine my doctrine unless those historical figures are the writers of the NT and the Lord Jesus Christ(The Author.)
where am I told in scripture (alone) to look to historical figures? What if those historical figures (in the majority) were wrong? Am I going to be wrong by lining up with Jesus and those writers of the NT?(John 17:17)
I do not concern my self with those historical writers, not even the Ancient Oneness who were referred to by their enemies. (What good would that do anyhow?) I do not believe their enemies ever ever told the truth about them or their doctrines and we only get a small taste of what they were about.
TF:(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
mlculwell: I see folks who believed like me from history but I take that with a grain of salt. If there were small groups throughout each century that were not in the majority, either in your view or in mine it proves nothing one way or the other for either of us.
TF: N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
mlculwell: I do believe there were anceint folks Sabelius, Praxeas, Noetus.
Where did Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, ever describe God as a Trinity or as three persons? Can you give me the quote?
There were many groups through out history that believed the biblical infilling of the spirit but that is nothing to the biblical witness.
Whatever their experience is between them and their and God and they are all long Gone but for sure today we remain and we have the truth of His word and it should not and cannot be ignored!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
mlculwell: It does not make a thimbles worth difference to me (at all!) what they or anyone else believed about it!
The truth is no historical figure you can prop up, or that I would not even bother anyhow, holds any weight to the truth.
You are deflecting. Nor does it matter what any other historical figures believed...
I think I have made that perfectly clear and yet you still want to harp on your belief about it because that is all you a have.
Give me the transition where it has all changed? You would think a doctrine so important would clearly be found in scripture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Allow me to make this a little simpler for you? I believe all those historical figures (You bring up and the ones I do) and the creeds, hold about as much weight toward our salvation as the Book of Mormon. So in my view that holds zero weight toward anything we are discussing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks. This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so. Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now.
You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks".
mlculwell:Once more: "Knowing" or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. )
TF: "This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so".
mlculwell: You are the One contradicting yourself! Oneness has to do with the belief in Monotheism (One God, Jesus being that One God and a denial of three persons) LOL!
I can find all kinds of beliefs from so called ancient folks you would consider to be trinitarain's you would have no part of, some even recanted and became Arian.
"Modalism" as I have explained numerous times now, was a name that was given to us by you and the Enemies of the ancient Oneness. The term "Oneness" has to do with our belief in One God. Jesus being that One God! You have given us the name "Modalist"
You try and wrangle all these terms and now you are wrangling with a term you have given us, so you can distance yourself from your Brother Camping.
Again you lie and are dishonest. I want no part of a group that spends all their time lying and hiding truth and facts!(That would be you and Dr. White) That fact is obvious to me from this conversation with your folks.
TF:It does not contradict anything! Ancient Oneness does
Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now".
mlculwell; Then don't you ever call us a "Modalist" again! What have I been arguing with you guys about all this time? Oneness is a belief of Jesus being the One God and a flat out denial of the un-scriptural doctrine of "three persons of God." The folks of ancient times fit that description perfectly you just happened to take their term "mode" and call them "Modalists" but they were definitely Oneness! You are trying so hard.
Where did Harold Camping ever say: "there were three Modes of being" I guess that makes you a Modalist then! He(Camping) said: "God was/is three persons." Be consistent!
Again, I don't want to hear you, or anyone else use it for Oneness folks ever again. The fact is, you have spent so much time in calling us the (so called) ancient heresy of "Modalism"(Which does not exist) trying to get your folks to keep away from us in your lying to them about the jaded history, you do not know what right or wrong is!
The term "Mode" was used in describing God in his dealings with mankind by ancient and some contemporary Oneness folks. You grabbed onto that and used that term!
I am going to post your dishonesty on my blog for all to see your wrangling over this
TF:"You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life".
mlculwell: It is you that should repent of all of your false doctrines and your lying! Your Calvinism does not allow for that nor does it do any good. LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel wrote: "'Knowing' or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. ) "
Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims. And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
mlculwell: That is exactly what I am not doing!
How, and why, would I appeal to historical figures outside the writers of the NT when I do not believe that it has any relevance to truth what soever? (I have been clear.)
It does no good when you do it, or anyone else. I think you would like to make it about that nonsense so that you can continue in your false arguments from history. Sorry I am not biting..LOL!
TF:Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims.
mlculwell: I have made none. The only thing I have done, is pointed to ancient Oneness folks. You are trying to make this about *tongues* in history(My appeal is to scripture alone.)
You have no bible for your false doctrine of the trinity(No Apostle taught it!) So you must appeal to men outside the NT to try and argue.
You and the Muslims teach false doctrine. You at least teach Jesus is God and the Grace of God albeit a very bad understanding of both.
Your doctrine of God is flat out polytheism. (There is no way around it when you are put on the spot) Even James White revealed it on His DL program concerning his view of the pre-incarnate God the son concerning (Philippians 2:6) where he had God equal to God. You can say what you like about the Muslim's being wrong as they are wrong but we are Monotheists and believe Jesus is the One real God, and at the same time the one real sinless man.(Not a hybrid mix)
TF: And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
mlculwell: LOL! Why would you ask me to do something you do not do nor even believe you can do?
I am sure you saying that looks pretty Good in front of all your Reformed Folks(He sure told him) Your real belief Bypasses grace preaching and the blood and you were chosen willy nilly in spite of all that, even repentance.. Preaching is no good, to you that is... LOL!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh Yeah, Harold camping belongs to reformed crowd as he Believes Calvinism and *God is three persons* there is not a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" anywhere that would make such an outrageous confession. It amazes how you folks can blatantly lie and twist things. i cannot believe anything you say anymore.
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Your slander is fully addressed above.
-TurretinFan
Blogger mlculwell said...
You have not addressed anything. I have also been part of this discussion and you continue to lie and twist things and then call me a
"slanderer"? Against your false doctrines and untruths? LOL!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
What other Oneness person whom you term "Modalist" has ever said:"God is three persons," As has Harold Camping?
This clearly shows us your lies and deceit! There is not Oneness person anywhere that would claim such an un-scriptural bunch of nonsense
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
At the end of the discussion you can clearly hear Camping say: "God is three persons." I listened very Closely and I am getting tired of James Whites lying! He does not seem to care that he blatantly sins against God But I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
I recall how much you exploded when Dr. White used the term "Unitarian" to describe you (because, apparently, you wish to have that considered as a different heresy), and now you seem to be exploding because you feel that the term "modalism" should be applied only to your particular heresy.
I didn't call him a Oneness Pentecostal - and if I did, I would be wrong to do so. His theology is more orthodox than that.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
We do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Your group is not the only modalistic group out there. I realize that may serve as a certain amount of rain on your parade, but c'est la vie.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
My group is not is not "Modalist" at all TF as we reject the name you have given us and your dishonesty and lying is seen from 1oo miles away! Again, Camping is more trinitarian than Oneness. but since you are picking only one part of his confession you choose that which is farthest away from your ilk to distance yourself, but that does not work since he is Reformed...LOL!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
ROFL Manuel. You are inimitable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
I would not think you would not have a comeback Because
my arguments was "inimitable"! Glad I could make you laugh though. but was serious as a heart attack.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Whoops double negatives...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
One rarely ends "serious as a heart attack" comments with "LOL"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh I am serious as a heart attack! but it seems you are not. Thus my LOL(Laughing at you) You are still trying to push your nonsense that Camping was Oneness(Or what you term as Modalist.) You are hiding in plain sight. Camping Taught Reformed Doctrine and God is three persons there is no way for him to be Modalist! Pure dishonesty on your(AOMIN) part!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Are you under the impression that Camping uses the term "persons" in the standard Trinitarian sense?
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh Please? The term anyhow in the way you impose your definition of "person" for God upon scripture is not found anywhere in any passage of scripture. You argue from silence.
I could care less How he uses that un-scriptural definition for God. What matters is that he said it, just like you would... No Oneness would even allude to such nonsense.
Let me ask you a question? When I use the term person what determines if I am speaking of God or men? Your made up term your rules you cannot do that with God's word.
Hasta La bye bye.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
If there was anyone who still thought that you were seriously concerned that Camping had been misrepresented, I think they see from your response above that such a thought was mistaken.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Why don't you deal with what was stated instead of running away.Why would waste my time with 15 posts if I were not concerned with your out right lies and deceit .
Harold Camping is a Reformed teacher who does not teach your version of the trinity the way in which you like so you dishonestly pawn him off...
He cannot teach Oneness or what you have termed Modalism with his "three persons of God"..
He definitely teaches the doctrine of the trinity but Just a little differently than you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh, I was never concerned at all that "Camping was misrepresented"!
You are trying to Lump him with Oneness by lying and saying he is a "Modalist" A term Trinitarian's have named contemporary and ancient Oneness. I concerned you have lied on God's people (Christian's, Oneness believers)
Here is one for ya? "Persons die", God does not! when I use the term person am I speaking of God or men?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Imagine that? TF and the Reformed to whom he represents is playing it safe?? Guess what TF? I also believe (Acts 20:28.) Jesus was given the Spirit by no measure(John 20:23)
How many beings do you have? Is Jesus a new being? Is he a real human being?( Or A hybrid New species?) Or was he made both Lord and Christ like (Acts 2:36) states because his humanity had a beginning. there was a real distinction that you do not make and only Oneness makes! we do not have God Dying! You want to debate that? Bring it on! I know what I believe and I can defend it..
Once more, stop with your trying to lump one of your own Reformed us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
I meant to put John 3:34 but wrongly wrote John 20:23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
It does not help you much to throw out a prophetic passage of the coming son in the incarnation's name and that of the Father that would be the same name and the father is that which incarnated the real man or son (John 14:10 KJB) The Father that dwelleth in me(The son) He doeth the works. Read (Zechariah 14:90 In that day there shall be one LORD and his name One("That day" was the incarnation.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
"The form of the fourth is LIKE the son of God" is not saying; "it is the son of God".
"The son of God" refers to the flesh. that born of Mary(Math.1:19-20) Deny that or tell us God has two sons one flesh, and One in name only as spirit?
The son of man is That which God referred to in the plural pronouns and was included in creation when God said: "let us make man in image after our likeness" he was referring to the coming incarnation( Romans 5:14)Tell us so as one of the single greatest creation passages that exist in scripture! (Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Meaning he was not back there! We have a clear passage in the New testament tell us Jesus was not there!
The Daniel passage of the four men in the fire was also prophetic and alluding to the time of the coming incarnation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
What are you trying to do TurretinFan? It is not me versus the scriptures! I love everyone of these passages you have given... what not a one of them has said though is anything about your "God the son" or the false doctrine of the "trinity."
Let me remind you, we were speaking of your dishonesty in lying about the Reformed trinitarian *Harold Camping* and how you were trying to make him Oneness with his three persons of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TurretinFan writes:
Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
First of all, Jesus slain flesh(Not "god the son")purchased our right to have his spirit in our Hearts. or sending it too us from the Father by buying it for us.
We do not see "three persons" from the above passage, we see three ways in which God deals with mankind that absolutely had to be!
First, as God who gives grace in choosing mankind through election in him not as individuals willy nilly bypassing preaching and grace apart from our response.
Second, as slain flesh that was sacrificed to atone the sins of mankind that a holy God as spirit could not do as that holy spirit(God the Father's title in dealing with man) was not our kinsmen redeemer, we needed our own kind, but with no sin. If he could then he should have done it immediately.
Third, God as Holy lawgiver would be in us.
For the Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was not yet Glorified (or slain in his flesh. John 7:38-39)
By man came sin and by man came also the resurrection from the dead.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son could not purchase anything for us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:36)
So that now, the Lord is that spirit (2nd Cor. 3:17)
He was the first comforter in the flesh and would Be the other Comforter in the spirit.
That He might abide with you Forever even the spirit of truth: Whom the world cannot receive,because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.: BUT YOU KNOW HIM: FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU (NOW IN FLESH) AND SHALL BE IN YOU.(AS SPIRIT)
I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless(or as Fatherless Orphans),I(Jesus) will come to you.(As the father or Spirit of God)(John 14:17-18)
(1st. Cor.15:45-46) The Last man Adam(Jesus) was made the quickening (Life giving) Spirit. because his humanity had a beginning.
How-be-it that was not first which was spirtual?(Adam came before Jesus) But that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.(God came to us as Jesus in the incarnation) or the second man.
from Robert Sabin:
"He shall not speak of himself," is a common Johanine
phrase, most often applied to Jesus Christ as a sort of hallmark of
his ministry. It was Jesus while on earth who did "not speak of
himself," who in all things that he spoke attributed his words to an
enabler, to the Father, who enabled him to speak and gave him the words".
(John 14:10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me? the words that I speak unto you I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether I speak God, or WHETHER I SPEAK OF MYSELF.
John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both
know me, and ye know whence I am: and I AM NOT COME OF MYSELF, but he
that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him
not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He
that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last
day. 49 For I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF MYSELF; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only(Mark 13:32) Because the Father only was that divine one spirit that knew all things and gave his spirit to the son by no measure(John 3:34) and made him the one true God and spirit but did not reveal all things to the limited in knowledge real man.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Psa 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
LOL! You better read Hebrews 9::17-24 again!
Then read Romans 10:13-17
Again, you bypass grace and say you are worthy by God choosing you willy nilly not in him but randomly as an individual not by the grace he has given.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Lest we forget, Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
Manuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Blogger Turretinfan said... Manuel then: "He teaches Calvinism and some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine."
Manuel now: "Harold Camping is a Reformed Trinitarian."
Manuel: That is what this whole thing is about! I have been trying to get you stop with your nonsense about calling Harold Camping Oneness or what you also term as Modalist. You would not do that, you continued to dishonestly call him a Modalist to distance yourself! I was giving you a taste of your own medicine!
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Manuel: Of Course the father is greater that the son! The father Only knew the time of the second coming and not the son.(Mark 13:32) The father was the deity that Incarnated the son and did the works and miracles(John 14:10) The son could do no works or miracles of Himself(John 5:30)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
(John 5:30) I can of mine ownself(as the son of God) DO NOTHING!
The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works(John 14:10)
Mark 13:32 But that day and that hour knoweth no man,no not the Angels which are in heaven,neither the son, but the Father.
"Son of God" does not mean: deity as God the son and they are not inter-changable terms! God the son does not exist and neither does the son of God as either a separate or a distinct person of God.. You add that false doctrine to scripture "son of God" is that which includes God the Father as his Deity in the incarnation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
2:08 PM, October 02, 2009
Blogger mlculwell said...
TurretinFan:"Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one".
Mlculwell: Come on at least try? Anybody can give passages they think that are on their side with no commentary. There are two reasons you do this 1.) is to play it safe.
2.) Is to make it look as though you have scripture on your.
since I already know what you teach concerning these passages(Very much in error of Course) do not need for you to give me your commentary therefor making it look as though the truth of the scriptures are yours which is not the truth.... LOL!
Anyhow neither of those passages are trinitarian. (1st John 5:7) is supposed to be suspect for authenticity but I do not need that argument as it does no harm to the truth of God's word or his Oneness!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Once again, TF dishonestly attempts to pawn Harold camping off on Oneness folks by calling him a "Modalist"(A name that Trinitarian's have given Oneness.) Because of half of his confession that: "Jesus was the Father." but somehow conveniently forgets about the other half of his confession: "that God is three persons." He ignores the Both quotes and takes the half that fits his need.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Mr. Culwell,
We already exposed the facts that (1) I fully agree that Mr. Camping is not Oneness and (2) you are not really interested in what Mr. Camping believes.
Why do you continue to slander?
Jeremiah 50:36 A sword is upon the liars; and they shall dote: a sword is upon her mighty men; and they shall be dismayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Sir, the Sword is Upon you and James White for your Lying, slanderous, dishonesty and I aim to expose the both of you..It was Mr. White that has put you up to it, starting with his debate with Camping! You have been trying to turn this around on us.
You dishonestly have been telling everyone Camping is a "Modalist" a name you have given both ancient and contemporary Oneness. It seems now, you have also added a new category and lump him in with us as Oneness(I do not want to hear you lie again about it!) You take part of what he has said and throw away what you do not need just like you do in scripture to come up with your false doctrines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes:"Ancient oneness? LOL! There were ancient unitarians, there were ancient modalists, but oneness pentacostalism there was not".
Yeah, Ancient Oneness! "Modalism" is a term you gave the ancient Oneness! Just because you deny the experience does not mean it did not exist or that it somehow cahnged over into your false doctrine.
We get our jaded history from their enemies who hated truth, Because of men through History who fell from truth.
You make a claim of men who also could be claimed of us, who made no "trinitarain confession" in history. History is not that which determines truth, the scriptures alone are.
LOL! You crack me up!~ Look at (Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your false doctrine and establishes mine By asking the following question! Paul Asks:"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
He did not ask; have you believed on Jesus? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) Belief that God gives you or otherwise(*Rolling of eyes*) does not get you the Holy Ghost! It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know who they were) your false doctrine would have been understood!
"Ancient Modalists" get a clue man. There were only ancient Modalists because that is what you named them like you falsely named God a "trinity"! You sir continue in your lies and deceit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF Writes:"Manuel:
Have you noticed that you seem to think that any time we use the term "modalist" we are referring to your group, even though we actually just view your group as one of a number of different groups?"
What I have noticed is that what you are trying to tell everyone and pull off are two different things!
Ask Anyone what a so called "Modalist" is? They will then refer to us,(Oneness Ancient and contemporary) not the New designation you have given Harold Camping to try and distance yourself pull your dishonest Okie Doke!
You do not give up and neither do I!
Once more, you have taken half of his quote where states: "Jesus is the Father." All the While ignoring where states: "God is three persons."
If half of His statement makes Him a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" then the Other half makes him a Trinitarain but that is as ridiculous as what you are trying to do!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God. I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God. That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
-TurretinFan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
"Manuel:
You may be shocked, but I didn't have your particular group in mind when I described Camping's errant view of God."
mlculwell: I was not shocked as Know what you are doing. Which is distancing yourself from someone who is clearly Trinitarain otherwise you would not be trying so hard.
TF: "I was simply using the appropriate label to describe his errant view of God."
mlculwell: If you are somehow basing that from half of what he said which your clearly are then "The appropriate label to describe his errant view of God." Could just as well be Trinitarain. It is the most errant view of God.
TF:"That label also applies to you, which apparently is what set off this volcano of irrationality that we have observed in the comments above and elsewhere on the net.
mlculwell: I believe the label also belongs to you! "Irrationality" would be your thinking, as you are the one who takes half of what he says and makes him a "Modalist" when he said: "God is three persons." No Oneness or who you term "Modalist" would ever say such thing!
If he would Denonunce the "three persons of God" and stop with his date setting Etc. we Might take him into our fold..LOL!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes: Oh? Are you taking into the fold those who can't speak in tongues now?
mlculwell: You better believe it! That is how we all come "into the fold"! God can even fill you and James White with the Holy Ghost!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"Let me ask you bluntly: have you taken the position that the gift of tongues is not necessary for salvation"?
mlculwell: Yeah, I can tell you without batting an eye, there is not Oneness person anywhere that believes the "GIFT OF TONGUES is necessary for salvation!" LOL!
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Just like every other Reformed person I speak with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"So you are quibbling over the term "gift of tongues" then? What would you call it instead"?
mlculwell: Yeah, of course I am quibbling over "the gift of tongues"! This tells me much, for one thing you do not have any understanding of scripture and I will be spending my time trying to teach you something you will not accept.
This started out about you dishonestly, trying to somehow connect Harold Camping to the Oneness view, or to those you term "Modalist."
That was not working well so then you wanted to go toe to toe concerning our two views of God(Trinity Versus Oneness.)
Now you want to talk about receiving of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:2) Paul destroys your doctrine By asking the following question! "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed"?
Once more he did not ask; "have you believed on Jesus"? Of these Jews to whom the door was already opened in (Acts 2:4) It does not matter that they were followers of John, they were still Jews and the door was already Opened for them to receive the spirit ...
Otherwise Paul would not have asked the question (to these of whom he did not know whom they were) your doctrine would have been understood and he would not have asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed!
They then spoke in tongues as evidence they received the spirit(Acts 19:6) They spoke in tongues first as that evidence(Not as the gift of tongues) there was no interpretation in (Acts 2:4) or in (Acts 11:15 it fell on Cornelius household as on us(the 120 not just the twelve) in the begging which referred to Acts 10:46)
in (Acts 19:6) This is not the gift of tongues! This is the gift of the spirit!(the Holy Ghost)
There are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased...
Please give the passage that says it changed to silent(Mental assent "faith") especially when Paul refutes that doctrine in Acts 19:2 with his question... For sure reception is by faith but not your but not your version of it which bypasses Grace, faith, the blood and preaching.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF writes:"So, who are these ancient people who were modalistic or unitarian and *also* believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
mlculwell:What difference does that make?
Historical figures do not determine my doctrine unless those historical figures are the writers of the NT and the Lord Jesus Christ(The Author.)
where am I told in scripture (alone) to look to historical figures? What if those historical figures (in the majority) were wrong? Am I going to be wrong by lining up with Jesus and those writers of the NT?(John 17:17)
I do not concern my self with those historical writers, not even the Ancient Oneness who were referred to by their enemies. (What good would that do anyhow?) I do not believe their enemies ever ever told the truth about them or their doctrines and we only get a small taste of what they were about.
TF:(Obviously, you'd assert the Apostles, but between them and the 21st century, what's the earliest evidence you can find of this view.)
-TurretinFan
mlculwell: I see folks who believed like me from history but I take that with a grain of salt. If there were small groups throughout each century that were not in the majority, either in your view or in mine it proves nothing one way or the other for either of us.
TF: N.B. I'm asking because you claimed that there were ancient Oneness folks, and that I called them modalists. I am not suggesting that for something to be right it has to have ancient folks attesting it.
mlculwell: I do believe there were anceint folks Sabelius, Praxeas, Noetus.
Where did Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, ever describe God as a Trinity or as three persons? Can you give me the quote?
There were many groups through out history that believed the biblical infilling of the spirit but that is nothing to the biblical witness.
Whatever their experience is between them and their and God and they are all long Gone but for sure today we remain and we have the truth of His word and it should not and cannot be ignored!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"So you think Sabelius, Praxeas, and Noetus each believed that there "are three ways tongues are used in the believers and they have not ceased"?
mlculwell: It does not make a thimbles worth difference to me (at all!) what they or anyone else believed about it!
The truth is no historical figure you can prop up, or that I would not even bother anyhow, holds any weight to the truth.
You are deflecting. Nor does it matter what any other historical figures believed...
I think I have made that perfectly clear and yet you still want to harp on your belief about it because that is all you a have.
Give me the transition where it has all changed? You would think a doctrine so important would clearly be found in scripture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Allow me to make this a little simpler for you? I believe all those historical figures (You bring up and the ones I do) and the creeds, hold about as much weight toward our salvation as the Book of Mormon. So in my view that holds zero weight toward anything we are discussing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks. This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so. Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now.
You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:"No, Manuel. I was just exposing the fact that *even you* have to admit that you don't know of any ancient Oneness folks".
mlculwell:Once more: "Knowing" or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. )
TF: "This contradicts your prior claims that we mislabel ancient modalists, and feeds into the general theme here that you are complaining about us labeling Camping without a proper reason for doing so".
mlculwell: You are the One contradicting yourself! Oneness has to do with the belief in Monotheism (One God, Jesus being that One God and a denial of three persons) LOL!
I can find all kinds of beliefs from so called ancient folks you would consider to be trinitarain's you would have no part of, some even recanted and became Arian.
"Modalism" as I have explained numerous times now, was a name that was given to us by you and the Enemies of the ancient Oneness. The term "Oneness" has to do with our belief in One God. Jesus being that One God! You have given us the name "Modalist"
You try and wrangle all these terms and now you are wrangling with a term you have given us, so you can distance yourself from your Brother Camping.
Again you lie and are dishonest. I want no part of a group that spends all their time lying and hiding truth and facts!(That would be you and Dr. White) That fact is obvious to me from this conversation with your folks.
TF:It does not contradict anything! Ancient Oneness does
Calling someone "modalist" is not the same as calling "oneness" as you ought to realize by now".
mlculwell; Then don't you ever call us a "Modalist" again! What have I been arguing with you guys about all this time? Oneness is a belief of Jesus being the One God and a flat out denial of the un-scriptural doctrine of "three persons of God." The folks of ancient times fit that description perfectly you just happened to take their term "mode" and call them "Modalists" but they were definitely Oneness! You are trying so hard.
Where did Harold Camping ever say: "there were three Modes of being" I guess that makes you a Modalist then! He(Camping) said: "God was/is three persons." Be consistent!
Again, I don't want to hear you, or anyone else use it for Oneness folks ever again. The fact is, you have spent so much time in calling us the (so called) ancient heresy of "Modalism"(Which does not exist) trying to get your folks to keep away from us in your lying to them about the jaded history, you do not know what right or wrong is!
The term "Mode" was used in describing God in his dealings with mankind by ancient and some contemporary Oneness folks. You grabbed onto that and used that term!
I am going to post your dishonesty on my blog for all to see your wrangling over this
TF:"You should repent of your slander of me and my brother Dr. White and get on with your life".
mlculwell: It is you that should repent of all of your false doctrines and your lying! Your Calvinism does not allow for that nor does it do any good. LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel wrote: "'Knowing' or not knowing someone from history has no bearing on truth for either of us.(The scriptures alone are truth. ) "
Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims. And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
TF:Yet you keep trying to appeal to "ancient Oneness" folks, even though they would consider you heretics and you them (over the issue of tongues).
mlculwell: That is exactly what I am not doing!
How, and why, would I appeal to historical figures outside the writers of the NT when I do not believe that it has any relevance to truth what soever? (I have been clear.)
It does no good when you do it, or anyone else. I think you would like to make it about that nonsense so that you can continue in your false arguments from history. Sorry I am not biting..LOL!
TF:Your historical arguments are just like those of the equally unitarian (though not modalistic) Muslims.
mlculwell: I have made none. The only thing I have done, is pointed to ancient Oneness folks. You are trying to make this about *tongues* in history(My appeal is to scripture alone.)
You have no bible for your false doctrine of the trinity(No Apostle taught it!) So you must appeal to men outside the NT to try and argue.
You and the Muslims teach false doctrine. You at least teach Jesus is God and the Grace of God albeit a very bad understanding of both.
Your doctrine of God is flat out polytheism. (There is no way around it when you are put on the spot) Even James White revealed it on His DL program concerning his view of the pre-incarnate God the son concerning (Philippians 2:6) where he had God equal to God. You can say what you like about the Muslim's being wrong as they are wrong but we are Monotheists and believe Jesus is the One real God, and at the same time the one real sinless man.(Not a hybrid mix)
TF: And unless you repent, you will find yourself with the Muslims on the day of judgment.
mlculwell: LOL! Why would you ask me to do something you do not do nor even believe you can do?
I am sure you saying that looks pretty Good in front of all your Reformed Folks(He sure told him) Your real belief Bypasses grace preaching and the blood and you were chosen willy nilly in spite of all that, even repentance.. Preaching is no good, to you that is... LOL!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
Oh Yeah, Harold camping belongs to reformed crowd as he Believes Calvinism and *God is three persons* there is not a Oneness or what you term "Modalist" anywhere that would make such an outrageous confession. It amazes how you folks can blatantly lie and twist things. i cannot believe anything you say anymore.
Blogger Turretinfan said...
Manuel:
Your slander is fully addressed above.
-TurretinFan
Blogger mlculwell said...
You have not addressed anything. I have also been part of this discussion and you continue to lie and twist things and then call me a
"slanderer"? Against your false doctrines and untruths? LOL!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blogger mlculwell said...
What other Oneness person whom you term "Modalist" has ever said:"God is three persons," As has Harold Camping?
This clearly shows us your lies and deceit! There is not Oneness person anywhere that would claim such an un-scriptural bunch of nonsense
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Turretinfan follows James White in his Lies and deceit
Turretinfan, A Reformed, Calvinist, blogger and fellow Alpha and Omega contributor and Apologetic outreach ministry of Reformed Apologist James White Out right lied(with a great sin against God in doing so)on the Iron sharpens Iron internet radio program. By telling it's listeners (all five of them) Camping Is Oneness(or what they falsely name as "Modalism.") A name Trinity folk have given ancient Oneness people for their use of the term "Mode" in describing God's existence in the incarnation.
Again, this is a lie, as No Oneness teaches God is "three persons" as does Camping who also teaches Jesus is the Father which in No way makes Harold Camping Oneness. Camping does however teach multiple doctrine of error such as the false doctrine of Calvinism, sets Dates for Jesus return, and annihilation-ism His doctrine appears to be some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine to whom the A-O-min. crowd are falsely attributing to the Oneness view and very dishonestly so.
I have since wrote more in response post script to Turretinfan himself and to Alpha an Omega ministries:
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
We do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
Again, this is a lie, as No Oneness teaches God is "three persons" as does Camping who also teaches Jesus is the Father which in No way makes Harold Camping Oneness. Camping does however teach multiple doctrine of error such as the false doctrine of Calvinism, sets Dates for Jesus return, and annihilation-ism His doctrine appears to be some hybrid Mix between Oneness and trinity doctrine to whom the A-O-min. crowd are falsely attributing to the Oneness view and very dishonestly so.
I have since wrote more in response post script to Turretinfan himself and to Alpha an Omega ministries:
TF,You are being dishonest! Both of those terms(Modalist's and Unitarain's) you use for Oneness were given to Oneness folks by Trinitarian's!
We do not use either term. But you do dishonestly teach folks that is what we are! You tried to lump us with the "Unitarians" By using that term who happen to not believe that Jesus is God. We do!
You have been telling everyone Oneness are "Modalist's" because of the use of a descriptive term(mode) ancient Oneness used for God in the incarnation.
Now you want to dishonestly distance yourself from Harold Camping Because he is of your fellow Reformed teachers that does not teach your trinity in the way you like!
The fact of the matter is; Camping is not Oneness whom you term Modalist. You say he is because he says Jesus is the Father that does not make anyone Oneness! especially when they say;" God is three persons." Stop with your dishonesty! he could very well be termed a trinitarain with your shallow reasoning if you are only taking half of what he says to determine what he is.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Trinitarain Blogger proves his doctrine Polytheism
One Blogger writes the following: With the Title heading: Jesus Christ the eternal son of God. first off, a son as old as his daddy just does not make sense.
Second, the son is the same God as his daddy but as two distinct persons of God . neither of which is logical or scriptural.
"2Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.(esv)
This text echoes the sentiments of Philippians 2:6-8. The essence of this text and that of the text in Philippians, stresses the humility shown by the Son of God in obeying the Father by becoming incarnate. In greater context of this chapter, specifically verse five, the text clearly distinguish God the Father from the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we do know with certainty that Paul was speaking of Jesus, the Son of God."
None of this is a problem for the Oneness view as their thesis above is wrong in the first place, the doctrine is contrived and invented and is forced upon the texts, something not really said. This person uses a vague passage as an opportunity to force their doctrine upon scripture.
Both of the above passages are starting from the incarnation. How do I know that? Is my thinking also something that I have contrived and forced? No, it is because the above view contradicts scripture.
The view is faulty because it isolates one passage to come up with a doctrine not considering other and all passages that deal with same subject on the matter.(vacuum isolation)
(Heb.11:3) Says the things which are made ( or seen) were not made of things which were seen or appear. Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col.1:16) In the incarnation Jesus is that which is seen,(the invisible) his deity(God the father in him DOING THE WORKS John 14:10) is that creative Force (in him) NOT SEEN. Yes, Jesus is the creator because of the incarnation.
Now our friend contradicts scripture especially when he uses (Philippians 2:6) as passage to try and prove Jesus was a pre-incarnate 2nd person of God and what that passage does for the Trinitarain is blatant polytheism because their view has God equal to God(You cannot be the that God your equal.)
The Oneness view does not view (Philippians 2:6) as pre-incarnational but rather incarnational Jesus thought it not robbery because his humanity had a beginning and was given and made all that he had without limits.(Math 28:18,John 3:34,Acts 2;36,1st.Cor.15:45-46)
The same person writes:
"With that said, why would this notion be a problem for those who hold to the oneness doctrine? The answer is simple; in order for oneness theology to be true, there can never be a time when both the Father and the Son exist simultaneously prior to the incarnation. Oneness adherents can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son of God. If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own, it cannot be said that He and the Father are the same person. This is without question, what the scripture presents. This co-eternal nature of the Son and the Father, leaves the oneness adherent without a scriptural foundation for their doctrine".
"If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own"??? Dear friends this person clearly shouts polytheism at every turn! The above person has neither proved that which he set out to do nor has dis-proven the Oneness doctrine and has in turn proven his doctrine polytheism all in one fell swoop.
Second, the son is the same God as his daddy but as two distinct persons of God . neither of which is logical or scriptural.
"2Corinthians 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.(esv)
This text echoes the sentiments of Philippians 2:6-8. The essence of this text and that of the text in Philippians, stresses the humility shown by the Son of God in obeying the Father by becoming incarnate. In greater context of this chapter, specifically verse five, the text clearly distinguish God the Father from the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we do know with certainty that Paul was speaking of Jesus, the Son of God."
None of this is a problem for the Oneness view as their thesis above is wrong in the first place, the doctrine is contrived and invented and is forced upon the texts, something not really said. This person uses a vague passage as an opportunity to force their doctrine upon scripture.
Both of the above passages are starting from the incarnation. How do I know that? Is my thinking also something that I have contrived and forced? No, it is because the above view contradicts scripture.
The view is faulty because it isolates one passage to come up with a doctrine not considering other and all passages that deal with same subject on the matter.(vacuum isolation)
(Heb.11:3) Says the things which are made ( or seen) were not made of things which were seen or appear. Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col.1:16) In the incarnation Jesus is that which is seen,(the invisible) his deity(God the father in him DOING THE WORKS John 14:10) is that creative Force (in him) NOT SEEN. Yes, Jesus is the creator because of the incarnation.
Now our friend contradicts scripture especially when he uses (Philippians 2:6) as passage to try and prove Jesus was a pre-incarnate 2nd person of God and what that passage does for the Trinitarain is blatant polytheism because their view has God equal to God(You cannot be the that God your equal.)
The Oneness view does not view (Philippians 2:6) as pre-incarnational but rather incarnational Jesus thought it not robbery because his humanity had a beginning and was given and made all that he had without limits.(Math 28:18,John 3:34,Acts 2;36,1st.Cor.15:45-46)
The same person writes:
"With that said, why would this notion be a problem for those who hold to the oneness doctrine? The answer is simple; in order for oneness theology to be true, there can never be a time when both the Father and the Son exist simultaneously prior to the incarnation. Oneness adherents can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son of God. If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own, it cannot be said that He and the Father are the same person. This is without question, what the scripture presents. This co-eternal nature of the Son and the Father, leaves the oneness adherent without a scriptural foundation for their doctrine".
"If the Son can be demonstrated to possess a deity of His own"??? Dear friends this person clearly shouts polytheism at every turn! The above person has neither proved that which he set out to do nor has dis-proven the Oneness doctrine and has in turn proven his doctrine polytheism all in one fell swoop.
Monday, August 24, 2009
James Swan of AoMin. attempts to excuse John Calvin's sin
James Swan of Alpha and Omega ministries one of James White's apologetic writers and contributors writes the following:
"It is very common to hear the remark, "What about Servetus?" or, "Who burned Servetus?" There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know".
mlculwell: Paul??? Paul Never taught the "doctrines of grace" that they frequently force in their apologetic writings! As usual a Calvinist is being both pompous and presumptuous. Paul most certainly does teach us of grace but there is not anything in scripture that resembles their view!
Swan writes or quotes someone else: " I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are "out of court." They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.
Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles".
mlculwell: It is almost funny if it were not sad, it seems Calvinist justify Calvin's great sin and the Reformers by saying this was a law. What about the laws that protect abortion? Does it make it any less a sin to murder the unborn? Does it make it right for Muslim's to murder Christians because it is law in their countries? This is not sound reasoning it is an excuse for sin!
James Swan writes:" The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter".
mlculwell:Incompetent? The only "Incompetence" is the person who wrote the piece! What purpose would it serve to call a person incompetent? It is an attempt to appeal to those who see Calvin's writings as those on the same level as Scripture to not question said writings and sinful acts of their hero to then see him as the sinful murderous debase person that he actually was, as bad or worse as those murderous Muslim's who killed in the name of religion.
Someone wrote:Calvin tried to get the sentence mitigated to the quicker and more humane decapitation?
mlculwell:(can you imagine?) This must be how all Muslims feel about the poor Christian infidels.(Shaking of head) in disbelief someone would say such a thing, talk about incompetence to take up a case?
"It is very common to hear the remark, "What about Servetus?" or, "Who burned Servetus?" There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know".
mlculwell: Paul??? Paul Never taught the "doctrines of grace" that they frequently force in their apologetic writings! As usual a Calvinist is being both pompous and presumptuous. Paul most certainly does teach us of grace but there is not anything in scripture that resembles their view!
Swan writes or quotes someone else: " I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are "out of court." They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.
Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles".
mlculwell: It is almost funny if it were not sad, it seems Calvinist justify Calvin's great sin and the Reformers by saying this was a law. What about the laws that protect abortion? Does it make it any less a sin to murder the unborn? Does it make it right for Muslim's to murder Christians because it is law in their countries? This is not sound reasoning it is an excuse for sin!
James Swan writes:" The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter".
mlculwell:Incompetent? The only "Incompetence" is the person who wrote the piece! What purpose would it serve to call a person incompetent? It is an attempt to appeal to those who see Calvin's writings as those on the same level as Scripture to not question said writings and sinful acts of their hero to then see him as the sinful murderous debase person that he actually was, as bad or worse as those murderous Muslim's who killed in the name of religion.
Someone wrote:Calvin tried to get the sentence mitigated to the quicker and more humane decapitation?
mlculwell:(can you imagine?) This must be how all Muslims feel about the poor Christian infidels.(Shaking of head) in disbelief someone would say such a thing, talk about incompetence to take up a case?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
James White creatively misleads.... Bloggers follow
The following has been revised after speaking with Rich Pierce on the phone...
A blogger wrote the following blatant lies that were compounded because of a misleading article By Dr. James White on his Aomin.org which can be read here:http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3403 About Harold Camping a radio and Tv personality.... (I have been corrected by Rich) he is not a TV personality
Harold Camping came from a Dutch Reformed Church so that
he actually teaches the same false cultic doctrine of Burgos and White and of Course all them teach the same cultic Catholic doctrine of the trinity and maybe Camping is starting to see some truth but yes he most definitely is cultic for teaching his Reformed Calvinism, of course White believes his unscriptual tradition of polytheism comes from scripture.
Camping is false prophet because he teaches Calvinism not because he may or may not teach Oneness, we really do not know what he teaches with James White telling us his misleading information about the man, James White is angry because he does not teach the false cultic doctrine of the trinity in the way White believes it. White also believes and argues for hermeneutic interpretation in the context and time in which it was written which would damn his doctrine of the trinity because it was not taught in the Apostles time. If in fact Mr.Camping Teaches *Jesus died twice* Once from eternity and once in time then it is for sure that Mr.Camping is not Oneness but some new doctrinal teaching as Oneness do not believe Jesus existed as a "god the son" in eternity past. Camping cannot be Oneness as he said clearly: "there are three persons of God" and at the same time said: "Jesus was the father." This in no way makes Camping Oneness, it makes him something else, a cross, a hybrid, if you will between the two doctrines.
One blogger writes:"I recently came across this blog article and found it appalling and yet unsurprising. I knew that Harold Camping of "Family Radio" was a cult leader and false prophet. What I didn't know was that he was a modalist in keeping with much of the jargon proclaimed by most oneness adherents.
Trinitarian super-apologist Dr. James White will be debating Harold Camping on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio program on July 28 and 29. You can hear the whole debate at the Alpha and Omega Ministries website".
I then wrote the following response by email to
Dr. White,I am going to call you by name on my blog
for submitting such nonsense about us and spreading misleading information
as to say we as Oneness or what you term as "Modalist
teach two deaths." we teach no such thing! If you do not know what
you are talking about it is best you do not say anything. I will post
my rebuttal to your nonsense soon enough.
I received this the following email from Rich Pierce: It must also be clearly pointed out Harold camping does not at all believe anything like Oneness that I know of but the article By Dr. White was purposely misleading and dishonest to sway his readers into believing what he had written, but for sure White is angry that his Reformed brother no longer teaches the trinity doctrine and taught Calvinism at the same time, proof is Michael Burgos following up with his article on his Blog.
Rich writes:"Manuel,
Dude, you need to read a little more closely. :-)
That post was about Harold Camping whose theology, and we are not real sure of this, may have morphed into embracing a Oneness position AS WELL AS a two deaths position. We are still waiting for him to clarify both of these matters. This in no way was meant to say that Oneness people believe anything else that Harold Camping believes nor is it to say that the two deaths issue has anything to do with Modalism or Oneness.
It is distinctly possible that no one else on the face of the earth believes what Harold Camping believes so no one was trying to say that Harold Camping is now a Oneness Pentecostal.
I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Blessings,
Rich Pierce
A&O
P.S. if you have any further questions you know how to get ahold of me."
A blogger wrote the following blatant lies that were compounded because of a misleading article By Dr. James White on his Aomin.org which can be read here:http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3403 About Harold Camping a radio and Tv personality.... (I have been corrected by Rich) he is not a TV personality
Harold Camping came from a Dutch Reformed Church so that
he actually teaches the same false cultic doctrine of Burgos and White and of Course all them teach the same cultic Catholic doctrine of the trinity and maybe Camping is starting to see some truth but yes he most definitely is cultic for teaching his Reformed Calvinism, of course White believes his unscriptual tradition of polytheism comes from scripture.
Camping is false prophet because he teaches Calvinism not because he may or may not teach Oneness, we really do not know what he teaches with James White telling us his misleading information about the man, James White is angry because he does not teach the false cultic doctrine of the trinity in the way White believes it. White also believes and argues for hermeneutic interpretation in the context and time in which it was written which would damn his doctrine of the trinity because it was not taught in the Apostles time. If in fact Mr.Camping Teaches *Jesus died twice* Once from eternity and once in time then it is for sure that Mr.Camping is not Oneness but some new doctrinal teaching as Oneness do not believe Jesus existed as a "god the son" in eternity past. Camping cannot be Oneness as he said clearly: "there are three persons of God" and at the same time said: "Jesus was the father." This in no way makes Camping Oneness, it makes him something else, a cross, a hybrid, if you will between the two doctrines.
One blogger writes:"I recently came across this blog article and found it appalling and yet unsurprising. I knew that Harold Camping of "Family Radio" was a cult leader and false prophet. What I didn't know was that he was a modalist in keeping with much of the jargon proclaimed by most oneness adherents.
Trinitarian super-apologist Dr. James White will be debating Harold Camping on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio program on July 28 and 29. You can hear the whole debate at the Alpha and Omega Ministries website".
I then wrote the following response by email to
Dr. White,I am going to call you by name on my blog
for submitting such nonsense about us and spreading misleading information
as to say we as Oneness or what you term as "Modalist
teach two deaths." we teach no such thing! If you do not know what
you are talking about it is best you do not say anything. I will post
my rebuttal to your nonsense soon enough.
I received this the following email from Rich Pierce: It must also be clearly pointed out Harold camping does not at all believe anything like Oneness that I know of but the article By Dr. White was purposely misleading and dishonest to sway his readers into believing what he had written, but for sure White is angry that his Reformed brother no longer teaches the trinity doctrine and taught Calvinism at the same time, proof is Michael Burgos following up with his article on his Blog.
Rich writes:"Manuel,
Dude, you need to read a little more closely. :-)
That post was about Harold Camping whose theology, and we are not real sure of this, may have morphed into embracing a Oneness position AS WELL AS a two deaths position. We are still waiting for him to clarify both of these matters. This in no way was meant to say that Oneness people believe anything else that Harold Camping believes nor is it to say that the two deaths issue has anything to do with Modalism or Oneness.
It is distinctly possible that no one else on the face of the earth believes what Harold Camping believes so no one was trying to say that Harold Camping is now a Oneness Pentecostal.
I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Blessings,
Rich Pierce
A&O
P.S. if you have any further questions you know how to get ahold of me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)