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."

Bloggers failed attempt to correct Dr.Bernard

One blogger to whom on regular basis pen's a blog concerning all things Oneness and attempts to correct said Oneness believers in their exegesis and inform his trintiarain readers of where the Oneness folks have gotten off on their understanding of scripture(rolling of eyes) as I think of so many who do without even engaging real Oneness folks in discussion and trying their doctrines whether or not those things be so.

The following apologetic attempt this time as it has been a few times before is on a couple items written by Dr. David Bernard in his book the Oneness of God and proceeds to inform his readers where Dr.Bernard has gone wrong in his exegesis of a few passages where the trinitarain understanding is far superior(More rolling of eyes)
The following is an excerpt from Bernard's book "The Oneness of God:" where the blogger proceeds to correct.


"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever… God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The first portion of the above passage clearly refers to the deity in the Son, while the second portion refers to the humanity of the Son. The writer of Hebrews is quoting a prophetic passage in Psalm 45:6-7. This is not a conversation in the Godhead but a prophetic utterance inspired by God and looking to the future incarnation of God in flesh. God was speaking prophetically through the psalmist to describe Himself in a future role. " (bold mine)

The Blogger then writes:"The inconsistent nature of this explanation of Hebrews 1:8 is clear. Bernard is quick to attribute humanity to the Son of God, but in regards to His deity He exposes the greatest flaw of oneness theology. No consistent oneness person can affirm the deity of the Son of God".

mlculwell: Of Course we can affirm the deity of the "son of God" because his deity was given the limited man(John 3:34,Acts 2:36,Math.28:18,1st.Cor.15:45) who had a beginning as his humnaity was not eternal. What he means is his unscriptual made up doctrine of "god the son." He actually inverts the biblical term and adds to scripture his own man made doctrine.



The Blogger: "While Bernard affirms the Son's human nature, he denies His divinity thereby selecting his interpretation to suit his presupposition".

mlculwell: I would and can accuse the Blogger of the same thing, scriptually of Course, as there is no "god the son divinity" that he claims we deny. his deity was given as his humnaity had a beginning from his mothers womb.



The Blogger:"While on earth, the Son of God made it abundantly clear that He is indeed the eternal Son, God Himself".

mlculwell: the blogger does not see the clear contradiction and absurd doctrine that he proposes and more than likely does not even care that he does so flying in the face of scripture and common sense(in claiming such nonsense) as an "eternal son" as old as daddy (Eternal)and at the same time the same God as his daddy. Let's be clear! Oneness claim that Jesus is the eternal God but his humanity had a beginning(Not his deity) But their only a few passages that only Oneness believers can present to show whom Jesus deity was and those passages are found in (John 14:10)

The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works.

(2nd.Cor.5:19) God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Not that God was Christ but God was in Christ or God in him (by no measure) made him Christ and Lord(Acts 2:36)

The passages I submitted will be ignored as they always are by trinitarian's and not reconciled to their doctrine....




The Blogger:"Passages that provide a sound basis for this point are often explained away by Bernard in his book, much like what he has done here. Bernard often attributes the Son's claims to deity as Jesus communicating via His divine nature as opposed to His human nature , thereby dividing the Lord Jesus Christ into two persons".

mlculwell: According to your un-scriptural view of the term "person" where you add your definition to scripture as there is no term for God found in scripture(Which is actually imposing your doctrine upon scripture.) We would be according to your view denying Jesus real humanity and making him *a mix hybrid new species* mixing his humnaity and divinity it is clear by what tyou are saying here! But it strikes me strange you do not see this in trying to prove a point in your blind hatred.

We as Oneness are clear to make a distinction between his deity that always eternally existed and his son-ship that clearly came about in time.(To deny that fact is to deny his virgin birth and his real humanity.)Which is what you do in your false doctrine. So do we have "two persons of God" as Oneness with One real man and One real God that incarnated that real sinless son? No! Because a real man is not another person of God! That is a clear denial of Jesus real humanity!



The Blogger:"This is a concept that is devoid of both logic and scriptural backing; obviously, natures cannot communicate with each other. Bernard's explanation is also shown to be inconsistent with the Son's own identification of the object of His prayers. The Son identified the Father not simply as the divinity in Him but an actual person".

mlculwell: Dr. Bernard is clear in his book as to his meaning of nature as he uses the Webster dictionary definition for the term!(pg.320)Nature the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

Oneness are clear in our understanding and are consistent in affirming God is not two persons! As a real man given the spirit by no measure is not another person of God.

Chalcedon denial of the humanity of Jesus

mlculwell: said...

" We both make that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man"

This is also incorrect and illogical. The Lord Jesus Christ is FULLY man and FULLY God. These two natures are not confused in any way.

mlculwell: Thank you for your affirmation of the false doctrine I have been charging you trinitarains with! To deny Jesus is 100% man and then claim he is "fully man" is denial Of Jesus real humanity and actually denies he is fully man and is a mix ie. your cultic clinging of the Mormon level Chalcedon nonsense!



Jesus had a spirit and the Spirit residing within Him.

mlculwell: Thank you again "he had a spirit" but not a human spirit! because he is not a rela man to you but a hybrid mix and you are simply repeating your false mantra he is fully man well he cannot be fully man with a divine spirt animating a puppet body!

He has His spirit; which is the eternal metaphysical divine essence. To answer your question directly, His spirit was both a real human spirit and a divine spirit. Hence the two natures which are distinct and real.


mlculwell: A mix spirit is neither one or the other! Splain how it is?


"Yes the deity of the father, son, and spirit is unchanging!"

By your own admission, you have affirmed the eternal deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

mlculwell: Yes Once again yes but I deny your false doctrine of "god the son" the deity of the son is God the father in the incarnation any passage that speaks to the deity of the of the son is inclusive of the incarnation and not in spite of it! in other words Jesus was made the creator by him being given the spirit and All power(John 3:34.Math.28:18) Not because of your misinterpretation of scripture where you insert your false doctrine.


If the Son is God and unchanging, then He must be eternal.

mlculwell: The son was made the eternal spirit as his sonship had a beginning( acts 2:36,Heb.1:6,Gal.4:4,1st.Cor.15:45-46)

You have contradicted your position fatally, and actually affirmed the Trinitarian position.

mlculwell: I am very happy with my position and am glad to refute yours and will use in the future against all trinity believers!

The Trinitarian view of *Makers*(plural) is polytheism

One Trinitarain wrote the following and is very revealing how their view of God is polytheistic instead of the biblical monotheism(One God.)

"Isaiah 54:5 כִּי בֹעֲלַיִךְ עֹשַׂיִךְ, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ; וְגֹאֲלֵךְ קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֱלֹהֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ יִקָּרֵא.

Psalm 149:2 יִשְׂמַח יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֹשָׂיו; בְּנֵי-צִיּוֹן, יָגִילוּ בְמַלְכָּם.

Ecclesiastes 12:1 וּזְכֹר, אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ, בִּימֵי, בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ: עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָבֹאוּ, יְמֵי הָרָעָה, וְהִגִּיעוּ שָׁנִים, אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵין-לִי בָהֶם חֵפֶץ.

All three of the above texts contain an interesting an often overlooked dynamic. Each of them contain a plural usage in regards God. In both the Isaiah and Psalm verses the word we read as "Maker" is literaly translated "Makers" in Hebrew. In addition the word "Creator" that we read in the Ecclesiastes passage is literally translated "Creators" in Hebrew. There are other passages using these same titles for God, however they use the singular form. This facet of the Old Testament fits perfectly within a Trinitarian understanding of God. This should come as no surprise, since the Trinity is a doctrine that is derived directly from the scriptures themselves. God has provided a tremendous amount of affirmation for the Trinity in the text of the Old Testament. Although the Trinity was not yet revealed until the New Testament, God left those of the old covenant without excuse in the form of many allusionary texts as seen."




I then replied to the above:What you are promoting is polytheism! There is nothing at all air tight about your argument it can be refuted easily and shows us that trinitarains are nothing but polytheists. "The so called makers" As I have shown many times before and especially in Gen.1:26 God included the son in creation. there is absolutely nothing to your argument!



To which I received the following:

"No sir, I am not promoting polytheism. Actually I am promoting a biblical doctrine of God. You would do well in obeying the whole counsel of scripture and not approaching the Old Testament with a Jewish doctrine of God. There is one God, I have said it many times. However, within the one being that is God there eternally exists three co-eternal co-equal persons. Polytheism is the belief in two or more gods. Clearly you are in error.

Mlculwell: You are promoting polytheism as you lack any clear understanding to reconcile your doctrine with scripture and your explanation is blind thoughtless polytheism .

If In fact your * makers* are "plural God persons" you are promoting polytheism. What the Oneness has in the makers includes the son in the coming incarnation as per Romans 5:14, and Gen.1:26. Let me be clear the son is not another person of God But is the real man that God the father incarnated and was us and our in creation in other words God included the real man as son in the coming incarnation as creator and maker thus your plural persons nonsesne(Not as another person of God)





"As I have shown many times before and especially in Gen.1:26 God included the son in creation."

"You are absolutley right. The plural referneces that God has made to himself include the Son and for the matter, the Spirit as well".


mlculwell: Of Course I am right! But you are inserting your false doctrine of polytheism. Adam was the figure of him that was to come. what was to come? Jesus as a real human being or man incarnated (That was the image and likeness Adam was created in)



"They are all eternal. Therefore, only the Trinity can satisfy the plural texts and the monotheistic decrees of the Old Testament. Besides, your explanation cannot cannot explain the various other plural passages as seen in the OT, simply because they do not have there context has nothing to do with creation".


mlculwell: There are no "they all are eternal"(Gods as in polytheism) but again you reveal your polytheism. The biblical understanding is Oneness alone! Our view is the only viable explanation of the plural passages that does not harm biblical monotheism of both the Old and New Testaments.