Roger Perkins answers a recent AOMIN article.

 This is in answer to a recent article written by Alan Kurschner a contributing writer to Dr. James Whites Aomin.org  titled:

Hebrews 1:3 - A Refutation to Roger Perkins and Other Oneness Advocates


Alan Kurschner's article is red.  Roger Perkins response is in Bold white.

12/23/2011 - Alan Kurschner “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature [kai charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou] and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” (Heb 1:3 ESV)

First, a word about the spiral nature of hermeneutics that most Trinitarians overlook in their "Exegesis". Proper hermeneutics works from the macroscopic to the microscopic. That is, the avid Bible student begins with the overall genre of a book (Macro) and from there funnels down to specific passages (Micro), never forgetting the overall purpose of the book.

The book of Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians so wrapped up in OT Judaism that, evidently, some were wanting to return to their old tradition including animal sacrifices (E.G., 10:26). This is the very reason the writer repeatedly appeals to the OT in buttressing his doctrinal posture. Virtually all Trinitarian apologists state that the OT standing alone does not support the Trinity doctrine, and I would argue neither does the NT which was written by Jewish hands (save Luke, who was most likely a proselyte Jew). The overriding point is that if these Jewish-Christians were so wrapped up in OT prescriptions that they were wanting to revert back to animal sacrifices...do we honestly believe they were worshipping a "2nd of 3 divine individuals" never once presented in the same OT the writer appeals to? Me thinks not!

Secondly, who was "the Son" in the immediate context of Heb. 1? None other than the one through whom God spoke in "these last days," clearly referring to the Messiah who traversed this Earth as God manifest in the flesh. Yet, it would be incredible to think that God never spoke through a "second-divine-co-eternal-individual" for all of eternity, but reserved such communication until a mere 2,000 years ago? It is from this premise that the writer begins his entire work. The Son is identified in Hebrews as speaking only in these last days, the express image of God, inherited a superior name, begotten into the world "today," anointed by His "God," has companions, etc. ad nauseum. Clearly, a "Pre-existent 2nd divine individual" is entirely foreign to the writer's notion of "the Son".


Now to the phrase "express image". Moulton & Milligan, pg. 683, concludes this term as "an exact reproduction". Various lexicographers conclude the same general meaning with a few similar variables. More about this definition, as well as the tense used in this passage below.....

The author of Hebrews expands on describing the Son's radiance of the glory of God by ascribing to the Son, "the exact imprint of [God's] nature." The Greek expression used is highly significant: "charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou." This statement about the Son being the exact representation of the essence of God tells us two things about the Son: (1) He is divine,

The Son is the one OT Yahweh in flesh, so of course He's Divine in this sense. Problem is, He's NEVER identified in Holy Writ as a "2nd Divine-Individual, apart from 2 other Divine-Individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness". Secondly, an imprint or reproduction is not the thing that it is a reproduction of...in this case the invisible God. The term translated "exact imprint" connotes that which is tangible and visible....not invisible. Hence, it is clear that some sort of body is in view here, which precisely our position relative to the Son of God and only advances the argument!

and (2) is distinguished from another person (the Father in this case) because he shares in—represents—the same nature as another person.

Ahhh yes, the presuppositions are coming through nicely now aren't they? Here, we have an indirect admission in belief in "distinguished" "divinity," with the modification (& invention) of "persons" in order to circumvent the glaringly obvious lean toward Tritheism. Thankfully, we Oneness folks don't have to add to the Scriptures like this in order to force our doctrine into a text that never acknowledges the same. Interestingly here, it is said that the supposed divine persons "share" the nature of God, which immediately raises questions as to exactly which "person" would be "the Almighty" or "the Supreme Deity" since they all "share" the same nature? Again, thankfully Oneness believers do not have to wrestle with such conundrums inherent within such unbiblical notions.

For if the Son were the Father, it would be strange, if not illogical, to speak of him as the representation of God's nature.

In the first place, I don't know a Oneness believer on Earth who confesses "the Son IS the Father". This is a complete straw-man tactic either ignorantly (at best) or dishonestly (at worst) used to attack the Biblical message of the Mighty God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19; Jn. 14:10). I will give this writer the benefit of the doubt & assume the former. What is "strange" & "illogical" is the idea that, in His present heavenly state (note the present tense "IS the exact imprint") the supposed "2nd divine individual" is a "reproduction" of the supposed "1st divine individual"? Who is representing the "2nd & 3rd divine individuals" in Heaven?? If co-equal, wouldn't they need a representative as well, especially in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of "Perichoresis" (Intermingling)? Strange this is not at all the notion presented to us in the Revelation 22:3-4. Think I'll stick with the Bible.

There are two persons in view here, not one.

Assumption stated as fact. There are 2 states of existence: The One Yahweh in His Transcendent existence, outside of the Incarnation, and this self-same God within the self-imposed limitations of the Incarnation...as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His BEING (NIV)". One God, 2 simultaneous offices of existence...not "2 divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness".

Moreover, the last statement in this verse, "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," demonstrates two co-existing persons.

The phrase "sat down" simply connotes the finished work of Christ, the Messiah, in contrast to those priests who "stood daily" (E.G., Heb. 10:11-12). The term "Right Hand" is simply a Jewish idiomatic expression (which the Hebrew believers would readily pick up on) denoting mediatorship, glory and the place of authority....all of which the Messiah occupies. The verse knows nothing of "divine individuals in the Trinity" and the text standing alone will never support such a notion despite the desperate attempts to force it into the Bible.

Therefore the Son cannot be identified as the Father.

Again, we do not confess this, but, whom the Son is equally never identified as is a "2nd of 3 divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness...entirely unknown throughout 4,000 years of Hebrew revelation". "Illogical" indeed!


Roger Perkins

If Jesus were God( and He is) then the word should have been with him.

The very view of the Trinitarian version and interpretation of John 1:1 makes them suspect and actually contradicts scripture in the worst way, and makes it more of polytheism as God would be with God. Nothing is said of persons in the passage and that view is inserted in the text.

The word was not a pre-existent Jesus in John 1:1-18 but pertains to God, the meaning of the phrase *was with God.* The word/Logos was the spoken plan of God for the coming redemption.

The word/logos was not a person in 2nd Tim.2:17

And their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus who concerning the truth have erred.

I have asked this question before and will again; why would the writer, if it were Paul, Then soil the term Logos/logos, whom the trinitarians say was the pre-existent Jesus and use the term in such a common usage of two individuals spreading untruths such as the resurrection was already past?(Verse 18.)

The answer is; Logos/logos was never meant to convey the pre-existent person of the son of God, anymore than the logos of Hymenaeus and Philetus was a person. It was called their word/logos and pertained to their evil false idea and teaching.

Psalm 33:6 By the word/Logos were the heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth.( Psalm 33:6 Septuagint, OT Greek.)

Again,The Logos/word is not being used here either anymore than it is in John 1:1-18 as a pre-existent person known as the son of God but is consistent in it's intended meaning and usage.



  Dr.  James White wrongly teaches Reformed Adherents that Oneness actually  teaches the Logos was the father.. A Reformed apologetic writer says the following:

"John 1:1c, which is neither definite nor indefinite (regarding the use of Theos), but rather, qualitative. Meaning, John is telling the reader something about the Logos in 1:1c. He is not telling the reader that the Logos is τὸν θεόν, or, “the God,” as described in John 1:1b of the Father. To do such a thing would mix up the persons already described in 1:1b which would make the Logos the Father (aka Modalism)."

Oneness does not teach the Logos is the father.... Oneness teaches the word is with God as the word pertains to God... Oneness does not teach the word is a person at all! Why was not the word with Jesus?  Jesus was God manifest in the flesh the word was with Jesus! the word was not even applied to Jesus until the word was MADE flesh!

James White Roger Perkins Debate Audio

Here's the audio from the debate. Copy and paste to your address bar to play audio.

Thanks Goes To Craig Ireland the Reformed host Pastor in Brisbane AU. for passing this along.

http://t.co/PUn154ta

http://www.hopechristianchurch.com.au/the-trinity-debate




1.) Opening Statements:


2.)First Rebuttals:


3.)Second Rebuttals:


4.) First Cross-Examination:



5.) Second Cross-Examination:


6.) Audience Questions:



7.) Closing Statements:



Very Good debate. Congratulations goes to Roger Perkins for defending(earnestly contend)for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White Part II

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White
Part II A response to Dr. White's dividing line Program.

On the October 25th edition of James White’s webcast, The Dividing Line, Mr. White continued in his typical condescending and pompous demeanor of my first rebuttal. I have dictated his remarks below to the best of ability , with my counter-responses. I copied his words in hurried fashion, so every single small term [i.e., vowels, articles, etc.] may not be word-for-word, but in 98% of the cases they are exact. I refer readers to the show for corroboration of the info. below.
_____________________________________________________________

JW: Mr. Perkins chose to be offended at my remarks on the DL of his previous debates, instead of listening, learning and growing.

RP: Again, you posture yourself as the teacher, and we all the “learners”. As I said before, it’s quite hard to “learn” from someone who infers that God did not fully “reveal” His true identity to His OT Covenant people. Not to even mention the “Three-Separate-Centers of Consciousness within each Divine Individual” position you hold to!? Or, your comment in your article John 1:1, Meaning and Translation, Section II, that states “The Logos is not all of God”. Interesting indeed! Let me guess, I’m taking the terms you chose to employ out of context again…right?

JW: In the Oneness camp, if someone says you’re factually wrong, it’s automatically an “Ad Hominem” attack.

RP: As I said to you before, I’ve received numerous emails from all over the country, both Trinitarian and Oneness, who expressed their disdain for your undue polemics. This includes terms such as “Ridiculous,” “Plain Silly,” “Absurd,” and, now add to the mix, “Lying”! “Ridiculous” indeed! If you can dish it out sir, then don’t cry when I return the favor…I can do both.


JW: Perkins did not engage the actual subject

RP: I spent 3 hrs. debating your subjects. I simply did not provide the responses you wanted me to give, thus the ol’ familiar Trinitarian charge, “You’re not answering my questions”. Hmmm, kinda’ like you did when I asked about the natural ramifications of the anthropomorphical language applied to God as possessing one mouth, pair of hands, feet, face, etc. To which you replied, “God having a mouth does not infer He is one person anymore than when the Bible says He has feathers He’s a chicken!” Good for laughs, but also a professional dodge which ignores the point of the question now doesn’t it [I.E., Ignoring the Question!]. Or, when asked why singular personal pronouns in the NT equals one single person, but 9,000 singular personal pronouns applied to God in the OT, the person-hood criteria shifts to being-hood. You said, “The difference is there’s no personal dialogue in the OT (which is quite strange for co-eternal persons now isn‘t it?).” I should have responded by asking if there has to be dialogue for a single-person-pronoun to indicate personhood? But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision!

JW: Every time I look up Perkins’ scholarly references, they are in error.

RP: Hmm, did you take the time to look up the various prepositional usages in BAGD for the baptismal accounts in Acts…which expressly reference an oral invocation of the Name [eis (acc. case) to onama, epi (dat. case), en]? BTW, it’s quite strange that the lone witness of Mt. 28:19 necessitates the baptismal “formulae,” while the multiple attestations in Acts and the epistles simply denote Christian ‘authority’?? And you’re teaching me about proper “hermeneutics”??

Did you take the time to look up Louw-Nida’s semantic domain or Thayer’s on para in the dat. case as including “in the judgement of, in the opinion of, or metap., in the mind, Jn. 17:5 [this last reference is Thayer].” Or, how about Zodhiates with dia in the gen. case in Col. 1:16...was that also in “error,” esp. since Zodhiates & Thayer explicitly reference the verses under consideration, and Louw-Nida says para in the dat. Case “includes” the mng. “in the opinion of, in the judgement of”. I referenced everyone of these in the debate, to which you offered no response. BTW, before you call the term “includes” a “weasel word” [as you have charged me before], I’ll simply remind you that you yourself used this word in partially quoting BAGD’s def. of monogenes in the back of your book [pg. 203 or 208 if I’m not mistaken?]. But, this is the typical scholastically hypocrisy I’ve come to expect after studying you for intently for several months now.

JW: Perkins is a sad example of not focusing on the arguments

RP: Hmm, seems the unbiased moderator, as well as several in the crowd did not feel that way. Once again, you set yourself up to be the final authority as to what qualifies as “effective argumentation” and what does not. Sorry Mr. White, we are not at your mercy in these [or any other] areas.

JW: If Perkins really wanted to refute me, all he had to do was offer meaningful exegesis.

RP: Let’s see, I touched on Para in the dat. case, dia in the gen. case, plural vs. singular verbs in regard to the subjects they modify, referenced Louw-Nida, BAGD, Thayer, Friberg, Robertson, Moulton, etc. No, I did not get to offer an in-depth analysis of the Carmen Christie, though I had two pages on it alone. But, this was due to the format THAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE DEBATE AND YOU AGREED TO! I was asked to delineate my position in detail to the audience, then begin our rebuttals in the very short time we had left…which I spent handling your charges in your own rebuttal. And, even then I fit in Jn. 17:1-5. So, if it makes you look better, keep singing away, but it’s quite odd the unbiased moderator and several others [Trinitarians] did not feel this way.

JW: Perkins can’t pronounce Greek words, knows nothing about Greek grammar, and can’t even read the Greek alphabet

RP: Ahhh yes…here we go. This is the very reason the moderator had to issue you a warning in the debate, and gave me a few choice words after the debate for you. Understand, he is a judiciary debate judge well trained on critiquing debates, and I was quite shocked when he told me he thought I won the debate and presented the clearer case. Again, I never make such claims, but allow others to be the judge.

Now, you are very, very wrong about my knowledge of the Greek language and I have written entire symposium papers about how to read lexicons. So, here, let me help you out a bit: The lexicographers give the literal definitions of said terms, then from there begin to place the passages in the category that they best feel reflect their understanding of how the word is used is used various contexts. It is at this point that carefulness must be exercised lest one mistakes their commentary as grammatical fact. Thus, the context is the determining factor. And, I wrote this & many other similar points long before I ever heard you say a thing about it!

Regarding my reading the Greek language, you are quite in error here also. Certainly I have a ways to go, but am in the learning process and can indeed read some Greek, but, again, it’s quite an on-going process. Ironically, the participles are what I seem to pick up quite readily. Also, there are entire passages that I can translate & read now, but again it’s quite a learning experience.

However, you do reveal your motives here: If you thought I could not read Greek, then what was your reasoning in asking me IN GREEK what the verbs in Phil. 2 meant? If you thought I didn’t know how to pronounce the words…why did you insist on pronouncing, quoting, and reading from the Greek text. As I was told later, this was to try and loft yourself as the superior, and I as the inferior…which “isn’t an effective form of argumentation.” But, sure fools the crowd [some of them at least] doesn’t it Mr. White?

JW: I quoted Moulton & Milligan exactly in the English language

RP: Now who’s “lying” sir? I challenge any one reading this response to simply reference your article “The Pre-Existence of Christ” from your web-site and look down to about the 5th paragraph on the second page. You expressly state in quotation marks, “unique God” (10), which is a reference to Moulton & Milligan, pp. 416-417. When one consults the reference YOU provided in quotes, the words in quotes appear absolutely nowhere in your footnoted source! Explain it away all you want, it’s right there for the honest in heart. I have written many symposium papers and the editors would hand me my head if I did this. This is NOT proper academical authorship…no matter how you try to rationalize it away. At least have the decency sir to acknowledge you should have written it better and withdraw the quotation and reference source. I have already included the genre of the quote as it appears in my first rebuttal for readers to view for themselves, especially their specific comments regarding Jn. 1:18 [the very verse you were referencing]...which states the entire opposite of what your paper infers. I won’t even take the time to rehash your partial quote from BAGD, or your ‘deception by omission’ tactic you used in your “evidence” for Monogenes Theos selected from UBS-4. Yes, “Abuse” indeed!

JW: Can any rational thinking person think I wasn’t saying Moulton & Milligan was identifying as “Unique God”

RP: Then don’t include it in quotes with a footnote reference right beside it citing your source with page numbers! What does this tell anyone in first year college? I know it’s a novel idea for you, but how about simply acknowledging your poor reference and move on?

JW: Perkins has a horrific lack of scholarship

RP: Said the man who told the world last Fri. night that God exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!? No one knew a thing about such as existence for 4,000 years and 70% [or the remaining 30%] of the Bible…..and I’M THE ONE WITH HORRIFIC SCHOLARSHIP?? If your peculiar idea of a three-minded God constitutes “scholarship,” I think I’ll stay as far away from your brand of “scholarship” as I can, as well as teach others to do the same!


JW: Only Roger Perkins has the ability to misread any scholarly source that’s presented to him

RP: Contrare’ Monfrare’. I actually presented Friberg to you in regard to ‘aykone,’ with their reference to Col. 1:15...& you just ignored it altogether. As well as you did my references to Louw-Nida, Thayer, etc. concerning Para in the dat. case. But, as usual, you simply plod along in your typical ad-hom style, all the while denying the same….a natural out-growth of your “Reformed Theology” [i.e., “Elect”].

JW: He was lying in our debate

RP: Ho-Hum and Big Yawn! If I inadvertently misquoted BAGD, that’s not a “lie” [I suppose my reference to Friberg was also a “lie”?]. Perhaps we should do a home Bible study on the definition of Lying [so typical for reformed theologians BTW]. Concerning Moulton, it was your quotations and resource reference right next to it…not mine.

JW: Perkins key argument in ‘trying to get around Col. 1:16’ was his argument from BAGD, which made no sense.

RP: Actually, I have conceded that I misspoke regarding the passage in the sense that the Son created as to His pre-eminence. As I’ve already said, as soon as I said this I knew it did not at all come out right, nor did the statement accurately reflect my thoughts. But, there was no time to correct it during a fast-paced cross-ex. However, the overriding point remains valid and I have already enunciated this in my last open rebuttal to you. The Son is contextually presented to us in Vss. 14-15 as the one who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins, and the visible image of the invisible God. The word ‘aykone’ is where we get the English word ‘Icon’ & invariably defines as a tangible, visible representation [see Amplified, & Dr. W. E. Vine]. Clearly this is not the pre-existent world, but the Human Messiah [God in Flesh] who “redeemed” us. This is who the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 grammatically point back to, as evidenced by the conjunction hotee introducing a dependent causal clause in Vs. 16, further elaborating on Vs. 14-15.

JW: Over and over, Perkins does not know how to read a Lexicon

RP: Funny, even if this were the case [which it’s not at all], you have told us that Lexicons only reflect that particular lexicons understanding….which is PRECISELY the point I have made in my teachings about lexicons [symposium papers, etc.]. And, I wonder if this holds true for your beloved A.T. Robertson, Benjamin Warfield commentary, and the 75 sources you reference in your book??

JW: Perkins has never spent one day taking Greek, and yet he refuses correction…which is a mark of Cultism

RP: Elder David Adams was a Greek professor for 3 yrs. at a Bible college in Parkersburg, WV. He graduated Greek 5 with a 97% and can transliterate the ancient language. WVU has approached him about teaching Greek in their accredited university. He has written an entire translation/commentary on the Revelation. He is an esteemed Elder of mine and he has spent much time with me in the language. I also have Mounce, Wallace, Dana & Mantey, BAGD, Thayer, Vine’s, Moulton, Robertson, Diesmann, etc….which are the same sources YOU refer to sir. Yes, I still have much to learn, as do you with the infinitives, but learning I am! So, your first point above it entirely moot and off-base.

Secondly, if the doctrines of “Reformed Theology” are not “Cultic,” I don’t know what is! By your own definition, if one refuses correction, they are “Cultic”….said the man who argues for a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!? Not one Jewish writer from Gen.-Rev. arrives at such a conclusion and, indeed, would likely rebuke one who taught such. “Cultic” indeed!

JW: Perkins’ accusation that I misrepresented Moulton is a lie and we need to move on to someone who can read a Lexicon. It’s simply reprehensible.

RP: In the first place, I read the Lexicons quite well, though I may have inadvertently looked over the sub-category in BAGD. Regardless, even the listing you mention, “Christ,” is both definitionally and biblically a reference to the Messiah who walked the Earth & redeemed mankind, as opposed to a “2nd of 3 separate divine individuals, each with their own independent center of consciousness”. Thus, the BAGD reference still stands, as well as Friberg, Vine’s, and the Amplified Bible’s translation [and I have several more references].

Concerning “moving on” to someone else, as long as you continue to offer your critiques on the DL, I’ll be here to offer sur-rejoinders. Obviously, I will not continue forever, as I am beginning a church-plant and am shifting my focus to this arena, though I will certainly always continue my studies.

As I said to you earlier, you had a perfect example to clearly enunciate your position to our agnostic moderator who is a professional debate judge and came out of interest. Now, due to your obvious attempts to play the crowd with citations to Australian movie lines, and clear arrogant behavior, if he comes to anyone, it will be us. To God the Glory!

I await your next DL critique, at which time I will respond accordingly.

Roger Perkins

An Open Response to James White from Roger Perkins

This is a rebuttal to James White's Article entitled: a tale of two debates. First posted on his Aomin.org in response to his recent debate with Roger Perkins In Brisbane Australia. I have Given Roger Perkins this forum for his own rebuttal to Dr. White.

10/22/2011 - James White
"You could not have a stronger contrast between the mindset and behavior of my two debate opponents this week, and, in particular, in their response to how I bent over backwards to try to make these debates as fair, even-handed, and useful as possible. I refer to my taking a tremendous amount of time on the Dividing Line going over their own presentations in recent debates so as to make sure that they would know exactly where I was coming from and exactly what I would be saying. Abdullah Kunde clearly listened, learned, incorporated my comments, accepted correction where necessary, and the result was a very excellent debate that while direct and forthright was likewise respectful and cordial, the very best kind. The issues were clearly presented and debated as a result of Abdullah Kunde's willingness to listen and learn without feigning offense at my refutation of some of his previous statements.




Alas, Roger Perkins chose the exact opposite path. Rather than listening, pondering, considering, learning, and growing, he chose to be deeply offended at what I did in responding to his own statements on the Dividing Line. All through the debate he kept referring to what I had said in the most negative fashion. He was clearly personally offended and chose to interpret my review in the most negative light. The result was to be expected: just as in the debates we reviewed, Mr. Perkins showed himself unwilling, or unable, to "hear" what was being said to him. You could tell he was sitting there, waiting for me to finish my question, just so he could launch into a prepared response, even if that response was not even relevant to the question I was asking. He came with sound clips, for example, from the Dividing Line, as I had predicted. However, he put them together so as to try to forge a contradiction or inconsistency on my part. But to do so he had to obviously violate the context of my statements. He took one statement where, in commenting on 1 John 2:23, I said that you cannot "separate" the Father and the Son. Obviously, to any semi-honest or reasonable person, my meaning was clear. I was saying you cannot have the Son without the Father, and you cannot have the Father without the Son. John's point is that confession of the Father demands confession of the Son, and vice versa, in light of the Father's testimony to the Son (a concept found in John 5, 8, etc. as well). Then he took that specific comment that had a specific context about what was being said in 1 John 2:23, and tried to create a contradiction with other statement I made regarding the distinction that is provided by the actions and attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence, I had said that we can distinguish the Father from the Son, and he took this to be a contradiction to what I had said about 1 John 2:23. Does Mr. Perkins really lack the ability to grasp that basic level of human communication and language, or is he just being obtuse in defense of his tradition? I do not know."


Roger Perkins Writes:It is immediately clear you view yourself as the one holding the superior posture, and others in the position of needing to ‘learn’ [ a natural outgrowth of “Reformed Theology“]. This, of course, coming from someone who unashamedly told the world you have no problem acknowledging you worship a God who exists as “three-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness.” All right there for the world to see if you don’t edit it. None of God’s covenant people knew a thing about such an existence, nor ever once acknowledge such….and I’m to “listen” and “learn” from you? No thank you sir.
Secondly, "Let's just say I'm aware of some things U aren't Mr. White, & I'll have to leave it at that.". I have received emails from all over the country about your behavior and I have started to post an open letter to you several times, but saved it for the debate.
The sound-bites were your chosen words, not mine. As an Apologist, you of all people should know to chose your words more carefully. If you do not mean them, do not say them. I wanted the folks to hear you refer to the “divine persons” as “separate individuals”…..which I assume was just me taking your words “out of context” also…right? Not hardly. 



Dr.White continues:"One mistake I made in hindsight was to not press him to answer a question I had raised in my opening statement. I even ended my second portion of cross-examination almost three minutes early, mainly out of disgust at trying to reason with someone who clearly had no intention of engaging in rational thought. I should have taken that time to press him on the mediatorial role of Jesus today, since he did not make a single comment on the question, and I do not think he has ever considered the question at all. I likewise misspoke once and referred to Mr. Perkins "mistranslating" Rev. 21:22, when I should have said "misinterpreting" or "misreading." My point remained valid, however, as he had attempted to draw a parallel between this text and John 10:30 when there is no valid syntactical relationship whatsoever."



RP responds:I as well made some mistakes in hindsight. I “misspoke” in regards to Col. 1:16 & the Son creating by His “Pre-eminence.” As soon as I said it, I knew it did not at all reflect my thoughts & did not sound coherent, but there would be no opportunity to correct it in a cross-ex. My point was & is, that if it can be shown that Vs’s 14-15 are conclusively referring to the Historical Messiah, then all of the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 are contextually identifying the same as opposed to switching back to the pre-existent world in mid-stream of the Hymn. The preceding passages refer to the Son who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins. How and when did this happen Mr. White? In Eternity, or at Calvary? This is the same one who is in view in vs. 16, based upon the conjunction hotee introducing the dependent causal clause.
The point in Rev. 21:22 is that both passages have, as the subject of the verb, the Father and the Son. You adamantly claim that the plural verb in Jn. 10:30 demands plural persons [even though those on the very spot did not reach this conclusion, even after hearing the plural!?], then shift the verb usage identifying the same subject in Rev. 21:22.
Also, when you asked me how I would translate the term Jn. 17:5, I should have responded by telling you that I feel no need to retranslate the term, as you apparently do [& did with Phil. 2 w/ clear insertions unfound in the Greek Text]. But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20!
You are quite in error concerning the mediatorial role of Christ. I have studied the issue quite well & a Trinitarian explanation is quite inadequate. From your perspective, you would have the 2nd divine individual in heaven interceding to the 1st (presumably) divine individual. Strange that the Revelation does not at all give us this picture, but rather has Jesus sitting on the Throne [Rev. 3:21; 22:3-4, etc.]. In fact, you apparently were not listening closely enough since I addressed this in my closing statement. Paul expressly identifies the mediator: “…and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN, Christ Jesus.” Nothing in the text about a “2nd divine person in the Trinity” now is there? This is supplied by the Trinitarian world…not the actual text itself. 






Dr. White Writes:"One of the limitations of doing debate like this at the speed we were going was illustrated last evening, but it is also a learning opportunity as well. I found Mr. Perkins is not interested in learning, but others will be, so here we go.


At least three times, maybe four, Mr. Perkins insisted that the term εἰκών was defined by Bauer as "a man" or, I think he may have said as well, the form of a man (I have the recording from my LiveScribe pen, and may track down the specifics before the next DL). He used this as his sole defense in trying to avoid the obvious teaching of the text that the Son, as the Son, pre-existed and was, in fact, involved in creation itself. Now, there was no way for me to look up the reference during cross-ex. I suspected that, as we have documented many times, Perkins was engaging in lexical abuse, but I could not speak and open up BDAG and check the small print at the same time. So, during Perkins' closing statement, I checked the reference, and confirmed my suspicions. After the debate I approached Mr. Perkins and asked if he had the reference to Bauer handy. He said he did. He opened his notebook to Colossians 1:15. He had one line, which said Bauer, "of a man…Col. 1:15." No page number, nothing else. So I showed him the actual entry in Bauer on my iPad (in Accordance), and explained that he was mistaken. He refused correction. Let me explain it to those who have a willingness to learn."



Roger Perkins Writes:What you have omitted form your recount of our table-side chat is that I also showed you Friberg’s Analytical definition of Aykone, which expressly references Col. 1:15, even if I did inadvertently misquote Bauer [I’ll be showing you own “abuse” below]. Here’s what it says for those interested in “learning”: “an EMBODIMENT, or living MANIFESTATION of God form, appearance (CO 1.15).“ See also Vine’s on this terms usage in Col. 1:15. Clearly this refers to the human life of the Messiah, or else you have the 2nd divine individual in heaven “embodied,” with the other two invisible. If the “divine individuals” in the Trinity are as separated that one can be distinguished from the others with a body, wherein lies practical Monotheism? To this, you simply responded by correcting my pronunciation of the Lexicon & said you owned the grammar. Not much of a response now is it?
I then asked you if you would accept Bauer’s on the preposition usage in the Baptismal accounts in Acts, to which you just responded with, “You don’t know how to read a Lexicon.” Then, turn there & read it for yourself! Point is you’re highly selective in what you accept from the Lexicons & what you reject in them….all due to your theological preferences.

Dr.White writes:"Below is the relevant entry from BDAG, just as I showed it to Mr. Perkins. I have put what he quoted in bold so you can see how far removed the two portions are:
2. that which has the same form as someth. else (not a crafted object as in 1 above), living image, fig. ext. of 1 εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (ἄνθρωπος πλάσμα καὶ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ [God] Theoph. Ant. 1, 4 [p. 64, 17]; w. ὁμοίωσις Did., Gen. 56, 28) of a man (cp. Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=OGI 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cp. APF 1, 1901, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 125 [27, 4]; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau Festschr. 1915, 36–52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cp. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); of Christ (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1, 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.—The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (εἰ. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ μονογενής Did., Gen. 58, 3; cp. εἰκὼν γὰρ τοῦ . . . θεοῦ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 4, 85, 24.—EPreuschen, ZNW 18, 1918, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (human being) 1 Cor 15:49. (See SMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85–100). The image corresponds to its original (cp. ὁμοίωμα 2ab; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει; Mel., P. 36, 245 διὰ τῆς τυπικῆς εἰκόνος; 38, 262 τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν εἰκόνα βλέπεις and oft. in typological exegesis of the OT).

Now, Mr. Perkins does not read Greek. I do not believe he would even know the Greek alphabet, let alone could he make his way through the text. So portions of this kind of material are simply beyond his comprehension. But you do not have to actually be able to read koine to accurately use a Greek lexicon. The second portion of the entry for εἰκών gives a major semantic domain delimitation; the subcategories are marked various forms of punctuation. Hence, the portion Perkins cited, "of a man," is in the first sub-category, and is followed by examples such as "Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός." Another sub category is introduced with "of Christ," and this is in contrast to the preceding category "of a man." The reference to Colossians 1:15 is under the listing of "of Christ" (along with 2 Cor. 4:4) it is not under the listing of "of a man." Mr. Perkins is simply wrong, without question, to have read the entry as he did, yet, when I pointed out his error, he rejected my correction. So I told him to go ask a secular Greek scholar, since clearly he will not believe anything I say. Any scholar of the language will correct him on the matter. To insist, as he did in the debate, that "Bauer says this term refers to a man" and then to build his interpretation of the entire text upon that, is to demonstrate yet once again a clear example of "lexical abuse."


Roger Perkins :I am currently in the process of relocating to begin a church plant & will review this more closely after I get settled in. What I can state immediately is that Bauer above references “Christ,” the term for the historical Messiah [God in flesh], both definitionally as well as biblically. Jesus Himself affirmed that He was the human Messiah to the woman at the well. “I, who am speaking to you am He”. Peter declared to the Human he was speaking to “YOU are the Christ.”




Dr.White:"I was also disappointed that Mr. Perkins decided to accuse me of errors in citation of source, such as Moulton-Milligan, without giving a single example. In fact, at one point, when I challenged him on why he had not offered meaningful exegesis of the key texts (Phil. 2:5-11, John 17:5, John 1:1), his response was that he had pages of exegesis on those texts right there in his notes! Well, that's not much of an argument when you don't present it, is it? Evidently he just wanted us to trust him."




Roger Perkins:In your article “The Pre-existence of Christ,” you reference Moulton in dealing with Monogenes Theos as “more accurately, the unique God”. Moulton says nothing about the “unique God” in his given definition, yet you include it in quotes? Here is the quote you referenced as it appears on pg. 417 of Moulton & Milligan, “…monogenes is used in the NT of only sons and daughters, and is so applied in a special sense to Christ in Jn. 1:18, where the emphasis is on the thought that, as the only Son of God, He has no equal…”.

Before you charge me for the ellipsis, I’ll simply point out your usage of the same in your definition of monogenes in your book, The Forgotten Trinity, in which you only partially quote Bauer’s. Here’s the portion you conveniently omitted: “But some, (e.g., WBauer) prefer to regard monogenes as somewhat heightned in mng. In Jn…to only-begotten or begotten of the only one…”. Readers can see BAGD, pg. 527 for the full quote.

In your book The King James Only Controversy, you introduce evidence for the rendering Theos, as opposed to Heios in Jn. 1:18 from UBS-4. Problem is, you totally omitted the support from UBS-4 to the contrary. Here’s a small sampling of the support for ’Son’ in I:18 you left out from UBS-4:

Uncials: A (5th Century), Seven codices from the 8th & 9th century
Miniscules: Families 1, 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, etc.
Ancient Versions: Several old Latin Mss., Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd - 4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian & Ethiopic versions, etc., etc.
Church “Father’s”: Tertullian (200 a.d.), Hippolytus, Letter of Hymenaeus, Alexander, Theodore, Chrysotom, Jerome, etc.

Ironically, you appeal to many of the same “Father’s” on pg. 205 of The Forgotten Trinity in support of Rom. 9:5. Thus, you appeal to these sources when they support you, then conveniently omit from your audiences consideration when they don’t. “Abuse” indeed!

I had a response prepared for every argument you raised, but in countering your charges & attempting to make my own points, they got lost in the mix. Basically, I planned to appeal to Colwell’s Rule in Jn. 1:1 & the various grammarians who say if Colwell’s Rule applies we have “Inadvertent Modalism [a misleading term in itself].” I have numerous quotes from various grammarians arguing for the definitive application of Jn. 1:1c, in stark contrast to the supposed qualitative tag you argue for. Yes, you both reach the same Trinitarian conclusions, but it’s for Theological preferences, not the actual grammar of the text.

In Phil. 2, the present participle huparcho is contingent upon the aorist indicative “consider,” which Wallace defines as “simple past-time.” The participle necessarily derives it’s “time-ness” from the verb & Wallace is clear on this. I then had many references to Trinitarian Grammarians who disagree w/ you on this text….including Robert Reymond.


Dr.White:In any case, the contrast between the two debates is very instructional. In one, my opponent listened to my comments and incorporated them into his preparation and comments, resulting in a clear, cogent, meaningful, and cordial debate. In the other, as the saying goes, "not so much."
05:22:54 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article



Roger Perkins:Finally, you had the perfect opportunity to clearly present your side to our agnostic moderator, who is a judiciary debate judge. He intentionally walked up to me after the debate to tell me he thought I presented the more clear case & won the debate. Personally, I have never stated this in any debate as I leave it to the few unbiased audience members who are in search of truth. He then outright said to me, “He was an arrogant….”. As a Christian, I will not use the language he chose to use [for which he immediately apologized], but he was clearly aggravated with you. This was evident in his calling you down on your repeated “I’m an authority on the Lockman Foundation” assertion. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the text in question [Gal. 3:20]. Firstly, you did not work on the translation team of this particular passage (or the entire work to my knowledge); secondly, did the translators faithfully communicate the genre of the Greek text or not? If not, you have a responsibility to correct them (which wouldn’t surprise me at all). My point stands & I was told so by a Trinitarian Pastor who was the audience that night.

In conclusion, I am well able to interact with you on a scholastical level, but will not bow down to your pompous condescension, as well noted by many, many others. I am not a part of your glory-train & have studied you quite thoroughly & reject your presuppositions rife in your arguments. If you begin your usual postings on YouTube, I’ll simply clip you stating to the world that you worship a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own center of consciousness.” We shall see what happens!

Roger Perkins

“Now on whom dost thou trust?” — Isaiah 36:5

My allegiance is not divided in some man-made trinity and me being worried about which person to whom I will offend in leaving one out.(Not found in scripture by any writer of the NT, or the OT, or even alluded.) I trust in Jesus alone My One true savior and God.It is all in Him, the fullness of the Godhead and you are complete in Him.(Col.2:9) Not in them!

Enjoy the up coming debate Oct.21st in Brisbane Australia when it comes available. Many prayers are going forward for this discussion. I have counsel and strength for war.(Isaiah 36:5)

Debate Roger Perkins versus James White. Australia. Oct.21st

The name Jesus

We who Baptize in the name of Jesus in order to wash away the sins of a repentant sinner believer wrongly accused of "Baptismal regeneration."

Baptismal regeneration means that Baptism is the savior and Not Christ.

That would mean that no matter what, if you are Baptized (immersed in water irregardless of any other issues or concerns) you have been regenerated. This is not our position and is false doctrine.

The name Jesus Invoked Over the repentant believer in Baptism gives us the person and work of The Lord Jesus Christ, not Baptism alone. The repentant Believer is not going on in true faith if stopped short of all God has given through his good grace by either insufficient preaching of the gospel(Not the full knowledge which would produce Misplaced faith) Or false doctrine.

The name called over the believer Remits sin in Baptism, not Baptism alone.
The One Baptism(Eph.4:4-6) is a One of unity of the water and Spirit(Not Just the waters of Baptism, but the name Jesus must be called over you to wash away the sins.(Invoked)...) And you must be filled with the spirit.(Not an option.) You must be born again of the water and of the spirit or you cannot enter the Kingdom.(John 3:5)

Jesus said whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) here Jesus is saying one man can remit another man's sin. How is that possible in the popular religous fairy tale world? Jesus has given us power through his name in Baptism to remit sins. You are then baptized into Christ and take his name and are circumcised and named(New birth Just like the male Jewish child on the eighth day after his birth but now both men and women) by the spirit. John the Baptist was.(Luke 1:59-60, Col.2:11, God himself named the child.)

Baptism alone without the name does nothing but get one wet.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:45,19:5,22:16) Baptism in Jesus name is calling on the Lord Jesus. We do not call on anyone else as do those who use the titles F,S,HS. and call on three. We take the name of the bridegroom as our husbands wife. Christian is not that name it was given of men first at Antioch, not by God. Though we wear it proudly as a title and identifier to Our Lord.




Holy Spirit Baptism
Paul asked the question have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? (Acts 19:2) Letting us know by asking the question that no, you do not receive automatically upon belief that you receive the spirit. otherwise it would have been absurd to ask. The kind of faith the reformed teach is not faith at all but is misplaced and false doctrine.

But you are washed(Baptism in Jesus name) but you are sanctified, but you are justified,In the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of our God.(1st.Cor.6:11) We see the false doctrine that is popularly taught, but wrong.

(1st Peter 3:21) the Like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh( not taking a bath and washing your body) But an answer of a good conscience toward God.

The biggest obstacle concerning this passage for most is the phrasing in verse 20 where:" eight souls were saved by water." Eight souls were not saved by water a very relevant protest. They were not saved by water but saved from water in the Ark that God gave by his good grace.

The Ark is the name Jesus In water Baptism.(Not Baptism) we are Baptized into Christ The person and work through faith in his name. The truth of Jesus name in water Baptism identifies the true Gospel in every aspect with Christ. We are buried(Col.2:21) We are in the Ark. through the flood(1st.Peter 3:21) We are circumcised(Col.2:12) We rise to walk In newness of Life through the spirit and the List goes on and On. This stops the mouths of the false gospel.

Debate Roger Perkins versus James White. Australia. Oct.21st

John 17:5 Revisited

I decided to post this because I was issued a challenge as a Oneness adherent on a Reformed blog concerning John 17:5.... You can read it here from my friend turretinfan's blog.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/challenge-for-oneness-advocates.html


The Keyword here being *The Glory* Jesus had with the father before the world was. In John 17:5 Does not, I repeat; does not refer to pre-existence of the son of God. The son of God was Born of Mary.....Deny that?

The Reformed trinitarians vacuum isolate passages from all other passages from their continued context in proof text to form their doctrines. And Gloss over the keyword and focus upon what they think is obvious.

Do they really think we cannot see what they see in John 17:5? There is more to the Glory of which Jesus and John spoke ....

The glory refers to His(The sons) shedding of his sinless blood Through *His FLESH* in redemptive sacrifice for mankind. It has nothing to do with pre-existence.

Let me repeat this so that you will understand? When Jesus spoke about his glory in John 17:5 he was speaking about His precious sacrifice of his sinless flesh, not pre-existence.

We understand if you take John 17:5 at face value you would get that meaning but it is much deeper than that and your interpretation actually contradicts scripture.

Romans 5:14 Adam who was the figure of him that was to Come. Meaning the son was not back there but coming even though Adam was made in his image. BTW that is what God was saying In (Genesis 1:26) When God said: *Let us make man in our image after our likeness.

The Us and Our is inclusive of the son.(The flesh God incarnated) Not god jr. We are not talking about multiple persons of god but the coming incarnation. God manifest in the Flesh. You do not have that. What you have is multiple god persons.

The continued context of John 17:24

John 17:24 The disciples were about to witness *the glory* he had with the father before the world was.

Father,I will that they also,whom thou hast given me,be with me where I am that *THEY MAY BEHOLD MY GLORY>*

They were about to behold his glory in his passion!

His glory was spoken of in both the past tense, and in the future tense that the disciples were about to behold, these were not two different glories, but the same glory and referred to Jesus being slain in his FLESH and had nothing to do with with him literally pre-existing in eternity as a *god the son.*

Jesus also said:The Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was **not yet Glorified.**(The ultimate price of his sinless flesh sacrifice for mankind to have the spirit.(John 7:38-39)


There was no literal *Glory of the son* before the incarnation somewhere in eternity.

John also talked about his Glory In Revelation 13:8 As the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was no more literally slain(His glory) than he literally existed as the son.

The KJV rendering of that passage is as valid and relevant as any version or translation of that passage and I am no KJV onliest.

We love taking criticism of John 17:5-24 because they are as wrong about it as wrong can be!




Again Jesus gave a Key word trinitarins go for what they think is obvious and spiritual when it is a shallow gloss over scripture.

Oneness could also take the shallow glossary reading and not really dig into what is being said.


His glory.(His slaying and God providing it )

Why do you think the KJV translators Chose the words and phrasing of Revelation 13:8? Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was no more literally slain than he were literally having glory with the father pre-existing as god the son.

1st Peter 1:19-20 Goes hand in hand with Revelation 13:8

But with the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot who verily was foreordained but was manifest in these last times for you.

Both passages indicate a *plan* taking place, this was the glory he had with the father and it was not a literal slaying any more than the son literally existed.


Jesus also Used the very same literal language but revealed it was much more in John 6:35-51 Jesus said I am the bread of life.

Verse 38
Jesus said he came down from heaven.
The continued context is as the bread of Life.

Verse 51 he gets into greater detail.

The keywords are *the living bread.*
I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Pay attention to the phrasing and the seeming literalness? And the bread I will give *is my flesh*.

Jesus said the bread I will give (Which came down from heaven) IS MY FLESH.

Understand? Jesus was no more literal bread, than he literally came down from heaven as god the son.. Did his flesh literally come from heaven. NO!

His flesh as our sacrifice was provided from heaven by the spirit of God both in him and in heaven.

Trinitarians focus on him saying *he came from heaven* and as god the son(Words they would insert.)

But Jesus is not saying he literally came from heaven as the son at all.

Trinitarins Like the Jews missed what was spiritual and go for the obvious, to miss the spiritual, just like Nicodemus did when Jesus told him spiritual things in John 3:4-5 How can a man be born when he is old, can he enter the second time into his mothers womb?

The Glory was The plan of God for redemption through his sinless sacrifice and it would be God himself manifest in the flesh.

That was the glory he had with the father before the world was. It was not as two persons of God in some weird lovingly staring into each others eyes throughout eternity.

Debate Roger Perkins versus James White. Australia.

October 21st, 2011, Debate Night, one night only unless something changes. Will give more details at a later date. Proposition is loosely on the pre-existence of the son.

The rest of the Reeves Versus Perkins debate

Included is the Baptismal portion that I did not have before.

Enjoy.


http://w65stchurchofchrist.org/sermon_series/ReevesPerkinsAudioVideo.html

Debate J N Anderson and Michael Burgos

Debate
Michael Burgos (Trinitarian) vs J N Anderson (Oneness Pentecostal)
Moderated by Chris Date
The thesis: "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father"

The debate will be held on April 5th on the Theopologetics program (available by podcast via iTunes, Zune Marketplace or @ Theopologetics.com). The format will include a cross examination.

The moderator has offered to entertain questions to either participants via email. If you are interested please email your question to Theopologetics@hotmail.com.


After I have this up for awhile I am going to Post the Baptismal portion of The Perkins Reeves debate.

Debate Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves

Roger Perkins Evangelist UPC I am proud to say
has done one the best Jobs I have heard in a long time in defending the truth of
God's word. Enjoy...

Monday Night

http://www.evidentialfaith.com/debates/Monday.mp3

Tuesday Night w/ Q n A

http://www.evidentialfaith.com/debates/Tuesday.mp3

Moderators : James Anderson and Jeff Asher

God giveth not the spirit by measure (unto him) John 3:34

There seems to be an upheaval of late on the Carm boards concerning the Oneness view, and the Reformed view of the passage found in (John 3:34) and Jesus being *given the spirit not by measure*(No limits) as was not so of others in the past.

The contention I have is because of Jesus origin in his humanity.(The virgin Birth) His humanity did not eternally exist.(The eternal flesh doctrine.) His deity did however. The question remains between the two sides was that of an "eternal son-ship deity?" The Trinitarian side. Or was the deity that Of God the father? The Oneness view.

Scriptures say: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. (in the flesh)(2nd Cor.5:19) Which God?

That God was the Father. Jesus said: the father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(John 14:10)

Jesus said of his son-self: I can of mine own self, do no works or miracles(John 5:30)

The Trinitarain believes an "eternal son deity" separate and/or distinct from the father, solves the problem of adoptionism that they try and put back on Oneness which cannot be done because adding the humanity to the eternal son does away with the origin of the son being born on a certain day. still does not refute a certain day as to his origin.

Unto you is *born this day,* in the city of David, a savour which is Christ the Lord.(Luke 2:11) We do not see from this passage a distinct deity from God the father. if we do, then we see polytheism.

As for John 3:34 and Jesus being given the spirit by no measure or limits.

One can look at (Isaiah 11:2) to see what Jesus was given by no measure. Not one person on the carm boards brought up the passage for consideration.

Seven spirits of completeness(Col.2:9,1st.Tim.3:16) were his upon the incarnation from his mothers womb at the origin of His flesh. (Not his deity)

1.)The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him(Jesus)

2.)The Spirit of wisdom.(Jesus was given the Spirit of wisdom he was not already wisdom.

3.)And(The Spirit of) understanding.

4.)The Spirit of counsel.

5.)And(The Spirit of) Might.

6.)The Spirit of Knowledge.

7.)and of the (Spirit) of the fear of the LORD.

The Seven Spirits of God(Complete fullness) of the Godhead, or of the state of being deity, of what makes God,God. All In Him.(Eph.4:4-6) God the son did not give his spirit by measure unto him . The son born of Mary is he to whom God gave it by no limits.

Trinity versus Oneness debate

Debate
Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves


Debate Each Night on Apostolic Doctrine

- Roger Perkins (UPCI) and Bruce Reeves (Church of Christ)


February 28 through March 4
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and Friday Night!
@ Timberland Drive Church of Christ
912 S. Timberland Drive in Lufkin, TX 75902