John 1:1 according to the Oneness position

T.D.Jakes, the Elephant Room, and Roger Perkins thoughts of the DL Program.

2012-01-28T19:38:00.000-08:00

I recently called into the Dividing Line program, an online radio outreach of Reformed Apologist Dr. James White. This weeks program centered around Pastor T.D. Jakes and His position concerning the Oneness versus Trinity positions and how that both sides felt that he(Jakes) had compromised his own position by not being clear enough in his defining language. Except for some participating in what is known as the Elephant Room. (An elite religious club in my opinion. Composed of mostly Trinitarian Preachers.) You can learn more about that here: http://www.theelephantroom.com/about/

I asked Roger Perkins what he had thought about the whole thing in an email conversation, especially the comments made by White concerning the Oneness position and he was Kind enough to allow me to post his thoughts from the email...

ML Culwell

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Listened to most of it & read through the article he posted on his blog. White made some interesting comments on his show such as, "I draw the line where the Prophets drew the line (46:00)". Really, by his own concession the OT prophets never worshipped a Trinity!? When did he convert to the winning side :-)?

He also told you that you would have a "hard time proving that 'Theos/God' appeared in the early GK. MSS," yet on pg. 207 of his book he explicitly states that Theos "has more than sufficient support from the Greek manuscripts" & that he "prefer(s) this reading"??

He also repeatedly appealed to Athanasius & supposed Church Martyr's....heralding them because they were willing to die for their beliefs. Wonder if that goes for Michael Servetus & other Oneness believers who did the same...& whom also Tertullian referred to as "the majority of believers" during his day? Some strange "Cult" that comprised the "majority of believer's" the earlier back to the original apostles we go!? Wonder where so many "believer's" got their staunch monotheistic beliefs & rejection of a "3-Divine-Individual-ed God??

At least he finally properly represented me (for once) when he said that I would label Jakes a 'heretic'! Indeed I would...as anyone who is "comfortable" worshipping a God of "3-Separate-Divine-Individuals"! Interestingly, White says that Oneness folks don't like the word "person" as applied to God, but prefer the term "Manifestation". What were we ever thinking rejecting an unbiblical term in favor of a biblical term in relation to God?? White questions whether or not one can truly ever be converted under Oneness teachings @ about the 28 min. mark (?)...& we say that one is not biblically born again as per Jn. 3:5, Acts 2:38, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16, etc. ad nauseum! Thus, it's just the opposite from a biblical perspective! One is not "converted" if they reject the biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated all throughout the book of Acts & epistles to the NT Church. They simply (& sadly) are not in the NT Church. Curiously, he chides Jakes for "continuing to baptize in the Name of Jesus only".....Kinda' like the Apostles that Christ commissioned did!? Funny thing is, the prepositional construct of Mt. 28:19 (eis in the acc. case....What happened to his "Greek"?) denotes an oral invocation of one-singular "Name," which is what:_________? If the Apostles ALWAYS baptized in this manner & there's ABSOLUTELY NO TEXT demonstrating a "Trinitarian Formulae," then Jesus' true church will mirror the church we see in the Bible.

I was amused at White's emphasis on the necessity of "repentance"....which Scripture explicitly links w/....are we ready for this (?)....."works"!? "....and also among the Gentiles, that they should REPENT and turn to God, and do WORKS and live lives consistent with and worth of their REPENTANCE." (Amplified, Acts 26:20; See also the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc). Apparently Dr. White is heading out of "Finished Work" Theology :-)! Let me guess, more biblical "misuse" right?! Apparently anytime one quotes a verse that contradicts "Reform" or "Trinitarian" theology....they're automatically "misusing" the Bible that they're simply quoting!? Ho-Hum.....

Beyond this, I am currently doing a church-plant & I simply am not that interested in White. I don't mean this to be ugly-spirited, but I am well familiar w/ "Reform" Soteriology (I've heard it ad nauseum) & whole-heartedly reject it as irrational, speculative, & destructive to biblical faith. I only grieve that some will follow such teachings into Eternity. May God open their understanding to the Scriptures.

At least White & I finally agree on something on this Earth! That is that Jakes has absolutely no business amongst Trinitarians & still claiming to be "Oneness". Indeed, Jakes does need to "repent." There is no shared middle-ground betwixt the two camps...other than one recanting false doctrine, at which point we will gladly rejoice! In this, finally White & I can shake hands!? 2012 MUST BE the end of all things :-)!!

God Bless,

Roger Perkins

Roger Perkins' Response to the Charges of Jeffrey Krause:

2012-01-11T12:24:00.000-08:00

HEREHEREComments by Perkins in orange followed by Krause comments in blue.

While I certainly don't have the time to scurry behind every latest on-line trinitarian "Apologist" who levels charges against me, I came across a recent article of outright erroneous attacks from one "Jeffrey Krause" that I decided to briefly address below. My responses appear beneath his remarks in the ensuing article that I have broken up into pieces in order to dissect his accusations. I would like to thank James Anderson and Manuel Culwell for giving me this venue of response. They are fine gentlemen and I greatly value their friendship.

Firstly, it is immediately clear that perhaps Mr. Krause needs a few lessons in grammatical application. He begins his tirade with, "The DISHONESTLY of Oneness Advocate Roger Perkins". Indeed, it is hard to attend to anything one has to offer regarding ancient languages if they cannot even adequately handle their own native tongue...but we shall try!

I’m not quite sure how to state this gently, but, Oneness Pentecostal Debater Roger Perkins is either, (1) a very poor student of Scripture and Scriptural aids, or, (2) is completely dishonest.

Ahhh yes....The ol' familiar "dishonesty" charge from the "Reform" camp. Not a few have noted the odd tendency among reform scholars to quickly label anyone who disagrees with them as "dishonest" [in this case "dishonestLy"], which is itself a deceptive and dishonest tactic. Perhaps we should stick to the issues and leave the muddied perceptions out of the loop, since they are entirely irrelevant to the topics under consideration.

In his recent debate with Dr. James R. White on the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. Perkins repeatedly referred to Col. 1:15 and stated that “Bauer’s” (as he calls it) Lexicon described the word “image” (εἰκών) as “a human figure.” However, this is simply not the case regarding “Bauer’s” and the use of “image” in Col. 1:15. The Lexicon that Perkins is referring to is “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,” more popularly known as the BDAG.

Actually, I wasn't even referring to "BDAG," or I would have stated such! I was referring to the 2nd edition, which is commonly referred to as simply "Bauer's," just as I stated! Perhaps trinitarians would do well to attend to detail before launching into unwarranted attacks. I wasn't even referencing the lexicon Krause charges me with quoting. I was quoting the one I said I was quoting! Concerning my misquote of BAGD, I was going off memory in a fast-paced cross-exam & did not have the actual lexicon in front of me, hence the acknowledged misapplication [albeit not "dishonestLy"]. However, here is the actual quote from BAGD that I was referring to w/ regard to Col. 1:15:

εἰκών, όνος, ἡ (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist. 135; Philo; Jos., Ant. 15, 277; Test. 12 Patr.; Sib. Or. 3, 8; loanw. in rabb.).

1. image, likeness—
a. lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of the emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 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. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 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 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).

Note the enlarged/bolded above & the category that BAGD places Col. 1:15 under: "Fig...of a man". They then specifically place Col. 1:15 under the subcategory "of Christ"....a clear reference to the historical Messiah (as opposed to a "2nd of 3 divine individuals") both biblically & definitionally, which was my overriding point. Indeed, the Logos who "was God" became flesh & thus, was and presently is the visible image of the invisible God [See The Amplified Bible]...which was my point all along! The general force of the term denotes that which is tangible or corporeal in contrast to that which is intangible. That is, the physical or visible realm, as opposed to the invisible, is inherent w/in this term. Again, this all points us to the visible Messiah who walked this Earth as God enfleshed & was received up into glory. Vs. 16 then introduces a conjunction, which is a dependent causal clause "hotee," further expounding upon the premise of vs. 15, to which all of the 3rd person pronouns relate [See GGBB, pg.460 for the function of this particular form of conjunction (Hotee)]. Thus, my original point remains.

If you notice, the BDAG correlates its second definition with Col. 1:15 which reads, “that which has the form of something else…living image” and not with its third usage of “a human figure.” Point-in-fact, the only Biblical uses of the third category of “a human figure” are Rom. 1:23, 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Heb. 10:1 and Col. 3:10. Col. 1:15 is never used under the third definition. This is (I believe) simply a cheap debate trick which speaks volumes about the man, Roger Perkins, if he purposely misrepresented the BDAG, as it seems he did.

In the first place I wasn't even referring to "BDAG"....I was referencing the lexicon I said I was referencing and not the lexicon Krause says I was referencing. Hence, Krause attacks off of a false premise & then takes it upon himself to question my character altogether...par for the course in the trinitarian world, as is well noted. Would it not be more proper to enquire of me personally before assuming the posture of attack? Concerning the misquote, I have provided the reasons above & demonstrated that my original point remains in-tact...all based upon the same grammar that Krause appeals to!

Interestingly, in this same cross-ex., White charges me w/ claiming that the first portion of Col. 1:16 contains the preposition dia "in the dative." Problem is, I never made such a claim & the case for dia in the latter section of vs. 16 appears in the genitive...not the "dative" as White charges, and yet we're to "listen and learn" from the trinitarians?? As expected, Krause omits all of this from his audiences consideration. Apparently White just gets a free-pass all the while we Oneness folks are held to the line & charged w/ "dishonestLy" when a few simple misquotes occur {even when not "quoting" the source it's claimed we're quoting!?}.

On many occasions throughout the debate, Perkins “ducked” Dr. White’s questions, not willing to state his own view on the subject matter. He instead turned to the Lexicon’s to create a false impression that the Greek grammar was supportive of his Modalism, all the while dishonestly using them (the Lexicon’s) to advance his heretical position.

Let's see, I spent almost 3 hrs. delineating my position in contrast to the trinitarian position, dealt w/ virtually every passage White raised, and referenced numerous grammatical points [other than BAGD]...yet, somehow this constitutes "ducking"?? Interestingly, White barely touched the masculine singular heis as applied to God [See Mk. 12:29], started talking about "chickens" when asked about the normative implications of the anthropomorphisms applied to God, & on more than one occasion referred to Australian movie lines in order to elicit laughs from the audience...and I'm the one "ducking"?? Moreover, apparently Mr. Krause wasn't listening closely enough since I explicitly stated that everyone of the lexicographers I quoted were trinitarians [save Thayer], but that it was their based upon their theological preferences and not the actual grammar of the these texts...which was the reason I quoted them in the first place as opposed to attempting to "create a false impression". Hence, another character attack based upon Krause's blatantly bias perceptions. At this point, one has to begin questioning Krause's own motivations & intents.

It always amazes me how trinitarians label those who find their position explicitly stated on the very pages of Scripture, yet one searches in vain to do the same w/ the stated trinitarian position. That is, we can turn straight to the pages of the Bible & read: "God is one person [Gal. 3:20, Amplified]," "the Lord is the Spirit {2 Cor. 3:17}," "God was manifest in the flesh [I Tim. 3:16]," "He that has seen me has seen the Father...for the Father who dwells in me, he does the works [Jn. 14:9-10]," "For in him [Christ] dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him... [Col. 2:9-10]," "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Cor. 5:19]." Yet, the trinitarians world confesses, & astoundingly claims that one is lost if they deny, "3-separate-divine-co-equal-co-eternal-persons in the Godhead," which we can read in the following book of the Bible:_________? And we're the "heretics"?? Not one Jewish writer in over 1500 yrs. of covenant relationship expressed such an existence...though they knew God on the most personal [note the singular usage!] terms possible for mankind. "Heretical" indeed!

Please notice usage 2 and 3 in the data below and pay special attention to the red font. After doing so, CLICK HERE and listen to the 2nd Cross Examination between Dr. White and Mr. Perkins (please know, it is painful to listen to). I pray that the Lord grants Mr. Perkins true faith and repentance and I pray that Mr. Perkins represents the Lexicon’s in an honest fashion in future debates.

Krause's reference below is not even from the lexicon I referenced [I have bolded & enlarged his reference at the bottom of his quote], but the one he THOUGHT I was referencing...which I have cleared up above. I can only hope Mr. Krause will represent me "in an honest fashion" in the future, or, at least give me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings before taking it upon himself to write on-line ad hom articles attacking my character {which is quite telling about Mr. Krause himself now isn't it?}.

And while you are listening to this particular cross exam, notice how Mr. White erroneously charges me w/ claiming that dia appears in "the dative" in Col. 1:16. In the beginning of this cross-ex. I thought White was still leading into another question [as is his habit], as well as trying to ascertain where he was going, which is why I do not immediately respond. When I realized that WAS his question, I asked him to restate it. After you listen to this, you can click HERE, at the 16:42 section to hear White unashamedly claim he worships a God who exists as "3-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness." Tell us Mr. Krause, do you worship this same God as stated by White here?

Regarding "true faith," I sincerely hope & pray you repent of your unbiblical "reform" doctrines [trinity, baptism for babies, unconditional eternal security, etc. ad nauseum] prior to your departure from this life...and will be here to help you in whatever way you need. Exchange your seminary ideas for the NT biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated in Acts 2:38 [the way the first sinners entered into the NT church], receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as they did in the Bible by speaking in other tongues, walk in the beauty of holiness & you will be in the same NT church seen in Scripture. Until then, I am sincerely praying for a great revival among trinitarians. May God speed!

Roger Perkins answers a recent AOMIN article.

2011-12-24T12:55:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-12-15T06:25:00.000-08:00

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

2011-10-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-23T18:25:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-12T05:15:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-22T03:32:00.000-07:00

The name Jesus

2011-09-02T04:34:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-24T04:40:00.001-07:00

John 17:5 Revisited

2011-06-23T21:39:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-05-25T04:18:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-08T04:27:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-15T21:12:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-08T03:40:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-08T19:57:00.001-08:00

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

A Closed (Lecture) from a trinitarian on Oneness

2010-12-12T05:39:00.000-08:00

I came across this rant from a Reformed trinitarian on what the person who claimed to be ex-Oneness thought Oneness was actually saying by their teachings: ( That being that Oneness were too stupid to know they were trinitarain.)

The person writes:

"I was raised Pentecostal (before I was reformed!) They do believe in the trinity, but for some reason their understanding of it is flawed. They in their ignorance then become anti-trinity. They call themselves "Oneness" instead of "Trinitarian". Since they do not understand the trinity they say that there "is only one God .. not Three". They think that trinitarians are worshiping 3 different Gods. I remember hearing sermon after sermon about the "Oneness of the Godhead" like it was a matter of salvation to believe oneness. But if they understood exegesis they would understand that their "Oneness" God has three personalities.. it is all really just semantics. But you ask any of them.. they are anti-trinity".

My comments:
No, we do not believe in the trinity... (of three persons!)

Yes, we do believe in One God.

"If they understood exegesis"???? You mean by exegesis their version of it, where they find a proof text and isolate the so called proof in a vacuum from all other passages on the same subject or even the continued context????

Very good examples of this thinking is when they do it to John 17:5 and exclude Verse 24 Where the Disciples were about to witness the Glory that the father had with the son before the world was(His passion where the son was slain before the foundation of the world... This was the plan of God for the redemption of mankind.)

Yes, The belief in One God is a matter of salvation... Of course, the trinitarain says: by their tradition and creeds that adherence to the trinity is a matter of salvation. Nowhere do scriptures teach this fallacy.

No, our *One God*(What the term "Oneness" means.) Does not have "three personalities". Our one God took to himself humanity in his son and has the lessor will of a man and the all powerful, ultimate will of God, but not three personalities. One real man, and One real God who incarnated the man, by no measure, do not two, or even three persons of God make!

Matt Slick and the Reformed take the truth of God and change it into a lie

2010-11-01T06:11:00.000-07:00

Matt Slick who owns the carm boards, an apologetic arm of those who call themselves the Reformed, attempts to deal with Baptismal regenerationism.(Something those who Baptize in Jesus name are not. But since Slick wrongly attributes this doctrine to us I felt the need to deal with some major issues. You can read here:
http://mypersonalramblingsandopinions.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-water-baptism-save-you.html

Those Who Baptize In Jesus name are not "baptismal regenerationist."

The name Jesus literally spoken over the repentant believer, remits the sin and regenerates the believer.

Belief alone does not save if the belief is dead by not going on to the Grace(God has given ie. through preaching, calling, believing, Repentance, baptism in Jesus name and being filled with the Holy Ghost.) God has given through the new birth.

(Notice) *belief the way the Reformed teach * does not get you the Holy Ghost. Paul asked the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? The Reformed say it is fact, the scriptures say the very opposite by Paul asking the question!

You must believe and call the way the scriptures teach you to call and believe( John 17:20,Romans 10:14-17)

The Apostles were able to remit believer's sins. (John 20:23) The Reformed do not believe this fact and try and hide this passage from you with a bunch of nonsense argumentation that skew truth.

They were not Just willy nilly able to remit sins, but through Baptism in Jesus name alone.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:47,19:1-6)

The Reformed have taken letters to believers in established churches where folks already believed and were Baptized and mistaken belief as a mental nod toward salvation apart from the grace of God through preaching, Baptism in Jesus name where they have taken the truth of God and changed it into a lie.

My Audio debate with LimeyBob of the UK

2010-10-21T16:02:00.000-07:00

I hope this works, if Not, I will try another time.
I did this debate because the person in question(Limey Bob) was writing a book
against the Oneness view of God. The debate is Good until the 45 minute mark,
at the beginning of the question and answer session when I then lost my
microphone and never recovered.

Enjoy, tell me what you think and be honest. This Mediafire hosting for free. I tried submitting this with other hosts that did not seem to last very long.

Hopefully the link is good.

Manuel

paste the URl in your address bar at the Bottom to listen.

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

John Calvin Fact ?

2010-10-12T05:18:00.000-07:00

Did you Know that John Calvin formulated his doctrines and opinions on scripture texts after believing for One Year? Calvinists actually believe the Man is genius for doing so. No wonder the five points of the Tulip are such a mess......

Roger Perkins(UPC )versus Glen Burt(COC)

2010-07-04T05:46:00.000-07:00

http://evidentialfaith.webs.com/apps/links/ Listen.

On baptism in the name versus the titles or "silent baptism".Glen Burt is the same Burt that Marvin Hicks debated In the 70's.

Audio Debate Oneness versus Trinity

2010-06-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

Download the audio debate between Myself and Robert Skinner of the UK on the Oneness view versus the Trinity.

http://www.zshare.net/download/774082279718bf1e/

James White continues to spread Lies while crying liar

2010-06-19T07:04:00.000-07:00

Here of late Dr.James White has waged a personal vendetta against one Ergun Caner, a professor at Liberty College in Virgina a person to whom White has found out to be one who sensationalizes (Lies) his claim of being a former Muslim of his youth and now a convert to Christianity.... It is my opinion Dr. White wishes to be the main authority on Muslim/Islamic Apologetic's. I offer two quotes.

"Those who have taken the time to listen to my debates, or listen to my lectures, or listen to my interactions with Islamic claims on the Dividing Line (such as the current response I am offering to Sheikh Awal) know that I have consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam." Honest people know I refer to myself as a student of Islam”

“But let's put the shoe on the other foot: where did either Ergun or Emir Caner do graduate study in Islamic theology or Apologetics? Answer? They didn't. They have been granted "expert" status for one simple reason: Ergun's claims that they were raised in Turkey… . The only reason they have been given the status they have has been due to their self-professed upbringing.”

Now what is my point to offering all of this? It seems, White has now made it a personal vendetta to lie himself about a Reformed Preacher by the name of Harold Camping to whom White debated on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio broadcast. You can listen here for yourself and see that White blatantly lies.
http://mp3.sharpens.org/20090728ISI.mp3 by saying he was a Oneness/"Modalist" for not teaching three persons of God in the way in which White does.(After White blatantly pointed out the lies of Ergun Caners claims he goes headlong and does the same exact thing.)

Camping has set a date for the second coming of Christ and the end of the world and is a Calvinist Reformed Teacher who claims all should leave there places of worship as they are all evil.(Wait now how can Camping teach Calvinism and be deceived?) I would like to point out no Oneness(Modalist) as White calls us would claim God is three persons as can be clearly heard on The Camping
vs.White debate.....

Dr.Whites Quote

2010-04-08T03:49:00.000-07:00

I wanted to submit a quote by Dr. James White of (Aomin.org) that I have been submitting on the carm boards of late, that in my opinion, does more harm than good for the trinitarain position whom in trying prove the doctrine is not polytheism, has the exact opposite effect.

Pay very close attention to where Dr. White says; that: "the God and the word are not interchangeable terms"? He makes the statement in defense of his doctrine and states that oneness interchange the term(Which some may do but for the most part, is not true.) However, the trinitarain's do interchange the term as the word is *god the son,* with one caveat he is not *the God* (folks there is only the God)think about that?

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

"This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchange-able terms. Then, is John talking about two "gods?" Can more than one being be fully eternal? John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God." How then is this to be understood?

This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal en. John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead. In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on. Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed"

The definite article before Logos.

2010-03-05T04:02:00.000-08:00

Michael Burgos:
Manuel, it is evident that you have not understood, nor taken the time to examine the Greek. The third clause reads kai Theos en ho Logos. The Logos possesses the article. Therefore, the third clause is a description of the Logos and not an identification of the Logos

Verse 14 is not the identity of the Logos! This is the identity of the son whom John saw and handled. The Logos was not the son!

The word/Logos belongs to God as a possession, Like *the Mules* of John Smith. The definite article shows possession and ownership that is How the word is with God and the word is God (definite article) is not another person which is just plain stupid doctrine!

Michael Burgos:
This clause tells us that the Logos is everything that God is. Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos, you would have to do that with other texts where the article is present with only one of two subjects. For example, 1John says God is love.

You wrote:
"Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos,"

Do you not see your blatant contradiction? You are the one who says the word is god jr! Not me! The word is with God as his creative attribute through his spoken word. That is how the word is both with God and is God. I do not have to convert anything back and forth, that is what you do.
You have defeated your own argument and do not even see how you did so..

Michael Burgos
God has the article and love does not. Therefore using your grammatical assumption you would have to agree that love is God is an equal rendering in that the phrase is convertable. Your lack of knowledge about both the original language and basic Greek grammar is evident. So to is the juvenility of your comments.

God would not be God without his creative Power through his word! But he could be God without Love! Love is something he chose to show forth to us. His power he cannot relinquish, thus his spoken creative power through his word, that is the difference between love and the word, or his word as his creative power. You have no argument!

My Debate on paltalk with LimeyBob

2010-02-21T07:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

This debate took place on Paltalk starting from the carm boards with Limey Bob and moved to a discussion on micro-Phone Feb.14 2010 Limey being from UK and graciously hosting the discussion. Enjoy

Part 1 Baptism of grace through faith and not Torah

2010-02-12T03:45:00.000-08:00

Micahel Burgos writes

The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?

Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely we cannot Isolate passages of scripture from there context but this is exactly what the Trinitarain does continually with every doctrine they have devised and the doctrine of Baptisms id no different.

Notice our friend talks about the Epistles and this is the mistake that the Reformed continually make going there for their salvation plan when these are letters to churches who were already Baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and every-time Paul talks about belief unto salvation or remission he is not speaking of any Reformed doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A command is a law of God, but not the Law of God(The Torah) that Paul refutes such works in all of his epistles. That is the great mistake of the Reformed. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace(Given by God himself) If it is of grace, it is not of the law!

There is also the law of love. (A command) Would the Trinitarian say that is a command from the Law? Is it of the law(The Torah?) No, they wrangle to try and maintain their false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)

Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is pure dishonesty no person is justified by the law(The law shows us we cannot do what God required under the law. Baptism in Jesus is not of the law it is of grace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Burgos
Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism are relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating one passage from all others as the Reformed do might so teach such nonsesne but we must take all of the word God in the New testament concerning the teaching Jesus himself teaches the apost6les were able to remit and with-hold remission of sins(John 20:23) Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. That is not even considered by the Reformed nor do they have a valid explanation of the passage , but rather one more contradiction after another one explanation I have heard is that it was preaching but they hold to the doctrine of God saving us before we were born or ever heard a message preached.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Burgos

The demonstration of an individual's allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians may look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism In Jesus name is many things and some of the things Michael points out are true but what is absolutely not true is his inference that baptism in Jesus name does not remit(Wash away) sins. Baptism is as much apart of our faith as believing or repentance. Baptism without the name simply gets one wet and does absolutely nothing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Read Col.2:11-12) The Male Jewish child was circumcised and named on the eighth day after his birth. John The Baptist was. (Luke 1:59) The same is true of the Christian babe. In the new covenant both male, and female, are circumcised(The old man is cut off) and named in a new beginning(The eighth day or first day) Again Baptism without the name does nothing but get one wet and is not of faith, but misplaced because of false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micahel Burgos
Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had no Law of circumcision, he simply followed God of course he would be justified by faith. he stepped out when God told him to he did not say okay God I believe you and stayed put in Ur! That is not faith! Circumcision is not of the new covenant Baptism in Jesus name is God given and is of Grace and is through faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing God did was call Abraham to come out of UR, he did not say okay I believe you God and stayed where he was at(That is not faith) but that is exactly the Kind of so called faith the Reformed prop up. (The circumcision is the shadow of the true) not the true. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith. Belief is not mental ascent. An inward reality can be misplaced as such is the Reformed doctrine concerning Baptism in Jesus name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abraham would not have been Justified if he said:" I believe you God" and stayed in UR, that is not faith but that is the kind of faith the Reformed again prop up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem our understanding and trying to make it mesh and not contradict what Paul says the problem is within their teaching of works by the law and their misunderstanding of all things God has given us by Grace such as Baptism in Jesus name which is grace through faith and not by works of the law. This is a false issue the reformed have propped up for years and have taught their masses but it is so easily contradicted when the Light of Gospel is shed upon the doctrine of their teachings.

It was started because of their fights with the Catholics, who Both the Catholics, and the Reformed teachings were wrong, but some great truths sprung from those debates..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.

It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)

The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem and now we are in the heart of the matter Michael is using this argument because it suits his doctrine.

What about Math.26:28 This is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for(because of) many for(Because of)the remission of sins(were already remitted?)

What about Romans 3;25? Jesus Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,to declare his righteousness for(Because of) the remission (because of )sins already past?

a man is not justified by Keeping the Law(Torah) but is justified by faith. (What the Reformed does is make anything we do because of the grace of God through faith and the law of Love) Anytime they see *Law or works* it means any thing we do but not what Paul knew as Law (The Torah) (Abraham could not leave Ur then.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are One, coming from heaven.

2010-01-31T06:23:00.000-08:00

One Trinitarain by the name of pluralforonegod writes and asks the following question:

"
Who Came Down From Heaven And Became A Man?
1. God the Father
2. Holy Spirit
3. The WORD (Jesus, Son)
4. All of the above

Please try and explain your choice with some comments...

Thanks
__________________

John 17:22...WE (Jesus + Father) are ONE... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: Nobody came down from heaven and became a man.

My reasoning that God did not become a man: A dog that becomes a horse, is no longer a dog, but a horse. The Trinitarain or Oneness that makes this claim is using thoughtless imagery. God remained God but indwelt the man who remained a real human being, but it was not at all like a Christian who simply receives the spirit. The son of God was given the spirit by no measure and if it was given him by no measure then it is immeasurably his and to take away in any amount is measuring.

Jesus makes the statement *I came down from heaven*(They say is "God the son") not to do my own will, but the will of him(God the father) that sent me.(John 6:38)

So First off. It was not God's will, but it was God's will. Why would the same one God sent down from heaven have an opposing will within his one God-self? That does not sound like monotheism. And if he were the all, ever- present God, would he not already be there?

The Oneness view is that it is his own real human will submitting as a lessor being to the will of the ultimate being of God in the incarnation.

We see sent and coming language used of Jesus in (John 6:51) In the very same passage and context and explains what Jesus meant.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man shall eat of this bread,he shall live forever, and the bread I will give (which came down from heaven) is my flesh.

We see clearly from John 6:51 and again in verse 62 his coming and being sent was in reference to his flesh being provided as an atonement for our sins and it has nothing to do with "god the son" coming literally as another person from heaven. flesh.

The Word/Logos was not "god the son" in eternity either. A person would be hard pressed to find the term son in that passage and he was not the son until he was born of the virgin(Gal.4:4,Math1:20)

By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint Greek of the OT.) The Logos was God's spoken, creative, expression and not another person of God.

Tyndale in his translation did not call the word a *he* as another person but rather an *it* likely saw the forcefulness of the psalm passage and applied accordingly.

What did Jesus mean in John 17;22 when he said: "we are one"? *We* does not refer to polytheistic persons in the Godhead but rather a real man incarnated by the real God. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(John 14:10)

I can of mine own real human self do no works(John 5:30)

Only begotten (sired and born) son, or only begotten eternal son

2010-01-25T03:55:00.000-08:00

The Trinitarian's claim from a variant reading of John 1:18 that Jesus was the only begotten God(Eternal son) as opposed to the other two un-begotten gods/Gods the term they say in the variant reading is Monogenes theos(Grk) or only begotten god/God.

This variant reading either teaches Polytheism(Belief in more than one God) because of the term God or it could be viewed in light of the incarnation. The term *person* that is frequently imposed upon scripture for the purpose of stopping queries of Polytheism is not found in the text the same could be said of Philippians 2:6....

The Oneness view is that Jesus was the Only begotten (Miraculously sired and born son of the
father and the virgin) and not eternally begotten in the sense that he pre-existed as another person(A term not even found in the text) but he would be eternally sustained in the sense that he was a a real man given the spirit by no measure as his flesh had a beginning.
The Trinitarian doctrine would make Jesus inferior as he is sustained by another.

Jesus, Just Like Issac was the Only begotten son of the promise even though Abraham had
two sons, one sired/begotten of the promise and the other of the flesh, not of
the promise.

One Trinitarian known as Limey Bob on the CARM boards writes the following concerning his view of the variant.

"In Greek begotten is 'gennao' (verb) and 'only begotten' (adjective) is monogenese. These are two different Greek terms which you are confusing, for you cannot take monogenese and then say that it means begotten as it does not; it means 'only begotten' or 'one and only' or 'one of a kind' and being an adjective implies a relationship and not an act of creation (which only a verb would imply). So when applied to God 'monogense' implies an eternal state just as at John 1:18 (becasue God is eternal), or else it implies a non-eternal state as at Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is monogenese of Abraham."

Yes monogenes(pronounsed mono- ga- nase) means *only begotten.* Issac was the only sired and born son of the promise Just Like Jesus was the only miraculously sired and born son of god and the virgin birth.

Nothing is said from this writer about the literal virgin birth the writer is trying his hardest to hide in plain site as it does have to do with jesus literal flesh being the only begotten and he inserts his doctrine and actually disproves it or he has two beggetals.

Carm? As I shake my head in disblief at some of the questions of ignorance

2009-12-11T03:54:00.000-08:00

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)

John 3:5 Baptismal regeneration?????

2009-11-26T05:01:00.000-08:00

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion with Michael who denies Jesus real Humanity, saying: "Jesus does not have a human spirit."

2009-10-23T03:36:00.000-07:00

(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

Tongues,TurretinFan, and Trinity versus Oneness

2009-10-14T03:57:00.000-07:00

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

Turretinfan follows James White in his Lies and deceit

2009-09-27T16:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Trinitarain Blogger proves his doctrine Polytheism

2009-08-30T05:11:00.000-07:00

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.

James Swan of AoMin. attempts to excuse John Calvin's sin

2009-08-24T06:50:00.000-07:00

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?

James White creatively misleads.... Bloggers follow

2009-07-28T20:12:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-23T06:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-15T11:42:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-15T06:49:00.000-07:00

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.

James White and the Forgotten Trinity , Better Forgotten.

2009-06-22T17:53:00.000-07:00

Thought would revisit James White's very flawed book since a trinitarain has wrote in defense of the term being and person

James White writes the following from his book The Forgotten Trinity

Chapter 12 pg 171 A Closer Look

James writes: "There are three kinds of beings who are personal:God,
men, and Angels. I have being ,I exist, Yet I am personal.My being is
personal and finite.It is limited to one place geographically
speaking,and one time temporarily speaking."

There are more gems from this book but this is damning enough to ask; where does Jesus
stand in this? Will anyone come to Jame's defense? I cannot wait to dig out more .

Which Being Is Jesus? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both?

I ask this question because James is Caught in a dilemma with his doctrine He quotes on the same page;" the divine being( God) is One"( being) the divine(God) persons are (shared by) three" (persons.)( parenthesis are mine)

Which Being Is Jesus humanity? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both? Humanity most definitely is being. This contradicts White in his book.

To be fair I submitted this critique on my debate group and received the following reply from a Trinitarian.

"The content of the quotation you included does not directly deal with this question, as Mr. White's point is not to consider the relation of the human to the divine in Jesus but to demonstrate that there is a 'personal' aspect of God and angels and humans.

Notwithstanding that, there is nothing directly in this quotation that would preclude Jesus from being located within its categories.

If you supplied the surrounding context it would probably present a far better overview of Mr. White's thinking along this particular argument".

I will do just that!

James writes on page 158 -160 How that Jesus is One person with two natures. James continues "he is not two persons nor are his natures somehow mixed together."

Very good, that gives us something to work with. What I do not see in all of Jame's book is an answer to these important question. Natures do not die, people die!

At the outset James stated; "he was one being", is not Jesus real humanity a being? He simply never says in his book, that I can see. (James makes an attempt in pages 66-70) of his book but nothing really meaningful. God is One Being, Jesus is a real human being, thus in my estimation we have two beings, "one of these things are not like the other." to quote the ol Sesame street song. We do not have two beings of God, we also do not have two of the same beings, we have one human being, and one being of God. In the incarnation, if true, we have two beings, but not two persons, God is not a person , persons die...When Jesus died as to his real humanity the being of God did not die, God cannot die. The Trinitarian view of Jesus would be a new being. Just because you equivocate with the copout of natures does not excuse us of answering these questions that are important. I believe the trinitarian view of being and person is weak and showcase those weak areas of thier doctrine especially since Dr. White is the contemporary Authority on the subject.

Faithful Witness said...

Your critique has a fatal flaw. You fail to understand what a "being" is and what a "person" is. These are not terms that are synonyms.

The definition of being: What makes SOMETHING what it is.

The definition of person: What makes SOMEONE who they are.

A grasp of these terms will serve you greatly in your critique of Dr. White's book.

mlculwell said...

I am both a human being and a person so is Jesus. You dishonestly cannot admit that otherwise your doctrine is polytheism(Too many beings for the trinity) That fatal flaw is your doctrine and James Whites doctrine the trinity is just plain contradictory...

Faithful Witness said....
"Jesus was both a real 100% human being and the real 1oo% being Known as God."

This is absolutely illogical. He (meaning the Son of God) was FULLY God and FULLY man. That is to say, He is fully God as to His divine nature, and fully man as to His human nature. This is what the orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union (and for that matter the bible) teaches (council of chalcedon 451AD).

mlculwell: Oneness says Jesus is 100% man and 100% God! So the 100% God would be the being and nature of God and the 100% man would be the being and nature of God but it seems you have a new being of neither.... You mix natures, which is the being of a real man and the being of the real God?

<

span style="font-weight:bold;">Faithful Witness said...

"You mix natures, which is the being of a real man and the being of the real God?"

No, Trinitarians don't mix the two natures. That would be the complete opposite of what we believe. Read the council and you will clearly see this truth. You are in error and clearly ignorant of the Trinitarian position. Jesus has had and will always maintain an eternal divine nature. He is the eternal Son of God, and is every thing God is; He is fully God. Jesus took upon Himself a human nature. This is an additional nature, not a substitute or combination. He did not divest Himself of a single attribute of His deity. Instead, He became a servant, taking on human form (an additional nature). He then became obedient to the Father, even unto death.

mlculwell...What a sham! "Jesus has had and will always maintain an eternal divine nature.He is the eternal son of God"?

One part of God is simply calling the other daddy and the other son in name only in a sham fake relationship of himself? man do you think at all about what you are saying that is your problem you quote some Creed or confession like it is the word of God irregardless how bad it sounds or contradicts scripture! God the father did not and could not put down his power but hid his power in the son.(Jesus as limited son or being as real man) had no power of his own(John 5:30) But was given his power(Math.28:18) the being God took on the being of the real man it was not two beings of God it was one real being of man and one real being of God which you deny! Jesus as a real limited man did not even know the time of his own second coming but the father only(Mark 13:32) Your version of (Philippians 2:6) of a pre-incarnate Jesus is polytheism as you have God equal to God(Two Gods) The one who thinks himself as God equal to God.Think about it? there is no such thing as an "eternal son of God" that is fakery and nonsense!

God is organized and Logical

2009-06-15T06:52:00.000-07:00

I did not write this but received it in an email from my wife, thought I would submit it here as It makes me think of the Goodness and order of God and why I give and trust my life to him.

Author Unknown.....

GOD'S ACCURACY How lovely to think
about the way our Creator God planned everything so
carefully and perfectly, everything with a plan. As His
highest creation,
'we are fearfully and wonderfully made.'

God's accuracy may be observed in the hatching of
eggs.
For example:
The eggs of the potato bug hatch in 7 days;
Those of the canary in 14 days;
Those of the barnyard hen in 21 days.
The eggs of ducks and geese hatch in 28 days;
Those of the mallard in 35 days.
The eggs of the parrot and the ostrich hatch in 42 days.
(Notice, they are all divisible by seven).
God's wisdom is
seen in the making of an elephant. The four legs of
this
great beast all bend forward in the same direction. No
other Quadruped is so
made. God planned that this animal would have a huge body,
too large to
live on two legs. For this reason He gave it four fulcrums
so that it can rise from the ground easily.

The horse rises from the ground on its two front legs
first.
A cow rises from the ground with its two hind legs first.

How wise the Lord is in all His works of creation!
God's wisdom is revealed in His arrangement of sections
and segments, as well as in the number of grains.

Each watermelon has an even number of strips on the rind.
Each orange has an even number of segments.
Each ear of corn has an even number of rows.
Each stalk of wheat has an even number of grains.

Every bunch of bananas has on its lowest row an even number
of bananas, and
each row decreases by one, so that one row has an even
number and the next row an odd number.

The waves of the sea roll in on shore twenty-six to the
minute in all kinds
of weather.

All grains are found in even numbers on the
stalk.
The Lord specified thirty fold, sixty fold,
and a hundredfold - all even numbers.

God has caused the flowers to blossom at certain specified
times during the
day, so that Linnaeus, the great botanist, once said that
if he had a
conservatory containing the right kind of soil, moisture
and temperature,
he could tell the time of day or night by the flowers that
were open and
those that were closed!

Thus the Lord in His wonderful grace can arrange the life
that is entrusted to His care in such a way that it will
carry out His purposes and plans, and will be fragrant with
His presence. Only the God-planned life is successful. Only
the life given over to the care of the Lord is safe.
*Author unknown

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO PRAY AND GIVE THANKS TO THE GOD THE
GIVER OF ALL GOOD
THINGS!

May The Lord Gently Wrap You in His
Love.

Silly,God prays to God?

2009-06-12T05:21:00.000-07:00

Faithful witness a hate filled blog writer, who has a a Oneness hatred blog, writes the following from his blog in answer to a comment concerning the writers rant concerning T.D. Jakes,hoping someone Oneness would come to Jakes defense which we will not, like Oneness are supposed to defend Jakes a compromiser in my opinion rubbing shoulders with trinity Broadcast station, Besides, he is an adult he can defend his own views...

FW writes: "I'd be careful who you call silly. After all, I am not the one who believes that what happened in Gethsemane was God's flesh praying to God's spirit. Cloak it with whatever twist you might, that is what ultimatley you and yours propagate."

What is silly is that your view of God, and you have actually given No thought because of your clear blind hatred for something you have no understanding, is that your doctrine has God praying fake prayers to God which is silly doctrine. At least that real flesh was a real man subject to his real God rather than God having Multiple personality disorder which is the doctrine of the trinity.

Charismatic Starts preaching Acts 2:38, rejects Mental assent

2009-06-08T04:12:00.000-07:00

Andrew Strom A Trinitarain Charismatic from New Zealand embraces and preaches Acts 2:38

Listen to him preach the message

http://freegroups.net/groups/anzac/www/Must-Preach-Foundations.mp3

http://www.revivalschool.com/Shocking-Bible-Study.html

Calvinsim Good preaching?I think not!

2009-05-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Fw, takes my qoute and runs with it:" Preaching: The MEANS by which God saves people." he then says the following: "Get a grip.The greatest preachers/evanglelists that ever existed were calvanists".

mlculwell said...

I "have a grip" of the scriptures and your *opinion and bias for Calvinism* has been noted, however, not one iota of Calvinism lines up with scripture no matter how much you say it does!

Calvinism does not line up with what is taught in scripture and you simply saying so and misinterpreting passages that seemingly teach your doctrine, shallowly and glossary readings of the same and you lying on your blog about Oneness working for salvation was just precious...

We neither teach "Baptismal regeneration"(*Jesus is the savior* by the grace of God or God given) nor can we work to purchase our salvation.However, Faith and or belief are not your *mental assent* doctrines. *Faith* COMETH BY HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD.(Romans 10:9-17) That is how God Gives faith! Not by him pre-inputting salvivic information before we existed, that is silly, bad teaching and preaching(Eisegesis.)

Did God Give Baptism in Jesus name?
Of Course he did! Then it is of Grace and not of works! Baptism in Jesus name is no more a work than repentance, or *belief* which real belief actually includes all of the above!

Grace means: God Given! Doing Baptism apart from "Jesus name" as you do, is a work!

The name *Jesus*literally spoken in Baptism is the authority of the person and remits or washes away the sin!(Acts 2:38,John 20:23) Whose-so-ever sins you remit, they are remitted and whose-so-ever sins you retain, they are retained unto them.

Your doctrine fails miserably in explaining these passages and I have heard every "But, but, but," from you guys possible concerning (John 20:23) as also you cannot reconcile (Luke 24:47)

And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations begging at Jerusalem.

One would have to believe first before they could repent, then conjunction is not reiterating the point as it does in Acts 2;38 but is now stating in addition to belief and repentance is remission and actually belief is inclusive of repentance and baptism in Jesus name and does not exclude otherwise it is not true biblical belief)

(Acts 19:2) Paul asked have you received the holy Ghost since you believed? Faitfulwitness says: "Yes everyone who believes like him does." Paul says: no! by asking the question and if it were even a remote fact, Paul should not have asked it in the first place and that is just the beginning!

My Harangue.

2009-05-20T06:30:00.000-07:00

It has been the Catholics(Trinitarain's) One of the earliest of the false doctrines that killed other Trinitarain's and hid the scriptures from the common man.(causing themselves the problem they now whine about) And the very reason for the restoration movement trinity folk are a part of, Luther himself coming out of said Catholic doctrine and taking with him some of their thinking(The trinity.) No One after him even considering the very doctrine might be wrong and un-scriptural (tradition) you could have been killed for thinking otherwise which influenced many and remains to this day unquestioned and it has been passed down, false doctrine compounded until brave men like Michael Servetus and a very few others questioned the false doctrine.

To take further what was said above, It should be noted; no trinity doctrine, nor idea, was ever taught by the Apostles or any of the writers of the New testament, the trinity was a later invention and it was the proponents of the doctrine starting with the infant Catholic(Trinity) church and those who influenced it that caused all the problems in the first place and when the Reformers came along, they took with them the false unquestioned doctrine of the trinity, further compounding error that remains to this day and when challenged, accusations such as heretic, and false teachers, are hurled at those who question said doctrine that is clearly not taught in scripture... Trinity doctrine taking hold so many years ago has gotten a foothold and influence where it should have never been.

Many are called but Few chosen

2009-05-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

It should be pointed out that every passage given below I agree and believe but I am addressing the passages as though the Calvinist has highjacked them into their doctrine as proof text.

" The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel."

Calvinism:I never said election was random, be honest and don't exaggerate. So, you say that the basis on which God elects people, is that He looks down the corridor of time and sees the response of that individual? So salvation is predicated on whether or not a man responds positively to God's grace? I see. Well friend, name that verse. I say that election is based not on a man's will or response, but simply on the sovereign grace of God. Here are my texts to prove that:

mlculwell: No, I do not believe that "the basis on which God elects is that he looks down the corridor of time and calls individuals that way." No, He calls individuals based on what he has given(grace) which would be the sacrifice of the sinless humanity of the son not that he again randomly elects individuals which is a false doctrine and silly at that. We are as individuals being placed in the body of Christ based on our response to preaching which you bypass. We are elected in him, The Body is foreordained, made up of individuals, not predestined as individuals to salvation randomly one over another willy nilly apart from preaching.

Calvinism:John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (esv)

mlculwell: Of course it is not the will of the flesh! We could will all we wanted but unless God permits, or wills, we would be hopeless, but what the Calvinist has done and has not been called on, is inserted the false doctrine that "God already called individuals before we were known apart from the response to the Gospel" or "made us respond positively" to get around the blaring contradiction." Every man who hears is afforded the same right to become children of God, not everyone will respond the same, we see that from the parable of the sower who sowed Good seed, by the seed falling upon different ground.

Calvinism:Romans 8: 29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (esv)
Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (esv)

mlculwell:Here we are seeing the same thing we see in Romans 10 where Paul leads us to systematic logical conclusions: how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall the hear without preacher? and how shall they preach accept they be sent?

We are only called, Justified, and glorified, in him. Many are called but few are chosen Jesus says in( Math.20:16,22:14)our Calvinist friend would try and tell us everyone to whom God calls is chosen and this passage contradicts that assumption forced upon many texts by Calvinists because of bad glossary interpretation.In other words at first glance a passage seemingly teaches said doctrine based on a glossary reading but when compared to other passages it contradicts the scriptures The above passage would contradict most of the passages submitted by our Calvinist friend.

Calvinism:Romans 9:11-13 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”(esv)

mlculwell: This is one of my favorites that Calvinist's use and I am afraid I have to laugh every time I hear a Calvinist ignorantly quote this passage as a supposed proof text. The passage is not at all talking about God Choosing One brother over another for salvation, the passage is talking about God choosing one brother over another to fulfill his purpose, neither brother did *evil* or Good as babies cannot. If a Calvinist can show me in the text that is what is talking about I would be glad to hear about it?

Calvinism:Romans 9:16-18 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.(esv)

mlculwell:Certainly apart from God we cannot will ourselves to salvation but God has given grace which has appeared to all men now! The Calvinist assumes the above passage is speaking about *individual salvation* and it is not! Again, God has used individuals through out time to fulfill his purpose and he did not just magically harden Pharaoh's heart or predetermine Pharaoh was that way. God hardened his heart and knew just how to do so by extending chance after chance to fulfill his purpose. The Calvinist doctrine in every way is a silly unscriptual doctrine.

Now that we have come to the time of the new covenant we are told in the new testament that Jesus is the Saviour of ALL men, and not Just all but *especially those who accepted the offer or believe* which contradicts the Calvinistic false doctrines.(1st. Tim. 4:10) Is Jesus the Lord of All men even though all do not accept that offer? In other words Jesus offers salvation to all men not just all kinds of men and the passage refutes that false notion along with the sower who sowed Good seed.(Math. 13:5-20)

Calvinism:Romans 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?(esv)

mlculwell:The passage says nothing about *the vessels prepared to predetermined destruction* you submit the passage to me as a proof text of your doctrine but I do not read what I know you are trying to assume with all of these passages you submit. You attempt to add the notion to the text by even submitting it, now why would God wait or "endure in much patience" upon something he predetermined as a vessel of destruction? God made every vessel, did he not? We are the Body of Christ, what he sees,in him.

Calvinism; Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—(esv)

mlculwell: We are made alive by being in Christ, we cannot bypass that in any way! How is it Calvinists bypass preaching? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.(Romans 10:13-17) I will tell you how,you believe God somehow miraculously makes you a believer apart from preaching.Then you try and skirt that fact by deflecting when you are caught.I agree with everyone of these passages you submit, but I have to explain your ridiculous interpretation of them as I know what you teach.

Calvinism:Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast

mlculwell:Grace is something *given* by God, in other words, he extended the offer of salvation freely to all men not just all kinds of men.(1st. Tim.4:10,Gal. 6:10)There was nothing we could do as men to force God to give or offer such, he simply did because of His love, but not all will accept that offer. The above passage does not negate our response to the preaching of the Gospel God gave(Grace) the foolishness of preaching of the Gospel to save them which believe(1st. Cor. 1:21)There are many other things involved that God gave through his grace that the Reformed and many others exclude with the new mental assent doctrine.

Calvinism:Ephesians 1:5 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will(esv)

mlculwell: Everything is in and through him(Jesus Christ)The Body is predestined to Glory not individuals. We as individuals are predestined to glory as long as we are in that body predestined to Glory.

Calvinism;Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (esv)

mlculwell: I see nothing in any of these passages that explains the Calvinist doctrines.

Calvinism:Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days (esv)

mlculwell:The elect refer to those in him and it is pompous and presumptuous to try and force a glossary reading upon passages and assume they teach any of the Calvinist doctrines which they wrestle to their own destruction.

Calvinism;I don't see anything about God basing election on a man's response here. Your wrong about the Trinity, and your wrong about Calvinism. Repent, and receive the forgiveness of sins.

mlculwell; Of Course you don't, but the very phrasing of calling and believing in (Romans 10:5-17, John 17:20) tells us How we should call and believe and it has nothing to do with the Calvinist interpretation of God making us such apart from our will and response to the Gospel preached, you purposely avoided such texts.

Revised A total lack of common sense. We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world

2009-05-13T06:33:00.000-07:00

I had to add this post script revision since he(faithful witness) has answered me on his blog **Day Of Reckoning** This has more to do with the false doctrine of individual election than with Oneness versus the trinity which is fine with me.

FW:writes on his blog: Oh my. This is silly. Manuel, it was the Father who foreknew the Son.

mlculwell; LOL! "The father and son are supposed to be God" are they not? You would think God would foreknow of himself? This is the the blatant contradictions of the doctrine of the trinity. God foreknew the humanity of the son which is the son in the incarnation that God the father indwelt in said incarnation(John 14:10)

FW:It was also the forknown soverign plan of the Father that the Son obeyed in becoming a man and completing the atonement.

mlculwell: So God was smart enough to foreknow that 1/3 of himself would obey himself and go down to mankind more nonsense of the trinity doctrine.

FW: God's elect were forknown before the foundation of the world. I find it somewhat amazing that you are engaging in an debate about foreknowledge with a Calvanist.

mlculwell: LOL! The elect are not elected because they are random individuals. The election is based on God foreknowing their response to his grace(Given of the son in sacrifice)or them being in him through the preaching of the Gospel.

FW: Ever consider a career in comedy? Perhaps you should write a comedic novel with a science fiction twist.

mlculwell; The real comedy is your false doctrine of Calvinism and the trinity.

FW:Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.(esv)

mlculwell: The plan/Logos of God you know very well refers to the sacrifice of the son which is Grace(God giving) grace is not anything less! predestination and foreknowledge are both scriptual doctrines the Calvinist take on them are not scriptual!

FW:Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,(esv)

mlculwell: We are chosen in him not apart from, we only get in him through hearing the preaching and our response to the Gospel(Romans 10;8-17) which resembles nothing of the Reformed doctrine in any way shape or form.

FW:Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.(esv)

mlculwell: All you are doing is proof texting with no comment as we read the same passages. You are quoting texts you think help you and they do not! Paul already shows us how we are predestined and foreknown by being in him according to our response to the preaching of the gospel you read your doctrine into the text.

FW:1Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (esv)

mlculwell: Obedience does not help your cause and is as far from your doctrine as the north pole is from a goose neck! Grace is God Giving his only begotten son he gave for all man to accept or reject you do not think God is strong enough or powerful enough to give man a free will and that we can somehow over throw God by him doing so!

I do not blame you for not wanting to argue for your false doctrine of the trinity though you could not do any good on the subject so you which but that is fine I will be happy to take you to task with the scriptures on that subject also.

FW:Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. (esv)
All who are saved are forknown.

mlculwell: Choosing us in him has nothing to do with individuals being chosen over another you have pompously inserted that false doctrine in the text. we get into him by hearing the word preached(Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God) that is how God gives mankind faith not by some magical Calvinistic nonsense. Grace is God allowing us access to himself through the sacrifice of his son(The sinless flesh of Jesus 1st. Cor. 15:21) we cannot be saved by God the son!

FW:
Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.
Oh, wait a minute. Manuel has responded. Lets see what he says now. . .

mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.
*************************************************************************************
FW:Ok. Lets look at the 1 Pet text.
1Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (esv)

mlculwell: Can you imagine? The ESV has single handidly destroyed the doctrine of the trinity! LOL! Take the phrase **"he was foreknown before the foundation of the world."** I would think that since he was "god the son" that God would know of himself??? Was that not just genius of the ESV? Further those who did not exist were foreknown also? There being written in the book of Life was predicated on the slaying of the humanity and them being in Him. There is absolutely no way around the blood and faithful witness is trying really hard to hide in plain site but he is failing miserably. This seems to be the hallmark of the Reformed who think they can get around the blood of the Lamb which is the grace of God, all the faith in the world cannot get you anything without the shed blood.(His grace)We were chosen in him, meaning his sacrifice.

FW:Well Manuel, I don't see anything here about the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world either. This says that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world, not slain.

mlculwell: Of course you don't you are not using any common sense I have ran into this problem with you folks many times who think more highly of yourselves than you should. It is very clear you are giving zero thought to my argument and looking very foolish in process. We are saved by his life both the giving off and the resurrection of, you must have both or have neither! without shedding of blood is no remission of sins so then how are we chosen in him from the foundation of the world? The KJB used great foresight in doing the work and stating the great truth "the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world" that you clearly lack in trying to appear intellectual.

mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foundation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.(esv)

FW:Those whose names that are in the Lamb's book of life are written there because of the sovereign choosing of the Father (Romans 8:28-30).

mlculwell: Absolutely not! You are living in a fairy tale world! It is not because Some are on a saved list and others are not, because of your nonsense Calvinism! We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world, not randomly based on God simply choosing, you miss everything, not only do you want to by pass Jesus sacrifice but our response to the preaching of the Gospel because of the grace(Jesus sacrifice) given.

You submit a passage(Romans 8:30) that make Calvinist's look very ignorant in their interpretation, because in trying to proof text you again bypass the process you simply see that *God predestined* and he did but it was based on our being in Christ we were not chosen as individuals but chosen in him according to our response to the gospel you mistakenly add that we were chosen as individuals over another individual bypassing the Grace(Jesus sacrifice) and the preaching of the Gospel.

(Romans 10:16-17) They have not all obeyed the Gospel. so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. whose soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.(Romans 10:13) You cannot just call on him! Paul said you must call on him the way a man sent of God tells you to call.
(Romans 10:14)

Jesus said the same thing(John 17:20)Neither pray I for these alone,but for them also that shall believe on me through their word. who is Jesus talking about? Who are the "their word"? Is it the Reformed preacher? No! Jesus was talking about the message his disciples were given to preach and it looks nothing like what the Reformed preach!

Jesus said: that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.(Luke 24:47)

He preached Peters message from (Acts 2:38) almost verbatim showing us what the true message would look like. He also refuted the notion that mental assent(The Reformed view of faith or belief) By adding the conjunction *and* between repentance and remission of sins letting us know by common sense that one who repents must have already believed thereby the conjunction and adding remission in addition to belief and apart from refuting the false notion.

Paul also refutes the notion by asking the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? The answer would be ridiculous according to the Reformed view and would have been understood by Paul.

If that is not enough Jesus cuts the head clean off of the false doctrine by saying to his future Apostles whose soever sins you remit, the are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23)

FW: The Father's plan of atonement had not been completed until the cross.

mlculwell: Can you imagine? Faithful witness wants us to believe God the father was taken by total surprise and did not know this was going to happen?? No, that is not what he is saying but it sure sounds ridiculous. Nobody said: "the atonement had been completed until the cross." I certainly did not but God most certainly had this planned from the foundation of the world and we were chosen in him and it was not that we were just chosen we were chosen in him based on his sacrifice which is the Grace of God not just some random nonsense that bypasses Jesus sacrifice.

FW: The text below points out that those who died and were justified by faith before Christ, received their justification based on what Christ would and did do in the future.

mlculwell: Now you are contradicting yourself this is what I have been saying all along and the reason the KJB included it in (Revelation 13:8) we cannot be saved without his sacrifice and being chosen before the foundation of the world is based on being in him and you cannot be in him or chosen for that matter without his sacrifice which refutes your Calvinistic doctrine and affirms what has been said by me.

FW:All people are saved the same way, whether before the incarnation or after; by faith. This idea that you have of the Lamb being slain before the foundation of the world is ridiculous and baseless.

mlculwell: Clearly I was correct and FW bypasses the Blood and sacrifice of Christ. without shedding of Blood is no remission(Hebrews 9:22)I do not have the lamb literally being slain which is ridiculous! But it was part of the plan/Logos of God that you having no spirit of understanding or discernment.

FW:Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

mlculwell: Most certainly the scriptures are correct. "Faith" is not your mental assent view. We must be in Christ and the scriptures teach we are Baptized into Christ by the water and the spirit(John 3:5, Gal.3:27) Baptism in Jesus name is not a work of man, but the spiritual work of God and "baptismal regeneration is not what we preach or teach! Regeneration comes through the name of Jesus in water baptism, making Jesus that savior. You not only bypass the blood of Jesus but the preaching of the word with your ridiculous doctrine.

FW:For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

mlculwell: Faith is not your mental assent doctrine and you contradict all the passages given ( Luke 24:47,John 17:20,20:23,Acts 19:2 Romans 10:14,)

FW:This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(esv, bold mine)

mlculwell: You wrongly assume that that the *Reformed view of faith* which is not the faith that the scripture teach ie. your mental assent doctrine. I have given the passages which refute such doctrine, especially the following.

(Romans 10:14)faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You bypass!

(Luke 24:47) and that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Faith is separate from the remission of sins in this passage real faith is ongoing and included. mental assent faith stops before the remission of sins(Which comes through Jesus name in water baptism )

(Acts 19:2) Teaches you do not get the Holy Ghost at belief by Paul asking the question have you received the Holy ghost since you believed?

(John 20:23)Jesus himself refutes the mental assent doctrine by saying to his disciples whose soever sins you remit they are remitted.

This is precious, wrong but precious all the same..

2009-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

mlculwell:Our Friend faithful witness has taken it upon himself to answer only half of a post that was written about John 1:1 and the trinity view but most of the critique dwells on the passage in Revelation 13:8...

FW:Oneness apologist Manuel Culwell has undertaken a "critique" of my exposition of John 1:1. I found his response to be rather humorous. I normally refrain from interacting with those who take a juvenile approach to apologetics, but this was just too rich to pass up.

mlculwell: We shall see if that is so when I am done.

Manuel: "(Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? "

FW:Ok Manuel. I'd be happy too. Lets look at that verse:

Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (esv)

mlculwell: I have argued this point many times FW with JW's and trinitarains and you offer nothing that I have not heard before or have not argued before I simply have to go over the same areas you are not familiar with by you submitting such nonsense, did you forget (1st. Peter 1:19-20)???? it looks as though you have, same thing I have had to go over with the JW's who think themselves more intellectual than they really are, as do you.

King James Bible

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

American King James Version
For as much as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who truly was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

American Standard Version
knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;
but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,

FW:Hmm. Wait a minute here Manuel. This verse doesn't seem to say what you said it did. The text speaks of the names that were not written before the foundation of the world. There is also another verse that seems to be correlated with 13:8. Lets look at that, perhaps you quoted the wrong verse?

mlculwell: I guess it depends on your favorite translation and the ESV seems to be yours and that of the Reformed.

FW:Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.(esv)

mlculwell: This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about but I will tell you the passage that does and why the KJB used common sense the ESV apparently lacks by not considering 1st. Peter 1:20!

FW:Nope, not this one either. Well Manuel, the only thing I can suggest is that you either learn to read Greek or you get a better bible. Your older translation is wrong, nearly every scholar and translator will agree. "Before the foundation of the world" can only modify "written" because of 17:8. Perhaps the moral of the day is, don't base your theology on a single verse taken from it's context.

mlculwell; First of all if anyone's name was added from the foun dation of the world it was all based upon the slaying of the lamb in sacrifice(1st. Cor. 15:21) you show yourself a complete lack of any and all common sense. Let's see what real experts say about the matter? Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

8. all that dwell upon the earth-being of earth earthy; in contrast to "them that dwell in heaven."

whose names are not written-A, B, C, Syriac, Coptic, and Andreas read singular, "(every one) whose (Greek, 'hou'; but B, Greek, 'hon,' plural) name is not written."

Lamb slain from the foundation of the world-The Greek order of words favors this translation. He was slain in the Father's eternal counsels: compare 1Pe 1:19, 20, virtually parallel. The other way of connecting the words is, "Written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." So in Re 17:8. The elect. The former is in the Greek more obvious and simple. "Whatsoever virtue was in the sacrifices, did operate through Messiah's death alone. As He was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so all atonements ever made were only effectual by His blood" [Bishop Pearson, Exposition of the Creed

International Standard Version (©2008)
All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world.

King James Bible
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

American King James Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

American Standard Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.

Bible in Basic English
And all who are on the earth will give him worship, everyone whose name has not been from the first in the book of life of the Lamb who was put to death.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And all the dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.

Darby Bible Translation
and all that dwell on the earth shall do it homage, every one whose name had not been written from the founding of the world in the book of life of the slain Lamb.

English Revised Version
And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.

Webster's Bible Translation
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Weymouth New Testament
And all the inhabitants of the earth will be found to be worshipping him: every one whose name is not recorded in the Book of Life--the Book of the Lamb who has been offered in sacrifice ever since the creation of the world.

World English Bible
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been killed.

Young's Literal Translation
And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;

The son of man and John 6:62

2009-05-12T12:33:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of passages that trinitarain's notoriously get wrong every time in not paying attention to detail to try and prove their doctrine of "god the son" they simply look for their doctrine of pre-existence and ignore the rest. Let's look at the following two passages

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.(esv)

There is a common passage that will tie both John 3:13 and 6:62 together, I will get to that later on. But what is usually ignored by the trinitarain is the term *son of man* in reference to Jesus what is the*son of man*? Well, to put it short and sweet where everyone can understand, it is that which everyone is born of, that being mankind. Jesus was simply saying God provided his humanity or that which was born of a woman as the sinless sacrifice, the tying together will be brought out in the next couple of passages, in the context of John 6....

John 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (esv)

to find out what was meant by John we should back up earlier in the context of John 6:51 where Jesus explains exactly what is meant.Jesus was answering the Jews who were murmuring among themselves saying How could you come from heaven(John 6:42 KJB) and likely so but Jesus explain in (verse 51)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven,if any shall eat of this bread he shall live forever: and *the bread I will give(Which came from heaven) IS MY FLESH* Flesh and blood neither comes from or goes to heaven in the current state of being able to die(1st. Cor. 15:50 KJB) Jesus was simply saying God provided his flesh from heaven as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. not that he literally came from heaven as that would contradict scripture the passage takes care of any and all so called pre-existence passages trinity folk might use.

The Word from John 1:1 trinitarain, or Oneness?

2009-05-12T04:58:00.000-07:00

mlculwell: Again, I will refer to the writer of the following blog to whom I address in using the initials *DR*: for *Day of Reckoning* and it's writer of said Blog.

DR:The historic Christian understanding of the Logos of John 1 is that the Logos is the eternal Son of God.

mlculwell: Now notice the following from the same writer who chides another(J.L Watts) for submitting historical accounts from Encyclopedia's of Religion,New Bible Dictionary Etc. of writers who are themselves trinitarian but admit the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the Apostles’ preaching originally but rather the doctrine was developed and contrived. From the day of reckoning blog we get the following from it's writer:

DR:"Let God be true, and every man a liar. The Trinity is the only doctrine of God that satisfies God's revelation of Himself in the scriptures.".

mlculwell: No, the trinity is the only doctrine that satisfies the trinitarain since it was developed by the trinitarian, it is actually a very contradictory doctrine. If it were to "satisfy God" it would have been inspired of God and written about in scripture, but no such doctrine exists in scripture and was never written about of any Apostle or writer of the New Testament.

DR:The majoritive oneness understanding of the Logos is a radical departure from the historical /reformed interpretation.

mlculwell: As Oneness we should not base our doctrines upon the "majoritive understanding of the Logos." The Catholics were at One time claimed the majoritve understanding of salvation (because they were the majority) and the Reformed were outside that majority. So the above quote by our friend is not sound in proving he has truth or that his doctrine is true that is done with scripture.

DR:To the oneness person, the Logos is the knowledge, wisdom, and reason of the divine monad. The Logos is not distinct in any way from God and is certainly not the Son of God until John 1:14. In other words, the oneness Logos is the unrealized wisdom or reason of God that is realized in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

mlculwell: "Unrealized wisdom or reason"??? We make no such claim, I do not even know what that means and is a blatant lie.

DR:considering these two opposing truth claims, one must objectively survey both the entirety of God's revelation and the goal or purpose behind each interpretation. Doctrines hold together much like a home;

mlculwell: There are no"opposing truth claims" as what you have set up for us is not our claim, this is not the Oneness view of the Logos.

The Logos is the all powerful way in which God creates by his spoken word. (Psalm 33:6)

By the Word/Logos(The Septuagint) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

DR:the essential doctrines compose it's foundation, and the secondary or non-essential doctrines compose the remainder of the house. The doctrine of God is unarguably a foundational doctrine, and the understanding of the Logos is a large part of that doctrine.

mlculwell: Neither the trinity nor your understanding of the Logos form any part of the essential, foundational doctrines of God and his word, that is simply pompously assumed based on years of finally hijacking the view into a(so called) majority that is held by both Catholics and protestants.(trinitarains)

DR:One's interpretation of John 1:1-2 will, in a nutshell, explain who the Son of God is. If a home's foundation is undermined, that house will inevitably fall. Likewise, if either the Trinitarian or oneness interpretation of the Logos is incorrect, the theological implications would be devastating and would virtually leave no doctrine untouched.

mlculwell: Well let's look at the "trinitarain view" and see the blatant contradiction, as the trinity folk believe the word was the pre-existent "God the son."

In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the father, and the son was the father.
The above is how the trinitarain views the passage but when you try and pin them down they say we misrepresent their view. Yes, the view is devastating but not for the Oneness view.

DR:What then are the goals of the Trinitarian and oneness understanding of the Logos of John 1? Trintarians look to the John 1:1-2 text to define and defend the eternality and divinity of the Son of God.

mlculwell: Yes, trinitarains do try and define and defend the eternality and divinity much to their demise in which they continually wiggle and squirm out of the further contradictions of their contrived doctrines even after compounding contradiction after contradiction much as we see with their view concerning the Logos and to further the compounded contradiction and add insult to injury they claim The Greek word for with(*Pros* pronounced Pr-aas) means: face to face so that my submitted son was the father is true of their claims and is not a misrepresentation of their view.

DR: Oneness believers derive the origin of the Son of God, and look to the text to remove any misconception that God is anything other than one undivided, simple being. Simple in that, within God there is no complexity of persons or relationships.

mlculwell: This is completely untrue! We believe there was the real The father as Spirit was that which overshadowed the virgin and caused the conception(Math. 1:19) and the father existed before the son as that is how that usually works except with the trinity doctrine.

The relationship between the father and the son was of spirit and flesh not of two persons with in God who were eternally existing calling one the father and the other son which would be *multiple personality disorder*. So that actually the Human persons that have such disorder are really made in God's image and those of us who do not are less than normal. This is the resulting absurd contradictions that we get from their doctrines.

DR:Which claim is true? Lets examine the actual text and see what John tells us about the Logos.

* "In the beginning was the Word," Greek: "En arche en ho logos,"

Here the Logos is presented as having existed in eternity past. the Greek word "en" indicates an unending beginning or timelessness.

mlculwell: It makes sense to me that God could not be seperated from the all powerful way in which he creates and that their never was a time that he could be separated from that power.

DR: So, from this verse fragment, we can derive that the Logos is eternal. At this point, the text is compatible with both the Trinitarian and oneness doctrines. God's wisdom and reason must maintain eternal continuity with God.

mlculwell: We see from (Isaiah 11:2) Jesus was given wisdom, not that he was wisdom prior to his incarnation he most certainly was the wisdom of God because he was made such not because he pre-existed.. Once again the logos is the all powerful way in which God creates and it is explained by (Psalm 33:6) in way in which we as humans scan understand by stating the word by the breath of his mouth likened to speech not simply reason or anything else.

DR: This seems like a rather obvious statement. In fact, so obvious that it begs the question; What God-fearing person reading John's gospel would doubt the eternality of God's wisdom or reason, especially in light of the fact that the Jewish understanding of God included immutability (Malachi 3:6)?

* "and the Word was with God," Greek: "kai ho logos en pros ton theon,"

Here in part two of verse one, John tells us that the Logos was "with" God. John indicates an actual interpersonal relationship held between the Logos and God. Unfortunately only when we examine the text in the original language, does this point show through. The Greek indicates an eternal fellowship, held between the Logos and God. The two key words here are "en" and "pros." "En" tells us of the eternality of the "pros" if you will. The word "pros" literally means to be with someone. So, to put it another way, the Logos was with God in fellowship for eternity.

mlculwell: I believe the trinitarains are on the right track but miss the mark completely in trying to prove their doctrine is correct. (Rev. 13:8) says the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. A couple of blaring contradictions come to mind when I read this passage. First; this is speaking of eternity, so why is "God the son" being shown that he would be slain, if he actually could be? The answer is he did not exist, therefor he would not be shown anything and that God was looking forward to the incarnation and did have his son view throughout eternity and all of creation was predicated on his coming. The Second is it is the plan of God to redeem mankind highlighted by the fact he as the lamb( sinless, innocent, Flesh) was slain.

If "pros" literally means to be with someone then God was *with eternal life* as a person in a personal relationship also in (1st.John 1:2) who would God be giving eternal life too in Eternity? Eternal life is for those outside of eternal life eternal life was in the sacrifice of flesh of the sinless son of God.(1st. Cor. 15:21) God the son would not be able to purchase anyone's salvation as he would not and could not be our kinsmen redeemer.

DR:This literal interpretation falls directly in line with the historic Trinitarian understanding of the Logos. If as the Trinitarians say, the Logos is the eternal Son of God, then the Logos had to have shared a Father/Son relationship eternally.

mlculwell: The father and son to the trinitarain are supposed to be the "One God" but with in that "one God" there are persons calling each other father and son *in name only*? This is a most ridiculous doctrine and One trinitarains have tried to hang on Oneness believers in saying our God was had a multiple personality disorder which is actually their own doctrine and them trying to hide in plain site by projecting their own ridiculous beliefs upon us.

DR:How does the oneness interpretation fare? Remember that the Logos is to the oneness person God's impersonal reasoning and wisdom (in the sense that the Logos is an imminent plan or idea existing only in the mind of God).

mlculwell: Paul himself being Lawyer of the Jews and intimately understanding the O.T.scriptures in (Psalm 33:6) and an Apostle and writer of the New Testament himself Used the term logos/word of two individuals evil plan(2nd Tim. 2:17) in the same sense modern Oneness use the term.

If Paul understood the Logos/logos as the trinitarains understood it, he most certainly would not have soiled it with such a common usage of two individuals evil plans, he would have been more careful to guard the term and not at all use it in the way in which he did which confirms the Oneness usage and understanding.John Being and Apostle would have been in agreement with both the Psalmist and Paul.

DR:This literal translation of the second fragment of John 1:1 does not bode well for the oneness doctrine. In fact it poses an extremely difficult and perhaps fatal problem.

mlculwell: It does absolutely zero damage to "our understanding."

DR: How can an idea have fellowship or interaction with the individual who thought it? If God is unitarian, John's description of the Logos in this text is absolutely befuddling. Can a thinking God personally interact or be face to face with His own thought?

mlculwell: Just Like the lamb was being slain from the foundation of the world(Rev. 13:8) in the plan for future redemption God the father by himself and alone Looked to the time of the incarnation when he himself would come down to mankind and redeem said mankind.

DR:Perhaps He could. This would require the oneness God to be somehow divided from His own reason or wisdom, thereby rendering Him more than a monad.

mlculwell: God's plan for redemption was with him but Could not be separated from him as He was the the plan, that being God himself would take the flesh of of his only begotten son and redeem mankind through the sacrifice of the sinless flesh.

DR: * "and the Word was God." Greek: "kai theos en ho logos."

This text again inserts the eternality of the subject with the word "en." If we were to identify the literal meaning of what the text says, we would have "and the Word was eternally God."

mlculwell: What is "perplexing" has nothing to do with our doctrine but rather it is that in trying to make the distinction between the father, and son, you destroy your own doctrine.

The word was "God the son" according to you and distinct from *God the father* to whom you say he was *with* and then further you make him God the father to whom you say he was *with*.

DR:This text is quite perplexing since just just told us that the Logos shared an eternal fellowship with God.

mlculwell: please tell us about the lamb having fellowship being eternally slain in the presence of God? This bodes very well with all of the council of God and the Oneness understanding and does not contradict scripture as does your understanding.

DR;The only logical and objective conclusion that could be made is that John is telling us that the Logos is both eternal and divine. The obvious goal of John 1:1 is to describe the Logos. The identity of God in the text, is assumed.

mlculwell: The Logos cannot be separated from God the word was both with and was at the same time God thus both eternal and divine ut most certainly not a separate person of God.

DR:For the Trinitarian this harmonizes well. It is an assertion of the eternality and deity of the Son of God. For the oneness position, this verse fragment seems redundant and emphatic.

mlculwell: What this shows me is that the trinitarian is being dishonest to highlight his way of thinking on the passage as the trinity view of John 1:1 is foreign to the scriptures and is a new understanding never before considered by either the Apostles or of the psalmist in the old Testament.

DR: The oneness translation might say, "God's reason and wisdom is eternally God." Or perhaps "God's plan or idea of the Son was eternally God." In retrospect, the oneness understanding of the text of John 1:1 would seem to simply emphasize the obvious to the reader, and thereby complicate an ordinary and presumed truth.

mlculwell: God's word was both with and was God(God is nothing less than eternal and it would ridiculous to think otherwise. The plan of the eternal God to redeem mankind came from eternity into this world in time(Gal. 4:4) when the fullness of time was come God sent forth his son(Where God?) *Made of a woman* Made under the law. he sent his son from time and entered himself as God(The father) from eternity. The trinitarain understanding is foreign to scripture and is forced upon the text to contradict when read as they see it.

DR:The Trinitarian understanding of the word logos is a departure from the common Greek understanding of the word. Whereas the oneness interpretation falls directly in line with the common Greek understanding of the word logos.

mlculwell: This is not the first time that the Apostles adopted a pagan understanding and used it to the good, such as Paul addressing the *unknown God at Mars hill* or adopting the name Christian as the believers were called Christians first at Antioch by unbelievers outside of their fold. But the understanding of the term word was already used in (Psalm 33:6) long before John or Paul came about to use the term.

DR:This adds an interesting point to the argument. The Trinitarian position seems to be using a semantically unorthodox definition of the word,

mlculwell: That has been my point all along they use it in new way that has never before been used nor is it the way in which Paul used the term which lines up with the Oneness understanding(2nd. Tim.2:17) Who would have been in agreement with john as an Apostle which you contradict Paul by the way!

DR: making somewhat of a symbolic/typic hybrid. Lets consider hermeneutics for a moment. Hermeneutics tells us that in scripture, words must take on only the meaning that the context has given them. Does the context of the Johannine prologue permit the Trinitarian understanding of the Logos? Absolutely. The oneness understanding renders the passage clumsy and unnecessary.

mlculwell: This is is a blatantly dishonest assessment of the Oneness view! it is actually the trinity view which is clunky and contradicts all known use's of the term and adds a new meaning never before seen anywhere in scripture.

DR:This reality is rather ironic as well. It is common for oneness advocates to assume a Greek philosophical derivation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unfortunately, it seems that the oneness doctrine is derived from a Greek origin, at least in regards to the Logos. At this point, an examination of John 1:2 would only serve to add insult to injury to the oneness position.

mlculwell: Paul himself gives us the understanding of the way in which he used the term logos of two individuals and if it were the way in which you have stated he again would not have soiled the term in using it of such a common understanding but of course he did and I believe it was to blatantly shoot down the coming false doctrine of the trinity.

Polycarp trinitarian?

2009-05-06T04:24:00.000-07:00

One Trinitarain from a blog called Day of reckoning wrote the following to whom I will assign *TB* for *trinity believer* and answer his unscriptual assumptions.

TB:(110-140AD). *
Polycarp 0:1 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church of God sojourning in Philippi; mercy and peace from God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Saviour be multiplied to you.

mlculwell: If Polycarp who supposedly sat directly under the Apostle John who famously wrote John's Gospel the epistles under his name and the book of Revelation. If Polycarp were a trinitarain he most certainly would not start a letter off by stating: Almighty God and in addition to that Almighty God as seen by the conjunction *and* Jesus Christ our savior. An Arian or Oneness believer could just as well make the same claim. Polycarp who was not one of the canonized writers of the 66 books we know as the bible which is the all sufficient rule of our faith given by God. of course this something the trinity folk always fail to tell you when they quote the so called fathers.

TB:Polycarp 1:1 1 I rejoice greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ that you have followed the pattern of true love, and have helped on their way, as opportunity was given you, those who were bound in chains, which become the saints, and are the diadems of those who have been truly chosen by God and our Lord.

mlculwell: Nothing in this that would lead us to believe this was trinitarain either. The son who was the flesh of God(The father John 14:10) in the incarnation paid for our salvation through his real humanity.(1st Cor. 15:21) "God the son" could not pay for anything as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer.

TB:Polycarp 6:2 2 If then we pray the Lord to forgive us, we also ought to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God and "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself."

mlculwell: How many Lords are there? The writer Polycarp, I believe is making a real distinction between the flesh of the son who purchased us with his real humanity and his deity Lord through the sacrificial flesh in the incarnation and that which indwelt the flesh God the father. The distinction must be made as God cannot purchase anyone's salvation without a blood sacrifice that sacrifice being made through his flesh the son. Nothing above would lead me to believe Polycarp was a trinitarain, Like I said before he could just have easily been Oneness or Arian, But of course the doctrine of the trinity really did not exist nor was it taught by the Apostles.

TB:Polycarp 12:2 Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the "eternal Priest" himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in long suffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his "Father who raised him from the dead."

I think it is safe to say that Polycarp was a Trinitarian.

mlculwell: There is absolutely nothing from the following that leads anyone to believe such nonsense especially since the conjunction *and* would separate the father from God and our Lord Jesus Christ and that would be the argument our trinity friends would try and make but it is a rather silly argument as that would make the father and our Lord Jesus Christ Outside of God because of the conjunction. The truth is there is nothing said by Polycarp to lead anyone to believe he was at all trinitarain and that he was more than likely Oneness but we do not need Polycarp's writings as our rule of faith in the first place as we have the all sufficient scriptures inspired of God.

Test my doctrine according to historical men?

2009-04-30T07:21:00.000-07:00

faithful witness writes: Test your doctrine today; from the pen of Edwards your doctrine will fall.

mlculwell said...

That is not how you test your doctrine? This is the mark of a false prophet! Where in scripture are we told to test our doctrine to other than the scripture? Find me that passage? Your reasoning is circular. That is what Catholics do! The Reformed are nothing more than watered down Catholics.

J. L. Watts rightly points out some errors of Faithful witness

2009-04-27T06:03:00.000-07:00

"J. L. Watts said...

You know, you should really check your sources before you post - it makes you look rather foolish.

The Epistles of Ignatius survive in two recensions - the Shorter and the Longer. Everyone and their brother recognizes that the Shorter Epistles are the originals, or closest to the originals. The Longer Epistles are spurious and interpolated by later Catholic Apologists. Even the Catholics accept this.

The original Epistle at this point says,

I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that you use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

What you have posted is a fake.

I would encourage you to read this:

http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/category/church-fathers/ignatius-of-antioch/

And please, stop lying"

The above writing By J.L.Watts caused FW the following retraction concerning his erroneous post of Ignatius in spurious long form admitted by everyone.

"Retraction
Regrettably I have made a terrible mistake by creating the post preceding this one. I, in no way meant to deviate from the truth. My inexperience in dealing with the patristics of the church has lead the acceptance of this fraudulent information. I accept full responsibility and I will retract the post in 24 hours.

I would like to thank JL Watts for notifying me of this error. He and I differ vastly theologically, and even though I disagree with him on most topics, I appreciate his appeal for truthful historicity.

I apologize to anyone that was mislead. Test all things by scripture, hold fast to what is good". . .

Irenaeus and his four persons and faithful witness

2009-04-25T04:35:00.000-07:00

The following quote from Ireaeus was taken from faithful witnesses blog concerning his hatred of all things Oneness and his personal war.

By Irenaeus
Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.

"The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all"...

How convenient of faithful witness to take a single quote from Irenaeus and stop there when He thinks they are in agreement, but I have another quote from Irenaeus he may not be so quick to embrace.

Irenaeus writes:"There is One God, the Father,and one Word, and One Son,and one Spriit, and One salvation."

Notice above that if Irenaeus were teaching any kind of doctrine it was far from trinitarainism this is the reason we should give no thought to these writings concerning our salvation and what we should believe about God as we are not told to do so in scripture. it seems to me Irenaeus was very mistaken in his understanding and if Polycarp were his teacher they both lacked any understanding and would not have been taught by the Apostles. But we see faithful witness in his blogs quote historical figures and figures whom he agrees by isolating their words where he is agreement and doing so of those to whom he does not agree such as yours truly which is outright dishonesty! Note the following written by Faithful Witness

"One rather aggressive oneness apologist, Manuel Culwell, said this to me in regards to the eternality of the Son of God: "The son is the flesh God indwelt." This statement seems to be the normative understanding of the modalist mindset. Certainly the "Son" in the oneness pentecostal understanding is a "mere man," however indwelt by God. I find it highly revealing and interesting that Ignatius of Antioch hits on this point in this aptly named chapter. I can certainly see the providence of God in that Ignatius included those who preach a unitarian God in his warning to the church. This teaching according to Ignatius, was a type of the poison of heretics. Who can argue with that"?

Folks when you take one little quote and dishonestly isolate a few words in a sentence you can come up with anything. I have also said there is not a Oneness person anywhere that does not believe Jesus is God! How that is so is where Faithful Witness and I take issue, as I do not believe the scriptures teach Jesus was a "God the son" the second person of the trinity.

I imagine this must have been what the enemies of the ancient Oneness did in dishonestly misrepresenting their writings and destroying them as we have no such writings in existence today when the ancient Oneness we were in the Majority of the believers as told by Tertullian himself.

James White Excuses John Calvin's sin

2009-04-22T12:08:00.000-07:00

Watch James White writhe in pain listening to Dan Barker tell the truth about the Evils of John Calvin Who Killed the Oneness Preacher Michael Servatus .

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3258

Blogger Faithfulwitnes ignorance is boundless!

2009-04-21T11:37:00.000-07:00

FW:Tell me Manuel, what do you mean by unscriptural? Do you presume that your modalism is the scriptural explanation? Tell me, do you think Sabellius was correct?

mlculwell: First off, "Modalism" is a name trinity folks have given us that we do not use of ourselves. Second I noticed in your little thesis that you said;" we as Oneness did not exist until 1914." Then you contradict yourself by bringing up Sabellius who existed in the second and third century but before him we know that Praxeas and Noetus also existed who were Ancient Oneness believers, the only way we know about them is through their Enemies writings(The trinitarians) who more than likely destroyed their writings, as they were the dominate and majority belief.

Tertullian who died about (225 A.d.) wrote the following about Praxeas.

"The simple indeed I will not call them unwise and unlearned,who always constitute the majority of believers,are startled at the dispensation (of the three in one)on the very ground that their rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the only true God,not understanding that,although he is the only God he must yet be believed in with his own economy.The numerical order and distribution of the trinity, they assume to be a division of unity".

Tertullian was a Montanus who claimed to be the paraklete(The comforter) and practiced celibacy and said that he was the last great prophet before the end of the world. Which makes him a clear false prophet on all accounts and especially when invented the term unscriptual by the way trinity!

FW:In your juvenile consideration of the things of God, it is not suprising to me that you fail to see the obvious. Jesus said this:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

mlculwell: The rock was Peters confession thou art the Christ the son of the living God. What Peter did not say and what you are trying to force upon the text is Peter was teaching your false doctrine of "god the son" and that is not Peters confession nor is it scriptures! I certainly agree with peters confession 100% and disagree with yours!

FW:Your deviant view of God was absent for about 97% of the time that Christianity has been in existence.

mlculwell: This very untrue and proved by historical writings of the ancient Oneness enemies whom I believe destroyed their writings as oneness again was the majority belief. The fact of that was seen in the writings of the false prophet whose prophecy did not come to pass nor was he the comforter to whom Tertullian wrote of the Oneness believers in his time!

FW:Only until 1914 did oneness pentecostalism emerge as anything but a historic heresy. Even one of your movements founders recanted of it's nonsense and went on to be a Trinitarian apologist in Canada.

mlculwell: And who would that be? Why would that even matter as we are told that men would be drawn away of false doctrine, even the very elect.

FW:Your movement is just one more legalistic works-based cult that prostitutes the bible and perverts the nature and identity of God. I have destroyed the oneness baptismal soteriology,

mlculwell: UM No, you have not "destroyed anything", you are delusional! You were trying to argue for us that our doctrine is "baptismal regeneration" you began to knock down a strawman argument that we disavow and that is a big fat lie! We get regeneration through the Authority of the spoken literal name Jesus in Baptism, not through baptism! Jesus himself destroyed your doctrine of mental assent in (Luke 24:47) when he said; that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. he told us where the first true message was preached In Jerusalem and almost preached verbatim Peters message in (Acts 2:38) But the Lord cut the head clean off your false doctrine when he said that repentance which cannot be had until you believe and addition to belief and repentance joined by the conjunction *and* remission of sins teaching us you do not get remission of sins at mental assent belief as that is not belief at all.

Further Paul also destroys you false doctrine of mental assent by asking the absurd question:" have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"(Acts 19:2) of disciples of John the Baptist to whom he did not know they were such until he further questioned them.

Further the Lord Jesus totally annihilates your doctrine by saying:whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) This would be an impossibility according to your false doctrine of mental assent.

FW:and I have provided iron clad biblical proof (namley Philipians 5:7-8)that the Son of God is eternal.

mlculwell:No such passage exists but okay I think you meant (Philippians 2:7-8) and according to your so called iron clad proof all you are teaching is polytheism as you have the pre-incarnate God the son equal to god the father if God is equal to God then that for sure is polytheism.Your interpretation is dead wrong!

FW: I will pray for you friend, that your eyes may be opened by my soverign Lord. After all, it is He who ordains all things, even salvation.

mlculwell: I believe God is sovereign but not to the point where I deny his sovereignty and power enough in giving man his own free will and choice and Calvinism is an evil Godless doctrine that makes God more like the Devil as a ,murderer and Rapist forcing his will upon man but your problem is you cannot see how God could be powerful enough to do that, it is you that needs the prayer friend.

Once again!

2009-04-20T06:27:00.000-07:00

FW:The term Lord you have used is most definitley taken from scripture. The greek for Lord in this context, if my memory serves me correctly, is Curios. This word means YHWHand has direct correlation with the OT.

mlculwell: The passage says Jesus was made both Lord and Christ(Acts 2:36) and your were quoting me saying: Jesus was made both Lord and Christ because his humanity had a beginning. This passage along with host of others teaches he was made LORD!Because his humanity had a beginning.

FW:So, the logical deduction, if we go by what you have stated above, is that the Son is YHWH. Unfortunatly (for you anyway) YHWH has no begining, just an incarnation.

mlculwell: That incarnation was the beginning of at least one of your sons.LOL! I believe YHWH is in reference to God the father YHWH Only and not a fictitious "god the son".

"The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!"

FW:If God is unitarian, and the Son is the flesh of God indwelt with God, then the Son would be praying to Himself.
Please explain if this is not the case.

mlculwell: When I pray am I praying to myself also? Real men pray! Not God's! If a God prays he cannot be God as he is lower that God! But of course your Jesus just fakes everything anyhow. You do not even have a glimmer of a viable argument.

"ETERNAL LIFE WAS WITH THE FATHER(God)"

FW:I was speaking about John 1, not 1 John, clearly.

mlculwell: I was speaking of 1st. John 1.

FW:Dodging the question seems to be your area of expertise.

mlculwell: You again had no question of any substance that merited anything but for me to laugh at your argument! You can come up with anything trying to isolate a few Greek words.

FW:The Word was with God. pros ton theon can only mean a personal relationship and contact.

mlculwell That is the very reason I submitted 1st John 1:2 as it says eternal Life was(Pros) with the father. Now if with means a personal relationship then God was having a personal relationship with eternal life! But the fact is that is the word!

FW:The remainder of the Gospel (in conjunction with the synoptics) makes this point clear. We have love displayed between the Son and the Father, communication between two distinct persons, and key phrases such as "into your hands I commit my spirit,Father why have you forsaken me?" and "not my will but your will."

mlculwell: Do you not see how you are contradicting the scriptures by Giving the one God opposing wills? If YHWH is One God he cannot have opposing wills withing himself! I believe the will of Jesus is a human real will and not another will of God! I explained John 17:5 with verse 24 and Rev. 13:8 that the Love was not literal love between persons like Jesus was not literally slain in Rev.13:8 and that the Apostles or disciples at that time were going to witness his glory which can only refer to Jesus passion that was his glory ie his sacrifice for humanity.

"This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists!"

FW:Hardly. Within the one being that is God, there exists three co-equal co-eternal persons; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

mlculwell: that is an unscriptual mantra of trinitarians not found in scripture. The passage in Philippians 2:5-11 says nothing about "persons" there! According to your interpretation the passage has to do with the pre-incarnate god the son being eqaul to God the father thus your polytheism.

FW: I am not a tritheist. What you have said amounts to slander. To assume that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt decimates the atonement and renders it ineffective, (did you read the entirity of the post?)

mlculwell: I will not take anything back I have said about your doctrine it is based on both what you say and what scripture actually says and mean to point that out. God indwelling is what the scripture says In (John 14:10, Col. 2:9, 2nd. Cor.5:19)
But it is not God the son who is incarnate in man the son as you have no real incarnation anyhow but it is God the father in the son.

God was in Christ(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Not God became Christ!

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily(Col. 2;9) All that makes God, God was in Christ.

The father in me he doeth the works(John 14:10) as the son could do no works in and of himself.(John 5:30) He did not even know the time of His own second coming but the father ONLY.(Mark13:32) that is because there is nor was anything known as a "God the son."

"FW, you oppose the creeds, and yet the only theology that you have has been created by the Councils recognized by Rome"

mlculwell: I do oppose the creeds! As they should not be put on the same level of scripture if you feel they are maybe they should canonized in scripture!

New nonsense from faithful witness

2009-04-17T11:46:00.000-07:00

FW:Manuel you say that "The son is the flesh God(The father) indwelt." So an otherwise inanimate object is the Son of God.

mlculwell Faithful witness(So called) gives us his real view of his doctrine of Antichrist(1st. John 4:3) a clear denial of the real humanity of the son. Jesus is no more inanimate object than I am! But what we clearly see from these folks is a denial of the real humanity of the son.

FW:Does this son have two natures? Is that your way out of the subject-object relationship that the Father and Son share, ie:prayer.

mlculwell: Again I do not ever use that analogy, it is too confusing! I believe Jesus was very man and very God you will not ever hear me say anything about natures! The son really prayed as a real man in subjection to his real God!

BD: So the Son is really two natures. . . I see. Sounds like Dr. Bernards deafeted argument. Manuel you have given me essentially another non answer to my very clear and simple question.

mllculwell All you have done is lied on me! I never use the term nature for God in any of my explanations and that is a fact!Tyndale called the word an *it* in John 1:1 and Paul used the term *word* for two evil individuals not taking into account that you view the term as another person of God, soiling your view of the word as another person of *God the son8 which is not a doctrine taught By Paul, John, or anyone in scripture.

BD:Again what does this phrase mean in John 1:pros ton theon?

mlculwell: I gave you the answer already, you cannot isolate a few Greek words and ask what it means? The word *with8 is the same word *with*(Pros) used in (1st John 1:1-2) ETERNAL LIFE WAS *WITH* THE FATHER(God). Who was God giving eternal life to?

mlculwell:"By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made"

BD:The Son is the agent of creation who carried out the will of His Father. John 1 rules out subordination. The Son's role is of willful submission to His Father. Psalm 33:6 does not indicate word in the sense of John 1. It is a literal word. Are you that bent on scripture twisting? Read this:

Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

mlculwell: That is what I have claimed all along! You better go back and read my posts to you! God spoke the worlds into existence by the breath of his mouth! The son is not simply the agent of creation as the son did not exist.(Romans 5:14) Adam came before Jesus and was made in figure of him that was to come.(meaning Jesus was not back there!) (1st. Cor. 15:46) says Howbeit that was not first which spiritual but that which was natural(Adam) and AFTERWARD that which was spiritual. (refuting your false doctrine you insert in John 1:1)

BD:Obviously the context has nothing to do with the scenario in John 1:1. Context, Context, Context!

mlculwell:I just love how you ignore my arguments to simply insert your false doctrine in John 1:1! by the word /Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and* ALL* the host of them by the breath of his mouth! The word is not another person of god with God and you isolating a few Greek words still does not prove your failed doctrine! Any false prophet can do that nonsense you can prove anything doing that but it is not proper exegesis of passage nor is it using context properly either!

BD:By the way JL, why don't you tell me something since you can read greek. What is the time frame of Philippians 2:5-9?

mlculwell: I will let JL talk from himself But I am going to give you my take on how you must see that passage!

This passage proves all trinitarians are polytheists! Because you believe the passage is speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus(God the son) thus you have god equal to God polytheism according to your view plin and simple.

More nonsense and Fw's last Hurah!

2009-04-16T07:30:00.000-07:00

FW:You have got to be joking. Unbelievable. You picked one of the most clear doctrines to deny. The doctrine is so clear that I won't even bother to argue for it. I will just say this; prove to me that original sin is not taught in the bible. I'll eat my hat if you do. In fact I'll sign over my website to you if you can prove a biblical case using proper hermanutics for the denile of original sin.

mlculwell: I have already given you (Eccl.7:29) how that God made man upright but he sought devices. This is not talking about Adam only! God made all of mankind upright but mankind sought out devices to sin accept Jesus who chose not sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth it shall die, the son SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER.NEITHER SHALL THE FATHER BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON.The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him.And the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. this refutes your false doctrine. if we all have inherited sin then Jesus would have it or you would not believe Jesus was a real man!( Hebrews 2:14) Jesus was partaker of the same flesh as you and I. if we have original sin then Jesus would also. Sin is something we do ourselves not what we inherit!

(2nd. Cor.5:10) We are all going to stand before Jesus to give an account for things we have done in our body. Not according to Adam's sins or our fathers or mothers sins but our own sins.

FW:1John1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ

Theses verses clearly say that the Son was with the Father in the beginning. There is no credible scholar on the face of the planet that will argue against the fact that "the beginning" spoken of here is creation. Same with John 1.

mlculwell: I gave the passage, I know what the passage says! John was speaking from a knowing experience of the word made flesh. The is reason why *the word of Life,* *the word* and *the eternal life* is not called the son, because it is not the son! John is speaking of the word of Life which is the plan of redemption, there is no redemption without his sacrificial flesh.(1st. Cor.15:21) You are caught, you deny his flesh saves! To Whom was God going to give eternal life when nobody existed?

John 1:1 is not speaking about a pre-existent persons known as "God the son!" I have already given this passage and you ignore to submit your same passage I refuted this is the reason that after this your comments will be deleted I am not going to deal with you day after day after day!

By the Word/Logos(Septuagint Psalm 33:6) of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

FW:John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Here the Son's pre-existence is clear. He is speaking as the Son of Man here, which is interchangable with the Son of God.

mlculwell: I agree "son of man" is interchangeable with the "son of God" as that is the only way he is son of either! His mother was Mary his father was the Holy Ghost! (Math.1:20) That which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost.

The term "son of God" is not a term that proves Jesus was "god jr" because of *ontology* that is ridiculous doctrine! All you would have is a Hercules Hybrid, a mix of neither God nor man, A new species! We must remember Jesus mother was human.

FW: You cannot divide Him into two persons, this would go beyond anything any text would allow, let alone the context of this passage.

mlculwell: I do not divide him into two persons but I sure do not make him a hybrid new species as do you! God is not a person outside the person of the son. You said yourself God is spirit. You are the one who has either a hybrid mixture of neither God nor man or you have four persons of God based on your faulty definition of the word "person" which I know you will deny.

FW:John 8:58 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Here Jesus speaking as the Son identifies Himself as YHWH. Note the context, especially verse 54.

mlculwell: Again I Must repeat myself this the reason this was your last chance I am not going to have ignore my arguments and me simply repeat myself. The spirit puts the son of man in heavenly places this is your false doctrine of Perechoresis interpenetration of spirit persons. Jesus in the passage you submitted is standing before Nicodemus as the son of man(That born of Mary as a real man) but Just like we are put there by the spirit(John 17:21) Jesus is also! the spirit of God puts our flesh in heavenly places in the unity of the spirit.

FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

mlculwell: Again I must repeat myself! Rev. 13:8 says the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Was the lamb literally slain from the foundation of the world? No! Jesus did not literally exist either back there as (Romans 5:14 and 1st. Cor:15:45-46) says he did not!

Romans 5:14 said Adam came first before Jesus and if that is not enough.
Paul writes and says howbeit that was not first which was spiritual but that which is natural AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.(1st. cor. 15:45-46) How is possible that was not first but after? Because we are speaking of the incarnation in the world.

FW:You said this in regards to the above verse; "his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION." Your explanation is so far fetched I cannot believe it. The word for glory used here the greek is doxa. No where in the scriptures does this word mean or infer anything even close to the passion.

mlculwell: I never said anything about the word glory meaning passion! I said it refers to his passion not that it was the meaning of the word. Pay attention, as this is your last hurah! I said Jesus was also slain back there(Rev. 13:8) this is the glory Jesus was talking about that he had with the father. John 7:39 says the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet G*L*O*R*I*F*I*E*D. This refers to his passion he was not yet glorified!The holy Ghost had to be purchased through his slain flesh(His glory) For us to receive.(1st. Cor. 15:21)

FW:Generally it means magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace or righteousness. Check every greek dictionary on earth.

mlculwell: I know what it means! You missed the point completely and the reason I am no longer going to deal with someone who has no spiritual eyes to see. His glory was his passion! His glory was about to be witnessed by the Disciples (John 17:24) again nothing was said about a definition of the word *Glory*.

FW:You are making up definitions now. In this text the Son is speaking to the Father about actual glory, not the passion. Apparently the passion occured independently numerous times if we go by your definition of glory, since we read this in verse 10:
John 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
The Son is glorified in the elect because they are regenerate and fear God.

mlculwell: What I said about *glory* had nothing to do with the definition of the word! (John 17:24) Jesus said they were about to behold his glory which God gave him(from the foundation of the world) the Glory of His passion. The holy Ghost was not given to anyone Because Jesus was not yet glorified this was the glory that happened from the foundation of the word(Rev.13:8) the glory he had with the father(John 17:5) not literally as(Rev. 13:8) explains.

FW:John 17:22-24 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world

You said this: "Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)" The Son's death glorified the Father becuase it was His will; "not my will but your will." The word glory in this text refers to the new birth given to the elect; eternal life via the Son's righteousness.

mlculwell: They could not have had NT salvation as the testator had not died and willed it to them! (Hebrews 9:16-17) the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified(John 7:38-39) you must be born again of the water and of the spirit and they had neither! (John 3:5) just the disciples of John the baptist they would have to be born of the water and spirit as the Law brings nothing(Acts 19:1-6)mental assent does not get you saved(Acts 19:2) have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? And neither does anyone else get it by your unscriptual mental assent(John 20:23) whose so ever sins you remit they are remitted and whose soever sins you retain they are retained. That is not possible with your mental assent doctrine.

FW:His righteousness was imputed to the account of the believer. Therefore the sonship of the Son can be also imputed to the believer. This is why in the text in Hebrews calls the believer the brother of the Son of God.

mlculwell: You get nothing at your mental assent faith otherwise it would have been silly for Paul to even suggest what he said in (Acts 19:2) have you received the holy Ghost since you believed? Paul did not know these were John's disciples, but you say "all receive the spirit at mental assent faith." Paul says you do not by asking the question and refutes your false doctrine as does Jesus in (Luke 24:47) By say that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.

You will notice the conjunction and between repentance *and* remission of sins? repentance does not happen until you believe and in addition to belief and repentance Jesus said *and* remission of sins which you do not get at mental assent if that is enough Jesus further destroys the false doctrine by his full refutation of it in (John 20:23) as i have already mentioned.

FW:The paramount passage that makes the pre-existence of the Son absolutley clear is the beginning of John. The apostle defines who the Word is in verses 14 and 18.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth

mlculwell: The passage says the word?logos/plan was made flesh! It does not say: the son was made the son. Redundancy and ridiculousness!

FW:John 1:18 No one has ever seen God(Theos); the only God(Monogenes Theos), who is at the Father's side, he has made him known

mlculwell: The Only God who is next to the other only God???? Do you realize that by your scholars messing around with this manuscript they have promoted polytheism? The passage does not say: one person of God and another person of God, but uses the damning word "God." Then you are going to try and say the only "unique God." which only unique God? I thought your God was a trinity? Again polytheism! You simply use your unscriptual term person not found in scriptures according to your made up definition of the word.

FW:The two subjects identified in vs 18 are indisputably the Father and the Son.

mlculwell: No I do not see father and son I see you submitted the word God in the passage. You insert the word God for the first God and God for the second God and then insert your view father and son. That is not what the text you submitted says in verse 18!

FW: John identifies them as such; see my parenthesis. As I have stated the Monogenes Theos is directly translated as "Unique God."

mlculwell: The only unique God( the son only) that is One God, we then have the other God that is not the unique God?? This is the resulting contradiction of your doctrine and the dishonest men who try and perpetrate the lie further.

FW:Now in regards to "the Word was God;"

The proper and direct translation of the text will render the fragement "and what God was, the Word was." The term Theos is emphasised to ensure the Son's full diety made known. John could have easily used the word theios, which means godlike one. Unfortunatley for modalists like yourself, he didn't.

mlculwell: We as Oneness,* Not Modalist's* no such thing or term exists as it is a name ancient trinity folk gave us based on ancient Oneness using a term mode of existence to describe God why did they not call us "wayist's" as way of existence was also a term they used. We do not call ourselves Modalist's and shows more of your ignorance!

Now we do not believe the word By the breath of God's mouth(Psalm 33:6) Could be "godlike" as that would be impossible! Where do you get your faulty information? John 1:1 says: the word was with God and the word was God. You cannot separate God from his all powerful creative spoken word.

FW: The Word and the Theos spoken of are not identical in this text! Period.

mlculwell: I just said that above! But the word was with God and the word was God! God is not Just a spoken word, he is Spirit.(John 4:24) That is the distinction not between persons.

FW:Don't think the Son of God is eternal still? Here are some more texts that say otherwise...

mlculwell: No I do not!

Heb 7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

How long? FOREVER

mlculwell: Everyman resembles the son of God! after all we were created in his image. God made a temporary Body to inhabit. If that were the son of God then it was cruel of God to allow all those folks to die and not die without salvation he should have sacrificed then but that is not the fact and that was not Jesus Jesus was from the order of Melchizedek how can you come from or after the order and be at the same time?

Fw:Hebrews 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek

How long? FOREVER

mlculwell See above? Are you denying Jesus humanity had a beginning? This priesthood God made a temporary Body to inhabit so that Abraham could go to, God later made a permanent Body in his son forever as our high priest after the order of Melchizedek he was the same God(The father) but definitely the son in the flesh!

FW:Hebrews 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

mlculwell: yes I hardly see how this proves your doctrine of Course Jesus as the son passed through the heavens as this is well after God sent forth his son MADE of a woman MADE under the law.(Gal. 4:4) He was made son. He was made the Lord(Acts 2:36) he was made the life giving spirit(1st. Cor.15:45) he was given all power.(Math. 28:18) he did not exist as God the son!

FW:There is no text that implies that Christ is the Father.

mlculwell: (Isa. 9:6) says the child born and son given would be the Mighty God and the everlasting father.

(John 14:10) Says the father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works. as the son could do NOTHING(John 5:30)

FW:The name Lord Jesus Christ or Son of God are only given to the Monogenes Theos, never the Father.

mlculwell: Jesus was Made both Lord and Christ. he was not already as he as son in flesh had a beginning. There is no "God the son" and never was!

FW:Jesus' sonship didn't end at the ascension, the text says otherwise.

mlculwell: His sonship has fulfilled that which he had to do top bring about our salvation it is all rolled up into his humanity not of another person of God we do not need another person of God One God is Good enough! You most certainly deny his real flesh as son and in doing so deny the Lord who bought you which is the doctrine of Antichrist!(1st.John 4:3,1st. Cor.15:21)

More nonsense from Faithfulwitness the death blow!

2009-04-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

FW: I am tired of your non answers.

mlculwell: Well I never expected you to like my answers. But for sure they do not fit with your false doctrine and I like it that way!

FW:The poetic devise called plural majesty was not invented until the 13th century by anglo-saxon kings. There is no biblical record of such a device and no extra-scriptural support for this device in antiquity.

mlculwell:The "plural of majesty" may have been a device used in literary writings and not brought about until the 13th century but God was a king way before all other kings of His subjects the Angels....All good gifts come from above and there is nothing new under the son!

FW: You claim that man was made in the image of God by God's foreknowledge of Christ Jesus. First, let me say this; man and women were created in God's image. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus must have been a hermaphradite in your view. The human body is not the image of God because God at the time of creation was purley spirit. The account is of creation, the context has nothing to do with redemption. It is a historical narrative and the text does not lend itself whatsoever to your greivous view.

mlculwell: Now for your nonsense on the image! Eve was taken from the man who was created in the image of God! Did you forget that fact? Yes you did you are trying to hide in plain site! Jesus is the image of the invisible God(Col. 1:15) If he were back there as another person then he was also invisible but this simply shows me your polytheism! yes God was Spirit!(John 4:24) an invisible spirit. Saying so does not prove your ridiculous doctrine.

FW:What is a type to you? Passover was a type of the atonement. Circumsission was a type of baptism. The bronze snake in the book of Numbers was a type of Christ Crucified. The type precedes the fulfillment. Not the other way around. Adam was the federal head of fallen humanity (romans 5:12-13). Jesus was the fulfillment of that type in that He was the representitive of a new humanity. The text you keep qouting, calling it "another account of creation" has nothing to do with creation. The context is about original sin, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Paul never intended your isogetical interpretation. In a phrase: ad hock.

mlculwell: I do not believe in your false doctrine of Original sin! Man does not inherit the original sin of Adam! God made man upright but he sought devices(Eccl. 7:29) (Romans 5:14) is not about original sin! Was Adam made in the image Jesus or not? Was Jesus the image of the invisible God you simply give me your false doctrine based on what you have been taught from other trinity folk but not what is taught in scripture you have nothing for your false view! That is eisogesis inserting your view in the text!

you quote me:
Mlculwell:"The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing!"

FW: Another great non answer. The text is a prophesy in Psalms and a reality in Hebrews, that was the point. It is in the past tense and the author of Hebrews said "for which of the angels did God ever SAY." Not says or was going to say.

mlculwell: You ignored the fact that it is done in prophecy many times! You are refuting your own argument using the above and do not even see it as you have your mind on pre-existence and nothing else! let's look closer shall we?(Hebrews 1:5) For unto which of the Angels said he at anytime THOU ART MY SON *THIS DAY* HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE. THE PASSAGE AGAIN REFUTES YOUR DOCTRINE!

I just saw video the other day Of James White admitting this is one of the few passages that has him scratching his head! LOL! Tell me about this day have I begotten thee? You cannot be eternal and be begotten in a day! that is contradiction of your doctrine clear and simple! it was a prophecy of the coming birth of the Messiah and not your false doctrine!

FW:"for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

You must be suggesting that God loved an idea. I see. Science fiction anyone?
Create a genuine logical response to the oneness problem of love, and then let me know. When you get tired of your war on the scriptures repent and believe the gospel (by the way, that means faith in the Son of God not baptism).

mlculwell: The argument that you clearly missed was from (Rev. 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. tell me about the lamb being literally slain from the foundation of the world this passage speaks as though the lamb were literally slain but was he? NO! Just like the son was not literally back there being loved by "himself" or God loving on God, which is silliness compounded! Your doctrine of mental assent is unscriptural just like your doctrine of God loving God which is polytheism. God again was both eternal life and the word of Life but he had nobody to give eternal life to.(1st. John 1:1)

The so called death blow to Oneness:Love

2009-04-15T08:04:00.000-07:00

*Faithful witness* has on his blog a title to an article he wrote, which I have heard for many years before he came along and have actually had interaction with the so called "death blow" he says refutes the biblical Oneness doctrine. He says that God is Love and has love, so that there must have been someone with him for him to love meaning: "the eternal son." so that this refutes Oneness doctrine, well, there are many other things God is, that he does not need other persons of himself for!Such as, he is also the word of life,and eternal life(1st John 1:1) but there was nobody there for God to give eternal life to, unless he wants to count the son.

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity#3

2009-04-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

FW:The word image does not mean what you suppose. Your reverse logic doesn't add up simply because of the fact the Eve was also made in the image of God.

mlculwell: Eve being made in the image of God does not destroy what I have said!

FW:You have choosen a wooden litteral interpretation that goes far beyond what the text implies. Again, the passage does not have anything to do with God's redemptive plan. It is the account of creation as you have admitted.

mlculwell: First, It seems you want your cake and eat it too. You have accused me of taking a metaphorical account of the creation and now you deny man being literally made in the image and likeness of God.

FW: Talk about isogesis. The "image" is obviously the communicable attritubtes that God has given human kind, not physical form.

mlculwell:
*Image* has to do with what is seen as well as what is not seen the Apostles used the term in NT to describe God being seen and the only way God was seen, was by the image or figure or physical likeness of Jesus(Col.1:15) Jesus is the image of the invisible God...

Of course it is "physical form" as he made man a "physical form"! The passage I submitted that is also an account of creation says the following: Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(Romans 5:14)
The Gen. 1:26 passage not only uses the word form but likeness which takes care of any and all uses but if that is not enough the Romans passage uses a third term;Figure from the Greek: Tupos a die struck,stamp or scar, a shape, a statue,style or resemblance,a sampler, or model,imitation,fashion,figure,form, print. I would like to point out that because you repeat something that has been said by trinitrians for so long such as image likeness and figure having nothing to do with the physical does not make it so you will have to actually prove that here!

The other terms from (Gen. 1:26) in the Hebrew tselme/image are as follows: figure, shade,phantom,illusion,resemblance,representative.

All having to do with things seen!

Likeness/demuwth:resemblance ,model ,shape fashion,manner similitude.
it should be pointed out two different Hebrew words were used and I do not believe it is an accident nor do I believe God's word is being redundant but driving home the point that it is much more than attributes and Paul drove the point home even further by stating man was made in the image of jesu who was not back there in Physical form but god had the physical form in mind when he made man Jesus being the first and only perfect man which image and likeness man was created.

Later our friend tries to make a point with the Greek word prototokos(firstborn) from (Col.1:15) the same passage I used to show Jesus was the Image of the invisible God, Folks two glaring contradictions stand out in this passage! One is; they really do not literally believe Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. That is a contradiction to their false view of an eternal son the two terms contradict each other. the other is the passage uses the term image to point our Jesus is what is seen of the unseen. more on this later.

FW: Your argument is circular and therfore a fallacy; You claim that man was created in the image of God which was created in the image of man. It is illogical and totally foreign to the account in Genesis.

mlculwell: Jesus was God manifest in the flesh(1st.Tim.3:16,2nd.Cor.5:19) not just a man! God made man in *his own image* that coming image!(Romans 5:14) says so it is not something I pulled out of the air to accommodate my doctrine as you are doing! Adam who was the figure(image,Likeness) of him that was to COME.

God was invisible, Jesus was the image of the invisible God! It is just as ridiculous to say man was made in the image of an invisible God and simply assume man was made according to attributes only when we have scriptural witness that says man was made in the coming figure of Jesus from (Romans 5:14)

FW:Satan is referred to elohim? In what context? If that is true, it would make sense because satan is not alone and is the god of this world and rules with his angels.

mlculwell: (II kings 1:2-3) Baalzebub is called elohim. I hope you are not suggesting there is more than one Satan? there most certainly is not! Satan my not be alone but there is not more than one Satan!

FW:You say that Genesis 11:7 refers to the angels? Lets examine that.

Genesis 11:7-8 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city

After God said "let us," who went? The text says "so the Lord," not the angels.

mlculwell: God did this many times where he spoke in the presence of his Angels and used the royal we or us by virtue of his kingly royalty in the presence of his subjects. Nothing you have said refutes this fact nor do we ever see God as a plural being. But we see plurality of attributes and majesty.

FW: There are no angelic references in any of those texts.The scriptural roll of angels takes two forms; receiving and delivering messages and proclamations, and protecting the garden.

mlculwell; The Angels were the subjects of the King(God) in his spiritual kingdom and included his subjects in the knowledge of his works by common courtesy as would have all kings. Nor was there ever a trinity of persons ever referred to in scripture that is your pompous forcing upon scripture based on a shallow reading of the text.

FW: Isaiah 6:8 makes no mention of angels and the text says "who will go for us," thereby implying that the sender is soverign and has a plan for implementation. Angels don't plan things, and angels have no say in the redemptive purposes of God.

mlculwell: That was never stated intended or said By me. God simply stated his intentions suing the royal we us our in the presence of his subjects(The Angels) i never stated they planned or had part in redemption. They most certainly knew about redemption and desired to look into those things.

FW:Your willing to admit that Gen. 1:26 refers to God, but not the other us and our passages? Your not too objective in your thinking are you? Bringing subjective decision making into theology is a certain way to isogesis.

mlculwell: I do not afford the other passages as I do (Gen. 1:26) because we have another view creation from (Romans 5:14) there is nothing saying God is plural in any passage anywhere and the usage of the plural pronouns most certainly does not prove anything of a plural God!

FW:You also said that Genesis 3:22 refers to angels. Lets examine that as well:

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

Your assumptiom must be that angels too know good and evil in the sense the text implies. Not suprisingly the context of the passage has proven otherwise. Read below:

Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Will be like who? God, not angels. Own up to the truth, you are so consumed with defending the oneness doctrine that you don't care how you have to bend the scriptures to do it.

mlculwell: Um, This shows your blatant, willful, ignorance of scripture as Angels, rulers, and human judges, are also called gods we already talked about that in the word elohim/Elohim. Yes Angels know Good from Evil Satan chose to do Evil rather than Good and fell from his first estate.

FW:Now so far as the eternality of the Son of God:

mlculwell: There was no such thing in scripture ever taught!

FW:You said this " The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation," regarding Hebrews 1:8-13/Psalm 110:1. This however is not true. How can I prove this? Easily:

Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

Note the text says "you have loved. . . and hated. . .." This text is in the PASSED tense.

mlculwell: The scriptures do this many times and proves nothing! In (Joshua 6:2) God also said I have given into thy hand Jericho(Past tense) before Joshua even went round the walls like he was instructed to do. if god says something you can take it to the bank! But a prophecy is a prophecy.

FW:Not the future tense as you suppose. The Son did these things while on earth and in pre-existence since He is divine. The time of the text is after the ascension.

mlculwell: No, I think you might better go back and figure another argument as this does not work.

FW:If I were to send you something, does that mean that it came into being while on the way? No. The word for send is pempo. This word literally means to consign one thing or person to another thing or person. Not create, but to send. Don't draw inferences when the text doesn't imply as much.

mlculwell: You blatantly ignore the context of the passage in verse nine looking foolish in doing so! I mentioned if the passage were talking about Jesus being a pre-existent person of God then there were more than Jesus the Holy ghost and God the father as God the father is talking in the passage and says he has anointed Jesus with the oil of Gladness(Holy Ghost) above his *fellows* now tell us about his fellow Gods?(The plural) the fact is that part of the passage is speaking about him being anointed with the Holy Ghost above all other men ass the son in the incarnation.

FW:John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Does it get any clearer than this?

mlculwell: Actually it does "get clearer" as you look at the context further down in the passage and particularly in (verse 22) Jesus is giving them(The disciples) his glory (verse 24)

Father,I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am;(Present tense)that they(the future Apostles) may behold my Glory, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. What was the glory that the disciples were about to behold.

*His glory* had nothing to do with pre-existence of a fictitious "god the son." his GLORY HAD TO DO WITH HIS PASSION. that is what was meant by Jesus both giving them his glory and them beholding his glory as rev. 13:8 states: the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was not literally slain back there but this passages makes it seem as though it was.

To further prove *his glory* he had with the father before the world was is his passion in the plan of God for future redemption we read In (John 7:39) The Holy ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet GLORIFIED. this is his glory, his passion that was planned from the beginning from the foundation of the world the glory the disciples were about to behold the glory they were also given from the father to behold.

FW:Paul calls Christ the "prototokos" or first born in Col.1:15-17. This word means the one who has pre-eminence. There is no inference to some sort of temperal generation of the Son.

mlculwell: Was he the firstborn of God according the flesh, are you denying that? That is the doctrine of Antichrist(1st.John 4:3) How many sons do you have? Do you have One Born, and One not born? The word prototokos does have to do with him being literally born to deny that is to deny his real humanity! You most certainly cannot have a redeemer(1st. Cor.15:21) nor a mediator(1st.Tim.2:5) with your view of hybrid.

FW:So far as John 1:18 the text which you seemed to have ignored: the litteral interpreation of the word monogenes is the unique God, with the clear distinction from the Father. The Monogenes is by definition is eternal and distinct.

mlculwell: I reject your term! "The only begotten God" which denies Jesus real humanity and makes Jesus hybrid new species. Begotten is a term you are denying is in relation to his humanity thus your doctrine is Antichrist! was he the only begotten according to the flesh?

FW:No getting past the pinnacle text that defies your doctrine sooo clearly; John chapter 1. The text clearly says that the Son pre-existed the incarnation. I defy you to argue otherwise.

mlculwell: That is just what I am going to do! You cannot deny my argument by ignoring it! The Septuagint of John 1:1 calls the Word/Logos "the creator!" But how? clearly by the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. I have not changed my argument. the day you can make the word by the breath of god's mouth a pre-existent person of God is the day you will have an argument from John 1:1 and again Tyndale calls the word an *it.* Paul uses the term logos of two individuals evil plans(2nd. Tim.2:17)

FW:Lets finish this. First let me admit, that I like this dialoge and that I personally don't hold anything against you. I think you can be somewhat abrasive at times, but I hope that we can ultimatley treat one another with respect even we differ drastically theologically. With that said, allow me to deliver the deathblow to your doctrine of God; you'll find it below.

mlculwell: I am going to deal with your so called death blow in another post! and if you actually had a death blow you should have given in an argument here instead of simply giving a link to your so called death blow.

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity #2

2009-04-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

FW:Your explaination of Genesis 1:26 is ridiculous, here is why. You must either believe that the Genesis narritive is a historic account or that it is in some way metaphorical in its writing.

Mlculwell: I believe it is a historical account of creation! I gave the passages why God had no image to make man from. Jesus was the image of the invisible God! If Jesus were that God then he was also invisible and had no visible image in which to make man!

(Romans 5:14)is also an account of the creation of Adam and further expounds the Genesis account Adam who was(created)the figure(Image, Likeness) of him that was to come. You can say whatever you like and this does not fit your view but I care not!

FW:Did God actual say that what is written? Of course He did.

mlculwell: I have not denied that I Like the Genesis 1:26 passage just like it is but it can be compared to the other creation passages, one of those being found in (Romans 5:14)

FW:Therefore since the fall had not yet occured and the context of the passage has nothing to do with redemption, your argument is one of little basis.

mlculwell: The fall had not yet occurred But God in his omniscience knew what was going to happen and already spoke that he knew such.

FW:Perhaps it might have stood a chance if that were the only time the plural was used in reference to God by God. But as you well know this was no isolated incident. (Genesis 1:1, 3:22, 11:7-8,Isaiah 6:8.) For a relativley brief overview I will refer you to my post titled "The Triune God of the Old Testament."

mlculwell: I am not interested in your false view of the passages! If there were such a thing as a "triune God" then we would have found evidence from the Apostles writing about it, but no such doctrine exists in scripture anywhere only that which you think teaches such a ridiculous view.

Gen. 1:1 is no passage to use to prove a trinity if you refer to Elohim Satan is referred to as *elohim* there is not more that one satan.

Gen. 3:22, 11:7 and Isiah 6:8 can easily refer to God and the Angels and is typically how the Jews explain the passages and even Gen.1:26 but I tend to disagree with the view of that passage since Romans 5:14 explains so much, I gave the reasons as to why partly above and in the last reply.

FW:Using the greek OT to derive word meaning may not be the best way to go. Why not use the Hebrew? Perhaps it is because your reading into words becomes far more difficult.

mlculwell:I understand you not wanting me to use it as it does not fit with your interpretation of (John 1:10 but even Tyndale called the word/Logos an *it* Paul used the term in (2nd Tim. 2:17) of two individuals evil plans and if Paul knew that the word/logos was the pre-existent persons of Jesus I do not think he would have soiled it's usage as he did of those two evil individuals, do you? The fact is both John and Paul being Apostles and Jews would have Known the meaning of the word only trinity folk attribute a new meaning to it that has never been and it is a false view of the word.

FW:Time and time again the scripture expounds upon the fact that the Son came from heaven. He was sent from heaven. Never does the scripture say that the Father has come to earth, or that the Father has been manifest in the flesh.
(Heb 10:5, John 3:16-17, Gal 4:4, John 6:33)

mlculwell: (Gal. 4:4) clearly tells us how the son was sent GOD SENT FORTH HIS SON(HOW?) MADE OF A WOMAN, MADE UNDER THE LAW.

Clearly You have ignored passages and falsely interpreted them according to your doctrine and not the word of God.

John 6:51 is the greatest of all the passages to tell us How Jesus was sent and takes care of all the so called pre-existent passages, this is in the same context of the passage you submitted in (John 6:33) Tell us how you were sent Jesus please?

(JOHN 6:51)I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND THE BREAD I WILL GIVE(Which came from heaven) is my *FLESH*. Corruptible flesh(That which dies, neither goes there, or comes from there.) Jesus was saying *God provided his flesh as our sacrifice from heaven like he provided the manna in the wilderness.

FW:1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

mlculwell: Yes the above is a well established fact! John Knew the true God. he knew the word made flesh what he did not know is your false doctrine of a pre-existent "God the son." Jesus was made the true God because his flesh had a beginning.

(Acts 2:36) This same Jesus whom ye have crucified was M*A*D*E both Lord and Christ.

(1st.Cor.15:54) Jesus was M*A*D*E the life giving spirit.

(Math. 28:18) Jesus was G*I*V*E*N ALL power in both heaven and earth. If Jesus has it all nobody else can have any more because all, means all!

(John 3:34) Jesus Was G*I*V*E*N the Spirit by no measure. everything he had was given or he was made because his humanity had a beginning.

FW:So far as my use of Genesis 2:24; The verse was used to demonstrate the meaning of the Hebrew word one, and nothing else. Don't isogete my own writings please. I know it is hard, but contain yourself.

mlculwell: If you are referring to the Hebrew word *Echad* it is only used 65 times out of 965 times of a compound unity it is the first word a Hebrew child learns in counting just like our word is One you are interjecting your false doctrine.

FW:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

Tell me who walked with Adam, who appeared to Lot and Abram, who wrestled with Jacob?
Who spoke with Hagar? When was Christ at the side (or bosom) of the Father?

mlculwell: God in Theophany. God took upon him a temporary form that is all! That is the God though that incarnated the man or son Jesus. There was no "God the son."

FW:By the way, give me your expert exegesis on the verse below. After all your attitude suggests far superior wisdom to the likes of a simpleton like me.

Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

mlculwell: Okay! You just gave the passage that says "No man has seen God at *any time.*" There are plenty more passages that says the same thing. Stephen Saw Jesus at a place of Power and acceptance.. How do you get on the *right hand of a God* that is everywhere at the same time?

*Right hand of God* used in this passages shows that Stephen saw Jesus in his proper place, for it pleased the father that in him should all the fullness dwell(Col. 1:19) Right hand of God was used many times in the OT and taught it was a place of Power:

(Exodus 15:6-8,12-13) Right hand of God dashed enemies to pieces.

(Psalm 20:6,21:8) right hand of God shall find his enemies.

(Psalm 118:14-16) place of power.

It is also used of Jesus in the judgment Jesus sits on the throne Sheep Go to Jesus right hand(Acceptance... Math. 25:31)

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity

2009-04-14T08:17:00.000-07:00

I have chosen to answer a person calling himself: Faithful witness on a blog called *Day of reckoning* with a bunch of shallow arguments he posts on a regular basis that he somehow thinks destroys Oneness doctrine, nothing could be further from the truth.... So At the following
http://onenessheresy.blogspot.com/2009/03/author-has-made-statement-that-because.html#comment-form

I decided to bring his comment over to my blog and answer him just in case he would not have posted it.

FW:Adam preceded Jesus in the sense that he was a type or shadow of Jesus the second Adam. Oh, and by the way, "In the beginning The Word was with God."

Mlculwell:(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint *Greek of the OT*)the word/Logos came from the breath of God's... So the day you can make the word/Logos by the breath of God's mouth another person of God is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1) and concerning your so called argument On Adam being a type or shadow of Jesus...

(1st.Cor. 15: 45-46) Says: howbeit that was not first which was SPIRITUAL but that which is natural, AFTERWARD that which is spiritual. if Jesus already existed as another person it would be impossible for this passage to be worded the way it is! the passage is talking about the incarnation. God always existed as spiritual but the passage has Jesus coming after Adam and that is because Jesus did not pre-exist accept as his deity that of God the father and not "God the son."

FW:Two natures cannot communicate with each other. A man without a spirit is dead.
Your argument is ad hock.

mlculwell: If you can find where I argued for two natures in this I will print this out and eat it? the fact is I did not! I am not talking about two persons of God! I am talking about the real son of God who was a man and the real spirit who is the only God and Jesus as the real man was given that spirit by no measure.(John 3:34)

FW:I did not imply that the Godhead or Jesus is a result of a sexual union. It is the other way around, the relationship with a married couple is meant to mirror the relationship held within the Godhead between the Son and the Father.

mlculwell: You gave the scripture pointing to the unity like a husband and wife which can only be explained in a sexual union. you wrote the following:"Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they become one(echad) flesh. (esv, parenthesis mine)"

FW:Now let me ask you how many Lord's do you see here?

Psalm 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord:Sit at my right hand,until I make your enemies your footstool

mlculwell: The passage is a prophecy of the coming incarnation...It is also found in (Psalm 45:6) and (Hebrews 1:8-9) Did you purposely omit those facts or was that an accident? Because the both says: God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. How does God have a God and fellow God's? The fact is the first part deals with his deity in the incarnation the other part deals with his humanity being incarnated By the One LORD above all men (Isa. 11:2, John 3:34, Rev. 5;6)

I initially dealt with your false view of Gen.1:26 where God said let us make man in our image after our likeness. God was not speaking to another person of God! God was already giving us a glimpse of the incarnation and included the son(His real sinless son man) in the incarnation when he said let us as God was invisible that no man ever saw nor could see(John 1:18,5:37,1st. Tim.1:17,) Jesus is the Image of the invisible God that Adam who came before Jesus was created..(Col.1:15, Romans 5:14)

The dishonesty of the Carm Board

2009-04-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

I will no longer be frequenting Matt Slicks Carm Boards as they have a hypocritical double standard for the Oneness folks and for Trinity folks. The Oneness group is under the heading of Cults therefore when I point out the trinity folks are actually cultic which is another word for saying *false prophet* or *heresy* I have gotten infractions for calling names, therefor I no Longer want any part of the hypocritical group and have asked to be removed! They want to be able to call us names only with us not afforded that luxury! Sorry, I do not play that way. Just the way I see it though!

John 1:1 according to the Oneness position

T.D.Jakes, the Elephant Room, and Roger Perkins thoughts of the DL Program.

Roger Perkins' Response to the Charges of Jeffrey Krause:

Roger Perkins answers a recent AOMIN article.

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

James White Roger Perkins Debate Audio

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White Part II

An Open Response to James White from Roger Perkins

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

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

The name Jesus

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

John 17:5 Revisited

Debate Roger Perkins versus James White. Australia.

The rest of the Reeves Versus Perkins debate

Debate J N Anderson and Michael Burgos

Debate Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves

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

Trinity versus Oneness debate

A Closed (Lecture) from a trinitarian on Oneness

Matt Slick and the Reformed take the truth of God and change it into a lie

My Audio debate with LimeyBob of the UK

John Calvin Fact ?

Roger Perkins(UPC )versus Glen Burt(COC)

Audio Debate Oneness versus Trinity

James White continues to spread Lies while crying liar

Dr.Whites Quote

The definite article before Logos.

My Debate on paltalk with LimeyBob

Part 1 Baptism of grace through faith and not Torah

We are One, coming from heaven.

Only begotten (sired and born) son, or only begotten eternal son

Carm? As I shake my head in disblief at some of the questions of ignorance

John 3:5 Baptismal regeneration?????

Discussion with Michael who denies Jesus real Humanity, saying: "Jesus does not have a human spirit."

Tongues,TurretinFan, and Trinity versus Oneness

Turretinfan follows James White in his Lies and deceit

Trinitarain Blogger proves his doctrine Polytheism

James Swan of AoMin. attempts to excuse John Calvin's sin

James White creatively misleads.... Bloggers follow

Bloggers failed attempt to correct Dr.Bernard

Chalcedon denial of the humanity of Jesus

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

James White and the Forgotten Trinity , Better Forgotten.

God is organized and Logical

Silly,God prays to God?

Charismatic Starts preaching Acts 2:38, rejects Mental assent

Calvinsim Good preaching?I think not!

My Harangue.

Many are called but Few chosen

Revised A total lack of common sense. We were chosen in him from the foundation of the world

This is precious, wrong but precious all the same..

The son of man and John 6:62

The Word from John 1:1 trinitarain, or Oneness?

Polycarp trinitarian?

Test my doctrine according to historical men?

J. L. Watts rightly points out some errors of Faithful witness

Irenaeus and his four persons and faithful witness

James White Excuses John Calvin's sin

Blogger Faithfulwitnes ignorance is boundless!

Once again!

New nonsense from faithful witness

More nonsense and Fw's last Hurah!

More nonsense from Faithfulwitness the death blow!

The so called death blow to Oneness:Love

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity#3

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity #2

Day of Reckoning of the false doctrine of the Trinity

The dishonesty of the Carm Board

The Trinitarian view of Makers(plural) is polytheism