Father/Son questions for Oneness From Carm

1. Did the Father and Jesus His Son exist in relationship to one another and in relationship with one another during the three days between the Son's death and resurrection?
 
A. Yes 

Answer: Yes and no! The son of God existed as a genuine man and the Father existed simultaneously. The One God and  man were not 2 persons of God. More details later.
 
B. No 

Answer: No! There was no "god the son" with the Father upon Jesus death. It was the son of God a genuine human spirit that left the body along with God's divine Spirit.

2. If your answer is "Yes": Exactly how did they exist in relationship to and with one another? (please explain clearly). 

Answer: Since Oneness has a genuine man and one single only God the Father who incarnated the man(2nd. Cor. 5:19) it would be Just like they did simultaneously in the incarnation. As one genuine man and one genuine God incarnating the genuine man.

3. If your answer is "No"
 

 Answer: No "god the son" did not exist with  God the Father. It was the son of God, the One who was born of Mary.

A. What exactly happened to the Son the Father had existed in relationship to and with before His death on the cross?

Answer:The same thing that happens to all genuine men and women ie.  Christians who die. 

(1st John 3:2)

² Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

(1st. Cor.15:20)But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

(Romans 8:11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

B. In light of your answer to "A," what exactly does "resurrection" mean to you and how was the resurrection of the Son accomplished (where did this "Son" who did not exist in relationship to and with during the three days come from to be resurrected)?

Answer: The son was resurrected the same way as Christians. The spirit of God entered back into the son. God was still God and the son's divine Spirit but the son was a genuine man who could not die without  both the divine  spirit and human spirit existing in his body (Eccl.3:21, James 2:26)

This highlights a fundamental flaw in the Layman's doctrine as he told me on carm he believes Jesus had 2 Spirits; 1 human and 1 divine which in my estimation gives him 4 persons and then the little problem of what happened to Jesus human spirit at death? 
These questions are good questions for both the Oneness position and the trinity in revealing what strengths and weaknesses both doctrines have. It is not God the Father  pretending to be a man, and it is not God the son pretending to be a man, and in the way we answer these questions with our respective positions will prove who has the stronger doctrine of the two. The question reveals the weakness of the Trinitarian position as their Jesus has no actual human spirit but a "god the son" spirit animating a body and pretending to be a man as the trinity would have too many persons. In all fairness; In reading the answers on Carm from the Oneness position, I was greatly disappointed in all of the answers even from posters I respected in the past who had no valid answers for the Oneness position; but basically God the Father was pretending to be a man (Apollonarianism).

I was amused by the question but thought I should answer them for the questioner since he had never seen a Oneness person answer them. 

These Questions were taken from a poster known as The  Layman.

 Are You A Baptismal Regenerationist?

I am trying to go back to the basics and help people understand that water baptism without the name Jesus  invoked gets you nothing but wet.

And when people call us  Baptismal regeneration-ist or we try and say we are" baptismal regeneration-ist." It is really about us being either ignorant on that subject or not being careful enough in our language.

There is no way for a Oneness person to be a baptismal regeneration-ist since we believe we must be born again of the water and of the spirit and being born of one is not being born of the other. You cannot be born again without both.In other words we do not believe you get that Spirit of God at belief automatically(Acts 19:2) Paul asked have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Letting us know that no you do not automatically receive upon belief!

 or at repentance (Acts 2:38) or upon Water Baptism in Jesus name(Acts 10:45) They that received the spirit were COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

Since we are here let's talk about why One is not the other. There are basically 3 views of being born of the water in scripture. They go something like this: the first would be that being born again of the water is the word somehow instead of being born of the water according to the word.

 Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.of the water

^{1 Peter 1: 23} Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

These short arguments are not in any way exhaustive but are to help us think about the subject and I would be glad to converse with anyone who seems to think being born of the water is anything short of  water baptism in Jesus name.

One cannot be born again according to God's word and then reject God's word. In other words hear it and not act upon by obedience.(Romans 10: 13-17)  Example: God told Abraham to get out of his country and go to a place that he would show him. If Abraham would have said I believe you God but did not act upon God's word then Abraham did not show any belief in God's word and we would have never heard of Abraham.

 Acts 2:38 is God's word and to understand it incorrectly is just as bad as not doing it willfully.
Jesus himself said the following. 

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Think about Acts 2:38 in your interpretation of John 20:23? How do interpret the above passage in your tradition?How could the disciples forgive another sins? The Oneness Pentecostal view sees Jesus introducing the disciples to the teaching of remission of sins through and in Jesus name in water baptism.

Luke 24:47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The fulfillment of the above passage is found in Acts 2:38 and proclaims Acts 2:38 as the gospel salvation message for all times. later we see that all of the elements of Acts 2:38 is the salvation message to the Corinthian church. The name Jesus In water baptism washed them and the Spirit sanctified them.

1 Cor. 6:11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Another view says being born of the water is amniotic fluid. Can you imagine the contradictory redundancy? You must be born to born again? In contrast to what alternative? Being still born?

  The biblical view is that the name called or invoked is the element in water baptism that remits sin not water Baptism alone.  I would like to make the disclaimer that no passage of scripture is going to be exhaustive in having every element we need to understand the subject in a single short passage.  All the scriptures in the New Testament concerning baptism should be considered. Likewise if you wanted to know about God you would not isolate a single passage in a vacuum but consider all of the subject of God in the word to find out who He is. Likewise the same should be done for all doctrines and especially where baptism is concerned.

So if that were the case and we also believe you must receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues then there is absolutely no way we can be water baptismal regeneration-ist. That would prop up the idea we are saved at water baptism no matter how it is performed. The name Jesus invoked over a repentant believer is the factor we must agree upon and reject everything else as non- scriptural.

God Bless!

 The Father of God

Just got a great argument by listening to the Dividing Line Program and the look on Dr.White's face when a caller identified a question he got from a Jehovah's Witness(Yes Not my own argument but a good one none the less) Dr. White was asked the question or given the comment which goes something like this. (The Father is never called the Father of God) Which would be their exact argument In contrast to Jesus being called the son of God which they use as a term of divinity. Think about it?

Sheep and Goats 

This idea of sheep and goats of the bible seems to expose the false doctrine of Calvinism. The whole idea that bible typology seems to shed some light on the thinking of Calvinism. I once told a Calvinist in a conversation online:" that sheep were once goats." To which they were very concerned about the whole idea and were surprised that I would say such a thing. Most Calvinists believe we are born sinful and inherit sin thus we  must be born goats instead of being born little innocent sinless lambs. Later when we grow and commit the act of sin either by committing sin willfully by knowing  what we are doing is wrong or by omission, failure to do that which is right.(Which a baby has no capacity to know either) we then become a goat and stay in that state until we receive remission of sins.

Repentance is not Forgiveness.

The  majority of the nominal world believes you are forgiven of your sins at repentance.The fact remains you are not forgiven of your sins at repentance at least not initially; it is not forgiveness, but after the new birth when a child of God might sin it is forgiveness. Initial repentance is actually a death to your old self and ways. Any person can feel the need of desiring a change it usually comes after hearing a message preached of the good news of the Lord Jesus Christ in just about any church, it does not matter which; God will Honor preaching in any church concerning the message if it is affective enough. Repentance if heartfelt and sincere brings about a desire to never  want to visit the sin you repent of again. It prepares the heart for more and is a figure or type of death to the old ways. Just as we would have no hope if Jesus did not raise from the dead we have no hope if we stay just dead/ repented.  The next thing you do with a dead person is bury the dead person. 

The dead person is not really dead.

The Oneness perspective  of salvation is consistent with the gospel message of the life, death, burial, and resurrection, of the Lord Jesus Christ and identifies with those aspects individually in our  own lives as repentance/death, Burial/Baptism, and resurrection/reception of the Holy Ghost speaking with other tongues as the spirit gives the evidence.

Most of the language used in the scriptures are types and shadows and figures of the true. Goats/Dead and Sheep/Alive are not literally either.

Calvinists will make a big deal about the person being dead in their trespasses and have no ability to call-out for God since they are dead and actually be able to respond to the preaching of the gospel and thus their argument that God makes you a believer. They actually use (1st Cor.12:9) and the nine spiritual gifts and in particular the gift of faith as a proof text that God somehow gives you faith  that you cannot possess as a dead person so that you can be saved. It  seems mind boggling that God would give you one gift and not any of the others. I would say that none of those are for the spiritless unregenerate person who does not possess the Holy Ghost and that the gift of faith is a gift over and above saving faith. Saving faith is something God permits by his grace so that we can enter into the new covenant. Once again for my Calvinist readers: the dead person is not literally dead; but spiritually dead.

 A Dead Person Can Respond

  The dead person or the Dead/goat can respond and stop being defiant and a rebellious goat to respond to the grace of God through the preaching of the Gospel. (Romans 10:4-17) The Calvinist will claim they do not know who God chose before time through his irresistible grace and predestination to be saved so they preach to everyone hoping to find who God chose or the diamond in the rough.

 Romans 10 is very telling about who can have faith by the grace of God through the preaching of the gospel. It is both clear and simple. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.It is the natural order of things God set into motion. Our own faith is not helping God as the Calvinist falsely claims it is the grace of God. No amount of our will would do anything if it were not for the grace of God. Of course  the seed of faith  falls upon all kinds of ground in this life and can be choked and destroyed by the elements: bad ground, lack of water, and weeds. Again, It is through the sovereign work and grace of God who afforded us this ability and it is not something we work for. By the grace of God we see other natural workings. God allowed things to continue in their natural order.
 Now back to this idea of repentance being salvation in the church world today.  If we came to Life spiritually upon repentance/death we would have nothing more to worry about we simply would be saved as that is what salvation is, coming back to life spirtually is it not?

 A dead/goat can become a Live/sheep and you can pass from death to life because that is what the grace of God accomplished through and in the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing about  new and better way.

 

 Only Begotten God or Only Begotten Son?

I must make this disclaimer because their will be those who accuse me of being a King James only proponent for which I am not one, nor can I be, because the Greek was not, but the KJB is my favorite, and I am more than little bias toward it because of starting my Christian walk reading it’s pages. I am very sure to see  criticism because of posting this honest look at the two uses of John 1:18 in history. I am  pretty sure of the criticism I will receive  because of being so critical of the popular rendering of John 1:18 monogenes theos or only begotten God, and the claim of those as the earliest manuscript rendering but I do not care! I will speak what I see, and observe, and you can do with it what you will. The rendering in my opinion "only begotten God" is pure polytheism.

The earliest Greek manuscripts nobody quoted from in a so-called early church history until after Nicea.

 I  like to make the quick disclaimer that I do not believe these men were part of the early church simply because we have writings from these men who claim to be Christians and those that would claim them as such either. Because someone was closer to Jesus times does not automatically make him or her teach truth. We are not told to follow men in history who make wild claims or even speak truth. Examples of that idea would be of two men who lived at the same time in the 16^th century and who held completely different views concerning the nature of God and who he is. I am of course talking about  John Calvin and Michael Servetus. There is no way to prove or disprove what they speak is truth unless it is compared to what scripture says.  Only one came actually speaking truth and that was Jesus, he proved he was truth personified with all the miracles and good he did in the prophecies concerning him. If we follow him, and those whom he sent we cannot be wrong.

Only after the council of Nicea will you find “only begotten God” instead of only begotten Son for John 1:18 being quoted. Before that time nobody who is called a (so-called) “church Father” says anything about an “only begotten God.” Again the disclaimer must be made that these men to whom I am quoting are not because I am trying to show they taught truth. I do not believe they are teaching truth when compared to scripture. I am quoting them to see the text they used in quoting scripture. Hymeaneus and Philetus (2^nd Tim. 2:17) are two very good examples I like to use of men that existed in The Apostles time; who were right there with the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles, but yet somehow managed to teach false doctrine. How much more so those removed many years afterward, and we are also told that the Lord would not return until there was a great falling away from truth.

A Few Examples From History of Only Begotten Son Quoted from John 1:18

Tertullian (212) In Against Praxeas

"Well, (I must again ask, ) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him[ Against Praxeas].

 John 1:1 Now the word of life became flesh, and was heard, and seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was "the word in the beginning with God" the Father, John1:1-2 and not the Father with the word. For although the word was God. Yet was He with God because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. “And we have seen His Glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father: (John 1:14) that is, of course,(the glory) of the Son, even Him who was invisible, and was glorified by the invisible Father.

We see above Tertullian lacked any depth of thought in dealing with  Praxeas, but that is par for the course in dealing with Trintiarains  today.  In spite of  his opinion added to the text  you will notice how Tertullian quotes John 1:18....

Athanasius (357) says the following concerning John 1:18

It has been shown above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this.... John in saying, “The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does “in the bosom” intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father?

There are so many witnesses that quote only begotten son as a viable rendering instead of only begotten God.

Augustine 430 only begotten son

Ambrose “ ” ” 389

Chrysotom “ “ “389

Alexander “ “ “ 324

Ignatius “ “ “ 110

There are some from history who quote both *only begotten God*, and *only begotten Son*. Some of those are claimed to be Arians, and Trinitarians in history, and some even ancient Oneness. We cannot be sure of any of this. Could it be corruption or something else? Could both uses be correct?  It certainly should be carefully considered. God cannot be One God and be  both begotten and non begotten; there cannot be any distinction made between begotten God, and non begotten God, or we are not talking about one God. The only solution that remedies this polytheistic problem is the Oneness answer and the solution is  that the rendering must be only begotten Son in reference to his genuine humanity and the virgin Birth as God manifest in the flesh.

CS Lewis said  God beget God?.

To beget is to become the Father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue, which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive. Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man.

There simply is only one God. God did not pass his gene and make a copy of himself and beget that way. God gave the genuine man and his only miraculously sired Son his own spirit sharing his divinity with his genuine only begotten Son in the incarnation.

Only begotten Son refers to God siring miraculously.

As you can see above the ridiculous idea that abounds, and to be fair not all believe this farce, but I have heard it so many times this very idea from Trinitarians. Only begotten God is more appealing to some Trinitarians because they actually believe it is a trinity proof when it is nothing more than thoughtless polytheism, and those who attempt to force the reading are not doing any service to the cause of Christianity.  

 What if it is true? Well then you would think that the more thinking people (Apologists) would put it out there. People Like Dr. James White who will quote the Greek Mongenes  theos( pronounced Mono ganaze thay ‘os) but will not much render the reading as only begotten God for the obvious reasons I pointed out, and they know they will be called on it.

Earliest Greek manuscripts do not mean the best. But why did these men whom I quoted not use the supposed earliest Greek manuscripts renderings with boldness?

It seems in my estimation to tone down the obvious result of the charge of polytheism. Should that not be alarming?

Only begotten Son refers only to the virgin birth, and God miraculously siring the Son by overshadowing the virgin. (Matthew 1:21) 

As a side note and this will not cost the reader anything accept for a minute or two of time, but you will also hear a protest from the trinity bunch  of the rendering concerning the word made that the KJB employs for instance in John 1:3  where all things were made by him. Some renderings have all things have become by him instead of made which seems a little strange to say the least, and is highly suspect in my estimation for the rendering so as in my opinion to get us to forget about the KJB 'rendering "the word was made flesh," but rather the word became flesh.  What that tiny suspect nuance does is get us to think the word was a person and changed from one thing into another on it’s own or “ god the son’s” own, instead of God making and carrying out his plan for the ages by the breath of his mouth as the word pertaining to God speaking it and it holds fast. The word is with Jesus as God manifest in the flesh. Jesus as God in flesh wields the power of the word/Logos as both the creative and judgment power that is intended. This is all for another posting at a later date.

 Back to the subject of the only begotten God versus only begotten Son.  There is the one tiny problem of the scriptures as evidence and that never refers to Jesus as the only begotten God anywhere, but supposedly only once in John 1:18 and in the other passages refers to him as the only begotten Son which are as follows: John 1:14 the only begotten God of God/Father, which sounds ridiculous. Of course John 1:18 true rendering would be the only begotten Son, John 3:16  the only begotten Son,  John 3:18 only begotten Son. 1^st John 4:9  the only begotten Son.

Some will say that he is the only one of kind God and then try and say that Jesus is the only begotten God but then what does that make the other two non- begotten God kinds? Very contradictory in every-place you go with this bad idea. Something future apologists should give consideration to think about.

Answering Eisegesis Edward Dalcour.

 I am not trying to sound mean spirited in using the title, but thought I would give Edward Dalcour a taste of his own medicine. In a recent radio interview you can listen to here [Apologiaradio] with Dalcour concerning the debate Roger Perkins had with Dr. James White in Brisbane Australia in 2011. Dalcour resorted to name calling of Roger Perkins for what he considered as a dodge concerning Dr. White’s questioning of John 17:5. We expect Trinitarians not to like the answers we give, and call them “dodges.” We can make the same claims. I for one am very satisfied with the debate that took place and it did whole lot for our side of the issue. Of course you will never hear Dalcour say a thing about James White’s argument concerning the supposed one God with three separate-centers of consciousness (Which is conceptual tritheism) he propped up in the debate.

One of the things I see a lot on Apologetic sites and hear on radio programs and forums are misrepresentation of what Oneness actually teaches about God. It is absurd to hear a Trinitarian try and represent the Oneness view in any meaningful way that their folks could actually engage in real discussion. We actually welcome the uninformed apologetics they use because it makes it easier for us in discussion. Edward Dalcour is a self-proclaimed expert on Oneness, if you go to his site here [Link]you will see his ridiculous apologetics arguments. One argument on his site Dalcour boasts:" Oneness claims Jesus was his own Father."  Actually no, we do not make that claim! Trinitarian’s make that claim about us and there is a big difference in saying it and actually proving it. Dalcour talks a big talk but has never actually debated anyone Oneness in polemic platform that I am aware of. 

Of course one of the first things Dalcour said on the radio program was that Oneness misrepresents the doctrine of the trinity by saying:" the trinity is polytheism or that three persons are three gods." That is true, we say the trinity is three gods. However, it is not true we misrepresent the doctrine and this is why; The Hindu three persons are three gods: Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma.  Trinity doctrine will be quick to say that Hinduism is polytheism, but not before making a side note to throw you off of their scent so that you forget the main point. They will say something to the effect:" well they have many gods." So? Let’s not lose sight of the issue. The point is their three persons are three gods. What is the difference?   What they will do is protest vehemently but not say how their doctrine is any different.

The point can be made both sides can misrepresent one another and both can make the claim we are being misrepresented, but who is really misrepresenting whom? I gave the two examples above from each respective discipline but let’s take a look and see if what is being said is unfounded or true? We know the Trinitarian does not believe they are polytheists but their own words and doctrine betray them.

John 17:5 a closer Look

What really happened in John 17:5? Well, for starters who would believe a flesh and blood man living in Jesus time claiming that he pre-existed with God the Father before the world existed? We already see the Jews were going to stone him because they saw only a man claiming equality with the one and only God they knew, which was the Father. (John 10:30-39) Anyone witnessing this event would have thought Jesus crazy.  Matt Slick a Trinitarian and founder of carm.org says the following concerning the Communicatio Idiomatum in John 17:5.  Latin for communication of the divine and human properties.   [Carm]

Notice here that Jesus, the person, is laying claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was.  Jesus is laying claim to the attribute of pre-existence before the world was created.  How can Jesus, the man, lay claim to this since Jesus, the man, didn't exist until He was born on earth? The answer is that Jesus, the person, has two natures: divine and human and the attributes of the divine nature were ascribed to the single person of Christ.

This all illustrates my point that they take literal only parts of what Jesus says to prove pre-existence in John 17:5. The above illustrates and also highlights the exact teaching of Oneness doctrine.

Literal language and throw away what you do not want of John 17

Jesus says in one place: I am no more in the world  (But was he?) (Verse 11) While I was with them in the world I kept them and none of them is lost accept Judas. (Verse 12) Are you getting this? A flesh and blood man standing before them in the world saying he was not in the world and he pre-existed. (Most of the hearers would have no idea he was talking about a kingdom they could not see) Most would consider him a liar as a man standing and saying he pre-existed. But you will notice he says literally he was in his kingdom even though he was not that anyone could see, although his divinity put him there, and neither were his disciples, but they were going to be. Jesus also talks about his glory he has given to them, but has given them nothing. (verse 22) He did not literally give them his glory any more than he literally pre-existed with the Father, but that is the very language Jesus uses because as God in flesh it is going to happen.

The glory with the Father was his passion or Jesus being slain

Trinitarian's have glossed over John 17:5 so many times before in the past, and it is easy to  read something without giving it much thought. Not only did the disciples not as yet receive his glory (as it did not actually happen.) The Glory was his passion. The glory he had with the Father was that which all creation had been waiting upon. The plan of God executed out of eternity into such a time as this for the redemption of mankind. This literal language actually betrays the doctrine of the Trinity. John establishes these facts and proves the Oneness doctrine in Revelation 13:8 as he calls Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus was no more a literal Lamb than he were literally slain or that he literally existed in eternity past as such.  John bares witness again to the truth of the glory as the plan of God for the redemption of mankind when he records Jesus proclamation if any man thirst let him come unto me and drink but this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified.(John 7:39)

Confusing the Communicatio Idiomatum

Dalcour says "Oneness believe I was once the Father and Now I am the Son." This has been dealt with many times in the past and is absolutely not true whatsoever. Oneness proclaims that God/Father and man/son are simultaneous and both are found in Jesus. We do not confuse the incarnation and put the Son back at creation because the Son was born of Mary. The miracle of the incarnation calls upon those things in Jesus ie. His divinity that of God the Father incarnating the man. The multitudes saw Jesus do miracles; and Jesus proclaims that truth In John 14:10 the Father that dwells in me, he does the works and miracles you see me do. The miracle of the incarnation made the Son born of Mary the creator that the Trinitarian confuses, even though he did not exist.(Romans 4:17) We actually explain the creation through Jesus the same way The trinity doctrine does.(See above how the Communicatio Idiomatum is confused when it is convenient) .

The Trinitarian does not say the man born of Mary created because he was not back there; they say his deity created and yet still attribute everything to the whole person of Jesus.  That is the same thing we do although we do not believe the non- extra-biblical doctrine of “god the Son.” Jesus is one person, both God and man at the same time. Jesus divinity is the One God of the Old Testament. The totality of that one God is called the Father in Malachi 2:10. The difference we have is because of the incarnation, and who we believe that God was that incarnated the man. That sounds strange to a Trinitarian because they do not really believe Jesus was a man.

Lumping the Cults

 Dalcour then takes a prophecy and says of the Son, as the Father spoke to the Son in  what they claim as “pre-existence” your throne oh God is forever.( Hebrews 1:9 taken from Psalm 45:7) Dalcour fails to mention this a prophecy of the coming incarnation. Hebrews 1 the Father calls Jesus, God, which is a powerful fact that proclaims the incarnation; not God speaking to God, which is blatant polytheism; but rather God calling the man and Son born of Mary, God in the coming incarnation. Of course Dalcour plays on the emotions of the Trinitarians by lumping Oneness together with Muslims and JW's and Mormons. Muslims do not believe Jesus is God, we do! JW's do not believe Jesus is God, we do! Mormons are polytheists most like Trinitarians who believe in the three persons at least in this universe just like the trinity; but have other gods of other universes and worlds. Three persons are simply three gods.

Trinitarian Lip service to Jesus genuine humanity

Dalcour asks how in the world could Jesus be God if God is one person? Well Ed, the same way you say he is both God and man and is still one person. Would you like to talk about that?  We actually believe it; you simply give lip service to it.  Oh and by the way; we have no more gods, but One God, and that is God in flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

He briefly gives lip service to Jesus humanity in passing and claims all the passages that say so such as Mark 13:32 where Jesus says he does not know the time of his own second coming but the Father Only knows that fact. Which I did not hear a hint of mention that only the Father knew as God. In my opinion in dealing with Trinitarians This is the greatest weakness of the trinity doctrine which is something 1st John 4:2 deals with in depth and actually calls those who deny Jesus humanity Antichrist. My suspicions are they give the lip service because of the passage but when pinned down they are very careful because it would give them too many persons.

God with God?

Then they discuss the monotheism of the Jews and how that there is one God and the strict Monotheism of the OT. Neither of which talks about a trinity nor exegetes as the radio host says proclaims the trinity and more than one person of God. Dalcour brings up (Genesis 19:24 ) How YHWH rains down fire from YHWH.  Dalcour of course is proclaiming what he thinks are two YHWH’s and establishing as thinks is the trinity. Two YHWH’s are two gods in my own estimation. I have my Jewish English version Davis H Stern which says: that God (Adonai) rains down fire from (Adonai). .….Adonai is a word that means Lord or Father. Simply put God!  As David Bernard says in his book the Oneness of God concerning (Genesis 19:24) it is a literary tool or  “the reiteration or restatement of emphasis” (Bernard 154). There are not two Adonai’s (Fathers or YHWH’s) of course the Trinitarian will seize upon any opportunity to find Trinitarianism that simply does not exist anywhere in the bible. Many times you will hear the Trinitarian say:” God was with God” in John 1:1 and Dalcour is famous for it, but does not recognize it is a polytheistic interpretation which is symptomatic of not having the spirit of God to lead and guide through the scriptures.

 John1: 1 The Only begotten God and the other two non begotten Gods

John 1:1 Dalcour admits his confusion by making the statement that John 1:3 -14 should be read back into verse 1 and son is interchangeable with the Greek word logos/word which is false doctrine. Dalcour twists what is said in John 1:1 based on him reading the pronoun he  in the other verses ignoring the fact the he was he to whom John handled and seen as God in flesh. What he is admitting is that he makes no distinction between the son born of Mary. He then says:" the word was always there" which again is truth because God cannot be God without his power or spoken creative word.(Psalm 33:6) He then again says:" the word was the Son" something the scripture does not  actually claim.  His name is called the word of God. (Revelation 19:13)  His name is also called wonderful but wonderful or counsellor from ( Isaiah.9:6 ) are not persons anymore than God's word is a person. You will notice it does not say he is the word of God but that his name is called the word of God. The word of God is his power that he wields as God in flesh. They then use John 1:1 to say the Son/word was with the Father in eternity. He then goes to the Greek preposition *pros* Pros ton theon we now have peace with God and say that it is “face to face” in eternity without proving the word was “god the son” all by hoping you do not actually call him on reading the pronoun he back into John 1:1 and Dalcour says John declares it perfectly.  I say John declares No such thing, and I deal with this in another post here:(Burgos Error) and the word was with God, and the word was God.  Yes the word was God as the word pertains to God in a qualitative sense that belongs to God actually destroying trinity doctrine. They actually read the word as a person holding the qualitative sense when the word belongs to God and cannot be separated from God. Jesus as God in the incarnation wields that power and quality of the word in judgment as God in flesh and cannot be separated from it.  Dalcour then makes another blunder and admits he is a polytheist by giving the interpretation of Monogense theos  or as  Dalcour forces * only begotten God* in contra-distinction to the other two non begotten gods.(Which is conceptual tritheism) This all goes back to the error of God being with God and clearly being two gods and tritheism.

Then close toward the end of the interview we hear again supposed errors Roger Perkins made in abuse of sources, which can also be pointed out of Dr. White, but of course will not be highlighted in the interview. White said of Col.1: 15 the Greek *Dia was in the dative when it was in the genitive.

They will be quick to point to small mistakes that Perkins might have made, but excuse their own and not give a mention. Humans make mistakes all the time, and it does not prove for one side or the other in a debate to concede to the other side the debate.  This is all part and parcel to Dalcour's ad-hom style & ridicule is one of several reasons Perkins does not even really acknowledge Dalcour - Roger Perkins simply does not take him seriously.

We know hundreds of Oneness pastors that are very satisfied with the debate outcome and thought that White submitting that the God of the Bible with 3   separate centers of consciousness in the way he understands it was a clear admition that the Trinity God is as we suspect pure polytheism, and he solidified it for us in the debate.

  Does God Intercede to God on our Behalf?

How many gods does it take to screw in a light bulb? I know the old joke seems kind of irreverent but it needs to be said; because no longer does the trinitarian simply say:" God is three persons" but you will now  hear very often in addition to " God is three persons" ( 3 persons are Something scripture, nor any writer of any books of the Bible mentioned.)"God is with God" and unashamedly so. This is conceptual tritheism at it's worst, and blatantly so.

 No God does not intercede for us in the presence of God! Jesus died Once for all. That means his sinless sacrifice was the intercession on our behalf. It fulfills what God demanded for sin once for all.(Hebrews 10:5-7)

                   ⁵ Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
⁶ with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
⁷ Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, my God.

 Note He said: in the world; not in eternity as another person of God but in the world. I have come to do your will.(Not my human will) but your God will. You will also notice  the prophecy says:"My God." The Oneness position understands these prophecies Such as (Psalm 45:7KJV) as incarnation-al and not of pre-existent conversations between God.

 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.                        

 The Psalm passage prophetically claims that he is God, but is he a different God from his own God? This is where the trinitarian keeps making the same distinction error because of the incarnation. Jesus is that same one God and what  is prophetically in Psalm 45:7 as it refers to the coming incarnation.  The very same incarnation the psalm passage and Later Hebrews 1:9 quotes from. It was Jesus divinity; that of God the Father that incarnated him as son, that also pre-existed.(John14:10)
Jesus  was not only the priest  but was  the lamb sacrificed ie. his sinless flesh. That same sinless flesh sacrificed is what pleads our case in his priestly duties. However, it does not mean the son stands and begs God in eternity.  What the trinitarian means is that God somehow begs himself (One person as God) in the presence of himself(the other person of God) in eternity on our behalf. Does it need to be said that the very idea is silly anti-biblical doctrine?

                                                            Even the son?

 The trinitarian will be quick to say that the son of God is a term of divinity. The son even if he were a god the son as god he did not know the time of his own second coming.The trinitarian will confuse the incarnation misinterpreting, misapplying, and misquoting a passage in (John 10:30-39) to  attempt to prove the doctrine.

"I and my Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be equal to God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

The trinitarain will attempt to say that they understood the phrase and term:" son of God" meant he was claiming divinity and this would be known to them but careful reading of the text reveals no such thing. They clearly stated they saw a man claiming equality with the father ie. God. Now that is some fancy twisting of the text to come up with such a fanciful trick. Jesus said he and the father were One. A union of God(The Father) and son as in the incarnation.

We see Jesus had a limited Mind in (Mark 13:32.) No man knows the hour, or the day, of Jesus second coming no not the Angels, or even the son, but the Father Only. There is that distinction of minds and knowing. How could Jesus not know something as God? You say he is "God the son" but the passage said he did not know the time of his second coming. The trinitarian says it was the self imposed limitation which is truth, but the son or genuine humanity incarnated by God the father was that self imposed limitation. However It was not "god the son" imposing limitation. Again, Jesus genuine humanity and sonship incarnated by God was that limitation. He could have called ten thousand Angels at anytime to do his bidding as God in the flesh  but chose to accomplish the work or will of the father.

God did not have two or three God minds or wills. He had 1 ultimate God mind and will and 1 limited human mind in the incarnation. Again, that is not two minds of God, or two human minds. The trinitarian seems to disregard the incarnation and confuse that in Jesus and that is where they run into trouble with conceptual tritheism in trying to force the trinity doctrine upon scripture.

 (Hebrews 9:11-15)But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

There is One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.(1st.Tim.2:5)

The Absurdity of Trinity Doctrine. Does God Pray?

 From Carm.Org link to forums.carm.org a trinitarain poster  wrote and ignores the following answer in reference to the Oneness claim that the  genuine man Jesus was praying to the one God that both Incarnated him, and who was still literally on the throne in heaven :

The poster then says:"You have God praying to himself or a sham. Please explain." 

The writer then dishonestly writes the following in reply to his own from Oneness adherent and How  that Jesus was both God and man at the same time and that a distinction must be made in Jesus as  both David's son(Man) and David's LORD(God) concerning the incarnation.

 He then   adamantly rejects the answer and says:"This is not about Jesus, per se, but God in totality." 

I would first pose how that this person thoughtlessly shoots himself in the foot with the question, and has God praying to himself.  I would then remind him that even the Chalcedon confession which I personally put zero stock in and reject the majority of as un-scriptural; says the following:

"for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person."

 In Layman's terms the trinitarain confession says: there is a distinction in his human nature and his divine  nature(Which Oneness adherents maintain) although Oneness states with scripture  his divinity is the Father that incarnates the son and makes the son God. As Malachi 2:10 states: the totality of God is called the Father and not a person of "the trinity." ( Isa.9:6, Malachi 2:10,Math.28:18, Acts 2:36,John 14:10)

Most of the questions posed and presented by trinitarains  affect their own doctrines as much or more than it does the Oneness. For example, take their argument and accusation of "patripassianism"  or the accusation that we must hold the doctrine that "The father died" which is just as thoughtless as the former argument directed toward Oneness. Any God dying or praying is just as bad as the other whether it is the son dying as god or the father dying as God and Oneness do not teach that God as father or son died but the body and genuine humanity that God incarnated died. The very problem is highlighted in the Chalcedon creed that says:" Mary was the Mother of God" In one instance the creed says divinity and humanity is "inconfusedly" and in another confuses and makes no distinction with the mother of God quote.

What is the lesson here then? Well both trinitarains and Oneness in arguing their points better make sure to choose their answers carefully. And No, God does not pray; nor does he have need to pray because he has nothing higher in the way of having a God which then screams of polytheism! God no more prays  any more   than Mary was the mother of God! Both questions are distinction errors. Yes Jesus is God, and yes Jesus is man at the same time, Both David's son, and David's God or LORD. The scripture makes the distinction the poster from CARM dishonestly denied that which the bible makes claim. Think about it....

Who Am I

Many are called but Few chosen


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 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 text.

Post script points to consider:

Other Points that should be pointed out are that Calvinist's will quote  John 6:37-44 and leave out verse 45 which explains the former; as though God somehow bypasses the grace he has given with the preaching of the gospel and makes you a believer apart from your response to the gospel or God already ordered your response.  John 6:45 tells us God will teach  and draw men  through preaching of the word.

John 17:12 has to do with the* twelve Apostles* and keeping them that are part of the foundation of the church  along with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone and has nothing to do with individual salvation, Verse 18  seems to confirm this fact: The same exact way you sent me into the world I have sent them(12) into the world and none  of them is LOST EXCEPT the son of perdition. The passage is not talking about the perseverance of the saints. All that the father gave Jesus to that point were  under the Old covenant in verse 37. All does not include individuals in eternity past apart from their response to the gospel but there are exceptions to fulfill his purpose. Judas was an exception he was not the rule. These all happened to fulfill God's purpose by determinate council. God does have to work things or reign things in with man being a free moral agent which makes God a stronger God. Calvinism Makes god weak god; because God is simply setting up actors in a play. God is both sovereign and powerful.

Many are called but Few chosen


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  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 text