John 1:1 According to the Oneness Position

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Excerpts from Robert Sabins:A ONENESS PERSPECTIVE OF JOHN 16:13

Robert Sabin has a very thorough study on John 16:13 that I thought should be posted to help in the studies of everyone including trinitarians. The study is very long so this is the condensed version. (By yours truly.)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: FOR HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL HEAR, THAT SHALL HE SPEAK: and he will shew you things to come. - John 16:13

I. What is the importance of a study on one passage of scripture which shows the Spirit as "not speaking of himself; speaking what he hears?"
In three main passages in the Gospel of John, chapters 14, 15, 16, Jesus spoke of the coming Spirit in third person language using the pronoun "he" in such a way that translators and interpreters have determined that the Spirit was other-than-Jesus and other-than-Father.
In one verse within these passages, John 16:13, Jesus is further thought to use "agent terminology" or "prophetic enablement terminology" to describe how the Spirit of Truth is enabled to speak, terminology which shows that Spirit is unable to act independently, to speak "of himself." The Spirit is the passive receiver of divine information which he then relates to those he inhabits. The source of the information which the Spirit "hears and speaks" must be either Jesus who would then be speaking to the Spirit who "hears" the message that Jesus speaks and relays it to believers, or it must be the Father who speaks to the Spirit who then relays the message to believers. In either case, the Spirit is not deemed to be the originator of the words but an agent of either Jesus or the Father. The Spirit, by this relationship with Jesus and/or the Father, becomes "other than either."
Such conclusions require a distinction of person between Jesus and the Spirit, or between the Father and the Spirit, or between all three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and thus require the existence of a Trinity.
Important questions arise relative to the ONEness of the Godhead and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ because of these conclusions. Is the Spirit actually one other-than Jesus, one who mediates divine communications, passing them on to believers? Is the Spirit actually one other-than-the Father, one who mediates divine communications, passing them on to believers? does the Spirit have existence as a person distinct from both the Father and the Son? Are Father, Son and Holy Spirit three distinct persons in the Godhead, peers, collateral persons who collaborate to accomplish the divine will?
It is generally agreed that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead was a late addition to the creeds, and possesses a paucity of scriptural support. "Down to the fourth cen-tury, the deity of the Holy Spirit came in for much less either of explicit assertion or of direct attack than that of the Son. Largely this was due to its raising no special problem; if the godhead was not unitary, it was as simple to conceive of three Persons as of two:" [G.L. Prestige, GOD IN PATRISTIC THOUGHT, SPCK, p. 80, London, 1936.]
"But it seems quite clear that the Jews never regarded the Spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....the sacred writers never conceived or presented this Spirit as a distinct person....Many scholars seem convinced that in Paul the Holy Spirit is an impersonal divine force that is occasional-ly personified." [Edmund J. Fortman, THE TRIUNE GOD, A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, p. 6, p. 9. p.21, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 1927.]
In the John Ankerberg Debate, April 30, 1985, Walter Martin was able to produce only one scripture which he believed ascribed deity to the Holy Spirit as a person distinct from either Jesus or the Father, Acts 5:3-4.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a third person in the Godhead is the weakest link in the formulated doctrine of the Trinity. John 16:13 provides the strongest bit of evidence to support and strengthen that weak link, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a person other-than-God. disproving the evidence further weakens the link, hastening the breaking of the chain, releasing men to the revelation of truth.
Therefore, it is of great importance to give earnest consideration to the one text of scripture which is cited to prove that the Holy Ghost is a person other-than-God to whom God speaks.
II. WHAT JOHN 16:13 DOES NOT MEAN - Does the Holy Ghost have an enabler, a revealer who tells him what to say?
Is there anything in scripture other than this verse that would indicate that the Spirit of God receives and relays communications of divine truth from another person?
Quite to the contrary, the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, show the Holy Ghost to be the independent originator of divine actions, words and revelations.
CAN THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BE DIRECTED OR COUNSELED?
Isaiah 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or [being] his counselor hath taught him?
Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?
These verses, if no other, make it clear that the Spirit of the LORD does not receive, nor does he need to receive communications from any other. There is no other person or being, divine or human, capable of directing or counseling the Spirit of the LORD.
The Spirit of the LORD is the absolute originator of divine words and not a secondary source. The spirit neither needs nor possesses another more primary source as his enabler.

III. WHAT, THEN, IS MEANT BY THE WORDS OF JOHN 16:13, "HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF, BUT WHATSOEVER HE HEARETH, THAT SHALL HE SPEAK." How is it that the Spirit of God can not be "directed, counseled," and yet, in this one instance, is said to only speak "what he hears."

We must direct our attention worst of all to the language of the verse as it occurs in the King James Version. The first clause states, "HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF." Some take this to mean that the Holy Ghost is modest and does no talk ABOUT HIMSELF. Robert M. Bowman of Christian Research Institute during the 1989 St. Paul, MN debate emphasized this modesty of the third person in the Godhead to explain the absence of mention of the Spirit in such New Testament passages as the salutations to the epistles and in such passages as
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man KNOWETH THE SON, BUT THE FATHER; neither KNOWETH ANY MAN THE FATHER, SAVE THE SON, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].

In Jesus Christ, two wills or natures are portrayed: a human will and a Divine will. He was man (flesh) and He was God (Spirit). As man He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, “O my Father.. not as I WILL, but as THOU WILT.” Matt. 26:39. Also He cried out on the cross, “My God, my God. Why host thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46. Certainly these Scriptures do not imply that Jesus Christ is a separate Person or Deity with the Father. Far Deity does not pray to Deity! Futhermore, Deity cannot die! So as man, Jesus Christ prayed in His human nature to His Divine nature. Because, in His human nature, the flesh did not want to die, but He knew the will of the Spirit must be done. Also at Calvary He cried out in His human nature to His Divine nature; and when the Spirit left the body, He fulfilled His human role of death. As man, He was hungry, He slept, He became weary, He wept, He increased in wisdom and stature, He prayed, and He died. (See Matt. 4:2, Matt. 8:24, John 4:6, John 11,35, Luke 2:52, Matt. 26:39, Matt. 27:50.) As God, He healed the sick, He cast out devils, He raised the dead, He calmed the sea. He forgave sins, He answered prayer, and He arose from the grave. (See Matt. 4,23, Luke 8:35, John 11:43,44, Mark 4:39, Mark 2:5, John 14:14, John 2:19-21.) Jesus Christ said, “I can of mine own self (human nature) do nothing.. (John 5:30). ..but the FATHER that DWELLETH IN ME (Divine nature), HE doeth the works (John 14:10).” As man, He even expressed His limited knowledge (Mark 13:32); but as God, He knew all things (John 21:17). Compare the following titles which also portray the dual nature of Jesus Christ: - See more at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/the-truth-about-one-god#sthash.lNYyduiI.dpuf

The angel announced, “For unto you is born this day.. .0 Saviour, which is CHRIST THE LORD.” Luke 2:11. Throughout the Old Testament God is also called the Lord. Compare the following:
The Lord God is the Creator. Is. 42:5.
The Lord Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3, 10.
The Lord God said, “I am He.” Is. 43:10.
The Lord Jesus said, “I am He.” John 8:24.
The Lord God is the only Saviour. Is. 43:10, 11.
The Lord Jesus is the Saviour. Titus 1:4.
The Lord God shall reign forever. P5. 146:10.
The Lord Jesus reign forever. Luke 1 :33.
The Lord God is the King of Israel. Is. 43:15.
The Lord Jesus is the King of Israel. Matt. 27:37.
The Lord God is the First and the Lost. Is. 44:6.
The Lord Jesus is the First and the Last. Rev. 1:8.
The Lord God is Almighty. Gen. 17:1.
The Lord Jesus is Almighty. Rev. 1:8.
There is only one Lord. Eph. 4:5. When Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, he cried, “Who art thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I AM JESUS.” Acts 9:5. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the Lord God Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament!
Jesus confirmed that He was not a separate Person, but God manifested in the flesh. Jesus said unto Philip, “.. .He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.. .The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the father that DWELLETH IN ME, He doeth the works…Believe me that I am in the Father, and the FATHER IN ME…” John 14:9-11. Jesus simply stated, “I and My Father are ONE (not two).” John 10:30.
Jesus emphasized the importance of His identity as He taught the people in the temple. He said, “…For if ye believe not that I AM HE, ye shall die in your sins.. .They understood not that He spake to them of the FATHER.” John 8:24-27.
When Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan River, the voice of God spoke, “This is my beloved Son, IN WHOM I am well pleased.”
Matt. 3:17. Notice, God said, “IN WHOM” – not with whom! “To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto
Himself…” II Cor. 5:19.
As Stephen was facing death, he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55. The term “right hand” does not form a part of another Person or Deity. It is symbolic of the power and authority of God. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matt. 28:18. Paul said that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. I Cor. 1:24. Note the following symbolical uses of the term “right hand” as correlated to power and authority:
My right hand hath spanned the heavens. Is. 48:13.
The Lord is at the right hand of the poor. Ps. 109:31.
God led Israel by the right hand of Moses. Is. 63:12.
The Lord was at David’s right hand. PS. 16:8.
The question may be asked, “Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus?” If the Godhead is in Jesus, there can only be one Person. The Bible clearly states, “For IN HIM (Christ) DWELLETH all the FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER.” Col. 2:9, 10. So there is only ONE PERSON in which the Godhead is manifested, because the GODHEAD IS IN JESUS!
In Jesus Christ, two wills or natures are portrayed: a human will and a Divine will. He was man (flesh) and He was God (Spirit). As man He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, “O my Father.. not as I WILL, but as THOU WILT.” Matt. 26:39. Also He cried out on the cross, “My God, my God. Why host thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46. Certainly these Scriptures do not imply that Jesus Christ is a separate Person or Deity with the Father. Far Deity does not pray to Deity! Futhermore, Deity cannot die! So as man, Jesus Christ prayed in His human nature to His Divine nature. Because, in His human nature, the flesh did not want to die, but He knew the will of the Spirit must be done. Also at Calvary He cried out in His human nature to His Divine nature; and when the Spirit left the body, He fulfilled His human role of death. As man, He was hungry, He slept, He became weary, He wept, He increased in wisdom and stature, He prayed, and He died. (See Matt. 4:2, Matt. 8:24, John 4:6, John 11,35, Luke 2:52, Matt. 26:39, Matt. 27:50.) As God, He healed the sick, He cast out devils, He raised the dead, He calmed the sea. He forgave sins, He answered prayer, and He arose from the grave. (See Matt. 4,23, Luke 8:35, John 11:43,44, Mark 4:39, Mark 2:5, John 14:14, John 2:19-21.) Jesus Christ said, “I can of mine own self (human nature) do nothing.. (John 5:30). ..but the FATHER that DWELLETH IN ME (Divine nature), HE doeth the works (John 14:10).” As man, He even expressed His limited knowledge (Mark 13:32); but as God, He knew all things (John 21:17). Compare the following titles which also portray the dual nature of Jesus Christ:
- See more at: http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/the-truth-about-one-god#sthash.lNYyduiI.dpuf

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.
Thus we see that the phrase, "I speak not of myself," with some variations, is a phrase commonly on the lips of Jesus which identifies the uniqueness of his ministry. Indeed, it is a special characteristic of the manner in which he speaks, a hallmark. He is not the originator of the words of his message. He is not the enabler of his own prophet-ic voice. He is one who is enabled by another, one who speaks another's message. Just who the enabler might be is made perfectly clear by Jesus himself.
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I SPEAK THAT WHICH I HAVE SEEN WITH MY FATHER: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things THAT I HAVE HEARD OF MY FATHER I have made known unto you.

In John 15:26 Jesus again uses enigmatic language concerning the Comforter. He is "sent" from the Father, "proceedeth" from the Father and "testifies" of Jesus.
John 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:
The language appears to describe someone other-than-Jesus.
In the light of the plain words of John 14:18, the Comforter that Jesus "sends" form the Father is actually himself, "I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU COMFORTLESS: I WILL COME TO YOU" (John 14:18). The "another Comforter" is Jesus Christ glorified, made a quickening Spirit, inhabit-ing the disciples.

What is the background of this phrase, "HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF?"
When it refers to the inhabiting Spirit, how can it be recon-ciled with the fact that the scriptures state that no man can direct the Spirit of the Lord? Isaiah 40:13. How is it that John 16:13 por-trays an inhabiting Spirit who is, seemingly contrary to Isaiah 40:13, directed by another?
The phrase, "not speak of himself," are the words of prophetic enablement, which is the manner in which God gives his words to any true prophet of God and most specifically to the one prophet of God that would be raised up. The clear mark of identity of this prophet is that he, as Moses, would speak God's words, not his own words. This is the way that Jesus spoke while he lived on earth. This is the way that Jesus would continue to speak when he lived in the Holy-Ghost-filled disciples. The scriptural background for this language begins at least as early as the days of Moses.
Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto MY WORDS WHICH HE SHALL SPEAK IN MY NAME, I will require [it] of him. 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I HAVE NOT COMMANDED HIM TO SPEAK, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Exodus 4:10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I [am] not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I [am] slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. 11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, and I WILL BE WITH THY MOUTH, AND TEACH THEE WHAT THOU SHALT SAY.

JESUS IS GOD, NOT GOD THE SON, NOT THE SECOND PERSON.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O GOD, [is] for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom [is] a right scepter.
Psalms 102:24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years [are] throughout all generations. 25 Of OLD HAST THOU LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27 But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL.
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GOD.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.
John 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself GOD.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD AND MY GOD.
Romans 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, GOD BLESSED FOR EVER. Amen.
Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the GLORIOUS AP-PEARING OF THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST;
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O GOD, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 10 And, Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
II Peter 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
II Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
II Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 18 But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true GOD, and eternal life. [Windisch and Preisker, DIE KATHOLISCHEN BRIEFE, p. 135 saying refers to Christ, quoted in Cullman]
Jude 1:25 To the only wise GOD OUR SAVIOUR, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. (transfers to Jesus the description of the An-cient of Days in Daniel 7:13)
Plus all the kyrios passages: "Actually, the passages which confer upon Jesus the title Kyrios, the name of God, are at least as important as those in which he is directly addressed as "God....We have seen that on the basis of the designation Kyrios early Christianity does not hesitate to transfer to Jesus every-thing the Old Testament says about God (Cullman, p. 307)
That Jesus is God in flesh is not in question. The question regarding John 16:13 arises from the collateral fact that Jesus is not only God, but he is also a man, even when he inhabits the disciples; and as a man he shares in common with all mankind the human qualities, strictures and attributes in "all things." He does not such his human identity nor his human prerogatives when he is glorified nor when he inhabits believers. He continues to exist with human strictures, even within believers.
While he existed on earth, Jesus operated in all things in relationship to God and in relationship to man just as all other men had to operate.
Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Was the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth referred to in John 16:13, a Spirit other-than-Jesus-Christ?

The answer to this question is no. The writers of scripture made no effort to show God's Spirit to be someone or something other-than-God.God, God's Spirit, God's word are simply different ways of speaking of God acting, speaking, revealing.

VI. Why is it that Jesus in us, the Holy Ghost, the one Spirit of truth, is still referred to as having "human capacity," a being able to "speak not of himself," to speak only "what he hears"?
When Jesus Christ lived on earth, he had both human and divine capacities, was at the same time both God and man, Father and Son, prophetic enabler and prophet. Jesus Christ in the heart of believers may still act in human capacity, which he does when he makes intercession for us, when he "speaks what he hears," when he acts as high priest, when he mediates. The humanity of Jesus is absolutely essential to the salvation of the world. He will not be able to fully declare, reveal and manifest his true deity until the last soul is saved through his capacity as a human savior and redeemer.
By telling the disciples in John 16:13 that the inhabiting Spirit would not "speak of himself, but would speak what he hears," Jesus was telling them that there was unbroken continuity between his bodily presence with them and his spiritual presence in them. The Inhabiting Christ would still be "speaking what he hears." He would be acting in the prophet mode just as he also acted in the human lamb/sacrifice mode or in the mediatorial mode. His words would still be conveying the absolute words of God, of the Father. It would not be necessary for them to adjust to some new method of relating to or of listening to Jesus.
Does this mean that there are two persons in the believer? Again, the answer is no. Only one being inhabits the believer. That being is the glorified Christ. He is God; He is man.
There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a MEDIATOR. 20 Now a MEDIATOR is not a MEDIATOR of one, but God is one.
I Timothy 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the MEDIATOR of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 9:15 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.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the MEDIATOR of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
I John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

VIII. The scriptures by indiscriminate use of various names or appellations of the Spirit of God, support the idea that these names are actually ways in which we conceptualize the operations or capacities of the Spirit of God but do not show a distinction of a person.
The Spirit of God is generally agreed to be that aspect of God by which God interacts with the world and with men, through no such precise definition of the Spirit is given in the scripture. If true, the Spirit of God is God considered as acting, moving, speaking and enabling men. The Spirit enabled men to speak God's true words, to accomplish God's eternal purpose. Thus, Jesus was ENABLED by the eter-nal Spirit to offer himself a perfect sacrifice to God whereby his blood became efficacious.
Hebrews 9:14 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?
In the designation ETERNAL SPIRIT the acting, moving, enabling power is considered in the Spirit of God's most fundamental aspect, eternality. This aspect of the Spirit never changes. It was the Spirit of God which enabled Jesus the man to offer himself. It is the same Spirit of God which enables all men to know and to do those things necessary to accomplish the will of God.
Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul THROUGH THE SPIRIT, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye THROUGH THE SPIRIT do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Galatians 5:5 For we THROUGH THE SPIRIT wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

When will intercession by the son, the mediation of the son, end?
When will subordination of the son, prophetic enablement of the son by the Father, human agency of the Son no longer be necessary?
When Jesus inhabits the believer, he still retains his human identity and capacity. It is Christ who is in us. He is our high priest.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
He operates as subordinate to the Father, and when he speaks, he speaks not of his own origination, he does "not speak of himself." but he is not only the prophet who speaks the words of another, he is the prophetic enabler as well. Jesus is also God himself, who supplies the words.
How long will this arrangement for the transfer of information from the Father to the Son be necessary? When will his absolute deity, his ultimate inheritance of all names titles and prerogatives of deity be complete?
Answer: The subordinate position, sonship, continues until ever enemy is destroyed.
Psalms 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, UNTIL I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The word "until" in the above text is clear indication that the subordinate position, the "right-hand position," is not a permanent position. There will be a shift in position, a moving from the right-hand place to another place. One does not move from the right-hand place to the left-hand place. That would be a demotion. One does not move from the right-hand place to a position under the throne. That would be a humiliation. There is only one imaginable move from the right-hand place to the very throne itself. Of course, there is o actual move in space as the anthropomorphic expression, "right-hand," would cause us to conceive. rather than a space-position move, there will be and authority-position move. The son will inherit the Father's throne, the Father's prerogatives and the Father's identity. he will be revealed as God, all and in all.
QUESTION: What scriptures indicate that the ultimate designation of Christ as not only our Lord and our Christ but as our God and our Father will not occur until a designated time?
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government SHALL BE upon his shoulder: and his name SHALL BE called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The child has already been born and the son has already been given. Those are events of history. The future tense verb, shall be, in the above scripture is an indication of a progression of manifestation or revelation. Even though Jesus Christ was god from birth, Matthew 1:23, Lord from birth, Luke 1:35, never became other that what he already was, there is a definite time sequence to his ultimate revelation as the God and Father.
Jesus spoke in proverbs about the Father, indicating a time, a day when he would speak plainly.
John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: BUT THE TIME COMETH, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. 26 AT THAT DAY ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
At the designated time, the end, Jesus will be revealed as the "only potentate."
I Timothy 6:14 That thou keep [this] commandment without spot, unrebukeable, UNTIL THE APPEARING of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 WHICH IN HIS TIMES he shall shew, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen.
ALL THINGS ARE SCHEDULED IN A TIME SEQUENCE.
Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of THIS PRESENT TIME [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature WAITETH for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Matthew 24:29 IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And THEN SHALL APPEAR the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, HEREAFTER shall ye see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again UNTIL THE THOUSAND YEARS WERE FINISHED. This [is] the first resurrection. 7 And WHEN THE THOUSAND YEARS ARE EXPIRED, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
The above verses indicate that there are several things that must take place in a definite sequence of events. Most of these things are accomplished through Jesus Christ as man, as the Son of Man. These things relate to the exaltation of his church, the adoption of Spirit-filled believers as actual Sons of God, and the wrapping up of earth events including the destruction of the works of Satan, which God said would be accomplished by the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15). Therefore, Jesus must continue to operate in the human genre, the subordinate relationship, the in-all-things-like-his-brethren state until he has accomplished his work as mediator, high priest, interces-sor, seed-of-woman conqueror of Satan.
Ultimately, the work of mediation will be accomplished and Christ's role as son will be replaced by his role as Father, although he never becomes not-a-man.
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the FIRST HEAVEN AND THE FIRST EARTH WERE PASSED AWAY; and there was no more sea.
I Corinthians 15:24 THEN COMETH the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
Revelation 21:1-7 reveals the time when Jesus will no longer be known as the subordinate, prophetically enabled Son of God. He will inherit the position of deity. At that time he will still be the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the giver of living water. Death will be eliminated, suffering, tears and pain will be forever wiped away, and there will be a new heaven and new earth. At that time, Jesus as God, Jesus Christ our brother reveals himself to be also our Everlasting Father.
Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I WILL BE HIS GOD, AND HE SHALL BE MY SON.
I Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, THEN shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.
CONCLUSION: The words "For he shall not speak of himself," in John 16:13 refer to the inhabiting Spirit of the exalted Christ. Jesus continues to possess his human capacities as well as his divine capacities even while he inhabits believers. He operates as a man must operate in relation to God who is the enabler of men. Jesus is enabled to speak by the Spirit of God though he is God and man, Father and son, child-born, son-given and Mighty God - Everlasting father, prophetic enabler and prophet. He continues to speak as he spoke on earth, as a prophet and mouthpiece of God. "for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"

XI. Summary of the evidence presented on John 16:13 referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as the inhabiter of believers who continues to "not speak of himself, but to speak that which he heareth."

Jesus in John 14:16-18 was speaking of himself and clearly stated so in John 14:18, "I will not leave you comfortless." A pattern is thus established by Jesus of the use of cryptic or enigmatic expressions regarding the Spirit as the coming inhabiter which when more closely examined reveal Jesus to be the inhabiting Spirit.
Jesus at his exaltation and glorification was "made a quickening Spirit." I Corinthians 15:45.
Jesus' being made a "quickening Spirit" did not cause the existence of more than one inhabiting Spirit. I Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-5.
The one inhabiting Spirit is called variously the Spirit of God, the spirit of Christ, the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, the Spirit of the Lord, Christ in you, etc. I Corinthians 12:3, Romans 8:9-11, Ephesians 3:16-17, II Corinthians 3:17.
God's Spirit, in the state in which he existed prior to the exaltation, glorification and being a man who was "made a quickening spirit," could not be directed, counseled or in other ways made an agent of God (Isaiah 40:13).
Only after the exalted Christ was made a "quickening Spirit" could it be stated that the Spirit would "not speak of himself, but will speak only that which he hears."
There is a similar pattern in John 14:16-18 and John 16:11-16 of presenting information about the Spirit that is enigmatic and information which is plain, and then presenting clues which solve the enigmatic language presented.
It was Jesus' practice to speak of the Father, of God or of the Spirit in enigmatic language, postponing until another "time" the plain revelations about the Father. John 16:25-26, I Timothy 6:14-16, I Corinthians 15:28, Hebrews 2:6, Revelation 21:1-7.
The explanation that the one Spirit inhabiting disciples who only "speaks what he hears" is actually the glorified Christ as inhabiter, answers all the essential questions regarding the identity and at-tributes of the inhabiting Spirit.
Even though Jesus is God and inhabits believers, he still possesses human attributes, and mediates between God and man, mediates regarding man's salvation, and, through the eternal prophetically enabling spirit, mediates God's words to men. I Timothy 2:15.
The fact that the inhabiting spirit has both human and divine identity and capacity does not mean that there are two persons in Christ, or that there are two divine persons, or that there are two persons in the believers. John 10:30, John 12:45, John 14:7-9, John 8:19, Isaiah 9:6.
Go here for the full version: http://www.altupc.com/altupc/articles/rsjn1613.htm

Saturday, June 15, 2013

The Authority and Power of the name of Jesus in Baptism.

The name Christian is not the name of the church. The disciples and believers were called Christians first at Antioch. God did not name followers of Jesus Christians and give them that title! Sinners did! Because of their identity in following Christ...(Acts 11:2) It is a biblical designation but it is not commanded we call ourselves Christians. We simply accept the designation Christian inferred upon us as we want to identify with the person and object of our devotion and love; Christ the Lord and our one God in flesh. Christian is not the name the church goes by, as we are named by God.

It takes the name for the authority! The authority of Jesus is not obtained because one says they have it! The scriptures tell us of that truth. You must wear the name Jesus, the name of the husband of the bride . The bride or church does not have three husbands. Father, son, and Holy spirit, or husband or groom, are not the name of the groom! The bride does not wear those three titles of the one groom whose name is Jesus.

We are named at our circumcision and new birth.(Col.1:12-13) Buried with him in baptism. You are buried after you die at repentance to your old sinful self and identify with his death and burial at repentance and baptism... Baptism is both a burial and a new birth when you rise to walk in newness of life through the spirit.. The whole family in heaven and earth is named.(Eph.3:11) what is that name?

The new born Jewish male child was circumcised and named the eighth day(New beginning) after his birth. John was, and was named by God through the Angel(Luke 1:59) This is a type of our new birth. Baptism in Jesus name is being born again of the water. Being born of the water is not being born! Some churches and others contradict themselves and say: "You must be born, so that you can be born again".. As opposed to what? Being born dead? That is contradictory and redundant!
You must understand being born of the water, is Baptism in Jesus name and is of grace through faith! It is not a work of man that is interjected without Gods authority.

Some even say:"Being born of the water is being born of the word." Which is only half right! Because being born of the spirit is being born of the word also! Meaning you must hear the word preached so that you know the truth of God's grace and what he has given.

The disciples of John the baptist heard preaching from John under the old covenant but there was a new covenant they knew nothing about and so did not go on into the grace of God in the new and only knew of Johns baptism that was replaced in the new covenant. So when Paul finally met up with disciples of John to whom he had no idea who they were without asking them questions. Paul proceeded to ask: have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? To which they replied we have not so much have even heard whether there be any Holy Ghost? Then Paul said unto what were you baptized? And they said unto John's baptism. Then Paul saw the problem and knew that these folks were not properly taught. Then they were baptized correctly in Jesus name in the new covenant and Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. Two things should be noticed 1.) Paul refutes automatic reception of the spirit by asking the question have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Letting us know; no, you do not! 2.) They did not receive the holy Ghost at baptism either and he knew they did not, or he would have not laid hands on them to receive.

The name In Baptism remits the sin. Baptism without the name Jesus does nothing! It is sin! Silent Baptism is sin! You must do what Jesus said do in (Math.28:19) Go find the name and baptize in the name. Baptism in the titles F,S,HS, Is a sin! Jesus also said In (Luke 24:47) that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Peter obeyed both those commands from Jesus when he preached the first salvation message in (Acts 2:38) when he said repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy ghost for this promise is unto you and your children and to all that afar off even as many as our Lord shall call. Peter was taught personally by the Lord for about three years and then another forty days after the resurrection. (Acts 1:3)

Baptism "for" does not mean:" Baptism Because of!" We are not Baptized because our sins are already forgiven. We are baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins after we repent and turn from those sins... Jesus uses the same exact wording in the Lords supper or what we commonly call the communion of the Lord. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission sins. Jesus did not shed his blood because our sins are already forgiven!(Math.26:28)

Our One God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit but he is not three persons with three different names! Those titles he uses as God to relate to mankind in redemption, only has One name because he is Only One God. God is not three persons! If God is three persons he is three gods just like the three persons who are three gods of the pagan religions. If not why not?

Belief includes baptism in Jesus name. We see many passages where we must believe to be saved, but we also see that Paul refutes automatic reception of the spirit upon belief in (Acts 19:2). True belief Includes calling on the name and repenting. we must call and believe the way the scriptures tell us to call and believe.

Whomsoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved? How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher and how shall they preach except they be sent? Paul tells plainly here you cannot just believe, but you have to do it by a preacher sent of God telling you how to believe?(Romans 10:13-15) Belief includes baptism in Jesus name.

Jesus Told the disciples whose-soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them and whose-soever sins you retain they are retained.(John 20:23) Baptism does not remit the sins The name called over you in baptism remits the sins, as it gives you the persons and work of Christ by grace through faith. This is not a work of man because man did not give it, God did! It is Gods work and operation and miraculously so!

Other passages concerning Baptism

(Mark 16:16) he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. The ones that want to say baptism has nothing to do with our salvation will take this passage and say that it does not exist in some manuscripts and the original. We are not having that debate with all of the other passages that exist and establish baptism in Jesus name in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. And the fact that it exists in some, and we will assume that is accepted for now. Those who do not use the argument that it does not exist will say that the passage simply means it is a public confession of your faith of what already exists as a reality in your heart. In other words: it is meant in the expression of he that believes and is saved should get baptized. But we already see that Paul refutes that false premise in (Acts 19:2.)

(Romans 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father , even so we also should walk in newness of life.

(1st. Cor.6:11)Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This passage goes hand in hand with *Acts 2:38* and is a reminder to the Corinthian church of that truth and what the miracle of salvation does for them. It washes sanctifies and justifies as if they never sinned through the name Jesus in baptism and by the Spirit of our God.

(Gal.3:27) For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. You do not get Christ any other way and any other than this, is another gospel!

(Hebrews 11:29) By faith Moses and the children of the exodus passed through the Red Sea(that God opened and did the work and provided) to dry land and the Egyptians were drowned. Baptism in Jesus name is not a work of man but the operation of God through faith.

(1st.Peter 3:20-21) God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water.

(Note ) They were saved by being in the ark(Jesus name) through the water.

The Like figure where-unto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Did Calvin Murder Servetus?

-->

Roger Perkins alerted my attention to a nice little video that I would like to share with the readers. This clip demonstrates Calvin’s role in the heinous murder of Servetus…. Acknowledged at the end of his own pen!! Calvinist advocates of the “Reform” movement seek to exonerate Calvin & paint him as “humanitarian”…. When we have his own writings.

You can also take a look at the following books on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Flames-Remarkable-Fearless-Scholar/dp/0767908376 & this one: http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Murder-Servetus-Stanford-Rives/dp/1439208689
comments:

Roger Perkins: It is quite nauseating how these men, deemed as some of the foremost "scholars" of our day, got much of a laugh over the brutal murder of Servetus. Equally sickening, is how many modern "Reform" apologists seek to exonerate Calvin's role in the affair. Claims such as, "Calvin tried to save Servetus' life" and such like are often heard....and are totally bogus. How do we know, by simply reading Calvin's own writings in which he himself stated (& adamantly defended) that he had Servetus killed!

These two books in the links I sent you painstakingly document that, far from a "Christian," Calvin was a hate-filled murderer (you can also see virtually identical quotes from Luther [which I have in a word-doc.]) and very far from a biblical "Christian" (neither are his followers). These books are hands-down the most in-depth looks at this entire issue and clearly show Calvin's true colors.

"By their fruits you shall know them." All murderers will have their part in the lake of fire. Ironically, it was Servetus who was the closer of the two to biblical "Reform"....Not Calvin (this was not Calvin's only heinous act).

Regardless, we have absolutely nothing of repentance from these men (& the crowd) who scorn and mock a man who was brutally murdered....Because he had the audacity to openly question a doctrine found no where in God's Word. Hence, Calvin became known as the "Pope of Geneva" and the modern "Reform" movement is not as distant from Rome as they would like everyone to believe! As for me and my house, we will abide in the upper-room experiences of Jerusalem and let others mingle their hands with the blood dripping from John Calvin's hand.

God Bless!

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The Human Spirit of Jesus?

This is an exchange between Michael Burgos' and yours truly dated 3/31/11 This discussion was on the subject of the genuine human spirit of Jesus, and had actually been going on years before with blog comments, and email exchanges where Mr. Burgos had made the claim:" he did not believe Jesus had a human spirit, and then he later saw his error and changed to say he did have a human spirit," or so he claimed. Of course the evidence of his own words say otherwise. I write the following:

"I never said anything nor will I ever use the cop-out term: natures so I am not accusing you of mixing natures! I am accusing you of having a mix hybrid person. Do not assume what you cannot prove. Just tell us Jesus had a human spirit.
Did Jesus have two spirits or not?"

Michael Burgos says the following:" :πνεύμα when applied to humans is synonomous with ψυχή 99% of the time. Whichever terminology you would like to couch the immaterial human aspect in, it is clear that I and the vast majority of Trinitarians affirm that the Son has a human spirit.

Your question poses a false dichotomy based upon the assumption that the word spirit has only one meaning. The Son has a human spirit as he is like us in all ways yet without sin. But He is also God who is a spirit. The one person who is the Son possesses two different natures. To say that Jesus had two spirits fails to recognize the range of meaning of the word "spirit."(Carm.org).

So there you have it. What kind of mix spirit did Jesus have according to Burgos? How is that a human spirit? It is my claim that Jesus had both one Human, and one divine spirit in his person as he was both God, and man. To not have a genuine human spirit would make him something else. (Read Luke 23:46) I would like to know especially since Mr. Burgos has written a new book and has made claim to expertise in these matters and then further criticizes the Oneness view.

Thursday, February 07, 2013

The Unconsisdered Error Of Michael Burgos New Book.

This is my second hand critique of a Book written by A person who has frequented this blog many times in the past. Having not actually read the book myself, but having heard the boasts on forums about what a "fool proof" argument Burgos has provided toward the Oneness view concerning the Greek word for "with" or the Grk preposition Pros in John 1:1. ( I make the disclaimer: I am no Greek scholar, but I do not have to be to use common sense.)

In Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology to Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

Burgos submits a quote by David Bernard's Book as the above title promises, and submits his own argument.

"The Greek word pros, here translated as ‘with’, is translated as ‘pertaining to’ in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. So the Word was with God in the sense of belonging to God and not in the sense of a separate person beside God."
(Burgos cites, The Oneness of God, 1997, 188-189).

Burgos submits:“The above assertion is incorrect for a number of reasons” (Ibid. 58).

Burgos then says:

"The reason why pros is translated as “pertaining to” in both of the texts in Hebrews is because pros is immediately preceded by the accusative neuter plural article “ta” (trans. “things”).
(Ibid. 59).

I would also make the bold claim for a number of reasons that Burgos has ran down a rabbit hole and has given this absolutely no thought for many reasons on many levels.

The first question I would ask Burgos is that why did William Tyndale( Trinitarian) translate the word/Logos as an it?

"The Tyndale New Testament of 1525 was the first English translation based on the Greek and the first English Bible to be printed."

Tyndale (1494–1536) It was Tyndale's translation of the Greek "autou" meaning; "he, she, or it." depending upon the context... Tyndale Handling God's word more carefully, and with great care did not with bias read "the Pre-incarnate Christ" Back into John 1:1-3 and impose his own belief which; leaves something to be said for the Modern Trinitarian.

"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men." (John1:1-3 Tyndale)

" Things." Are things an "it"? Tyndale thought so. Is this my argument you ask? No, It most certainly is not my argument, but it is one that Burgos should have considered from one of his own. More than Likely he would say that today's scholars have more ancient documents and are better suited to translate. He, she, or it, would be determined by context. John is speaking from a knowing a experience of a person whom he handled and seen.(1st John 1:1-3) That is what Burgos and modern trinitarians read back into the text of John 1 with the pronoun *he* later. I would say it is just an excuse to read doctrine back into the word of God.

I always Like to ask the question to the Trinitarian; "Why was not the word/Logos with Jesus"? If Jesus were in fact God, would not the word be with him? If not, why not? what was God, doing with God, if there is only One God. These are questions trinity doctrine ignore. Burgos book simply brings about more questions and contradictions for his doctrine.

Jesus is the God to whom the word is with.

The incarnation makes Jesus God in flesh; to whom the word is with.
We read a prophecy of the coming Jesus in judgment: The word/Logos is the spoken creative power of God to heal, judge, and create. God cannot be separated from that power.

but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod his mouth. and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.( Isaiah 11:4 KJV)
(Remember the beatitudes while reading this?)

And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

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 Grk Septuagint))

So in summary: I do not believe that Michael Burgos has submitted anything earth shattering with his argument.. The so called argument is simply an emotional ploy, for those who believe the word/Logos was the pre-existent son of God. This debate is far from over and i am very happy with the stance we take against the trinity view of John 1:1.

Works cited

Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
Publication date: 10/24/2012
Pages: 150

The Oneness of God, David K Bernard 1997, Word Aflame Press (188-189).

William Tyndale A biography David Daniell Publisher: Yale University Press (March 1, 2001)

Monday, April 16, 2012

God's name in ancient Hebrew points to the Cross.

The first Hebrew was written in Canaanite Hebrew, a type of hieroglyphic distinct from Egyptian.(Early)

Later refined in The Torah(Old Testament) which was written in Phoenician Hebrew Alphabet.(Middle)

The Modern Hebrew is not actually Hebrew but Aramaic script.(Late)

יְהוָה (Modern Hebrew) (YHWH)

This is the Tetragrammaton, the four letter name of God , usually pronounced Yahweh. There are many theories that exist concerning the origin and meaning of this name but most likely comes from the verb הוה (hawah) meaning to exist. The yud added to the beginning identifies the object of the verb as first person, masculine, singular, imperfect tense or "he exists".

(yod) (heh) (waw) (heh) (YHWH) Ancient Hieroglyph symbols individually mean to: Look, the hand, Look, the nail. God's name In ancient Hebrew Pointed to the work of Jesus as our one true God, and redeemer come in flesh.

(From JEFF BENNER http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_linktous.html#alphabet )

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven. Why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

I wish to ask a tough question of the Trinitarian, as to the date of this writing has not been answered, as to why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven, and why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

In asking the question on debate forums such as Carm and other forums, I did have a lot of smoke screen answers in my opinion, trying to cover up the question by making it about the definition of blasphemy, so as to hide the weakness of the doctrine and the forcefulness of the question... If you can blaspheme one of their persons but not the other, then you must have three totally different gods.

Why would I say god/God instead of person you ask? Because blasphemy is a matter of blaspheming God. If God is three persons, then you should by Blasphemy of one, blaspheme all of God. But both the father, and the son, are excluded from the unpardonable sin...Either this a problem for them,(Trinitarains) or a problem for us.(Oneness) Which is it?

As I said before, scriptures teach: God can be blasphemed, but for some reason Matth.12:31-32 says the son of God cannot! You know why? Let's read the passage in question?

31.Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32.And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world or in the world to come.
33.Either make the tree good, and his fruit good: or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.(KJV Matth.:12:31-33)

Jesus himself raises a lot of questions with these passages...

Trinity doctrine adherents, of all flavors, should be able to answer why and how to this passage?

Because the son of God, is not "God the son"!

The Holy Ghost(God) is that which incarnated Jesus!(The son, or flesh of God) The distinction is being made between his sonship, and his divinity(Which was not God the son) this brings a very glaring contradiction and problem for the Trinitarain... I believe you can blaspheme Jesus and not be forgiven. As Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. But Jesus was showing us a clear distinction of the son born of Mary, and his deity, that was both in him, and in heaven at the same time. This is his humanity, and divinity, which distinction trinity doctrine does not in Jesus make...

The same is seen in Mark 13:32 where the son did not know the time of his own second coming but the father ONLY. The distinction is in the incarnation. The seen (Jesus flesh, as son born of Mary, the son as the image.( Col.1:15) And the invisible spirit of God.( not seen) in him, and in heaven at the same time. That is what is not understood and the reason for the confusion.

The work of the Holy Spirit as spirit is a different work than that of the flesh and person of the son of God." That is very reason of the incarnation, as both of those workings are found in the one united Spirit and flesh of the son. This is Oneness doctrine spot on! We cannot have multiple persons of God, as we come to multiple gods, just like the Hindus.... The different work is a matter of spirit and sinless flesh. We needed both for our redemption. Spirit because of God's grace, and sinless flesh, as we needed a kinsmen redeemer. It was not a matter of different persons of God working, it was the selfsame God, all in him(Jesus) we needed no other!

Blasphemy.
It is not a matter of any man, or woman. As one person of the Calvinist persuasion has claimed: that Just any sinner is a blasphemer... This causes many problems as already sinners are in this state of no forgiveness, but are able to believe and repent and come to God... The Calvinist double condemns the sinner in saying they can blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven? Please? This offends all common sense thinkers! First they are saying they may not be part of the elect and they surely are not by blaspheming the Holy Ghost, insuring it is so? This is one of the Most ignorant arguments ever devised by man to hide the weakness of the two doctrines of the trinity and of the five points of Calvinism on this all five points fall!
Here is the problem. First of all this calling God's word a Liar and contradictory.(Is this blasphemy itself?) Then it places doubt on the word of God by said doctrine. Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He was before a blasphemer (Attributing The work of God to the devil) but that he had done this out of ignorance in unbelief and obtained Mercy.

Blasphemy will not be forgiven, not in this world, or in that to come, period! In other words it is impossible. The so called answer, or solution actually makes it possible to be forgiven of blasphemy if only the person somehow sees the error of their ways. We know that is not true, because the doctrine of Calvinism's Unconditional election and damnation does not allow for that. (Not scripture) We are elected in and through him.
The scriptures teach that is not possible to be forgiven of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, as God will not forgive this willing trampling of the Blood of Christ. Hopefully those honest enough will see the problem with this.

Thursday, February 09, 2012

JW.Mcgarvey's commentary on Acts 13:48

John William. McGarvey Born: Hopkinsville, Kentucky, March 1, 1829.
Died: Lexington, Kentucky, October 6, 1911.
McGarvey of the Campbellite Movement: Disciples and Churches of Christ. He entered Bethany College as a non-Christian. However, in a short time he obeyed the gospel under the preaching of Pendleton, one of his professors. He was baptized in Buffalo Creek. McGarvey heard Alexander Campbell preach frequently in the little Bethany congregation. He graduated in a class of 12 and gave the valedictory address in Greek, which was the custom of those commencement exercises.

Text from Moore, W. T. (editor), Living Pulpit of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1871. Pages 325-326. This online edition © 1996, James L. McMillan.

J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 13:48

"48. In the next paragraph we have a statement, the meaning of which has excited no little controversy. (48) “On hearing this the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were determined for eternal life believed.” The controversy turns upon the meaning of the clause osoi eoan tetagmenoi eis zoen aioniou, rendered, in the common version, “as many as were ordained to eternal life.” The Calvinistic writers united in referring it to the eternal election and foreordination taught in their creeds. They contend, therefore, for the rendering “were ordained,” or “were appointed.” If their interpretation were admitted, it would involve the passage in some difficulties which none of them seem to have noticed. If it be true that “as many as were foreordained to eternal life believed,” then there were some of the foreordained left in that community who did not believe. Hence, all those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants, were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to everlasting punishment. Now it is certainly most singular that so complete a separation of the two parties should take place throughout a whole community at one time; and still more singular that Luke should so far depart from the custom of inspired writers as to state the fact. Again, the same statement implies that all who believed on that occasion were of the elect. For, if the parties who believed were those who had been foreordained to eternal life, then none of the non-elect could have been among the number. Here is another anomalous incident: that on this occasion all who believed were of the number who would finally be saved, and that Luke should be informed of the fact and make it known to his readers. Certainly we should not adopt an interpretation involving conclusions so anomalous, unless we are compelled to do so by the obvious force of the words employed.

It is worthy of more that the efforts of Calvinistic writers to prove that this is the meaning of these words consist chiefly in strong assertions to that effect, and in attempts to answer the feebler class of the objections urged against it. Thus Dr. Hackett asserts: “This is the only translation which the philology of the passage allows.” But he makes no effort to prove that the New Testament usage of the principal word involved allows this translation. The word rendered ordained in this passage is tasso—a term which is not employed in a single instance in the New Testament in the sense of foreordained. Where that idea is to be expressed, other words are uniformly employed.

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples,²⁹⁸²⁹⁸Matt. xxviii. 16. or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul,²⁹⁹²⁹⁹Acts xxviii. 23. we best express the idea by appointed.³⁰⁰³⁰⁰It expresses the same idea in Luke vii. 8; Acts xxii. 10. But when 170Paul says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,”³⁰¹³⁰¹Rom. xiii. 1. he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God. When he asserts of the household of Stephanas, in Corinth, that etaxan eautous they set themselves in order for ministering to the saints,³⁰²³⁰²1 Cor. xvi. 15. we would say they devoted themselves to ministering to the saints. But when the brethren in Antioch had been puzzled by the disputation between Paul and Barnabas and “certain men who came down from Judea,” in reference to circumcision, and they finally etaxan, set in order, to send some of both parties to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for a decision, the common version very correctly renders it, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go.”³⁰³³⁰³Acts xv. 2.

In reference to the propriety of this last rendering, Dr. Hackett asserts that this term “was not used to denote an act of the mind;”³⁰⁴³⁰⁴Com. in loco. the awkward translation of this passage to which the assertion forces him is evidence conclusive against it. He renders it, “They appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem.”³⁰⁵³⁰⁵Com. xv. 2. This is an ungrammatical use of the word appointed. When a mission has been determined upon, we appoint the individuals who shall be sent, but we do not appoint that they shall go. Evidently, the state of the case was this: the brethren were at first undetermined what to do in reference to the question in dispute, but finally determined to send to Jerusalem for an authoritative decision of it. When a man is undetermined in reference to a pressing question, his mind is in confusion; but when he determines upon his course, it is no longer confusion, but is set in order. The term in question, therefore, meaning primarily to set in order, is most happily adapted to the expression of such a state of mind. Our English word dispose has a similar usage. It means to arrange in a certain order, and applies primarily to external objects; but when one's mind is found arranged in accordance with a certain line of conduct, we say he is disposed to pursue it.

We scarcely need observe, after the above remarks, that the specific meaning attached to the generic term in question, in any particular passage, is to be determined by the context. In the passage we are now considering, the context has no allusion to any thing like an appointment of one part, and a rejection of the other; but the writer draws a line of distinction between the conduct of certain Gentiles and that of the Jews addressed by Paul in the closing paragraph of his speech. To render the contrast between the two more conspicuous, he throws his words into antithesis with those of Paul. Paul had said to the Jews, “You put the word of God from you;” Luke says of the Gentiles, “They glorified the word of the Lord.” Paul said, “You judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;” Luke says, many of the Gentiles “were determined for everlasting life.” It is an act of the mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as clearly an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast with it. At some previous time in their history, these Gentiles, like 171all others, had been undetermined in reference to everlasting life, either because they were not convinced that there was such a state, or because they hesitated to seek for it. But now their minds were set in order upon the subject, by being determined to labor for the eternal life which Paul preached.

It now remains, in order to full eludication of the passage, that we account for the connection indicated between their being determined for everlasting life, and their believing. The former stands as a cause which led to the latter. Let it be noted that everlasting life is not contemplated as the object of their belief, for, if it was, they would have had to believe in it, before they could determine for it; so that the order of the two mental acts would be reversed. But, in common with the Jews, who had been their religious instructors, they already believed in a future state, and what they now learned to believe by Paul's preaching was the gospel of Christ. Those of them who had, either through previous religious instruction, or through the influence of Paul's preaching, heartily determined for eternal life, were in a better frame of mind to appreciate the evidence in favor of that Christ through whom alone it could be obtained, than the others who were so undetermined upon the subject that they appeared to judge themselves unworthy of such a destiny. Such was the difference between the two classes in the audience, and Luke's object is to declare the result of the difference in the fact that the one class believed, and the other thrust the word of God from them. To say that the difference had been wrought in them exclusively by divine agency would be to rob them of responsibility. Or to say that the favorably-disposed party had become so exclusively by their own self-determining energy would be to deny the influence of divine truth. Neither of these positions can be true; but, while it was an act of their own minds to determine for eternal life, it was God who had induced them to do so; at the same time, the other party determined against eternal life, in despite of the same divine influence exerted upon them."

Saturday, January 28, 2012

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

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Roger Perkins' Response to the Charges of Jeffrey Krause:

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!

A new response to Jeffery Krause has been added post script as of February 5, 2015 because of the request of a reader who appealed to Roger Perkins to do so who had found another response other than the one above to whom this blog writer was not even made aware of the article. You can see krauses' original article here: aomin new link

Categorical responses below:
JK:
My aim here is not to explain so much the significance of his fallacies, since Dr. White bring that out in the debate. Instead, I will list the fallacies themselves.
Error #1
Perkins claims that in the original language of the Bible there are no terms that distinguishes “being” and “person.”
Contra, Paul makes this distinction, “For in him (autos, denoting a person all the fullness of deity (theotēs, “being God” lives in bodily form,” (Col 2:9 NET)

RP:
*First, the author actually makes my point about the tag of a single-person-pronoun in Col. 2.9. The pronoun translated "him" (autos) denotes one-single-person - not 3. It's astounding how on earth Trinitarians stubbornly refuse to concede the natural usage of a single-person-pronoun....until they get to John 17.5 where they make a big fuss over it. Such double standards reveal a theological agenda.
*Next, here is actual translation of Wallace in the NET, without Kurshner's interpolations above: For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form. Here is the actual Greek text, along with parsing & morphology: http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/2-9.htm
*As anyone can see, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the meaning of the Greek noun translated "deity" (Θεότητος) that even mentions "being" in distinction from "person"...or else Kurshner has a non-personal "diety!" As usual, we have a case of another Trinitarian attempting to pawn off his theology as supposed "exegesis."
*Also, I would think the Trinitarians would sprint from Col. 2.9 inasmuch as it affirms that "all the fulness" of "the" (note the definite article preceding the noun "deity" indicating specivity) divinity dwells in Christ. How anyone can allow this "text to speak for itself" & arrive at the Trinitarian position is beyond me?

JK:
Error #2
Perkins claims a particular distinction between the meaning of two Greek words for “to know,” oida and ginosko. His first problem is that he cites for his authority Vines Dictionary, a source that is deficient for lexical information because of its shallowness in treating lexical analysis.

RP:
*Says whom? Kurshner? While I am well aware of the papyri findings of the late 1800's (& actually prefer that line of MSS), still, Vine's differs little from many lexical sources today? This is merely Kurshner's notion of "deficience." I well understand there are vetter sources than Vine's, but still, Dr. Vine was a fine grammarian & the quote stands. Indeed, the fact there there are two different Greek words indicates that there are two different hues in view...of course, always according to context.

JK:
Second, Perkins, citing Vines, says that ginosko frequently means “progress in knowledge” and oida suggest “fullness of knowledge.” These general definitions are patently fallacious and every scholarly Greek lexicon refutes such as notion. BDAG, the most scholarly Greek lexicon, lists their semantic range showing that the two terms overlap in meaning, and that context must determine the specific meaning:

RP:
*Umm, no, these definitions are not "patently fallacious" - & his very own excellent source (BDAG) demonstrates that they are not below! I have embolden the differences which demonstrate precisely what I pointed out in the debate:

JK:
ginosko
1. to arrive at a knowledge of someone or someth., know, know about, make acquaintance of
2. to acquire information through some means, learn (of), ascertain, find out
3. to grasp the significance or meaning of someth., understand, comprehend
4. to be aware of someth., perceive, notice, realize
5. to have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with,
6. to have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know
7. to indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize
oida
1. to have information about, know
2. be intimately acquainted with or stand in a close relation to, know
3. to know/understand how, can, be able
4. to grasp the meaning of someth., understand, recognize, come to know, experience
5. to remember, recollect, recall, be aware of
6. to recognize merit, respect, honor

RP:
*Seeing a trend there? In BDAG's definition of ginosko we see terms such as "to arrive at, to acquire, to have come to the knowledge of" - all of which indicates a "progressive knowledge." Conversely, with oida, BDAG does not use such language but once (i.e., "come to know"), indicating that while these terms *can* have some small overlap - that is not the normal tag of these terms....and this is demonstrated in Kurshner's very own source! Amazing.

JK:
Error #3
Perkins claims that the Greek word heis rendered “one” requires unitarianism when it is applied to God. But he failed in providing a single biblical example of the being of God being shared only by one person.

Rp:
*Fist, Kurshner is correct - I did not give a "single" biblical example...I gave a couple! I explicitly referenced Mark 12.29 & Galatians 3.20...then stated that the masc. sing. "heis" appears ca. 100 times in the NT & never means more than "one person" (Gal. 3.28 actually proves the opposite of Kurshner's assertions below)! Apparently Kurshner was not listening very well.
*Second, Kurshner is merely assuming his conclusion above by stating that there is a difference between a "being" & "person"....& there there is a "sharing" of divinity within God (what kind of language are we speaking here??).

JK:
Further, the Greek term heis has a semantic range and context can only determine the meaning. BDAG says:
1. a single pers. or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one
2. a single entity, with focus on uniformity or quality, one
3. an unspecified entity, some/one=τὶς,
4. marker of someth. that is first, the first

RP:
*Apparently Kurshner is the one who needs a few lessons on how to use a lexicon...did he overlook the very initial definition provided by BDAG (demonstrating primacy) of "a single person...with focus on [the] quantitative aspect" (i.e., quantity)? Again, his own excellent source proves my point (not mention how this does not interact with Wuest, Thayer, Robertson, Zodhiates, etc.)! I would say he needs to take his own advice below, "This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit lexical fallacies." Very good!

JK:
I found it ironic that the one verse that Perkins cites for heis actually demonstrates a multiplicity within heis. He cites, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female–for all of you (multiplicity) are one heis in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28; cf. John 10:30). Perkins want to focus on the fact that only the person of Christ is mentioned here. But the point is that in this case heis contains a multiplicity, in this case, persons.

RP:
*First, the point in Galatians 3.28 is that within the one person of Christ we are NOT "individuals," but rather, as the NEB states, "one person in Christ" (there are also other translations which adopt this rendering)! Why did these linguists translate the masc. sing. heis as "one person" here if the masc. sing does not naturally denote a "single person"?
*Second, Kurshner states in this case heis "contains a multiplicity [of] persons," being human person...all of which are equally human BEINGS! Hence, Kurshner unwittingly makes my point that there is absolutely no difference between a "person" & a "being"....Indeed, every "person" I have ever met is equally a human "being," but not the same human "being," nor "person" as I am! Once again, Kurshner makes my point.

JK:
So this refutes Perkin’s claim that heis cannot contain multiplicity of persons.

RP:
*No, it actually makes the point & refutes the "multiple persons" theory (since the context & point was just the opposite of what Kurshner claims)!

JK:
In addition, Perkins is making a category error. He is confusing being with person because of his presupposition of unitarianism. It is a non sequitur to state that because heis can refer to God it must mean “one person.”

RP:
*It's not that heis "can refer to God" - it's that it DOES refer to God approximately 100 times in the NT alone (not even including the LXX). It is Kurshner who is making the "category error" by offering the fanciful notion that there's some sort of a difference between a "person" & a "being"....still waiting on biblical - or even practical - evidence of this hypothesis:_______________?

JK:
Perkins cannot prove that heis contains the meaning of “personhood.”

RP:
*Already did - even from his own source which explicitly states such (as well as Zodhiates, BAGD, Robertson, Thayer, Vincent, Wuest, etc.)! He simply refuses to accept the lexical data in order to protect a religious tradition.

JK:
In conclusion, Roger Perkins is blusterous in his use of Greek sources. He cannot read Greek, for he would not be using “English-help” Greek sources and very dated Greek sources from a hundred years ago. This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit lexical fallacies. And it does not mean that if someone who does not know Greek cannot perform competent word studies. But Perkins should not be so confident in his lexical claims because of his lack of Greek knowledge and his dependence on secondary English sources. He may fool those who do not know Greek, but he cannot fool those who do know Greek.

RP:
*First, Kurshner appealed to a "English-help" in BDAG above three separate times! Using his own criteria here, he "cannot read Greek" inasmuch as he is apparently "dependent on secondary English sources" such as BDAG. As Dr. Mounce has pointed out, EVERYONE uses some tools or another at some point - even himself (i.e., Dr. Mounce). Has Kurshner never read through Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Wallace's grammar is replete with English sources...& Wallace is likely one of the most competent Koine' grammarians alive today! Silly assertion.

*Next, though it is slow going sometimes (when I've been away from it for awhile), I read Greek just fine, can translate whole passages without anything but myself & the NA28 Greek text, understand parsing, many declension-case endings, etc. So, no, Kurshner is absolutely wrong about this assertion - as he is at virtually every other "point" in the article.
Perkins

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Roger Perkins answers a recent AOMIN article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two persons in view here, not one.

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

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

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

Therefore the Son cannot be identified as the Father.

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

Roger Perkins