CLOSING COMMENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC

I thank Frank for standing up for the error he holds and trying to defend what is not in scripture and his attempt to refute me by questions what I made in my affirmation, that Jesus is God and Father, God is one person, God was in Christ the man and yet Jesus as Spirit Deity was the only God and Father.

Recap of major problem for Frank, he has YHVH and another god with YHVH, who he says is not also YHVH. I showed by comparing scriptures, that Jesus is that YHVH of the O.T. as the Lord God the Father stated as Theos and that Theos is never modified by any grammatical word for three or anything not masculine as heis-One modifies God as being ONE PERSON.

I believe Frank is on one end of a extreme holding that Jesus is someone other than YHVH and Robert Morey who wrote a book THE TRINITY holds that there is TWO YAHWEHS, both are in error.

I feel secure that anyone viewing this later will see errors and egregious ones made by Turk on his YHVH
idea.

The format allowed my opponent to skirt being rebutted and counter rebutted for each point he attempted to make.

I want to take some time to rebut in shorter format such points .

Turk did not affirm what he said he would in e-mails and that is three persons in his opening.

We saw no explanation of the H.G. and Son and HG and Father relationship as persons as I ask.

The comforter-paracleton is Jesus, clearly seen in John 14:16-21 who was coming to us and named such in the Greek in 1 John 2:1.
Allos for another means of the same kind, it is not heteros of a different kind which my opponent needed .

Only one person is mentioned and never three persons in scriptures as my affirmation pointed out. And his answer to a question of mine.

Regards to Rev. 21:6-7 and he agrees it is Jesus and Isa. 9:6 is speaking of Jesus, then Turk seems to be out of the norm of those Trinitarians on CARM, who have even stated there is TWO ALPHAS AND TWO OMEGAS. I guess you got something on them.

A4 “I’m confused by Aaron’s question because we actually have a passage in which all three persons who are God are plainly and clearly distinguished by Peter.”

Point, Turk never did list one scripture where any of the words and phrases or terms I mentioned is scriptural, I didn’t want conjecture and guessing what he thinks, just what I ask. Peter never used three persons for God, no hint either.

His response that three persons found in Acts is misinformation, nothing of the kind is stated by anyone.

Right hand is a place of power and not a literal seat. Jesus has all power, he thus is shown in his fulfilling the role as Deity.
There is not right hand to a OMNIPRESENT GOD literally.



Heb. 1:8 was refuted by me and not actually found in the languages of Hebrew, Greek and Oldest English.

There is a Son, but he was begotten, born and made, not eternal. The Son came in time as a man, Heb1:after the prophets spoke of him, poor thing never spoke in O.T.
Prophetic prolepsis of a Son was not a Son speaking.

Mary never was the Mother of God, but of that which was begotten in her womb and that is a Son of God , the Christ a Man. Theotokos is a pagan term used by Gentiles for Diana of the Ephesians. Fits with opponents pagan ideas on YHVH and other gods.

Jesus Christ was made both Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36.

I see Turk as dismissed totally by scripture and his inserting ideas not found of a eternal Son or three persons. I did find the word Bible in scripture in the Greek, you need to get a new line, the English is a translation for it as Book.

I also don’t worship such words not found, you worship the name and idea of a deity which has no such backing though.


A5 Phil. 2: has a huge difference between us and would take a more in depth study even. I reject the idea of persons and see a clear distinction of Jesus as God and as Son of God a man.
I also believe his answer for John 17:3 is weak and shows Jesus is not truly and completely God, but a untrue God and the Father ‘YHVH’ to him is thee God.
Thus making Jesus “a god” as Jehovah Witnesses hold in alignment with Turk.

Oneness hold Jesus is YHVH alone.

A6 Turk has left all semblance of holding one God and has a multiplicity of them.
I showed that scriptures speaks of ONE on the throne and that it is GOD AND THE LAMB as seen in Rev.22:3-4,20 make such clear who that it. JOHN, ISAIAH AND EZEKIEL are clear, just one on the throne and not a threesome. (even called One man).
God and the Lamb is the same Personage, Jesus, SPIRIT DEITY AND THE ANOINTED CHRIST WHICH SPIRIT FILLS do all in Revelation 4th and 5th chapters.

I specifically ask Turk who was the Father in Heaven, since he has three fathers altogether.
Is Jesus and Holy Ghost persons in the Trinity not in heaven we must ask? I believe this is a Achilles heel for him, Clearly all three called Father or in Holy Ghost case is the Father of the Man Christ.
ONLY ONE FATHER IN HEAVEN, GOD! Who‘s JESUS!!.

I don’t believe a Christian can be forsaken, I believe though Christians can forsake and the letters to Epistles prove this. You though have Jesus forsaken by God and that is a real dilema for Jesus is our God and I his son.

Turk did not respond to final question as asked and definitions.
AARON

public service announcement

Aaron still gets his closing statement; we look forward to it.

I have been toiling all weekend to try to get Blogger to insert and execute a JavaScript word-counting routine. Because it requires the JavaScript to also read the Blogger notation, it has been an on-again, off-again implementation.

Right now, you should see the note "OFFICIAL WORD COUNT: #### WORDS" at the bottom of each post under the color part to the right. If you do, great. If you don't please e-mail me a screen shot.

A#10 for Aaron

What concerns me about Aaron’s question, I think is that he doesn’t really understand that the word “theotes” here doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. It’s used once in the NT, and it means something which the King James plainly relates: the concept of “the Godhead”; your Greek dictionary may say, “the state of being God” or “the essence or quality of divinity”.

This concept of “Godhead” – plainly expressed here by Paul – speaks not to some person but some quality of divinity. So it is right to say that Christ has “in him” the “fullness of the Godhead”. He is himself the exact representation of the Godliness of God, as it says in Heb 1. In no way does the Trinitarian deny that Jesus is completely God: what the Trinitarian would deny is that Christ is the same person as the Father who sent him, or the Spirit who comes from both Himself and the Father.

This is what you simply do not grasp, Aaron: the Trinitarian position does not reduce Jesus to either God or man, not does it somehow slice God into pieces, nor does it reason that there are “gods”. It simply states that the father is truly God; the Son is truly God; the Spirit is truly God; and all of these commune as co-equal and co-eternal, and are one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

To your question, then, all that is necessary to be God dwells in Christ as “theotos” is a quality and not a person. And we, therefore, are complete in Christ. And Christ, as God, is the head of all principality and power. This is not a complicated textual riddle, but I admit something to you: it is entirely God’s description of himself, and in that we may never actually understand all its implications.

Problematically for you in this exchange, however, it does not let us believe that the Father and the Son are the same person. You are fortunate, Aaron, that by the count of the analytics counter installed on this blog, almost no one has read this exchange. You have not proven at all that Christ and the father are the same person, and you cannot prove such a thing – because any reasonably-literate person reading the Bible will see that the definition which you supplied for what it means to be a “person” applies to Jesus and to the Father distinctly. What that means, I think is that the reader has won this debate: the reader can hereby reach his own conclusion about the personhood of Christ and the personhood of the Father. He can read the texts we have exchanged and see for himself how utterly divested from the text your reading is.

You get the last word here; please stay inside your 1000-word limit. May you be blessed and kept well, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

final question for Turk

This last question of my opponent will be a bit harder for him as he must do some study and think before he types.

Col. 2:9 & 10
"For IN HIM (Christ) DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS of the GODHEAD BODILY and ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is THE HEAD of ALL PRINCIPALITY and POWER:"

I would like for you to tell me which person or persons of the godhead is in Christ and to define the words above in BOLDFACE each,
If you need a additional 100 words to define them, take such.

example : 'IN' - function word to indicate location or position within limits.

I see you denying that inside of Jesus Christ the Son of God the man, is TRUE GOD , the YHVH himself wrapped in flesh.

Peter and John are distinct persons because they are two totally different men.
Both men of flesh and with different minds and bodies.

But Jesus is the one true God and the Son of God the man Christ and so differences are seen in that you wish to make a YHVH a different person than Jesus nature as God, Jesus becomes "a god" just like your sister religion the Jehovah Witnesses hold, matter of fact, your explaination is so close to them as to be almost word for word what they hold.

Jesus is SPIRIT DEITY IF HE IS GOD, because God is Spirit John 4:24 and John 20:28 and Rev. 21:6-7 clearly show that Isa. 9:6 is fulfilled and Jesus is God.
God is not and doesn't need to be seperate persons to fulfill his word.

The Father is the eternal Spirit deity of which Jesus as , has always been and always will be.
The addition of his human body/tabernacle of flesh came in time and is how he purchased us with HIS blood of God as the Son of God, for God's blood is his own and only came about with the incarnation in the Son.
Zech. 12:10 makes it clear God counts that body as his and yet almost aloof from him when he says..."they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him."
Clearly God speaks that the body is his and yet speaks as if it is not in the same passage.
DISTINCTION IS SEEN, it isn't two persons, but two natures of that one person of God, which I proved in my affirmation by scriptures and grammar that God is only one person.

You divide God up so much as to make a polytheistic group of deities, first the God the Father is YHVH an then you have a God who is not YHVH, but a junior demigod, where the third person deity is anybodies guess.

Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the God of the O.T., you cannot even conjure up a name for him.
I showed in previous questions and your answers define two First and lasts, two Kings, two coming ones, two everythings and yet we must add the third person in and I guess he is King , though the Bible doesn’t say such and he is a First and Last as well.

The problem you have is that it is YHVH=LORD that is called LORD AND KING in the O.T. and clearly there is only ’ONE’, LORD the KING and he is Jesus and stated in Rev. 19:16 as the LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS, means you cannot rightly divide the word of God.

Your two first and lasts is absurd, the context is clear, only one is the first and last, one is not the first and the other the last, the language doesn’t state that in Rev. 22:13 compared to Isa 43:10-11 and 44:6,8.

You need the only true God, Jesus.

Q#10 for Aaron

Since this is my last question to Aaron, let me first thank him for his participation here.

Aaron -- you have completely misunderstood my last question. The point is not that John and Peter are the same person, but plainly distinct persons. The ways we can know that for them are the ways we can know the same regarding Jesus and the Father.

So I ask you: given the explanation of this I gave in my previous answer, why do the tests we would use to distinguish between Peter and John not apply to the same clear distinctions in Scripture we see between the Father and the Son?

A#9 for Aaron

The direct answer to your question, Aaron, is that both the Father and the Son are referred to by all of these titles -- which is why we can confidently say they are both God.

The problem, of course, is that we cannot say they are the same person. I have already used several of your own questions and examples to express this: the Scripture clearly expresses to us that the Father sent the Son -- not that the Father is the Son. The Scripture expresses that the one who sits on the Throne in Revelation 4 hands the scroll to another who is His equal, but is not the self-same him. The Father speaks of the Son, and makes promises to the Son.

That, however, does not make you think for a moment regarding what Scripture says: it only causes you to find ways to deny what Scripture says. This is the reason I asked you to consider the example, in Scripture, of Peter and John. The ways we know in Scripture that Peter is not John is that Scripture shows us that they interact with each other, and they are distinct from each other, and they demonstrate personal motive and activity. That is, for example, Jesus says to Peter and not John, "feed my sheep". Peter denied Christ, not John. We could literally make a two-page list of distinctions between the two because Peter is a different person than John.

The problem for you is that this is exactly the case with the Son and the Father. They are personally distinct, and yet Scripture also tells us that they have something extraordinary in common: when the OT speaks of YHVH, these descriptions are applied elsewhere both to the Son and the Father.

But the distinctions are necessary and clear -- for the Father is not the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. The Son is not the one who declared the Law to Moses. The Son did not conceive himself in Mary's womb. The Father does not descend on Jesus at his baptism.

Your view of Scripture is horribly disfigured, Aaron: it lops off all the beauty and superiority of God. It makes God only explicable, and not at all greater than that which he created.

It's a shame. You need him -- and I invite you to see why. You need the God who is greater than man so that he can both punish sin and die for the punishment of sin. You need the God who both reigns over all things and still makes the hearts of believers his sanctuary. You need the God who is humble enough to pour himself out and be a man, but still sovereign to see that his definite plan to see his son die on a cross is fulfilled by sinful men.

You need the Triune God, Aaron. Repent and turn to him.

Turk’s statement
LORD (YHVH) is hiding from Israel but speaking to Isaiah; He tells Isaiah…another person is coming--a person who is not "I, YHVH", but in fact, "he, a child".

You have YHVH and another person who is not YHVH (yet god) coming and who is only a child.
I am not concerned that a child did come, but as to the part that says in ISA. 9:6
Speaking of He who was a child and Son that he would also be called MIGHTY GOD AND FATHER!

That said, let us make a comparison and ask you is there
ONE or MORE of the following
and
Who is it, and is any of these stated to be Jesus and or YHVH?

FIRST AND LAST
THE KING
THE ONE COMING
THE I AM AND I AM HE
REDEEMER AND SAVIOUR
THE SHEPHERD
THE ROCK

ScriptureS teach us Jesus is YHVH.

answer to Turk

God is only one person.
Jesus has two natures a divine Spirit nature and a human flesh nature and is a complete man and not just a shell as some say.
God indwells his Son, the human nature and Jesus by the miracle of incarnation is that God and man.

I find no two or three persons, no dialog (and neither did you), no YHVH with another who is equal, but not YHVH God.

Turks question: "How do we know Peter and John are two distinct persons?"

I know very well in that Jesus is the express image of the substance of God and is one numerically.
I know that Man is made in the image of God is not a three person man, because God is not a three person deity as Trinitarians wish the passage in Gen 1:26 says, but then is shown not to be three beings as God, but rather 1 in Gen 1:27.
I am thus created in the image of God and that image is his Christ, the Son of God a single individual and a real man.

Trinitarians try and make their God a triad of three beings or persons or entities. We hold to the Jewish idea of a single one and the Christian idea that the Jews rejected that God was in Christ, his Son. Thus God is one and our Father and Jesus is fully that God by his Spirit.

Peter and John are made in God's image and thus are one person each, just like God is one person as Job 13:8 and Gal.3:20 shows and the thousands of singular personal pronouns show over the handful of plural places taken out of context as in Gen.1:26,3:22,11:7,Isa.6:8.

Peter is one person and not John and vice versa, like you are one person a man made in God's image and that express image of the invisible God was Christ.

So if you can show they are the same person then do so, otherwise I must claim early victory, because neither them or you or I, are three persons, made from such a God.

I have already made my affirmation of God is one person and Jesus is fully God and the only true God to us Oneness. I have defended such in my answers to you as well.
It is then seen that Theos is never modified by anything other than the masculine word one/heis in the N.T., and three never used for one time, and to think, as much as you folks use it, you would think it is on every page , if not every verse.

I have noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter hard to prove what the Bible never stated, huh?

Aaron

Q#9 for Aaron

Since there are only two questions left, Aaron, I'll go easy on you to wind this up quickly.

You're pretty adamant to deny that there are no examples of the Father and the Son being shows as two persons in the NT, which is fine by me: suit yourself.

In Acts 3, the chapter opens, "Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour." Here's my question: How do we know Peter and John are two distinct persons? Feel free to quote as much or as little Scripture to substantiate your assertion, inside your 500 word limit.

A#8 for Aaron

There's no sense attempting to debunk this question -- and I'm surprised that it didn't come sooner from Aaron.

The number "3" occurs about 78 times in the New Testament, and none of them refer directly to God.

This fact does not in any way affirm Aaron's thesis, which is the Father and the Son are one person.

Question for Turk

My opponent earlier said that Jesus was equal with God and he termed God as YHVH, but Jesus is not YHVH, but only equal to him, thus he has YHVH and something not YHVH the deity of the Tetragrammaton.

For what you have is when Jesus is around and a passage speaks of God,
that Jesus is not that God, but rather is lesser than for he is not the YHVH of the O.T., then it follows that when Jesus is called Lord, your first person or any other would not be Lord either.

Question, if Jesus is only equal and not identical as YHVH, then can you show me anywhere in the N.T. where God/Theos is modified by a numeral other than a sole numeric one and called three "persons" as well.



Oneness say Jesus is YHVH/THEOS come in flesh, 2 Cor.5:19, John 20:28

Aarons answer to Question

Jesus as the Christ of God could not be forsaken period, my verses showed that, your NO verses showed nothing.
What you may think, means nothing, it is what the scriptures say regarding God's own, including his only begotten Son.
Next time maybe you can show that God forsakes his own.
We have no problem anywhere.
Jesus the Christ took are sins, didn't mean God forsakes him anymore than when we feel forsaken.
Jesus paid our debt, not needing to be forsaken by God against his own word.
Jesus saying “why hast thou forsaken me” is no different than any other human saying it in need.
You accept that God forsakes, I don’t.



Turk- “What is the Gospel? That is: what is it that God has done in Christ (or as you would say “as Christ”) which we should receive as good news .

[1st point, I would not say as Christ as you tried to make it seem I would.]

The Gospel is the good news of a savior and the death, burial and resurrection and all that goes with it like healing and deliverance and he not letting his children begging for bread.
Does not mean bad things don't happen to us, but that we are delivered from even those things and come out better (Like Job) than before, even if it means death for us, we will still be saved on the other side.

Now to be exact, this leads then to salvation and a death burial and resurrection in us which is our salvation. This takes place when we believe by faith in the grace he provided, we confess and repent of our sins and have those sins remitted in water baptism only in the NAME, which is Jesus and we persevere in the world and run the course and stay a Christian in Holiness and not a dead and fallen away individual.
Our belief leads us to a dying out to sin and having the old man buried and being filled with the newness of life and to be in the resurrection or the saints.

I don’t see a Trinitarian salvation example, you don’t believe that which is truth, trinitarians don’t confess sins and repent in most cases and they reject in most cases either or water baptism and Spirit baptism which is the New Birth experience of being Born Again, and they certainly don’t teach and live Holiness in the vast majority of the Trinity churches.

Since God is not three persons and Jesus is the only person, then salvation comes from him as God and Savior and by this Son which he brought forth to fulfill the payment and purchase our salvation, his tabernacle.
Jesus is God (though I do not see you accepting him as YHVH, God the Father and only true God as John 17:3 speaks of),
Jesus is Son of God the propitiation for our sins as a man.
He is the indwelling Spirit in us, the comforter.

Aaron

Q#8 for Aaron

Aaron gave us this very interesting statement in his last answer:

So Jesus was not forsaken for God does not forsake his own which are his, but feelings of such came over that Son of God, the man hung on the cross.

This is interesting because it speaks directly to the second-greatest problem of his philosophy.

It seems obvious that in order for Christ’s work to be the kind of work necessary to save the believers from sin, the Son must by necessity have been forsaken by God in wrath.

So here’s my question to Aaron: What is the Gospel? That is: what is it that God has done in Christ (or as you would say “as Christ”) which we should receive as good news which excludes the fact that Christ was forsaken on the cross?

A#7 for Aaron

Here’s an answer I think Aaron was probably not expecting: I think the problem, as he reasons it, is far worse than he expresses it here. For example, the Jews called Abraham “our father” (John 5); Joseph is called the father of Jesus (John 6); David is also called the father of the messiah (Luke 1:32).

So who is actually “the Father” or “our Father”? I mean: the Bible says all these things, and we are stuck with the apparently-unenviable task of trying to extract from the inscrutable text – and only “oneness” can sort it out for us because they say they don’t obey any tradition. But we can see that the method they use to raise questions against those who disagree with them is simply inadequate -- it doesn't even consider the implications of the questions across all of Scripture.

Look at Aaron last answer to me – the question was, “what does it mean for Jesus to be forsaken?” And Aaron has interpreted that question to mean that any Christian can be forsaken. Well: no. There’s no way to hang that on me personally, or on any version of theology I would call Christian – but it’s part of Aaron’s interpretation. The question is “why?” – and the answer is obvious: he approaches Scripture by first disqualifying any interpretation which does not meet the expectations he has before receiving what Scripture says is true. To his credit, he did answer the question – but his answer opens a more consequential question than whether we can distinguish between the Father and the Son. We’ll get there in a minute.

To answer Aaron’s question, the Father is the title of the person Jesus refers to frequently in the NT, who is also God. However, when we reason out what Scripture tells us about the Father and the Son, there are things which they share in common – culminating in the highest form or equality as the Father and the Son are both named as God – YHVH. They are distinct persons who are at the same time God – not gods who might be at odds with each other, but the same God together with the Holy Spirit.

question for Turk

Opponent has what I call Trinitarian absurdities,
three persons in a godhead and he doesn't realize it gives him problems.

Turk has three Fathers in a godhead and only one is God in heaven.

The trinitarians with three persons has God the Father, the first person,
they have God the Son, another person and who Isaiah says would be called mighty God and what? FATHER!
then there is God the Holy Ghost the third person (who’s generally truant) and is shown as being the Father of the Son, for Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost and not the first person they clamor about.

Who then is the ONE FATHER in heaven, which of these three is the real Father, like in the TV game show WHATS MY LINE, who is the Father in heaven according to
Matthew 23:9 ?

Oneness say Jesus is Father and He fulfills all three roles.



aaronsRod1@excite.com

ANSWER TO TURK

My opponent has a deity which forsakes his own, it is evident that he doesn't read the Bible, for if he did, he would see that God cannot forsake or leave us.

Turk would have us to believe that the footprints in the sand pictures hanging on peoples walls is a God that is not walking with his own when he chooses not to and so forsakes his own son, thus he could forsake us.

Wrong! as Dt.4:31,31:6,8, Jos.1:5, Heb.13:5 and others attest.

So what is meant here, I reject the idea that God forsakes any who is walking with him and obedient and (Christ was the most obedient servant as a man).

It means that Christ a "MAN" and not a hybrid god-man idea that trinitarians espouse
'FELT FORSAKEN'
because he truly was a man a man of feelings and subject to limitations and hurt and shame and pain.

Just like a young girl in church gets raped and loses what someone took from her, she is never forsaken by God if she was a Christian in such a case.
Just like a young girl becomes pregnant and not married and the issue will eventually be known, she is not forsaken even though in sin if she turns to God and repents, God is there, always has been and always will.
Just like a young man hurt in a accident and loses his manhood in what may be the most embarrassment that can happen to a man or boy, he is not forsaken, but because he is a man and the girls are of mankind, they FEEL FORSAKEN, as the Christ felt so.

When Jesus gave up the Ghost, it was not Spirit deity seeing how fast and far he could get away from this man, but was a Spirit that gave life and kept him, like it does us.
We see from scriptures that Jesus was in hell and was not sleeping only, but was taking captivity captive, so Spirit was still there, just not that life giving Spirit as we as men get to live on this earth.

LIMITATIONS REMEMBER.

So Jesus was not forsaken for God does not forsake his own which are his, but feelings of such came over that Son of God, the man hung on the cross.

If things went as Trinitarians held was happening here, then God (and notice Jesus is not God to them, save when it suits them) forsakes his Son and thus could one day tire of this mess and say, I will destroy it all and start over, wrongo!
God the creator, became part of his creation, he added humanity to himself and is not going to tire, for his body is his and that was the Son of God.

Lastly, God the Father is not distant at all, for all the fullness of the godhead dwelleth bodily in him.
The Father was in him John 14:10
God was in Christ 2 COR.5:19.

Aaron aka SCHMIT on CARM.

Q#7 for Aaron

Aaron: in Mat 27:46, Jesus plainly says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I am sure you have an explanation why this doesn’t mean that the Father was not only distinct from the Son at this moment, but was actually distant from Jesus.

Here’s my question: if Jesus is the same person as God the Father, what does it mean here, on the cross, that Jesus was “forsaken” by God?

A#6 for Aaron

One of the things I have enjoyed about this exchange so far is that Aaron has given us a very diverse number of questions in each round to answer, and I’ve had to work hard to maintain my commitment to the readers of this blog not to exceed my word count.

For this grouping of questions, there’s no question that God the Father is the who is seated on the throne in Rev 4:2. We know this for a fact because at his right hand is a scroll (Rev 5:1), and the one who is worthy to open the scroll (Rev 5:6-8) who is “a Lamb” comes from those who are assembled before the throne and takes the scroll from him. If Aaron wants to connect Isa 6 and Eze 1 to Rev 4-5, that’s his business, and his problem to harmonize all the issues this would create.

Instead, we should simply and rightly see that, even in this prophetic language, John the Apostle makes a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. Somehow Aaron takes these separations and ignores them for the other side of the coin here in Scripture – which are the ways that the Son and the Father are held in common. For that reason, I stipulate all of the ways in which the Bible, and specifically the book of Revelation, say that the Son is exactly like the Father.

But for Aaron, we can only read the passages of common nature and common glory and common activity as descriptions of the person of God, but when actual persons are described, we have to ignore the distinctions and somehow come up with one person even when more than one person is simply listed in the text.

The Trinitarian does not deny, for example, that all things were created and are sustained through Jesus Christ, and that all things are also created by God the Father. But what the Trinitarian admits which Aaron cannot accept is that the Father and the Son have been together since the beginning of all things (John 1:1-2), and are equal in every way (Phil 2:6; Heb 1:1-3a). We admit to the relationship implied in the language of Father and Son, and in the relationship demonstrated by the ways Scripture expounds that the Father glorifies and is glorified by the Son.

The Oneness advocate simply cannot do this: he abandons Scripture when these things become evident. And the serious question the reader has to consider is this: why? Why would Aaron want to abandon Scripture even if it leads him to things which are impossible for men but not hardly impossible for God?

Question for Turk

In the following passages how many persons/beings/men are seen on the throne sitting, was it
ONE or THREE?
*[men in reference to anthropomorphic usage in the KJV for the one on the throne].

Isaiah 6:1 Ezekiel 1:26-28 Revelation 4:2

Coupled with that on the same subject idea, who is spoken of in the following passages on the
ONE THRONE?
Revelation 4:8 Is the one which was, is , and is to come. AND is the Almighty?
Revelation 4:11 Is the creator?
Rev.4:11 Is worthy to receive Glory, Honor, and Power
compare and answer who is this in
Revelation 1:8 The one who; is, and is to come?
Rev.1:8 Who is the Almighty?
John 1:3 Who is the creator?
Revelation 5:12 Is worthy to receive Glory, Honor and Power?

Then answer is it one person/being or part of one spoken of in
Revelation 22:3-4 & who is it?

Any persons missing?

Answer #6 for Frank

The Son was not called God according to Hebrew, Oldest Greek and Oldest English versions.
If the passage is interpreted properly as of old, then God is the Son’s throne.

Oneness hold distinction in a Human Son spoken in Hebrews 1: in surrounding passages as well. See vss 2-9

Your question then answered by this study.

Psalm 45:6KJV
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Now look at Heb.1:8KJV

Not exactly verbatim copied over.

The Power New Testament, William Morford reads...

"But to the Son, Your Throne, God, is forever and ever, and the scepter is the righteous scepter of Your kingdom."

Older English versions

Wycliffe N.T. 1380

"but to the sone he seith, god thi trone is in to the world of world : a zerd of equite is the zerd of thi rewme,"

Translated :'To the son he saith, God thy throne is in the world of worlds: a staff of equity and the staff of thy realm'.


Tyndale 1534
But vnto the sonne he sayth: God thy seate shal-be forever and ever. The cepter of thy kyngdome is a right cepter."

Translated :'But unto the son He saith: God thy seate shall be forever and ever. The sceptre of the Kingdom is a right sceptre.'

The Coverdale Bible 1535
"But vnto ye sonne he sayeth: God, yi seate endureth for euer & euer: the cepter of yi kyngdome is a right cepter."


The three oldest English Versions do not state the Son is God!


A.T.Roberston Word Pictures of the New Test. Vol.5 pg 339
" O God(ho Theos)....It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28) with the Messiah termed Theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood:
"God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense."


Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture pg 265

Anti-patripassianist Corruptions of Scripture


Interpretive problems abound in the passage, in part because the nominative o Theos, normally construed as a vocative ("O God"), could also be taken as a predicate.
In that case,
"Your throne is God forever and ever,..."

Recognizing the exegetical issue, however, makes the textual problem at the end of the verse all the more interesting. For the second person pronoun sov ("your" kingdom) has been changed to the third person avtov in some of the best Alexandrian witnesses from the third century (p46 N B). with this reading, the kingdom is said not to be Christ's but God's.

Oneness Dr. Marvin Treece The Literal Word-Hebrews pg 12

"Translation- But to the Son, "God is your throne into the ages of ages, and the rod of uprightness (is) the rod of His kingdom."

Commentary
But to the Son, "God is your throne." The Writer is quoting the LXX where the nominative ho theos is used instead of the vocative.

Q#6 for Aaron

In Heb 1:8-9, the Son here is said to be God (v. 8), and yet "God" has anointed the Son. Here's how I think you have to read these verses:

But unto Himself he said, my throne, God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of my kingdom. I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even me myself, has anointed myself with the oil of gladness.

Now seriously: how do you make sense of this in the context of Heb 1 where the writer is saying that God has made use of the Son, and not that God has merely done all this as one person throughout the ages?

A#5 for Aaron

There's no question: this passage says that the Father is the One true God. As I read what Aaron means here, however, I am faced with the troubling idea that he thinks the Son is not at all God -- for here Jesus calls the Father God, but not himself.

The problem for Aaron is that this passage makes a clear distinction or the person of the Father and the person of His Son. In the end, it's Aaron who has a problem in this verse, where he must justify the distinction Jesus Himself makes between the person of the Father and the person of "His Son" -- yet harmonize it with places like Phil 2:6 (as previously asked) where the Son is said to be an equal to the Father.

What's also troubling is that Aaron has called the trinitarian reading of Phil 2:6 the oneness reading. That is: when the Trinitarian points out that Jesus was "isos" to God before his birth, the Trinitarian makes it clear that Jesus was "equal to" the Father in nature and as God. Aaron wants to leverage that into "identical in person", but to try to force this passage to say that renders it, again, completely absurd.

The Trinitarian does not surrender that the Father is wholly God, nor that the Son is wholly God. What the Trinitarian admits freely is that the Son and the Father are consistently spoken of in Scripture as distinct as persons but wholly of the same nature.

Question #5

John chapter 17 vs 1-3
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER, THE HOUR IS COME; GLORIFY THY SON, THAT THY SON ALSO MAY GLORIFY THEE."
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thous hast sent."

My opponent has a problem for in his previous comments he
has a person/being Jesus who is equal but not identical to YHVH, then who is the
ONLY TRUE GOD! and what would that make Jesus logically in anyone's mind as to anything but a untrue or non-true god!

Who is called THE ONLY TRUE GOD in the passage?

Answer by Aaron

Turk did not affirm any three person deity or provide a passage for such a thing,
So to Peter did not prove such, anywhere.

My opponent has proven he holds gods and not a God, he states that Jesus is not YHVH/YHWH but is merely equal to YHVH and thus presents YHVH and a deity which is not YHVH.
Scriptures say my opponent is in error. Isa. 40:25 To whom will ye liken me , or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
See Isa. 45;5,9

I answer Turks' question that Jesus alone is that person of God in my affirmation .

Turk proves 2 god, YHVH and another equal with YHVH, but who is not YHVH himself.

Oneness hold that the word for "equal" is not just merely like or similar , but that identical as in the very nature itself of Jesus as God or YHVH.

Turk has something Robert Morey a Trinitarian doesn't even have, Jesus not YHVH, Morey believes in two of them in his book THE TRINITY pg 116.
Turk believes in YHVH and one equal to that deity and so he has two of them.

Oneness like myself believe in distinctions of identities and natures of Jesus as Father and God and the human man which is being spoken of in PHIL. 2: passage.

Jesus was in the morphe and Thayer says it is "The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance".

From "The Christology of the N.T." by Cullman he speaks of the relationship of the story of Adam and Jesus "The phrase which follows , this declaration that Jesus was in the form of God, 'he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,' can also be explained only on the basis of a contrasting parallel between (CHRIST) and Adam."pg 177

Oneness hold the humanity of Jesus is not YHVH, but his Spirit is YHVH himself, that Jesus is and always has been by nature, but he also has a human limited nature that God Theos/YHVH dwells in 2Cor.5:19.

I reject your idea that the Greek means or is translated "HE WAS AN EQUAL TO GOD."

The Oneness position is then The Son of God was God incarnate with both divine and human capacity, that the Son made a ethical decision not to cling to divine prerogatives, that God could never have had a temptation to rob or usurp a divine prerogative while he was in heaven and only a man could be commended for refusing such temptation.

Oneness holds that morphe refers to the Son born at Bethlehem, the visible image or form of the invisible God.

We hold the text speaks of the actual relationship between the Christ and his Father God.

Oneness interpretation holds that the Apostle is telling the Phillipians that they should emulate the humble and obedient mind of the Messiah.

There is no eternal Son, no second person, no persons in a godhead.

Q#5 for Aaron

I’m disappointed, Aaron, that you don’t really have a reason to doubt what Peter says is true, but you are welcome to your own thoughts on that matter. Let’s move on.

It’s my position that the Scripture does not say Jesus is identical to YHVH, but is in fact equal to YHVH. For example, in Phil 2:6 says Jesus had the form of God before the incarnation, but did not seek to hold onto this “equality with God” – the Greek says literally, “εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ”, or “he was as an equal to God.”

So my question is this: If the Bible says that Jesus existed at the same time as YHVH, and was an equal with YHVH, how can we then say that Jesus is the same person as YHVH?

A#4 for Aaron

I’m confused by Aaron’s question because we actually have a passage in which all three persons who are God are plainly and clearly distinguished by Peter. However, I am also disappointed that he wants to machine gun through these points in one question as each certainly deserves it’s own answer in detail. Sadly, a 500-word answer for all of them at once will not do that.

If Aaron is looking for a “trinity” – specifically, three persons – Acts 2:14-36 is one of the most rich and obvious places in which three distinct persons are named and shown in relationship to each other. For example, Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up.” And then in v. 33 Jesus is “at the right hand of God” (distinct but equal), and “received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” (from one to another, not to himself), and then that the Holy Spirit is therefore “poured out” to create the miracle of the many tongues. Plainly there are three here – denying that denies that the text means anything at all – you might as well deny Peter is talking to a crowd.

Regarding the “eternal son”, I’d refer Aaron to Hebrews 1 which says that God has spoken through his Son “through whom he also created the world”. That is: Jesus existed before anything else did, and specifically before he was born in the flesh. This is mirrored in John 1 as well, that Jesus, the Word, was in the beginning, and with God, and was God. But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t stop there as in v. 8 it says his throne is “forever and ever”, and then in v. 10, “You laid the foundation of the Earth in the beginning.” This is said of the Son explicitly. As to Jesus’ unique sonship, John 3:16 makes that explicitly clear: that Jesus is the “one and only” son, or “only begotten son” as it says in the KJV.

The only other statement Aaron has made here which isn’t already covered is the question of whether Mary gave birth to a child which was God at birth – which is the full meaning of “theotokos”, and not some exalted title which lifts her up. I have no idea why Aaron would want to dispute this as a matter of Trinitarian theology, but without any question Luke 2:11, in the announcement of the angels, on that day a child was born “who is Christ the Lord”. At his birth, he was fully the messiah, and he was fully Lord.

While Aaron may dismiss these, he cannot disprove them. And most importantly, while he will certainly declare there is no word “trinity” in any of these, that word applies in exactly the same way the word “Bible” applies to a collection of books which are Scripture and not merely one book written at one time for one purpose. It is theological short-hand to name something which the Scripture defines by example and declaration.

Question#4 to Frank

Turk throws out the word person as if in the passages he types up or about, I want the passages for the following nonsense he and his trinity cult continues to post and say as if true.
Find the following and tell me what you worship as true is actually taught or in scriptures…
Trinity
A Trinity
The Trinity
THREE PERSONS,especially this one!
PERSONS in a plural sense
eternal Son
eternally generated Son
eternally begotten Son
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Three in one
triune godhead
triunity
triad
three members in a godhead
three individuals
three beings or are you the variety which rejects that ?
God prays to God
Mary the Mother of God
The Son is God, instead of what it says 'SON OF GOD".

These are not Christian doctrines that we might find them taught and repeated by someone other than in creeds .

Answer #4 to Frank

Peter said nothing of another person, so you failed in that, just like in your 500 word affirmation, you proved nothing of or even supported with any post a three person deity. I stated there is distinction, but not of persons, but of Father and Son natures of Jesus, two of them SPIRIT AND A HUMAN OF FLESH.

You added nothing further and failed on this. FIND PERSONS IN THE PASSAGE, EVEN ONCE!

You can use my definition till your little heart is content, but there is not two or three persons in any godhead and you did not affirm such in your opening and couldn't do so, so that is one fact and taking a verse which I refuted and showed you errantly use adonai for adon and or adoni did not prove other persons in a godhead, but a human master.
David thus is not on your side, because in all of the O.T. he did not state his God was multiple persons or beings.

You also don't have a A Son being eternal, so YHWH did not speak as I stated to a real Son, but would be by the passage a prophetic prolepsis and you apparently don't have a clue what that is either.
You failed, no three persons, no person stated by Peter or David, David or Peter never taught or themselves believed in a three person godhead.
FELL FLAT ON YOUR FACE is what we all see.

I answered you very well and with scripture and with a fellow tritheist (because that is what I believe you hold) in Robert Morey and his TWO YAHWEHS, to go along with your two Lords.

The Hebrew had a way of using a Double emphatic and when they said such here or in Gen 19:24 they meant THE LORD, in two different ways of expressing himself.
Thus David could speak as he did and God in Zech 12;10 as I stated before could as well speak of his body pierced and then make it sound like someone else was being pierced.

I hold very well that Jesus is the person of God and fulfills as well the SON OF GOD role and does not in anyway need to be a second junior god as you actually hold and deny his full deity and position as Father.

Oh and yes Jesus is that YHWH of the O.T. for if he is God, he is that one God of the O.T. the eyeh asher eyeh or Tetragrammaton YHWH.
I am glad you deny he is YHWH and I guess that makes Robert Morey wrong as well.

Thanks for proving me now totally right and you still unable to find someone saying three persons or persons for this multiple person godhead you hold.

Q#4 for Aaron

Your last answer is interesting as an explanation of your hermeneutics, but it avoids the question I actually asked.

If we were talking about Ps 110 in a vacuum, I think your explanation is probably a very serious and sober way to interpret the poetic language and the theological paradigm of the Psalm.

The problem for your serious and sober interpretation is that it ignores the inerrant and sufficient interpretation that Peter attaches to Ps 110, in which plainly Jesus the Son is a person who is distinct from YHVH, another person. And I offer the word "person" using the definition you yourself have provided.

That said, I'll ask my previous question again here a different way: Since Peter's interpretation of David's words is necessarily inerrant, on what basis do you contradict it? By what authority or reason?

A#3 for Aaron

I don't know anyone who would say that Rev 21:6-7 does not show Jesus speaking and declaring His final triumph; I don't know anyone who would deny that Isa 9:6 is a prophecy of Jesus, the Messiah; I don't know anyone who would actually say that Rev 21:6-7 fulfills Isa 9:6, but I also don't see any conflict with saying that this prophecy is a concurrent prophecy to Isa 9:6 and in some way speaks to the same fulfillment.

These verses do not overturn the doctrine of the Trinity -- they fortify it. What is interesting in the way Aaron wants the reader to interpret here is that he demands that if you call Jesus "God", you must therefore be calling him "YHVH". But in fact what is startling is that Jesus is called God but is not called "YHVH".

If we accept that the Isaiah passage is the precursor to Rev 21, Isaiah 8 & 9 spells this out for us: the LORD (YHVH) is hiding from Israel but speaking to Isaiah (end of Isa 8); what He tells Isaiah is that another person is coming -- a person who is not "I, YHVH", but in fact, "he, a child".

Aaron has brought up the question of what the Jews thought of God, but here we see what they thought of the Messiah -- and why they thought it. The child born of a virgin is the King in David's line, someone who is not himself YHVH. But those phrases "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" for the Jew do not mean "the same person as YHVH". They mean "the one YHVH has sent".

We know this because while the Jews puzzled over whether Jesus was the Messiah, they rejected Him because he claimed to be equal with God. Consider the implications of John 5:18 in that respect.

Now, I say all that to say this: Aaron's interpretation demands that we see Jesus as identical with YHVH, but the Bible teaches us that Jesus was equal with YHVH. That's the only way to make sense of Isa 9:6, and the only way to make sense of Rev 21. And we will see as this exchange unfolds that it is the solution to the mystery of Jesus which the Bible itself offers up.

Question #3 to Turk

Trinitarians pull the old sly game of who is the Alpha and Omega, there is not truly one Alpha and Omega to them, they instead have at least two of them and must twist and make Jesus one of them and God (which I thought was Jesus according to John 20:28 and their own explaination), but in REV. 21:6-7 is another A&O CHARACTER!

Who is the Alpha and Omega in that verse and tell me how Isa.9:6 does not get fulfilled by that verse, where Jesus is spoken of as not being only a SON AND CHILD, but GOD AND FATHER!

You people have even gone so far as taking red letter editions and leaving Rev. 21:6-7 in black, instead of red and thus making two Alphas and Omegas!

Answer #3 from Aaron

I am glad you brought this verse back up in this question.

The passage in Psalm 110:1 is a prophetic prolepsis and was not one person speaking to another in the first place, it was for anticipation of that Son a man to come as if pre-existing but looking toward the future.

The distinction you speak of supports me, God is YHWH and the word for Lord in the O.T. here is adon or adoni, which is not supporting a second person at all of a godhead and a name for God, but for a human master, in this case the Man Christ, the humanity/flesh of God.

If God is YHWH, the second god(yes person you say) in your trinity would also be YHWH and this fits what Robert Morey holds in his book THE TRINITY pg 116 where he boldly proclaims TWO YHWHS! and not one.

Oneness Apostolics see distinction, but not in God and junior god Jesus the Word/Son person in your teaching, but we see Spirit Deity enfleshed in his only begotten Son, the Christ, which was not eternal and which was God dwelling in his tabernacle of flesh which was brought forth in Time.

God speaks of his body at times as if his and others as if aloof from him as he does in ZECH.12:10
'They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him'.

Where you have a problem is in Rev. 22:13-16 where Jesus the Alpha and Omega is stated of being the ROOT! and the offspring of David. This supports me above, as well, Jesus having two natures is David's God (ROOT) AND David's Son (offspring).
Further problem is he is David's Lord and David's Son, this shows his two natures, he is the one true God, the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, Spirit Deity and he is David's offspring the human heir a man God indwells.
2 Cor. 5:19, 1 Tim.3;16 and John 14:10-11.

So we are not dealing with your first two persons of the godhead (and where is that poor third chap at?).

We see absolutely no DIALOG either, we see a monolog statement and you may want to get a Dictionary and look up that word dialog, for you didn't find any such thing as I asked in my question.
Monolog statements 'a prayer to God by the man Christ' and a 'voice speaking of his Son' is not conversation dialog, period.
Thus the promise is a man the Son received a promise of his Father and God.
God does not have a God, a Son of God does.

Trinitarians have a mess with explaining who and where is God in many verses, they must insert which god is speaking of the triad they hold and which is spoken to, it is a neat game of fill in the blank, God prays to God and God raises God from the dead,
LOTS OF PROBLEMS! And you gotta explain them.
Aaron

Q#3 for Aaron

With the foundational questions out of the way, Aaron, here’s a question which you should be able to answer without too much heat and light:

In Acts 2, Peter gives what is the first Christian evangelistic sermon, and in it he cites Ps 110, in which David wrote, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.” What’s interesting here is that in David’s Psalm to the Messiah, David makes the clean distinction between YHVH (‘LORD’) and the Messiah (‘Lord’, or ‘Adonai’).

In some way, YHVH is speaking to “adonai” and is promising something to him, not to himself. Further, Peter sees this as a conversation, not a monolog.

Why do you understand the personhood of the Father and the Son differently than David and Peter understand it?

A#2 to Aaron

It seems to me, Aaron, that you aren’t really a very good reader of the Bible. Consider this passage from Acts 2:

[David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool."

Now, it is one thing for me to say, “well, you should interpret David in Ps 110 here to mean that the Father is speaking to the Son, and the passage is somewhat meaningless if this is not actually a conversation between two distinct persons.” I could say that; I would in fact say that.

But here’s the thing: Peter is himself saying that. That is: Peter is laying out in the first public proclamation of the Gospel the distinct identities of the persons in God, and claiming that the Father and the Son have spoken one to another.

What’s particularly interesting here is the passage Peter selected from Psalms, because the Hebrew says, “YHVH said unto Adonai, Sit thou at my right hand ...” That is: it makes a distinction between the Father by name and the Messiah.

So it is Peter’s interpretation of David that The Father has spoken to the Son, and that the Father gives things to the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is given by the Father and the Son as distinct for both of them.

Clearly, there is at least one conversation from one person of the Godhead to another of the Godhead. Let’s take that up in my next question to you.

Question 2 for Turk

Trinitarians are always stating there is communication within the Godhead, please
show me where this communication involves dialog and not just monolog.

I see where God speaks and not necessarily are we told which of the three persons of the trinity is supposedly speaking.

Prayers by the man Christ, but no dialog with either of the other two is not dialog. A voice from heaven speaks, but not particularly to a Son with any back and forth conversation. The Holy Ghost doesn't appear to speak to either of them and thus how is there communication and dialog between these three if they never converse, is this done by some osmosis?

Show true dialog and not just monologging.
Usage of prophecies of the O.T. is not such and can be easily refuted by me.
Proof of no persons without dialog taking place sometime.
Why is that?

Answer #2 for Turk

Answer to Question 2 by Aaron


My answer is first that the word Bible is in the Text, you must look at the word in Greek and it is found in Matthew 1:1 the word Biblios is Bible and is in our English transliterated to book.
But I have heard this weak defense and it matter little to me, here is the crux of the matter, I don't worship the Bible or the word, Trinitarians do worship a deity they call Trinity and which they say is three persons and yet is missing in every version.
The word Bible is there, I justify it very well and I do not worship "it", the word rapture, or incarnation either, but you folks worship what ye know not!
A TRINITY, A THREE PERSON, THREE DIFFERENT BEING GODHEAD.
It is not biblical, it isn't even implied as the other words are.
The Latin word used for Rapture defines the catching away of the saints in one word, the Trinity error is compounded by using further error and saying the Trinity is defined by the phrase which also is not found in the book/Bible and that is "three persons" or just the plural usage of "persons".
Incarnation has been used for a single word for the embodiment of Spirit Deity in a earhtly form. I don't worship it and don't even really need to use it, but is is used by both sides. I can define my godhead by merely saying what scriptures says...
"GOD WAS IN CHRIST" 2 COR. 5:19 or "THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME..." JOHN 14:10.
We do not see any three persons, so that is following a creed , more than the Biblios.
We Apostolics or Monarchians really were not the ones who started using the phrase modes, this is more a Trinity hostile witness term against us, used by Trinitarians to define us as well.
The Oneness of God defines what we hold that God is one, though no place do we see that phrase per se used, we are Oneness holding to The idea of just One God or God's being one as in one person, which I covered in my affirmation.
Aaron
AKA Schmit on CARM

Point, what happened to my 2nd question? it does not show up and it did yesterday.
You had ask #1 and I ask my #1 and #2.

Q#2 for Aaron

Before we go too far into this exchange, Aaron, you have complained already that all the versions of the word "trinity" are absent for the Bible. That's true insofar as it goes, but it leaves you with a pretty significant problem.

The word "Bible" (and its cousin "biblical") is not found in any translation of the Bible, either. It's a religious -- or perhaps theological -- word we use to describe the books we receive as Scripture from God.

Here's my question: If using the word "Trinity" in any of its forms is illegitimate because the word is not found in the Scripture, how can you then justify using the word "Bible" to describe the Scriptures when that word is, as you would say, "a NON-Biblical term"?

A#1 for Aaron

Aaron asks:

Tell me what is the Relationship of the Holy Ghost to the Father and the Son, we see there is a Father and Son relationship for two of the persons, how is the third person related to the other two.

The answer is simple: the Bible does not establish any familial relationship of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. The unfortunate problem for Aaron is that this fact has nothing to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son – which is the basis for this exchange.

What the Bible does establish, however, is the clear distinction in the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit. Since you asked about the Spirit, consider what Christ said about the Spirit:

I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [John 15:16-17]

Consider it: Jesus calls the Comforter “another”, and calls the Comforter “he”, with a purpose Christ plainly explains is different than the work of Jesus himself.

If we use the definition of “person” you have yourself provided, your assumption that the Father, Son and Spirit are not distinct persons doesn’t seem to make sense except as an assertion which does not face up to the facts which Scripture provides.

Aaron's Question #1 for Turk.

Trinitarians hold that there is two and even three persons in a godhead and you are defending three persons, tell me what is the Relationship of the Holy Ghost to the Father and the Son, we see there is a Father and Son relationship for two of the persons, how is the third person related to the other two.
Is he a Uncle of the Son and Brother of the Father?
Is he a Cousin to both?
Is he a Brother to the Son and a Son and also to the Father?
Please tell us how he is related, like the other two are related.
Is He the Same Spirit or another Spirit to the other two "persons"?
I see you having difficulties explaining these relationships.
If they are seperate or different persons, then you have three entities, if not different, then they are the same person.

Aaron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra comment,
I am starting to get the hang of this blog now.

Answer 1 to question by Turk.

I use the KJV in most all cases, I use other versions to take a deeper in depth look at some passages or to explain more clearly, as in my opening regarding Gal. 3:20 Amplified version.
I have never used the ESV, it isn't even in my top 20 versions. Not even sure I have one, other than on Disk or internet.


When I say person, I mean an individual that is a being, a entity, that is a subject.
I believe there is one person in the Godhead and that Jesus himself fulfills all roles and modes and manifestations of the one person.
I reject persons as in three in a godhead, that God is a Father person or being and a Son person/being and another Holy Spirit person or being. (That is three beings and to me that is three god or gods).
Some Trinitarians don't use the word person for being, but that is exactly what it does mean. Some say there is one being, others say there is three beings, I have seen this in debates and in written material.
Maybe you should have expressed in your 500 word opening what you thought a person was. You didn't and yet wanted me to for you, I say there is one of them, you are to defend and affirm the three persons.
I am a person, I am not the person of GOD, JESUS!, but He is the only person there is as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Thus when I say Jesus is the one person and that he fulfills being God the Father and the Son of God and the residing Holy Ghost in me , I am speaking of a subject a sole entity as a personage.

Jesus is not two persons either, He has two natures, one as Spirit=Deity and God our Father and another as the man Christ Jesus the Son of God, which the Spirit indwells.

Lastly when I look up the definition for person, I see Webster's 10th Edition say
"3: one of three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead..."

Seems you people are confused and wish to accept the modalistic wording, since we supposedly hold to modes and you folks to "persons".



You missed your opportunity for explaining the three persons and I have now answered your question to me what they are.
[I guess it would have been nice if you had wanted to and agreed to have rebuttal as I stated is in most debates I have had and which are on CARM].

Finally I did explain with a thesis my position, maybe you better go and read what a thesis is, I certainly covered such, maybe you just didn't like it.
Aaron

I figured Turk would complain about 2000 words

NOT MY RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION of your text, but of the setup of this debate.

First off regarding the dispute of opening with 2000 words, which I actually used less than that and the rest was your e-mail post to me describing what you would give me which was 2000 words and you wanted to extend the normal 5 questions each to 10.
I did in fact break nothing, but accepted what you gave me and which I still have the e-mail from you and only edited out a part of what I had to say that you responded to and quotd back in your e-mailed response.

Also if you count my comment from your e-mail and I went over in your mind, then you went over your 500 words by having 716, which in your case you had no permission to do so, I had your written approval for 2000 which I used for my post and your being quoted was to avoid this problem which you now have started and that is not abiding by what you originally claimed you were giving to me and following your 10 question back and forth.

I broke no rules, I abided by what you gave and merely quoted you with some almost 300 words from your e-mail to me in APRIL, you messed up, I didn't.

You then try bringing up something discused in private e-mail about what I was going to affirm and you tried picking my topic and I refused it, I chose my own defense and affirmation.

That borders on the misinformation to these people then as if I decided to change what you had agreed out of the norm and got caught, which I was not planning on letting you off the hook, since in my days of debating your kind , I have seen just what you are doing now and that is taking advantage on your own blog and changing what you agreed to or as in other debates I have had where I have been cursed by a trinity mod and been banned by moderators while in forums.(Which I am sure you will say was not any of your doing, but I see it as two peas in a pod).
Your last e-mail then to me meant little, I had the initial post where you were in your being arrogant stage and going to give me 2000 words of which my post was under (minus your e-mail proving it).
You also need to be reminded, I ask if you wanated to abide by Hedges Rules of debate and quoted to you the important aspect of such rules and you didn't seem to understand or like what I had mentioned, so if things seem to be a bit courser, it is of your own choosing.

I guess we will see if this is mockery or insults, that which is insulted is your false view of something in 500 words you did not affirm at all about God is three persons, a Trinity or what a person is either.


That said, 10 questions it is, and we’re off. I’ll post my first question shortly.

Q#1 for Aaron

We usually use the ESV over here, Aaron, but I suspect you’re a KJV kind of guy. For that sake, I have noticed that in the KJV NT the word “person” or “persons” is the rendered translation in the text 24 times. So one thing we can’t say is that the NT doesn’t use or present to us a range of meaning for the word “person”.

Given the thesis you are defending, what should me, and the readers of this exchange, understand you to mean when you use the word “person” in your affirmation?

Frank's opening statement

I have three simple statements to make in my opening, and then an observation.

[1] The basis for resolving this dispute can only be Scripture. Aaron’s perception of history, his reference to any pre- or post-Biblical writer, his personal experience, and his very solemn opinions are, frankly, irrelevant. What God has said has to be the bedrock of what we know about God, and if it is not, we are simply inventing a god or gods of our own preferences. Be careful to watch whether or not Aaron is willing or able to take the counsel of all of Scripture to reach his conclusion.

[2] Keep in mind that Aaron has the harder job in this exchange because he has taken the affirmative position. He has to actually prove his affirmation. Since I haven’t made any affirmations, my problem is simply to derail Aaron’s affirmation. Being able to prove the Trinity is not the objective of this debate: the affirmation (by Aaron) is that the Father and the Son are one person. To him and that I say: good luck.

[3] The definition of words matter. That is: whether in the original languages or in the reliable translation, or whether it is in our theological conclusions based on what the Bible tells us, we have to use words to mean what they mean, and not what we hope they mean, or what we want to limit them to mean.

Now, for all the excursis Arron has spent (2200+ words, for the record), he has been astonishingly-selective in what he has so far decided to quote from me.

Here’s my last e-mail to him, regarding the terms of this exchange:

D-blog is a structred forum where there can be two opening statements -- one pro, one con, each with a word limit -- and then the exchange goes on for 5 or 10 rounds with each side alternately asking a question, getting an answer from the other side, then receiving a question and then answering it. Questions and Answers have word limits as well. There is -ample- examples of this there to show that this not only works, but it is also an extremely useful way to address any particular thesis. In effect, D-blog minimizes the posturing of most debates where each side talks about the other and maximizes what it the most profitable aspect of any formal debate: the cross examination. You are proposing to defend this thesis: "The One God, even the One Father of both Testaments is the person Jesus enfleshed in his own Son, the Man Christ Jesus" That's a great thesis for this exchange. Please reread the D-blog rules and confirm that you're willing to abide by them. I'd be willing to offer you a 5-question exchange in this topic, 1000-word opening statements, 150-word questions, 500-word responses. After the last question was answered, you'd get an unrebutted closing statement as the final word, limited to 1000 words. Please let me know what you think of this.

To which he replied:

Not endlessly changing anything, you didn't like my first proposal of what I wanted to deffend, since it was to close to what you SAY YOU BELIEVE, so you made one up for me and I countered with what I was going to defend then. That the One God even the One Father of both Testaments is the person Jesus enfleshed in his own Son, the Man Christ Jesus. I agree to your blog rules. Aaron Deskin aka SCHMIT

I leave it to the reader to decide if Aaron is abiding by this – and I mention it only to point this out: the tactic evident in Aaron’s selection of rules to abide by, and then his disregard of even those rules to begin this exchange, speaks to his method of reasoning. What you will undoubtedly see in this exchange is a series of selective citations of the text of the Bible, a self-serving interpretation of those texts rather than a fully-orbed and literate interpretation of the texts, and then whatever means necessary on Aaron’s part to simply hurl insults and mockery at alternatives to his theology which, frankly, better represent the text and better represent the vast majority of exegetes beginning with the author of Hebrews and the apostle John.

That said, 10 questions it is, and we’re off. I’ll post the first question shortly.

COMMENT of posting structure per your e-mail to me....
5 questions limited to about 100 words would you say? With 500 word
response.

D-blog works with 150 word questions, and 500-word answers. I'll
extend the exchanges to 10 rounds of Q&A. Answer the questions put to
you briefly and you can rebut to your heart's content -- in a 500-word
limit.

D-blog does not allow for rebuttal of direct questions per se --
because it derails the exchange. in 10 questions you should be able
to get me to say whatever it is you think is important in dismantling
what I would affirm.

And you get a closing statement and the last word. All I'd do is post
a brief opening statement and then ask my questions as it came to be
my turn, and of course answer your questions.

You can have a closing statement of 2000 words and a "last word" of
500 words to state your opinion of what happened after each exchange.

I am sure you believe that. 3 exchanges, I'll post a 500-word opening
statement, you can have 2000 words to say whatever you want as an
opening, and then you ask the first question in 150 words or less.
I'll answer in 500 words or less, and ask my first question, and we're
off. 10 question rounds, and you can have the closing statement (2000
words) and a "last word" (500 words).
I accepted what you posted to me.Aaron Deskin aka Schmit

ONENESS PENTECOSTAL AFFIRMATION


I a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal will show in this debate that God is only one and as a sole numeric one as in one person and not many persons or three persons which my opponent is going to defend and attempt to prove by scriptures.
When I state God is One, I mean nothing of a unity of beings or persons or individuals
Combining to be a membership group, but I mean a absolute One! A God that when he states he is alone in the O.T. He was and when he said he was by himself, there was no corporate deity of beings sitting speaking all at once and making such statement.
When God says he knows know other God or anyone beside him, He speaks as God!
THE HOLY ONE, not a group making a one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I come in this debate ready to defend Jesus is the one true God & Father of all, that God is one and that there is no other God but this one. When I say One I mean a sole numeric one and not a plurality of beings or persons in one.
I use the biblical term of God that God is our Father and my opponent is already on the defensive as he must
Prove what is not found in scriptures which Trinitarians defend and that is a NON-Biblical terms, TRINITY, TRIUNE GODHEAD, TRIUNITY AND THREE PERSONS or persons in a plural.
I show that Jesus is to be called not only God as the Trinitarians who pay lip service say, but that he is also to be called Father (Isa. 9:6.).I show that Jesus himself called himself both God and by context the Father as we are his sons in (Rev. 21:6-7)
I also refute any such idea that God was ever called a God the Son, that is another of a series of bogus and made up terms from a false church which needs to use such, as the Catholic church needed to do and hold people through some mystery and errant terms and Doctrines.
The Trinity is one of those, the phrase God the Son is another to prop up the prior term as well without any scripture stating such but to mesmerize the blind who go along with such fancy.
Along with these is another term Eternal Son.
I hold to One God (Dt.6:4) that God is Spirit (John 4:24), that God knows of no other God beside him (Isa. 44:6,8). THE TRINITY IS SUCH THAT IT HAS three persons refuting that idea as each is called ‘God the___.’

God is Father (Mal. 2:10, 1 Cor.8:6, Eph.4:6 )and that Jesus by being God (not as to his flesh-Son) is that God. (John 20:28, Tit.2:13, Rev.21:6-7, Rev. 4:8.) and there is only one Father (Mal. 2:10, Mt.23:9, Eph.4:6).There is only One Father in heaven and only one Father total, so Jesus is also accorded that by Isaiah the prophet.
Jesus is the Lord God of the Holy Prophets.

Rev1:8 The Lord God who is Alpha & Omega , the Almighty
Jesus is that one speaking (Rev.1:11-18)
Jesus promises to be Father God to us his sons (Rev.21:6-7)
Rev.22:6 The Lord God of the HOLY PROPHETS sent his angel.
The angel was sent by Jesus (Rev.22:16)
The sender of the angel said “Surely I come quickly (Rev. 22:20)
That one coming is the Lord Jesus
We thus see then that Jesus is the LORD GOD of the HOLY PROPHETS;
THE FATHER GOD OF ALL OVERCOMERS (us sons-whether or not male or female).
Our Trinitarian friends deny that ALPHA & OMEGA of Rev. 21:6-7 is Jesus, he is instead a
Second or another “God the___.” and they even go so far as to print this A&O in black ink.






The Shema Dt.6:4 is clear, that Our God is one Lord and not lords or gods!

Dt.32:39 God says there is no other god with him.

Psa.86:10 it says God is alone.

Passage after Passage in Isaiah speaks of God as LORD and does not hint at all at being ‘persons”, specifically three in number. The number three in the O.T. for God is not used as God is not three beings, persons, mens, individuals, entities.

In the N.T. it speaks of ONE GOD WHO IS ONE LORD! EPH.4:5-6.

1 Tim.2:5 says there is One God!

So that when Jesus is stated to be God and Lord by Thomas in John 20:28 it was not a caveat of two other god or gods with him, He and he alone is that alone and by himself deity of the O.T. come in the flesh, or Son of God of the New.

Jesus is all of God, Jesus is the Holy One, the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY in Rev.4:8
Jesus does not share any godhead with any other, for he is all of God there is.

For “GOD IS SPIRIT” John 4:24, God is not a Man Numbers 23:18/1Sam15:29.

God is eternal, the Son is not eternal, God is omnipresent and omniscient, the Son was limited in space and time, God is omnipotent, the Son did nothing of himself. John 14:10

Jesus has always been God and always will be God and thus if God is the Father Eph.4:6 and 1 Cor.8:6, Jesus is that God and dwelling in his Christ, the Son of God the man Christ. ( 2cor. 5:19, 1 Tim.3;16 and John 14;10-11).



NOW AS TO THE PROOF OF GOD BEING ONE PERSON AND NOT PERSONS.

First off we have in Job 13:7-8 KJV God is spoken as a person and not “persons”!
Will ye speak wickedly for God? And talk deceitfully for him?
Will ye accept his person? Will ye contend for God?
Here God is spoken as one person, if my opponent seeks persons, he should read
Job 13:10 a verse which fits him well and his Babylonian idea that at times Jews held.
And had to do so secretly amongst Israelites.




GAL.3:20 Amplified version "Yet God is [only] one person..."

"Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." KJV Gal.3:20

Context shows that a mediator mediates for more than one(men) in this mediation with God . God is One as opposed to the many that the mediator is mediating for with this one God.

Greek grammar also demands this for heis-one is a masculine one and means a sole numeric one always when it is conjoined with Theos, it always means one man, one person, one being.

Grammar of heis-one.

Thayer states that it is a CARDINAL, NUMERAL; ONE.
WHERE IT TAKES THE PLACE OF A PREDICATE IT MEANS ONE PERSON.
Pg 186-1520 A Greek , English Lexicon of the N.T.,

A.T. ROBERTSON :
ONE WHEN MASCULINE SETS FORTH THE IDEA OF THE CARDINAL
NUMERAL 'ONE'
WHEN REFERRING TO PEOPLE OR BEINGS ALWAYS THE NUMERAL
'ONE' IS IMPLIED.
Pg 186 Vol 5 Word Pictures of the Greek N.T.
pgs 526-527 Vol 4, pg 299 ibid.

Bauer: MASCULINE'ONE', A SINGLE; ONLY ONE
pg 230 BAUER'S GREEK LEXICON

GINGRICH :
EQUIVALENT TO 'PROTOS', FIRST, ONLY ONE; SINGLE.
pg 57 Shorter Lexicon Greek N.T.

These verses all use HEIS-One in conjunction with the word THEOS-God.
Each time the Greek. New Testament. USES THE WORD 'ONE' IN REFERENCE TO GOD IT EMPLOYS THE NUMERAL "Heis".

MARK 2:7,MARK 10:18,MARK 12:29,LUKE 18:19,ROM.3:30,1 COR.8:4,1 COR.8:6
GAL.3:20,EPH.4:6,1 TIM.2:5, JAM.2:19
these declare, but one person, one man [loose term], or one individual as God.

Grammar here in each of these verses that deal with God said to be one, that it means "ONE PERSON" .

No one seems to have any problems with any of these.
Ezekiel 33:24 "...Abraham was one..." Hebrew-echad and Greek-heis Septuagint.
NIV translates it as 'Abraham was only one man.'
Jesus used the word "one" in the same way to mean a single individual, "Do not be called Rabbi; for one [heis] is your Teacher, and you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for one [heis] is your Father, who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for one [heis] is your Leader, that is, Christ"(Matt.23:8-10)
In each case 'one' means one person. For Paul, Christ is "one person" [heis]:"{God} does not say, and ‘to seeds, as of many‘, but rather to one, 'and to your seed,' that is Christ" (Gal.3:16).
As we see a few verses after this the same language is applied to God. Paul says: "Now a Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Gal. 3:20KJV, The NIV says " A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; [literally not of one,'heis'] but God is one." [literally a sole numeric one].

Scholars comment by Kenneth Wuest Vol.1 pg 106 in Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek. “ The word ‘one’ is masculine in gender, and therefore is personal, referring to A PERSON.” citing pg 107 “Now, the mediator is not (A GO-BETWEEN REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS) of one (INDIVIDUAL), But God is one (INDIVIDUAL).”

Bratcher stated: “But a Go-between is not needed when there is only one person; and God is one.”

So God is only one person, thus says the Greek, and not one verse has been shown that Theos is modified by heis to be more than one single numeric in number and thus one person as in one man.

My opponent has then two passages against him that God is “a person” and “only one person”, lets go to

Heb 1: 3 “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,…”

Though in the Greek the word translated as person for God should be essence or substance, we see that Jesus, the Christ, the Son spoken of in vs. 2 is the express image of God’s person/essence.
Now in going to Gen. 1:26 Trinitarians make much to do about nothing, for God is NOT!
A three person deity, anymore than man, made in God’s image with Jesus the Son as the EXPRESS IMAGE of God’s Spirit self is a three person man.
Look in a mirror friend, whether Trinitarian or Oneness or whatever you are and see for yourself, are you a three person man?
NO! and anyone telling you that God is a three person God is not telling you truth and he or she has gone to gentile paganistic ideas and not Biblical ideas.

So Jesus the man, the express image of his God and Father, is that which we are made after originally, we are made in him and He of his God=SPIRIT ESSENCE=person of Heb1:3.

Oneness hold to one God and God is Spirit AND Jesus is God, Jesus himself fulfills the prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah in Isa.9:6 where it states that He should be called by name
MIGHTY GOD (I reject that Trinitarians actually hold to such supreme deity of Jesus) and EVERLASTING FATHER (w/o caveats that this means he is merely a father of eternity and not thee Father).

I think my opponent made a tragic mistake by giving me 2000 words to start, he may have even forgotten he did so, but sine I have seen Trinitarians cheat Oneness in debate or discussions and in forums, it doesn’t bother me one itty bitty jot or tittle.

Last point, the Jews did not hold to persons or three persons, today Jews deny the Trinity, just as the early Christians did in the first and second and so forth centuries.
Surely they knew their own Language than these gentile pagan teachers.
I would expect they should, but they try and change words like echad and Elohim to fit their hideous teachings.
Those that did through time were the Liberals and Kabbalists.
Which fits quite well with the Trinity crowd and their liberal and Kabbalist gentile teachings.

IN JESUS NAME,
AARON DESKIN
Aka SCHMIT on CARM

The Trinity

The thesis for the next debate is this:

The One God even the One Father of both Testaments is the person Jesus enfleshed in his own Son, the Man Christ Jesus.

This thesis will be defended by Aaron Deskin, a participant at the CARM forums.

Aaron will open with 1000 or so words on the thesis; I'll add my opener, and then it's 10 questions -- I'll probably ask the first question. 150 word max for questions; 500 words max for answers.

There may be another taker after this exchange on a similar topic. Enjoy.

The New Template, and other stuff

Well. This is the new template, and it is only a minor improvement over the old one. Stuart's private comments to me about the blog is that it wasn't very readable, so I tried to find a template and a way to get the content readable without all kinds of other stuff, which I am always tempted to do when I open up the RSS.

The key new features come from the fact that this is now a "new" blogger template and not an "old" blogger template, so you can "follow" the blog, and the tags can actually work as a filing system for the content. I'll be upgrading the tags eventually to allow them to make more sense as they list in the sidebar. Be aware that old links to tags here will be obsolete and you may have to update them in your various links to this blog.

My summer is starting to level out, so I suspect I'll have some time to open up the engagements that are pending out there.

Stay tuned.

Just a few notes

Coming up, there is going to be a series of exchanges on the Trinity, particularly from the "Oneness" perspective -- and both of the advocates for the non-Trinitarian view have promised to mop the floor with me, so that ought to be good.

I am also toying with updating the template, but it looks like every time I have something in my test blog which I think will cut it, I find more work than I really want to invest in renovating the CSS. But this template is so ... plain. {sigh}

We'd be starting on Monday, but frankly being out of the country for 10 days threw me for a loop, and I'm about to buy a house and move in. So in the mean time, consider for yourself whether of not the doctrine of the trinity means anything to you, and we'll come back to that subject in about a week.

Pastor Wood's Closing Statement

I must now leave my efforts to the future work of the Holy Spirit. I know that what I have written throughout this discussion is irrefutably true to the Word of God. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). It is the nature of the true child of God to hear and receive the voice of the Shepherd, that is, the Word of God. Jesus also said, "If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31), that is, My true disciples. All true disciples have an ear for the Word of God, and “need not that any man teach them” in this respect. John writes, "he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us" (1 John 4:6).

Martin Luther writes, “When the devil has persuaded us to surrender one article of faith to him, he has won; in effect he has all of them, and Christ is already lost. He can at will unsettle and take all others, for they are all intertwined and linked together like a golden chain so that if one link is broken, the entire chain is broken and can be pulled apart. There is no article which the devil cannot overthrow once he has succeeded in having reason dabble in doctrine and speculate about it. Reason knows how to turn and twist Scripture in a masterly fashion into conformity with its views. This is very agreeable, like sweet poison.” (Luther’s Works, St.L. ed., vol. 9, pg. 825).

Calvinism is a religion of reason. The false doctrine of limited atonement is a reasonable deduction based upon the doctrine of election. However, while reasonable, it is not true to the revealed Word of God which plainly states that Christ died for all men. With this departure from Scripture, Calvinism denies the Gospel, the objective proclamation to another human being that Christ died for their sins personally. Calvinists also no longer have a Scripturally-based foundation for their own assurance of salvation. Without the objective external Word that tells them that Christ died for their sins personally, they must look inwardly to their own perceived repentance and faith for a ground of standing. Furthermore, they are compelled to wrongly define repentance and faith in an active sense, as only the active fruits of repentance and faith can be objectively identified. Ultimately, Calvinism is another religion of works, placing one’s confidence in oneself, and not in the Word of God.

True Christianity, however, follows the path of child-like faith. It openly confesses the true universal atonement of Christ, without denying anything of the doctrine of election. It announces the one and only true Gospel to every human being, how that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross of Calvary for their sins personally. This Gospel Word creates faith and confidence in the hearts of God’s elect. All is of God’s power and grace. Those who receive this blessed Word look to that which stands outside of them. Christ’s death in their behalf always remains objectively true. Their faith rests only upon the Word of God, requiring nothing at all of them. The more they observe this Word, the more confident they become. They have grabbed hold of the love of God in truth, and out of gratitude they now bring forth the fruits of this love (love begetting love) in true Christian works. All is perfect. There is not a flaw in it.

I conclude by reviewing my original three objectives. I will leave it with the readers as to whether I have met these objectives. I thank Frank for the opportunity to have made my case.

I had three objectives. First, I wanted to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement is contrary to the plain, simple, clear Word of God, as evidenced by “behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Luke 2:10); “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16); “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42); “who is the Saviour of all men” (1 Timothy 4:10); “who will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4); “who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6); “one died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:14); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Corinthians 5:19); “who tasted death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9); false prophets “even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Peter 2:1); “who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9); “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2); along with the equally clear Luke 14:16-24; Luke 22:20, 21; John 3:17-18; John 6:33; John 6:51; John 8:26; John 12:47; John 16:8, 9; Acts 13:26; Acts 17:31; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4; 1 Timothy 2:5; Titus 2:11; 3:4; Hebrews 10:28, 29; and 1 John 4:13, 14.

Second, I wanted to show how the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily changes the definition of the Gospel, how that "Christ died for OUR sins" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). This is "the Gospel", Paul said, "which I preached unto you, which also ye have received" (v. 1). He preached this Gospel, these very words, "Christ died for OUR sins", to the Corinthians before they received the words, before he knew if they would believe it, while they were yet sinners belonging to the unbelieving world. Only the true universal atonement of Christ can allow for this word "our", as it was indeed accomplished for all men, from Adam down to the very last mortal. The Gospel is addressed to lost sinners personally. Now the false doctrine of limited atonement cannot let this word "our" stand in its gospel. It cannot allow a person to objectively and truthfully proclaim to another human being that "Christ died for OUR sins", both yours and mine (since it does not know if the person is truly one of God's elect). And since those who hold to limited atonement cannot confess the one true Gospel, theirs is necessarily "another (heteros) gospel", that is, a false gospel.

Third, I wanted to show that Paul warns very strictly against anyone departing from the one and only true Gospel. He writes, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8,9). The bottom line is that for anyone to hold consistently to the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily puts him under God's "anathema", and necessarily means that such a one cannot be a true Christian. The Gospel door is the "first of all" (1 Corinthians 15:3), the very foundation of the Christian faith. Whoever does not enter by this one and only door, build upon this one and only foundation, is lost.

Pastor Stuart Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Closing statement

Stuart has asked me to sum up, and I’m pleased to offer a few hundred words on what we have just participated in. As I have said, my thanks to Stuart for being a civil and able opponent.

This first thing to consider about this exchange is the thesis: that it is nonsense to think that limited atonement changes the Gospel in some way. I asked 10 questions of Stuart, and apart from his protests regarding the difference between his perception of Orthodox Lutheranism and Calvinism, I don’t think he made any case at all that Limited Atonement corrupts the Gospel.

In fact, it is my opinion that he rather affirmed Limited Atonement, albeit in a rather broad circle around the topic. In my Q#1 to him, he stated plainly that the phrase “only those” in the Canons of Dort would be his objection to the doctrine of the atonement. He underscored this in his response to Q#3.

However, in Q#2, there’s no question that he affirmed that only the believers receive the effects of the atonement -- because the atonement (as he affirmed in Q#4) is the payment of the debt of sin, and only those who receive the effects of the atonement (as he affirmed in Q#6 and Q#7) are given eternal life -- the rest are condemned for their sins.

It was this framework that caused me to ask Stuart the questions about Eph 1 & 2. Stuart had outlined all of the theological reasoning necessary to grasp limited atonement. The only question was whether or not he would receive what the text of Scripture says about the relationship in terms of God’s plan in all things to affect salvation to the believers.

When Dort says, “in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation”, it is saying exactly what Stuart is saying. There is no meaningful difference. Stuart’s serious concern is that Dort does not affirm that in theory all men can have their sins forgiven, and while that may seem somewhat important in defining the infinite value of what Christ did on the cross, it is not a deficiency of the Canons of Dort because it is expressed elsewhere in those canons.

The Gospel is that God is coming, and that those who are sinners can repent and be forgiven by having faith in Christ and trust in His sacrifice for sin – so that men may escape the coming wrath. If the death of Christ on the cross atones for all men indiscriminately, all men are saved, and there are no worries.

But be careful to recognize this: Stuart doesn’t believe that no man is going to hell. Stuart believes that a man’s sin should terrify him (Q#5), and that those without faith will not receive the effects of the atonement. Stuart believes that the Gospel’s effect is for the believers only and that those who believe have been predestined by God to do so.

That’s the theology of the reformation, and I trust Stuart as a brother in that Gospel. That he does not see that we agree on all points except his proclamation of the Gospel does not make one or the other of us a messenger of a false Gospel: it means both of us still stand as students before every word that God has spoken. May both of us be humble enough to admit when we have stepped away from that source of truth and life.

Answer #10 to Frank

Throughout this discussion you have seen the clarity and truthfulness of my answers. And yet you still oppose my overall assertion that the false doctrine of limited atonement necessarily destroys the one and only true saving Gospel. You can’t identify why I am wrong, but you nonetheless are quite certain that I must be wrong.

The problem here is that you assume that we are both evaluating things by the same criteria. But that is not true. Our real difference is not so much about individual doctrines, although these doctrinal differences are important. But our real difference lies deeper, even at our foundation. It is the difference between faith and reason in regards to the Word of God.

Now it is often hard to distinguish between faith and reason. Reason looks exactly like faith so long as the Word of God appears reasonable. It is only when the Bible asserts something that is higher than reason or seems contrary to reason, that we see the difference (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:5; Isaiah 55:7).

For instance, the Scriptures plainly teach both the universal atonement of Christ and the doctrine of election. The Arminians and the Calvinists take opposite sides to these seemingly contradictory doctrines. In an effort to defend the love of God, the Arminians affirm the universal atonement, but deny election. In an effort to defend the sovereignty of God, the Calvinists affirm election, but deny the universal atonement. Both theologies, however, are led of human reason.

Faith, on the other hand, affirms both the universal atonement and election, as plainly revealed in the Word of God. Faith is not interested in how this squares with the human mind. It is only interested in what God actually says. God says, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”, and faith affirms, “Yea, Lord, the sin of the world”. God says, “He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, and faith affirms, “Yea, Lord, chosen from the foundation of the world”. To reason, faith looks contradictory and “confused”, but it is really reason who is “confused”, not having the wisdom to follow and affirm One who knows better than she.

Luther says that the relationship between faith and reason is the relationship between a husband and his wife. Just as a wife is a precious gift to her husband, so reason is a precious gift to man. But as a husband should lead his wife and not vice versa, so faith should lead reason. Reason is good and helpful, but only if she remains subject to faith, that is, stays within the confines of the Word of God. Luther writes, “As reason did not write Scripture, neither should it explain Scripture... Therefore the man who would treat of the articles of Christian faith should stop his inquiring and reasoning and not ask how they harmonize but should merely inquire whether Christ has said so or not.”

As for the Ephesians 1 and 2 passages, please again see my earlier postings as they explain my position clearly.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Last question for Stuart

First thing is that Stuart Wood deserves respect for asking for this encounter and for being serious about his own convictions. Stuart will get this final answer, and then has the opportunity to post a final word/summary of the exchange of up to 1000 words.

Now, that said, I had a final question I wanted to ask, but Stuart's last answer and his final question has caused me to ask a different question.

As I read these posts, Stuart, I get the impression that you believe that you reject my interpretation of Eph 1-2 which establishes that those with faith are saved to life, and "the rest of the world" is dead in trespasses and sin.

Please clarify your rejection of my interpretation in my previous question: do you reject this interpretation of Eph 1-2, in which Paul plainly says, "by nature the children of wrath, even as others" [KJV], distinguishing the believers from the rest of the world? Asked another way, do you believe this passage depends on the fact that all men who do not have the gift of faith are dead in trespasses and sin?

Answer #10 for Stuart

Do you think it is possible for somebody to make a reasonable deduction from Scripture that crosses the bounds of other Scripture?

Yes -- in fact, I think you have personally done that in 1 Cor 15, among other places.

Do you agree that Scripture alone should dictate to us our understanding of theology, and not our theology dictate to us our understanding of Scripture?

Yes. No question. Scripture alone is the final authority for our faith and practice.

How would you contrast faith vs. human reason?

Wow. Faith saves and human reason deceives, Stuart. However, Human reason can and must be reformed by faith. Human reason is a function of the image of God in man.

Question #10 for Frank

Martin Luther said, “I always say that faith must have absolutely nothing but the Word on its side and must permit no subtle argumentation or human ideas in addition… Against all that reason suggests or tries to fathom, yes, against everything that all senses feel and perceive, we must learn to cling to the Word and simply judge according to it… In short, if you will not esteem the Word above all your feelings, eyes, senses, and heart, you will inevitably be lost, and there is no help for you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 28, pp. 69, 70)

My question – Do you think it is possible for somebody to make a reasonable deduction from Scripture that crosses the bounds of other Scripture? Do you agree that Scripture alone should dictate to us our understanding of theology, and not our theology dictate to us our understanding of Scripture? How would you contrast faith vs. human reason?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #9 for Frank

At this point in the discussion it should be amply clear to everyone that I am not “confused” about what I am saying. You yourself said, “what you express in excellent long-form when asked specific questions; I would agree with all of your answers”. A “confused” person does not and cannot express things with the clarity and simplicity that I have shown here. I have not left you this option. It is also important to keep in mind that I am really not an outsider. I am one of your own, a product of Grace Community Church. So when it comes to the issue of the extent of Christ’s atonement, I have stood on both sides of the aisle. I indeed was a five-point Calvinist (even before MacArthur was), and only after great struggle came to see the profound errors that it represents. I have now been an orthodox Lutheran for over 15 years, and can honestly testify that it accurately represents Biblical Christianity in all of its truth and purity.

You indicate in your answer #2 that you are not sure whether I fairly reflect orthodox Lutheranism. However, you earlier testified, “I am and have always been 100% confident that Pastor Wood is a right-minded Lutheran”. I also showed you what Luther himself said about the universal extent of the atonement in John 1:29. He writes, “This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it is a Christian; whoever does not is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him”. I also gave you the quotes from the leading orthodox Lutheran systematic theologian, Francis Pieper. He writes, “The Calvinistic doctrine which restricts the grace of God to only one part of mankind is a trap of despair, a pestilence, death and damnation for the soul... The Calvinist Reformed doctrine that the grace of God includes only one part of mankind is a soul-murdering doctrine.”

In your answer #3, you say that we do not assert two different definitions of the extent of Christ’s atonement. That is ridiculous, denying the very premise of our entire 4-week discussion. I have said throughout that Christ died for every man, from Adam down to the very last mortal. You have said throughout that Christ did not die for every man, but for the elect alone. These two positions cannot be reconciled. We do indeed have a foundational difference here.

In your answer #4, you say that we do not assert two different definitions of the Gospel. This again is denying the obvious. It is clear from our entire discussion that we are talking about two different Gospels. Your Gospel does not allow you to proclaim to someone that Christ died for their sins personally. Mine does. Is that not different? What could be more different? Just because we agree on some things about election, does not mean that we agree on the Gospel. I may not be able to get you to admit this, but I can at least testify from my end that your gospel is not my Gospel; the gospel of five-point Calvinism is not Luther’s Gospel of the Reformation. I know that I have proven that point sufficiently.

As for Ephesians 2:1-5, you mistakenly think that the contrast is between “those alive together in Christ” and “the rest of mankind”; “believers” and “those dead in trespasses and sins”; the elect and the non-elect. But that is not the case. The contrast is not between “us” and “them”, but rather between “us as we now are” and “us as we used to be”, even as the rest of mankind still is. Paul is contrasting the Christian’s former state (before receiving the true universal Gospel) and their current state (after receiving this life-giving Gospel).

Notice the contrast of time past with time present. Paul says, “you hath he quickened, who were dead” (v. 1); “in time past ye walked according to the course of this world” (v. 2); “we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh” (v. 3a); “we were by nature the children of wrath” (v. 3b) “when we were dead in sins” (v. 5).

Notice also that before our salvation, we were just like the rest of mankind now is – no difference. Paul says, “ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (v. 2); “Among whom also we all had our conversation” (v. 3a); “we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (3b).

But the real key to this passage is verse 4, “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us”. This is the love of the universal atonement of Christ, and the love of that holy Gospel by which is announced to all men how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). It is the love of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” It is the love by which Christ prayed from the cross for His mortal enemies, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). It is the love by which Christ said to unbelieving Israel, “All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” (Romans 10:23). It is that same love by which Paul said, “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Romans 9:2, 3).

Finally, the context of Eph. 2:1-5 points back to the objective universal Gospel Word which the Ephesians had received for their salvation. Paul says, “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13). Notice here that faith is defined as “trust”. Notice, too, that this “trust” came “after” the Ephesians “heard the word of truth”. And what was this word of truth by which they came to trust Christ? It was “the gospel of your salvation”. And did they receive the Spirit before receiving the Word, as some say? No, Paul says, “after ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise”. So here is the order – 1) the Word of the truth (the Gospel of your salvation); 2) belief (trust) in that Word; and 3) being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Here we see that the Holy Spirit creates faith and new life in us through the preaching of the objective external Word, even that Gospel Word, how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). (cf. also Colossians 1:4-7 for this same construct).

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Question #9 to Stuart

Thanks for your excellent answer to my question about Eph 1, Stuart. Now let’s think about Eph 2:1-9.

Specifically, in Eph 2:1-5, Paul makes a contrast between those “alive together in Christ”, and “the rest of mankind” who are “dead in trespasses and sin”. The flow of Paul’s letter here runs from God’s predestining of the believers to the contrast between those dead in trespasses and sin (the rest of mankind) and those made alive together with Christ (“us” – that is, those predestined to believe).

How would you interpret Paul’s meaning here, if not that God predestined some to be saved in Christ who does work that changes their being dead in trespasses and sin to being alive with Him? Please feel free to use up to 2000 words if necessary to answer this question, but please refrain from editorializing about this exchange with your additional word count.

Answer #9 for Stuart

In order:

1. When I will have asked Question #10, and you will have answered, yes. I think the picture has a last bit of detail to work out in the final account.

2. I think you have represented yourself fairly; whether that's the only form of "Orthodox Lutheranism" there is or whether Lutherans consider Calvinists heretics preaching apostate doctrine is a question the readers should research for themselves.

3. Nope. Your answers so far unquestionably refute that -- especially your last answer, which we will clarify in my next question and your next answer.

4. Nope. No way. I think you're a completely-orthodox believer who has a confused way of expressing in short-form (e.g. in evangelism) what you express in excellent long-form when asked specific questions; I would agree with all of your answers and only ask you to reconsider that you have any substantive disagreement with basic Calvinism. We proclaim the same Gospel; you demand an evangelistic formula which, I think, you haven't borrowed from Scripture.

5. Nope. They are the same Gospel. You believe that men are lost in sin; you believe that only God can save them; you believe that men receive salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone; you believe that the gift of faith is given by God, and that God determined from the foundation of the world who would receive faith from Him. I believe all of these things, too. The only thing you say we disagree about is the extent of the atonement -- but the fact is that you do not believe no one will go to hell, and I do not believe that no one will go to hell: we both believe that those whom God has not ordained to receive faith will go to hell.

We are not preaching different Gospels, Stuart: you are quibbling over what it means for the atonement to have its effect. It is, frankly, nonsense to say that limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel because you believe that not all men are pardoned of their sin. And as we finish up with Eph 1, we're going to see exactly how confused you are.

I'm grateful for this opportunity to clarify where I think this exchange stands. I am sure your opinion differs.

Question #9 for Frank

We owe it to our readers to be explicitly clear as to where we stand. Below are 5 questions that require you to answer with a “yes” or a “no”. If you answer “no” to any question(s), please give a short explanation of why you answered “no”.

Do you agree…
1. You have fairly represented the doctrines of five-point Calvinism?
2. I have fairly represented the doctrines of orthodox Lutheranism?
3. We assert two different definitions of the extent of Christ’s atonement? (died for all men vs. died for the elect only)
4. We assert two different definitions of the Gospel? (personal proclamation including the word “our” vs. impersonal proclamation excluding the word “our”)
5. Only one of these two Gospels can be true and saving, and that the other one must necessarily be a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)?

Please, number your answers 1 through 5, putting a “yes” or “no” after each number.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #8 to Frank

Throughout our discussion you have described repentance and faith in an active sense, confusing them with their necessary fruits. You don’t seem to understand the passive nature of both repentance and faith, that is, that repentance is a result of the preaching of the Law, and faith is a result of the preaching of the Gospel. In both cases, God’s Word is the active doer, and we human beings are the passive recipients.

Repentance (as defined apart from faith) is the contrition and terrors of conscience one feels concerning his sins when confronted with the Law of God. We cannot, of ourselves, repent, any more than we can make ourselves feel terror. No, that which is outside of us (the righteous accusations and threats of God’s holy Law) causes us to feel this terror.

This is also true with faith. The Lutheran theologians define Biblical faith as having three distinct characteristics – knowledge, assent, and confidence (trust). Knowledge, of itself, is not faith. Even knowledge plus assent is not faith. But when we have knowledge, assent, and confidence (trust), then we have faith. So the key ingredient to faith is confidence or trust. Now, no man can give himself confidence or trust in another. No, that confidence or trust is completely dependent upon what he sees and hears from the other person. It is the other person who creates this confidence and trust in us (think of a politician or a used-car salesman). So it is with Biblical faith. Christ, via the external Word of God, reveals Himself and His work to us. The more we consider this Word, the more it persuades us and convinces us as to the trustworthiness of this loving Savior and His sacrificial work in our behalf. It is in this way, and this way alone, that we come to place our faith in Christ and His atoning work as revealed in the Gospel. This is why the Scriptures always speak of faith in contrast with works. Faith is passive. Works are active.

This is also why repentance and faith are never the objects of our faith. Rather, as Luther pointed out, our faith looks away from ourselves to that which resides outside of us, that is, the objective external Word of God, even the one and only holy Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). Faith is to the soul, as the eye is to the body. The eye was not designed to look at itself, but rather away from itself to that which resides outside of itself.

Now as to Ephesians 1:3-14 in regards to election and predestination (vv. 4, 5, 11). Holy Scripture describes all true believers as God's "elect" or "chosen ones" (Rom. 8:33; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). Election refers to the fact that God from eternity past, of His own will, unconditionally chose a particular number of people to be saved, and predestined them to the obtaining of that salvation through faith in the Gospel. They are not elected because they believe, but rather they believe because they are elected.

The central teaching of Scripture is the Gospel, the comforting doctrine that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:2). To this doctrine Scripture adds the truth of election, that what God bestows upon us in time, He decreed to bestow upon us from eternity. Election must be comprehended only in the Gospel. Outside of the Gospel, there is no election. As we enter the sphere of God's truth, the Gospel is the "first of all" (1 Corinthians 15:3); then comes election. He who has the Gospel has election. He who has not the Gospel has not election. The unchangeable rule is this: He who has the Gospel has Christ, and he who has Christ has all.

Luther writes, "Why do you want to hear the Gospel, the Epicureans ask, since everything depends on being elected? -- That is how Satan violently robs us of election, of which we are assured through the Son of God, and through the holy Sacraments… That is what would have happened to me, if Staupitz had not saved me when I was suffering this same temptation…. Dr. Staupitz used to comfort me by saying: 'My dear friend, why do you plague yourself with these speculations and philosophical ideas? Fix your eyes on the wounds and blood of Christ, shed for you; then the election of God will become clear to you.'... There are many who did not thus resist this temptation, and as a result were plunged into destruction and eternal damnation… This is how the saints or Christians who are still novices tend to think of God, outside of Christ… This is why pious people should guard themselves against this and be concerned only with clinging to the infant Son of God, Jesus, who is your God and became man for your sake… If you have Him, you also have the hidden God along with the revealed God." (Luther's Works, Vol. 5, 47f.).

We might look at salvation as a house with a single door, a sort of Passover house awaiting the judgment of the first-born. The door of this house is the Gospel, how that "Christ died for our sins". No one enters the house who does not enter through this solitary door. There is no message of election outside the house, for this teaching applies only to those who are in the house. The message is not spoken to those in the world, but to those in the kingdom of God; not to those in Adam, but to those in Christ. The world has its message, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). This message resides on the outside of the house, above the door so to speak. When a person enters the house he sees another message written on the inside of the door. It reads, "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation" (2 Thessalonians 2:13). This now becomes a great comfort and encouragement to us in that we not only are safe within the house, but that we have come to the house by God's own decree and doing.

In conclusion, Luther writes, "Of all the commandments of God this is the greatest, that we picture His dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, before us. He is to be our heart's daily and most important mirror, in which we see how God loves us and how lovingly He has cared for us, a faithful God who also gave His dear Son for us. Here, here, I say, you will learn to understand the doctrine of election, and nowhere else… Never let the eye of your heart be diverted from this mirror and throne of grace. When such thoughts come and bite you like poisonous snakes, don't pay attention to the thought or the snakes, but turn your eyes the other way and gaze upon the bronze snake, i.e., Christ, given for us." (Message of Comfort to One Ridden with Anxiety etc., 1532; X, 2047 f.).

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Question #8 for Stuart

Stuart, my last answer lets you in on the direction of my last 3 questions, so let me simply ask these questions in the order I intend without much ado.

Eph 1:3-14 makes it clear that those who are redeemed by God were "predestined" and "chosen" to receive "the gospel of [God's] salvation".

How should we understand God's action as the one who predestines, the one who chooses?

For your sake, in order to deal with the passage in question, please use up to 1000 words. Please do not use the extended words to editorialize on the rest of the debate; please use it to make as clear as possible your view of what Paul means by saying God has "predestined" the saints and has "chosen" the saints to be redeemed and saved by the Gospel.

Answer #8 for Stuart

You can find the definition of faith I would advocate here, and the definition of good works I would advocate here.

Scripture makes the distinction that good works are a necessary consequence of faith [Jam 1:22-25]; good works do not earn anyone anything. We are in fact indebted to God that we can do the works we may do [Eph 2:10].

So the answer to your question is Scripture makes the distinction between faith and good works, that faith is before good works, and both are a gift of God.

That said, with only a few more questions and answers to go, I want to remind you and the readers what the thesis we have been dealing with here is.

For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense.

So far, what we've seen is that Pastor Wood has affirmed that not all people are saved; he has affirmed that God only saves those who have faith; he has affirmed that atonement at the cross removes the debt of sin on those form who the atonement is made. There is only one attribute of calvinistic limited atonement which is left for Pastor Wood to affirm: that God Himself wants those who are saved to be saved, and it is because of His decree that it is so.

In that, I suggest that there is not much left for Pastor Wood to agee with. And if he agrees with that last bit of Biblical truth, he himself will have affirmed limited atonement. And in that agreement, he will have proven my thesis: it is nonsense to say that limited atonement changes the Gospel. You cannot affirm the effects or the need for the Gospel without affirming limited atonement.

Question #8 for Frank

We have seen that Orthodox Lutheranism and five-point Calvinism have two contrary definitions of Christ’s atonement. From this, they also derive two contrary definitions of the Gospel, only one of which is true and saving (Galatians 1:6-9). There is agreement that the Gospel is received by repentance and faith, but the definitions of repentance are quite different. In regards to justification, Orthodox Lutheranism sees repentance as the result of the preaching of God’s Law, by which one is made to feel the terrors of conscience concerning his sins. This, in and of itself, does not save anyone, but leads one to faith in the Gospel, which indeed does save.

While repentance and faith have a necessary relationship, they also have distinctions that clearly can be defined apart from one another. How do you define faith, and why do the Scriptures contrast it with works (Romans 3:27-28)?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #7 for Frank

If someone were to ask me, how do I know I am saved, I would say, “because God’s Word says that Jesus Christ died for my sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). My faith and hope rest completely upon the objective and verifiable Word of God (Romans 10:17). If someone asks you the same question, you say, “because I have repented”. Your faith and hope rest ultimately upon your own perception of your repentance.

When I further ask, how do you know with certainty that you have repented, you give a very muddled definition of the term itself, confusing justification with sanctification (Luther, Rom. 7:14-8:11; David), confusing repentance in the narrow sense with repentance in the broad sense (publican), and confusing repentance itself with the fruits of repentance (LBCF). The only passage you quoted that dealt with our issue of justification was the publican, who went down to his house justified, not because of his repentance (as you define it in the narrow sense), but because he received the promised mercy in the universal atonement of Christ. In fact, throughout your entire response #7A you say nothing at all of Christ and His cross (reader, take note). Finally, when pressed, your primary answer of why you know you have repented comes down to “I know because I know”. This is not exactly giving an answer for the hope that is within you. A Mormon would say the very same thing.

You also presume that your repentance matches the repentance of the Bible characters (the publican, David, etc.). But how can you know this, since no man can know his own deceptive heart (Jeremiah 17:5-9)? Certainly this foundation cannot be compared with the immovable solid Rock of God’s objective Word which tells us plainly that Jesus Christ died for our sins? Building upon experience, no matter how impressive and seemingly genuine, is building upon a foundation of sand.

Luther writes, “This is the reason why our doctrine is most sure and certain, because it carries us out of ourselves, that we should not lean on our own strength, our own conscience, our own feeling, our own person, and our own works; but onto that which is outside us, that is to say, the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive us” (St. L. IX:509). “You must be certain that your sins are truly and certainly forgiven you through the external Word.” (St. L. XIII:2438).

He further says that any man who bases his faith on his “experiences”, particularly on his possession of faith, is an “idolatrous apostate”. “For he trusts and builds on his own, namely, on a gift which God has given him, and not on God’s Word alone, just as another builds and trusts in his strength, riches, power, wisdom, holiness, which as well are gifts given him of God” (St. L. XVII:2213).

As for your attempted answer about Paul’s love being greater than Christ’s, I knew that you could not answer that, as this question again plainly exposes the false doctrine of limited atonement. You end up dealing with Romans 10:1, when I asked you about Romans 9:3. Your analogy between the words of the Apostle Paul, spoken by the Spirit of Christ within him, and “Christopher Hitchens” with his mistaken sentimentality, is not only ridiculous, but also blasphemous.

Finally, as to your question about the term ”the Great Exchange”, I think I know what you are probably referring to, but not in the formal recognizable doctrinal sense that you seem to be proposing. I would guess that it is referring to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This “great exchange” would refer to the fact that Christ (who is wholly righteous) took upon Himself the punishment of the sins of the world (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20), so that we (who are wholly sinful) might be made partakers of His righteousness.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the mask off Calvinism

Question #7 for Stuart

I am certain you have heard the term "the Great Exchange". Assuming you believe that this doctrine is true, please explain why this doctrine is central to the Christian faith.

Answer #7B for Stuart

I have taken some time to consider Stuart's "7B" because, frankly, I don't understand the question.

Is Paul's love for Israel greater than God's? The answer is plainly "no".

So how does one explain Rom 10:1? I suspect it is by reading it in context and not reading into it. For example, is Paul actually accursed for the nations of Israel? Well, of course not -- and his statement that he wishes he could be underscores Israel's hopeless state rather than something God ought to have done for them.

So why has Stuart asked this question? It seems to me that he wants me to say, "well, because Paul's love for Israel includes saving all of them, but God's love for Israel does not if we believe in limited atonement, then this must prove limited atonement false."

The problem, of course, is that this is a simple non-sequitur. Let's imagine Christopher Hitchens for a moment who would never condemn any man or woman to hell -- to him the idea is itself a moral outrage. Does this mean that Christopher Hitchens loves mankind more than God does -- because certainly, God will condemn some to hell? Indeed not: it proves that Hitchens has an unfounded view of morality and justice because he want to supplant God's view of justice.

And I think we must, at this point, say the same for Pastor Wood. That is: because Pastor Wood wants to argue that the only love which is properly a God-sized love is a love which provides atonement for all people, we must say that his view distorts what God has plainly said about himself in order to conform with some false view of God's Love and Justice.

My apologies if this offends Pastor Wood -- I still think he means well. I think, however, in his well-meaning he has made errors which Scripture refutes as we have seen so far in my answers to him.

Answer #7A for Stuart

I think I have answered this question the only way it is possible to answer it -- with Luther's own words on this subject: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."

That is, you have pictured "repentance" apart from "faith", but the truth is that when there is "faith" there is "repentance".

The case the Bible makes for us here in in several passages. In Rom 7:14-8:11, for example, declares that one must "set the mind on the Spirit [for] life and peace." That passage deserves more work than that, but I leave it to the reader to see that faith and repentance are inseparable.

The passage I want to look more closely at, however, is Luke 18:9-14. In this parable, Christ tells us something about what real faith in God looks like -- and it's not merely gratitude and obedience. The Pharisee has that, and Jesus says plainly he was not justified. But the tax collector was in the temple, and his prayer was simple: "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

Jesus says plainly of him: this man went down to his house justified. Because he knew his works were sinful, and he had no standing before God, he was justified before God. That, in a nutshell, is repentance.

And this is why I previously cited the LBCF to you: to underscore that I can know my own repentance. See: I think your question really comes from a place that the NT never does: you are asking an ontological question on-par with "How can I know I drove my car?" or "How can I know I love my wife?" or "How can I know I have posted my response at D-Blog?" The question of repentance is simply not that complicated -- and it is not a work but rather an orientation to God.

Think of it this way specifically: David murdered Uriah to conceal his sin with Bathsheba, right? So he made sin to cover sin. But when Nathan came to him and pointed told him his sin, unlike Saul who made excuses for his sin, David confessed, "I have sinned against YHVH."

These are not only words. When you know your sin is against God, and this is why it is wrong, and you know you deserve judgment, confess. This is the meaning of Rom 10:10. This is how anyone can know they are saved -- and to answer your question specifically, I know I have repented because I have repented as the Bible describes repentance.

Question #7B for Frank

According to limited atonement, Christ DID NOT wish Himself accursed for those who did not believe (as He died only for the elect). However, according to Romans 9:3, Paul says that if possible he, Paul, WOULD wish himself accursed for those who did not believe (his unbelieving Jewish brethren). If limited atonement is true, this would necessarily make Paul’s love for the unbelieving greater than Christ’s love for them.

How can this possibly be? And how do you account for this?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Question #7A for Frank

Thanks, Frank, I appreciate the opportunity to hear your responses to Question #7A and Question #7B. Both are important.

You say, "Those who have repented and will repent are those for whom Christ intentionally and specifically died on the cross; those who do not repent were never atoned for because they are condemned for sin. Christ never died for those who would never repent." You also plainly assert that you have repented and therefore are one for whom Christ died.

Does this not place your ultimate confidence in yourself and your repentance rather than in the objective Word of God? And how can you help but not doubt your salvation, as your faith depends upon something you do? Also, how can you take any confidence from your observable fruits when they are always going to be imperfect? This does not seem to me to be salvation by grace alone.

My question -“How do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?”

Pastor Wood

clarification

I cannot answer this last post in 500 words -- it's simply not possible.

Stuart: please choose one question for me to answer in my next response. I will be pleased to answer one question in 500 words or less, and then give you a question "7B" which I will then answer in 500 words -- effectively giving you an extra question before asking my next question.

I think this is a decent remedy to cure your claim that I have "not answered" a question you have previously asked.

Please: post question 7A and then Question 7B and I will answer each of them in the space allowed.

Question #7 for Frank (including repeated call for answer to Question #6)

The main part of my last question asked, “How do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?”

You answered, “It's a gross error to separate belief and repentance.” That does not answer my question. As this is an important part of our discussion, can you please answer the question above?

Also a new question – According to limited atonement, Christ DID NOT wish Himself accursed for those who did not believe (as He died only for the elect). However, according to Romans 9:3, Paul says that if possible he, Paul, WOULD wish himself accursed for those who did not believe (his unbelieving Jewish brethren). If limited atonement is true, this would necessarily make Paul’s love for the unbelieving greater than Christ’s love for them. How can this possibly be? And how do you account for this?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #6 for Frank

You did not answer my last question. I believe that you cannot answer it. Also I am not separating faith from repentance in their necessary relationship to one another. True saving faith will evidence itself in a life of repentance and good works. I whole-heartedly agree with Luther, “that the whole life of believers should be repentance”. But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is that of justification, not sanctification. We are dealing with how a man is initially saved, not what fruits a saved man will eventually bring forth. I am asserting that a man is saved only by faith in the objective universal Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins”. This is the salvation of the Reformation - by the Word of God alone (sola Scriptura), by grace alone (sola gratia), and by faith alone (sola fide). Repentance (narrow sense) doesn’t save anyone. It is only the terrors of conscience that leads (as a tutor) to that which does indeed save, that is, the true universal atonement of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel.

Your LBCF evidences a wrong understanding of repentance (confusing it with the fruits of repentance), and this results in a religion of works. It also erroneously places faith before repentance, when, in regards to justification, faith comes after repentance. The wrong definition of Christ’s atonement results in a wrong Gospel, and now in a wrong definition of repentance. This leads you to the following works-based scenario:
1. Christ died only for the elect.
2. The elect are those who have repented of their sins (in sense of leading a godly life).
3. I, Frank Turk, have repented of my sins (not sure how you know this?)
4. Therefore I must be one of the elect for whom Christ died.
5. I am saved.

To answer your last question – We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). While Christ did indeed suffer and die for the sins of the whole world, this work is only effectual through faith. If a person does not receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith, then it is ineffectual to them, and they are yet in their sins. God will indeed punish them everlastingly for each and every one of their sins, though it is true that Christ atoned for these sins. Human reason may not apprehend this, but this is the plain testimony of the Word of God. A great example is Judas, “the son of perdition”, who is surely now suffering in hell for his sins. And yet Luke tells us that he was “at the table” (Luk. 22:21) when Jesus said, “This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luk. 22:19,20). Also, on what basis did Jesus cry out from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luk. 23:34)? Are we to believe that these chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, and mockers gathered around the cross were all God’s elect? (cf. also Stephen – Acts 7:60).

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the mask off Calvinism

Question #6 for Stuart

Without offering an offense, Stuart, I think you missed the point of my last question, so I'll ask it again a different way. You and I agree on the meaning of the word "atonement" or "atone" in reference to what Christ did on the cross: the debt of sin was paid in full by Christ in his sacrifice. The question is only the extent of the atonement.

So I ask you: if the effect of the cross is universal atonement for sin, how can God in justice punish anyone for their sins -- even the unbelievers to whom you say "your sins are forgiven" even though they have not repented? Does God punish people for sin even though their sins are atoned for in Christ?

Answer #6 for Stuart

I have a one-sentence answer, Stuart: It's a gross error to separate belief and repentance. That is, if someone "says" they believe, but they don't repent, they don't know what they're saying. It's like saying they have bread with no flour.

I think it's interesting that you'd ask this because Luther's first of the 95 Theses stated: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." And this is also, frankly, the point of all the proclamations of the Gospel in the NT which I have linked to so far.

In that respect, I would also cite the London Baptist Confession of Faith:

Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served various lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling gives them repentance unto life.

...

This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, does, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.

As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly.

Such is the provision which God has made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary. [LBCF, Chpt XV, sections 1, 3 & 4]

Question #6 for Frank

You say, "Those who have repented and will repent are those for whom Christ intentionally and specifically died on the cross; those who do not repent were never atoned for because they are condemned for sin. Christ never died for those who would never repent." You also plainly assert that you have repented and therefore are one for whom Christ died.

Does this not place your ultimate confidence in yourself and your repentance rather than in the objective Word of God? And how can you help but not doubt your salvation, as your faith depends upon something you do? Also, how can you take any confidence from your observable fruits when they are always going to be imperfect? This does not seem to me to be salvation by grace alone.

Question - In regards to justification, do you place faith before repentance or after repentance? And how do you, Frank Turk, identify and know with certainty that you have fulfilled this requirement of "repentance"?

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism

Answer #5 to Frank

We understand repentance to properly mean "contrition" and "terrors of conscience" over one’s sins and lost estate. The Scriptures use the term in a broad sense and a narrow sense. When used in a broad sense, the term refers to both contrition and faith in the Gospel, and can be equated with the word "conversion". When used in a narrow sense, the term refers to contrition alone, and is often followed by a reference to faith in the Gospel (i.e. Acts 20:21).

We would assert that Peter was using the term "repent" in its wider sense in Acts 2:38, which would have included a call to faith in Christ and his Gospel promise of "the remission of sins". Faith has to be included in the word "repent", as it is followed by the command "be baptized". Only believers are to be baptized. Also, the fact that Peter offers the forgiveness of sins indiscriminately to a large crowd of people implies a universal atonement, that is, that the payment for that forgiveness had already been accomplished at the cross of Calvary. You can’t offer what you don’t have to give. Peter understood he could offer it to all. Notice too how the sermon began, "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words" (Acts 2:14). Also cf. v. 21 - "whosoever".

Repentance (narrow sense) is a result of the preaching of the Law, while faith is a result of the preaching of the Gospel. To give an analogy – suppose I have been floating down the smooth gentle attractive river of life as an unbeliever, not knowing that the current will eventually sweep me off a frightful waterfall to my eternal destruction. Suddenly I start to notice signs on the bank of the river warning me that there is this mortal danger ahead. I seek to get out of the river but I cannot. The speed of the current seems to be picking up, and I start to notice sharp rocks and rapids indicating the end is near. I am terrified and regret ever having entered into this river. I have had a true "change of mind". Now, the warning signs are the preaching of the Law, and the alarm and terror I feel is repentance. Repentance is necessary, but it does not save me. It cannot rescue me from the river.

Now suppose also that the Lord has graciously provided a red rope across the river, with a sign that implores every man to grab hold of the rope before it is too late. He also assures us that this is His sign and that the rope will not fail. Via this rope, He Himself will pull us out of the river to safety. Now the sign telling of the rope is the Gospel, and the red rope itself is the atoning work of Christ. If we believe the sign (intended for all) and grab hold of the rope (intended for all) then we will be saved from the river and its terrible end. The Lord will be faithful to His Word. This is the Law and the Gospel. This is repentance and faith.

Pastor Wood
rivergums@sbcglobal.net
Taking the Mask off Calvinism