DebateBlog: Ask the Calvinist

Concluding Statement by Daniel

2011-03-04T01:01:00.001-06:00

First of all, I once again thank Frank for this debate which has indeed been very stimulating and revealing to me, as I hope it is likewise true for all our readers.

I read with astonishment Frank’s final statement. The amount of misrepresentations abounds in what he says, with the most audacious being that he has cited Scripture to prove his case, as if mere quantity of Scripture citations equals orthodoxy! If quantity of citations alone equals being right in one’s view, then not only is Rick Warren very orthodox, but likewise the German higher critics, whom I am sure quoted liberally from the Pentateuch as they promote the Documentary Hypothesis, were the most orthodox.

On the Confessions, there is a reason why I focus on non-Baptists. The Particular Baptists were more interested in being allowed to practice their religion instead of thinking of uniting Christians under one visible Church. Therefore, it is clear that their confession did not have such intent, so why should I belabor the obvious just so that I can give a cursory nod to my Baptist brethren?

It is pointless to show how Frank has virtually misrepresented almost all of my points as they so blatantly contradict what I have written in my statement. I will just focus on two examples. The first one deals with my proposition that local church life is to be practiced between believers. The only reason why Frank does not get it is because he like his hero Douglas Wilson collapses the internal and external aspects of the covenant into one. For Frank, children cannot be baptized because they prior to confession are not in the covenant. There is no category of being in the external aspect of the covenant of grace in Frank’s view. Conversely, the flattening out of the covenantal aspects mean that all who are “externally” in the church are also to be considered “internally” in the church (for there is no external/internal distinction) and therefore sly unbelievers who have not been disciplined as a member in any “church” (however that is defined) are to be considered true Christians. In the former case of infants, Frank’s errant ecclesiology refuses covenant inclusion because he has no category of being in the external aspect of the covenant, while in the latter, Frank’s view refuses covenant exclusion because he has no category for believers being in the internal aspect of the covenant of grace.

In the second example, Frank missed the fact that the OPC, the PCA and the URCNA have approved ecclesiastical statements denouncing the Federal Vision, of which I have given links to the OPC 2006 Justification Report and the URCNA Nine Points of Synod Schereville 2007. Robbins and Gerety’s book is probably the only one targeting Doug Wilson specifically so I gave that as a reference. There are other books denouncing the Federal Vision however like the one by Guy Prentiss Waters entitled The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis^[1] and the book edited by R. Scott Clark, Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry.^[2]

Frank may continue to stick his head in the sand and ignore the multitude of pastors, professors and denominations denouncing Federal Vision as heresy, but he is in denial. I hereby call upon Frank to repent of his heretical leanings and turn to the truth. I likewise would like to take the opportunity to call upon all and sundry to reject Frank’s semi-heretical ecclesiology and the Federal Vision in toto. Avoid the Federal Vision and men like Douglas Wilson, Steve Wilkins, James Jordon, Peter Leithart, Jeffrey Meyers and all who are in the CREC “denomination”. These people are wolves in sheep clothing and following them would lead in the same direction as Rome, towards perdition.

Amen.

References:

[1] Guy Prentiss Water, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2006)

[2] R. Scott Clark (ed.), Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2007)

Frank's Final Statement

2011-03-04T00:01:00.002-06:00

Well, sadly, this is my closing statement for this exchange – Daniel, as is the custom here, gets the final word and I am pleased to give it to him. My closing thoughts, in no particular order:

The really exciting parts of this exchange were that I am an adherent to the Federal Vision – when in fact all of the confessional documents I have referred to and endorsed were the confessions of the reformation (in spite of the fact that Daniel disqualified the LBCF as truly confessional and reformational – because they are filthy Baptists, of course); that the Reformed position (in spite of the statements in the actual confessions) is that men can see and must discern the invisible church (even though it is invisible, you see); the somehow it’s my view that church body life trumps orthodoxy even though I explicitly said someone anathematized should leave, and that it is a proper mark of the church to exercise church discipline. It’s exciting to see people who have such a damaged view of proper theology that they will read bankrupt defectiveness in anyone who points them to their own confessions and says, “well, it’s clear that this is not what your confession says – maybe you should repent of that and rethink your problem.”
Daniel thinks that the reformed placed the full force of their confessions on making the church a place for believers only. The problem, for anyone with one good eye, is that it is the reformed confessions which demand that the sign and seal of Christ’s convenant with his people – baptism – is for all believers and their children! It is in fact the credobaptist demand that the church be full of only believers. And I assume that Daniel is not one of those – he’s a reformed guy after all.
I like it that Daniel is certain he has been arguing for separation from churches which teach false doctrine, but that his one and only example of post-reformation heretical churches to be separated from is Doug Wilson – a man never anathematized and never even tried by any Presbytery session. But because John Robbins has written a book about Doug, well, who are we to argue? That’s as good as the Council of Orange in Daniel’s book.
With regard to the confessions, I did explicitly from the documents themselves indicate the explicit intent of the authors who write them. That Daniel rejects these statements in favor of his own opinion again speaks volumes – this time, in reference to whether he is really all about how “churches” use the doctrine of separation and how he think people using their own judgment should use it.
I also like that because my list of three uses for the 3 marks of the church didn’t include, for example, disfellowshipping the adulterer or shunning the liar, Daniel thinks that I’m in favor of unity at all costs. Even the most remotely-fair reading on my answer to his question would find that I think the three marks govern almost all of what a church should do or seek to achieve. That he cannot see that ought to inform the reader of his agenda.
One of the two participants here strictly cited and referred to the confession and made his points based on them; the other didn’t. The reader can decide for himself which of those two actually holds the confessions in high regard and which is simply a parrot of one view of confessional life.
Last, I enjoy it that I actually cited Scripture and pointed to the problems of Daniel’s view from the Scripture, while he has merely declared me false with no textual evidence.

No sense in belaboring this: Daniel has an open word count to issue his final statement. I thank the readers of this exchange for their time and patience.

3rd Statement by Daniel Chew (Affirmative)

2011-03-02T19:05:00.002-06:00

I must say that the answers by Frank in the cross-examination have been very informative and revealing. First of all, I need to briefly correct some misrepresentations of my position.

It is simply wrong that I necessarily advocate cutting off from anyone who has sufficient theological flaws. It is also wrong that I would necessarily deem any church a false church by merely taking part in one 40 Days of Purpose campaign. Such errors on Frank’s part suggest that Frank not only did not truly bother to understand my position, but he simply reads his stereotype of what the doctrine of separation looks like into this debate. More specifically, he reads the Fundamentalist idea of separation into the debate, whereas my view is the Reformed view not the Fundamentalist one. Seeing that I made that clear early in the debate, Frank is without excuse in bashing a straw man.

We must remember that the debate thesis is the necessity of separation from false churches. The debate is not about all the nuances of how the doctrine of separation is to be applied to individuals qua persons, and I thus only address individuals in their ecclesiastical positions.

To digress briefly, Frank totally misunderstands infant baptism in his answer to my second question, and since I wasn’t asking about infant baptism in that question, his attack there was a cheap shot! We baptize infants not upon some “Gospel offer” but because infants are in the external aspect of the covenant of grace (i.e. the visible church). Seeing however that Frank does not get the visible/ invisible church distinction, I guess I should not expect Frank to understand this, but interested parties may want to check out Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith^[1] and John Fesko’s recent book Word, Water, and Spirit^[2].

As I see it, the main difference between us is ecclesiology. Frank Turk holds to the Federal Vision ecclesiology, while I hold to Reformed ecclesiology. Let me unpack this so we can see the difference between the two.

First of all, we can see that Frank has no real use for the visible/ invisible church distinction. Instead, when pressed, Frank mocks the concept of the invisible church as requiring men to “discern the invisible inside the visible church.”

The Reformed understanding of the Visible/ Invisible Church distinction is succinctly described in Pastor Wes White’s blog article on the Federal Vision:^[3]

Classic Protestant theology defined the Church as true believers in Christ. … However, these theologians also recognized that God had commanded that believers come together for joint profession, worship, and discipline. The problem is that in this external communion many gather who are not actual believers and do not possess forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, new life, and adoption. As a result, they [these theologians] followed the Bible in distinguishing the Church as it appears from the Church as it really is (see Mt. 13). This is often called the visible/invisible Church distinction.

The importance of the visible/invisible church distinction in the Church is in informing us that not everyone who is in the church is saved, and we should not presume their salvation. Rather, we judge according to their confession. With regards to churches, we are not to presume any entity that calls itself a church to be a true church, but rather to check for the biblical marks of the true church and evaluate accordingly.

The Federal Vision objectivized salvation within the church and collapsed the visible/invisible church distinction such that almost everyone in the church and every church must be taken as a church of Christ, to which all the commands for fellowshipping and giving believers the benefit of the doubt are to be applied. We can see the Federal Vision error in Frank’s position as he applies all the biblical imperatives on Christian interaction to everyone and every church where possible. The traditional Reformed position is that all these are to be applied within believers. In other words, in the Reformed position, orthodoxy precedes church body life. The problem with Frank and the Federal Vision is that church body life trumps everything including orthodoxy.

Frank’s identification with Federal Vision can be even more clearly seen when he thinks there are no problems with Douglas Wilson. This is serious as Reformed and Presbyterian denominations have denounced Federal Vision as heresy,^[4] although it is admitted they focused more on the implications its ecclesiology has on the doctrine of justification. A good book specifically on Federal Vision proponent Doug Wilson is the one by John Robbins and Sean Gerety entitled Not Reformed At All.^[5]

The doctrine of separation according to Frank can only be applied when one is kicked out of the church, as in Roman Catholicism. Other than that, the marks of the church are merely characteristics that churches have to work towards and to work from. Such positions taken by Frank are more evidences for his Federal Vision objectivization of the covenant whereby churches and all who are in churches are to be considered Christian not because of their true confession but because they are churches and people in the churches, a position which we can being tirelessly promoted throughout this debate.

On the Reformed confessions, Frank did not answer the question put to him. The confessions were composed for many purposes, and listing down some of them does not mean that they were not meant to exclude unbelievers. It must be remembered that the confessions were written to show that the Reformers were not part of the radical Anabaptist movement, and therefore one of the purpose was to exclude these unbelievers. The ecclesiastical canon which is most explicit in being used to exclude unbelievers is of course the Canons of Dordt, which rejected the heretical opinions of the Classical Arminians and was the basis for excommunicating them from the churches.

While not all doctrines are major, the whole faith is essential, as Dr. Mike Horton puts it.^[6] The Confessional Maximalist view therefore regards the Confession as regulating the faith, and thus impacting the way the marks are evaluated. It is in this light that Frank’s trivializing of the Canon of Scripture is disturbing. While materially true, such a cavalier approach to the canon of Scripture (the formal principle of the Reformation) is a formal attack on the authority of Scripture. It is one thing to be honestly struggling with which books are in the Canon; it is another thing to think that changing the Canon by itself (even if no doctrines are changed) is of little importance. Such is the difference between honest enquiry and disregard for God’s Word and its authority.

Going back to the biblical data on the Galatian and Corinthian churches, we can clearly see from the beginning of the epistle that Paul wrote Galatians harshly because the essential doctrine of the Gospel was at stake, whereas in Corinth the believers were misbehaving but the church was not in danger of losing the Gospel. Frank’s argument on this fails to properly interpret the epistles. Corinth was not in any danger of degenerating into a false church whereas the ones at Galatia were. What this means for us is that doctrine is more important than practice for Paul as it should be for us. The terrible state of the Corinthian church is therefore not an apologetic for not emphasizing the importance of having a true church. Separation after all is for a true church, not a pure church.

Putting all this together, we can see the main contention arise because of Frank’s Federal Vision ecclesiology. This colors his understanding of the text and results in bizarre understanding of Galatians and Corinthians.

The position I am advocating rejects Frank’s Federal Vision ecclesiology. Rather, we are to apply the marks of a true church to discern true from false churches and separate from false churches. The Reformed Confessions aid us in this aspect as one of their intentions was to exclude unbelievers like the Arminians, the Soccinians, the Arians and others like them.

References:

[1] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed. (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1998),935-950

[2] John V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage, 2010)

[3] Wes White, "Reply to the Joint FV Profession, Part 5 — The Denial of the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction", Johannes Weslianus. Accessed online at http://www.weswhite.net/2010/03/reply-to-joint-fv-profession-part-5/ (Mar 01, 2011).

[4] See for example the 2006 OPC report on Justification (accessible at http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf) and The Nine Points of URCNA Synod Schereville 2007 (accessible at http://clark.wscal.edu/9points.php).

[5] John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, Not Reformed At All: Medievalism in “Reformed” Churches (Unicoi, Tennessee: Trinity Foundation), 101-128

[6] Michael S. Horton, “The Whole Faith is Essential: Part 1”, Valiant for Truth blog (http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/the-whole-faith-is-essential-part-1). Michael S. Horton, “The Whole Faith is Essential: Part 2”, Valiant for Truth blog (http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/the-whole-faith-is-essential-part-2)

Cross-X done

2011-03-01T19:39:00.001-06:00

I have finished asking all the questions I want to ask. Thanks.

A#9 to Daniel

2011-03-01T12:03:00.001-06:00

I think it's somewhat amusing that in a debate about separation -- that is, the demand that an individual must cut himself off from anyone with sufficient theological flaws -- Daniel is making much of ecclesiastical uses of doctrine. He can't really decide what he's demanding or when the demand became evident in the practice of the church, so he treads back to one set of doctrines which, he hopes, look enough like his demand to make some case for cutting off pastors with a lifetime of valuable and faithful ministry because of their associations with questionable characters.

That said, here are three uses of the 3 marks:

1. Didactic: that is, to systematize the teaching of Scripture for the sake of teaching the faithful about the purpose of the church. It creates catechories for what Scripture teaches in a more-organic way.

2. Ecclesiological: that is, it defines what a church is and therefore what it is not. It sets the boundaries for mission and practice.

3. Missiological: that is, it creates priorities for the practical work of the church. Items not inside the three marks are secondary at best and therefore are not priorities for those who are seeking to do what the church ought to do.

Thanks for asking.

Cross-X Q9 for Frank

2011-03-01T00:43:00.002-06:00

Q9: Indeed. Frank, do you personally see any use for the teaching of the marks of the true church?

A#8 for Daniel

2011-02-28T17:46:00.002-06:00

I think it's funny that you think holding to the Roman Canon is some sort of self-contained error. Doesn't holding to the Roman Canon lead one to believe in Purgatory? I would suggest that the problem is not so much what one would hold to as additional books in the canon as what one does with those books.

It's a serious thing to say something is Scripture. But, for example, if one holds to a canon which includes Bel and the Dragon, and reads it as a metaphor for the final triumph of Christ without any contradiction of John's Revelation, in the worst case he has taken devotional literature too far and used it to reiterate what other Scripture actually says. He's calling Bel "scripture", but he's not really changing the message of Scripture.

The problem, of course, is that no one ever does this: those who add to or take away from Scripture always do it for the sake of doctrines either in the 66 books which they want to contest or which are not in the 66 books which they must add -- usually to the detriment of the Gospel.

So I would say that if someone wants to hold even to an open canon, the proof of their faith is not in what books they would add but in what doctrines they would add or undo.

I would close, briefly, by also saying that the Trent view of Scripture simply flies in the face in the history of the acceptance of the texts. The majority view of the day was the shorter canon with the other books as sound devotional literature. Trent's condemnation of the shorter canon was purely political, purely a swipe at those it was seeking to drive out.

A#7 for Daniel

2011-02-28T17:36:00.000-06:00

You have misquoted me, and excluded my actual opinion from the statement.

I said:

Unequivocally, this person you describe in your Q#1 is under the anathema of Rome. He should leave that church and seek one which does not make the mistakes Rome has made confessionally, ecclesiastically, and ecumenically.

That is: because he has been anathematized by people who are abusing their ecclesiastical power, he ought to leave. They have told him everything he needs to know, and have giuven him their verdict on his faith. Because they admit they do not share his, he is free to go.

A#6 for Daniel

2011-02-28T17:33:00.000-06:00

If someone told me, "As a member o Christ Church in Moscow, ID, I think Doug Wilson does not preach the Gospel," after I stopped laughing I would ask him if he had spoken to Doug about it.

That is the consistent model of the NT: talk to someone whom you think is going the wrong way.

Cross-X Q6, 7, 8 for Frank

2011-02-28T16:58:00.003-06:00

Q6: Frank, I must thank you for giving revealing answer to the questions. Let’s clarify a few things here.

What would be your advice to a member of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, if he confides in you that he thinks that the church and Pastor Douglas Wilson is not teaching the Gospel?

Q7: You said that “Separation cannot be a matter of private judgment but a matter of ecclesiastical practice for the sake of pastoral ends.” May I know how do you reconcile this statement with your advice in your first answer: that a Christian ought to separate from Roman Catholicism? Isn’t that a matter of private judgment?

Q8: In the course of your cross-examination, you seem to indicate that only justification by faith alone defines true Christianity. Is your position therefore that believers should not separate from other professing believers who hold to an open canon, the Roman Catholic canon, and/or the doctrine of “partial inerrancy”? What about if churches and entire denominations hold to these views?

A#5 for Daniel

2011-02-28T10:00:00.007-06:00

The Augsburg Confession says that it was written “that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other's presence; and considered and weighed among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord.”

Luther said of the Smallcald articles that they were written “to compile and collect the articles of our doctrine [in order that it might be plain] in case of deliberation as to what and how far we would be both willing and able to yield to the Papists, and in what points we intended to persevere and abide to the end.”

Reformed.org says that Guido de Bras wrote the belgic confession “to protest against [Roman Catholic] oppression, and to prove to the persecutors that the adherents of the Reformed faith were not rebels, as was laid to their charge, but law-abiding citizens who professed the true Christian doctrine according to the Holy Scriptures.”

The additional documents for the WCF say that the primary concern of the document is to have our eyes opened, and to turn us away from ignorance and error; the specific application noted to that end is for parents and heads of household so that they may “labor in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” as they lead their families.

I trust the authors of these documents to have said what they mean -- which clearly, is not what you mean. The confessions plainly say that they are intended for use among belivers for the sake of eliminated misunderstandings, offer an open hand in order to find the palces where agreement can still be made, and to teach the leaders of households how to be wise and mature in the faith. They are not issued to exclude anyone but to give exposition to the necessary truths of the faith for the sake of edifying believers and growing unity in the midst of disagreements.

A#4 for Daniel

2011-02-27T12:01:00.000-06:00

I think the standard answer is -- the one you may have heard on the White Horse Inn, for example -- is that the Galatians were practically not a church and the Corinthians were a church. That is: the Galatians were practically denying the Gospel, and the Corinthians were only ignoring it.

For the sake of this exchange, I’m willing to utterly accept that interpretation of Paul’s approach and intent in the two different letters.

What we cannot do with that distinction is then say, “and what Paul meant for the Galatians is that the good ones (if there were any) had to leave the bad ones for the sake of their own personal/ecclesiastical holiness.” You cannot find anything in that letter which says that, implies that, or can be twisted to say such a thing. What is utterly vacant from the letter to the Galatians is the command to leave, or any instructions on how to leave.

See: some will say that Paul offers the Galatians a terse and cold salutation. But those people simply don’t bother to compare Gal 1:1-5 to 1 Cor 1:1-2, or Col 1:1-2. The salutation of Gal 1 is actually longer and more robust theologically than it is in Col 1 -- and yet it still extends the same qualifiers for those to whom it is written: the saints. He calls them “the saints and the faithful (ones)” in writing to the Colossians; he says to the Galatians that Christ died for “us” (meaning: you and me; all of us).

That said, the tone of Galatians is plainly one of discipline, as is the tone of 1 Cor. Paul is exhorting them against their failings because they are serious. And his fear is that they are turning away from the Gospel.

But the first obvious item is that Paul doesn’t write them a letter to tell them he’s finished with them. That is: Paul doesn’t separate from the foolish Galatians! Unlike your interpretation which says Paul isn’t writing to the bad ones, plainly Paul addresses the foolish Galatians (Gal 3:1) with his rebuke.

The last obvious item (because of the limits of the word count) is Gal 6:1-5, where Paul says exactly what to do with a person in the church who is in grave error. Your method and defintion of separation utterly ignores that. I pray for your own sake you can be rid of your mistake and find a place for Paul’s full teaching to the Galatians in your theology.

A#3 to Daniel

2011-02-26T10:40:00.000-06:00

Q3 is a little long to get into 500 words, but here we go:

My understanding of visible/invisible doesn’t vary from the traditional understanding in any meaningful way. For Daniel to do more than merely make that accusation, he’ll have to pony up some evidence of the “visible church” which isn’t actually a local church (3 marks, after all), and how it is that the “invisible” church is discerned apart from God’s final judgment and the ultimate glorification of the saints.
The visible/invisible distinction Daniel ought to hold to is in WCF XXV. It requires (which his demand for separation completely ignores) that only inside the visible church is where the 3 marks he thinks are necessary for “the church” can be demonstrated (specifically WCF XXV.3). These things don’t exist apart from local bodies who are actually doing them.
I like it that Q3 intimates that only those with an active theology of the “invisible church” (meaning: you have to account for them all, therefore accounting for those in the visible but not in the invisible) have a decent ecclesiology, and therefore a decent theology. The only mention of the “invisible church” in the WCF is in XXV.1, and my use of that term is in-line with the WCF’s use and weight of the term.
What is utterly evident in the Larger Catechism is that men aren’t required to discern the invisible church inside the visible church. Q61 makes the distinction that church membership doesn’t equate to salvation, but Q90 makes it transparently clear that only at the final judgment will God make the final sorting of goats and sheep. In reformed baptist circles, (a people I would love to hear Daniel’s opinion of, unless he parrots R. Scott Clark) that means we don’t baptize infants in order that we don’t admit unbelievers to the visible church. In more paleo-reformed circles, the baptism of infants is taken to be the expression of the broad offer of the Gospel to believers and their children. Because we cannot discern the elect from the non-elect, says the paedobaptist, we must assume the sovereignty of the God and therefore the inviolability of His promises. If the promises are “to the children”, then we must assume they are in the church without regard to the status of their own faith or confession. For those at home, this is why Paedos practice confirmation and credos don’t.

But the point for this discussion is clear: how the paedobaptist then won’t extend the full benefits of those promises to visible members he sees as still needing grace is utterly beyond explanation. You cannot hold a confessional view and then demand a doctrine of separation which has actual church discipline absent from the process. Separation cannot be a matter of private judgment but a matter of ecclesiastical practice for the sake of pastoral ends.

Cross-X Q3, 4, 5 for Frank

2011-02-24T20:25:00.003-06:00

[Word limits back to normal]

Q3: Frank, an interesting albeit long answer, with various false assumptions however.

In your second answer, you mentioned that the “local church is the visible church,” and then continued with a long excursive on the local church. I note that your answer differs from the traditional understanding of the visible church being the universal church, not the local church. Regardless, the invisible church was not mentioned again in your answer. So to restate the question, is there any use of the concept of the invisible church in Church practice besides the belief that souls are saved not by church attendance but by grace?

Q4: What exactly do you think is the major difference between the Galatian and the Corinthian churches that caused Paul to write to them differently?

Q5: You accused me that I “equate [my] views with the work of the councils.” In your view, are the Confessions (by the non-Baptist magisterial Reformers and their descendants, i.e Baptist Confessions are not to be considered) intended to function to exclude unbelievers?

A#2 for Daniel

2011-02-23T23:18:00.000-06:00

I have listed all the uses of the local church in my two opening statements, but I am grateful for the opportunity to restate them:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

In the execution of this power wherewith he is so entrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.

The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.

No church members, upon any offence taken by them, having performed their duty required of them towards the person they are offended at, ought to disturb any church order, or absent themselves from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any ordinances, upon the account of such offence at any of their fellow members, but to wait upon Christ, in the further proceeding of the church.

To be as specific as possible, I believe the local church is the visible church -- and if all of the work of the church is not evident there, it needs reforming. So for example, Daniel would appeal to the three marks of the church (Biblical preaching [both Law and Gospel, one hopes], Use of Sacraments, exercise of Discipline) and call it quits. But thankful, the Protestant confessions call for much more than that for the church to be true to the call to be saints joined together.

For example, as said in my second opening statement, Calvin himself found the idea that the church should be completely perfect in this world a "dangerous temptation", and that "the man that is prepossessed with this notion, must necessarily in the end withdraw from all others, and look upon himself as the only saint in the world, or set up a peculiar sect in company with a few hypocrites." Those are Calvin's words of caution to those who are so urgent to be separated from other Christians who are imperfect -- given in context of describing how it is possible that Paul can call what is at Corinth a "church" where discipline is almost unfound, the sacraments are misused grossly, and the Gospel itself is being corrupted by factions, by a waywardness toward idolatry, and by a false view of the resurrection.

From that perspective, one very serious and sobering use of the visible church distinction is how the church models reconciliation. It's interesting to see that Paul demands that the man in dire sin in Corinth be cast out in his first letter, but then in his second letter tells the Corinthians to forgive him because he is now repentant -- an act that Daniel and I would both say is the right working of discipline. But at the same time, does Paul require of the Corinthians that they separate from the super-saints who are slandering him in Corinth and causing divisions and all manner of other failings? Not once does he say this! He instead pleads Christ's sacrifice for all believers so that the factionalism will be overcome. Paul doesn't require that the "good ones" maintain their distance from the "bad ones" when it comes to the abuses of the Lord's Supper: he requires instead that the Lord's supper be the sign of unity among them, because the body of Christ is discerned there -- not just a feast for our favorite friends. And think of this: in Paul's discourse to the Corinthians about right worship, he makes it clear that worship does not exclude unbelievers but in fact must be intelligible to them so that when they are present among the believers in worship, the act of worship will convict them and call them to account. Most critically, in 1 Cor 7, Paul requires of believers married to unbelievers to say in the marriage if the unbeliever is willing to stay married to them. This is magnified ten-fold when laid up against the definition of marriage Paul lists elsewhere in Eph 5.

So what of discipline then? And of the doctrine of separation? What are these and what are they used for?

The first is simply answered: the local church categorically has the responsibility to pastor the flock through elders so that the spiritual welfare and maturity of each member and the church as a whole is cared for. That is: the local church is responsible for seeing to it that there is unity through truth. From a positive standpoint, this is done through the exhortation of truth from the pulpit and from the fellowship hall. From a negative standpoint, it is also upheld by expressing the truth in love to those who are not doing it right. As I have said elsewhere, "churches ought to exercise some kind of process which recognizes that they do not exist as a body which stands for nothing, and which gives them a clear process for working that out in real life."

But what of this "doctrine of separation" which is at the center of your complaint against me? You have made quite a lot of noise against my alleged ignorance or apathy to the historical contexts of the Protestant confessions, but one thing radically absent from all of them is the severe definitions of separation which you are nevertheless demanding. You have equated your view with the work of the councils, but ironically no councils exist to hand down the judgments you are extolling, and you are then requiring the individual to make the particular judgments completely apart from visible church structures and authority.

So for example, if Warren's The Purpose Driven Life is read in a church (probably in the 40-day structure), I perceive that your view is that it's not a church anymore: they have "taken part in the wicked deeds of Rick Warren". Those who count themselves as very on about holiness have to run away -- be separate immediately, or be subjects of separation themselves.

Yet where is this found in the theology of the reformation? Indeed: the best possible place to attempt to find it is Robert Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Catechism when he says this about Sanctification:

In Scripture, the word sanctification bears a variety of senses. It signifies separation from a common to a sacred use, or dedication to the service of God. Thus the altar, temple, priests, and all the sacred utensils, were sanctified. It also signifies purification from ceremonial defilement.–Heb. ix. 13. But the sanctification of believers, of which this chapter treats, consists in their purification from the pollution of sin, and the renovation of their nature after the image of God.

... Sanctification is imperfect in this life. There have been men, and there still are, who maintain, that sinless perfection is attainable in this life. This is held by Antinomians, who profess that the perfect holiness of Christ is imputed to believers. It is held likewise by Romanists, Socinians, and others, who affirm that believers have, or may attain, a perfect inherent holiness. The doctrine of sinless perfection was also held by the founder of the Methodists; and the same opinion is still held by his followers. In opposition to such views, our Confession decidedly affirms, that sanctification is "imperfect in this life." Though it extends to the whole man, yet "there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part." The Scriptures abound with the most explicit testimonies against the doctrine of sinless perfection.–Eccl. vii 20; James iii. 2; Prov. xx. 9, 1 John i. 8. The epithet perfect, is indeed applied to several saints, but it must be understood either comparatively, in which sense "Noah was perfect in his generation;" or, as synonymous with sincerity or uprightness, in which sense God said to Abraham, "Walk before me, and be thou perfect." That the most eminent saints mentioned in Scripture were not free from sin, is evident from the defects and blemishes which are discovered in their conduct. They were far from imagining that they had attained to sinless perfection. - Job ix. 20; Ps. xix. 12; Phil. iii. 12. Every real Christian will certainly aspire after perfection; but none can attain to absolute perfection in this life.

As there is both grace and the remainders of corruption in every saint, it follows, that there will be "a continual and irreconcilable war" between these two opposite principles. This conflict is described in a very striking manner.–Rom. vii.; Gal. v. 17 Sometimes the one principle prevails, and sometimes the other; but grace will finally overcome.

But sadly, that cannot be twisted into a doctrine which demands that Christians, themselves imperfect, must exact through a tribunal of their own reason, either repentance or banishment from every creature confessing faith in Christ. Instead, Shaw rightly points out that the doctrine of sanctification is about my war with my sin as it is conducted by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of God's grace overcoming that sin -- not to drive me away from others over matters of opinion, or worse: my own execution of some confession against those who disagree with me.

Finally, the spectacular fact of the visible church is that it is the place where sinners are made right with God. That is: not only are we reconciled by the blood of Christ to God over and against our sins, but we are also made right toward each other so that our objections to each others flaws and shortcomings can be laid to rest through Christ's work.

By no means should that be construed as a license to be lawless, or to allow for utter lawlessness and blasphemy. But it does make for the basis to be reconcilers first, and to seek to forgive first, and to call to repentance with a loving and hopeful heart first. The Gospel is not the Law, and it does not demand of us that we seek the condemnation of others through the Law. It makes us into something better than the Law could have made of us, and with that comes something greater than the mere requirements of fundamentalist separation.

A#1 for Daniel

2011-02-23T21:54:00.000-06:00

Unequivocally, this person you describe in your Q#1 is under the anathema of Rome. He should leave that church and seek one which does not make the mistakes Rome has made confessionally, ecclesiastically, and ecumenically.

I would invite him to my local church in spite of the fact that, since they have not separated from me, in Daniel's view they "have according to 2 John 11 taken part in the wicked deeds" of a person like me.

Cross-X Q1 and Q2 for Frank

2011-02-23T21:34:00.003-06:00

In the interest of reducing the time wasted while the other party is not on the Internet, I thought it would be helpful to post two questions or more at the same time when the situation allows for it. Here are my first two questions.

Q1: Frank, let’s start with a case study. A member of a local parish of the Roman Catholic Church was witnessed to on the street. As a result, he repented of his sin and turned to Christ. Suppose that you were his friend and he sought your counsel as to whether he should leave his church. What would be your advice? Would your advice be any different if he was an Italian living in Italy?

I offer an unlimited word count for the answer.

Q2: Do you see any practical uses of the visible/ invisible church distinction in the context of the local church, besides the knowledge that people are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not by church membership, attendance or the lack thereof? If so, what do you think they are?

I again offer an unlimited word count for the answer.

A10 (by Daniel)

2011-02-23T21:28:00.002-06:00

A10: As I have mentioned, Frank, I am a Reformed Confessionalist, not an Evangelical minimalist.

I have addressed the issue of John Piper briefly in my second statement. As I have said:

Secondary separation means that we are to rebuke Pastor Piper of his sin and to treat him as an erring brother under censure, as he has according to 2 John 11 taken part in the wicked deeds of Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren. He is still at least a brother in Christ, but his compromise with heretics means that we are to censure him in hopes that he will repent one day, not to encourage him in his sin by continuing on writing open letters to praise him as if nothing has actually happened.

Secondary separation is different from primary separation, although both are done for the Gospel. Secondary separation (applicable to compromisers like John Piper) is done as a measure of reprove and censure towards Christians for their compromise, while primary separation (an application of Nicea) is an act of judgment against heretics, schismatics and true apostates.

To finish off this answer, I would say that efforts to limit such acts of public piety to the local church sound suspiciously like Cain’s answer to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9ff). After all, we confess “one catholic and apostolic faith”, not many branches of disconnected faith communities.

Q#10 for Daniel

2011-02-22T21:39:00.000-06:00

As an aside on the aside, note that doling out anathemas for nonessential matters is not the same as affirming central truths and anathematizing the deniers of those truths. That Daniel does not make this distinction is telling.

So for my last question to you, Daniel: What is the most significant difference between what happened, for example, at Nicea and the common claim easily found all kinds of places today that John Piper, for failing to practice separation from Rick Warren, must himself be the object of separation for anyone who is truly a Christian? It there one?

A9 (by Daniel)

2011-02-22T00:34:00.002-06:00

A9: The problem with Frank’s understanding of the Reformation and the Reformed Confessions comes from reading them apart from their historical context. We must remember that the late medieval and late Renaissance period was a time when creeds and churches go together. Not only that, there was no such thing as the separation between Church and State. What one believes limits one to a particular ecclesiastical gathering and has implications whether one’s religion is approved or persecuted by the governing authorities.

In England in the time around the English Civil War, three religious factions were vying for supremacy: the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists. Whoever came to power would suppress the other groups. The Anglicans did that before Cromwell and after the Restoration, the Congregationalists did that under Cromwell, and the Presbyterians only did so sporadically in Scotland. The Reformers and Puritans did not have to place an anathema in their confessions; it was de facto practiced. The very idea of a national church, which symbolized the visible (not invisible) church in that country, had at its very heart the idea that all believers are to join the national church and those who do not are considered by the pastors in that national church to be not in the visible Church (at least the visible Body of Christ as present in the country).

Each faction in the Reformation used their confession as simultaneously the thing which binds believers and that which excludes those outside the Church. The multiplicity of confessions in the Reformation era led to the Reformed leaders comparing confessions and accepting in spirit (with minor disagreements to be sure) each other’s confessions to show that those believers in another place were not to be considered unbelievers. (In fact, the Westminster Confession was to function as a Confession of unity between the Scots and the British, should the Presbyterians proved victorious in England.) The Reformed Confessions therefore united true believers while excluding those to be considered outside the visible Church.

There is thus no need to commend separation since all the Reformers and their descendants have separated from the Roman Church. Moreover, they kicked out the radical Anabaptists and in that sense separated from them. The Puritans later separated from the Church of England because she refused to continue reformation. Lastly, the idea of Confessionalism subsumes the doctrine of separation into a more holistic doctrine where we are not merely told what to separate from but what to separate to.

As an aside, Trent in its format is merely following the practice of the Church through the ages like for example in Nicea or Second Orange. There is nothing problematic or ahistorical in her pronouncement of anathemas; the problem rather was that Trent condemned the Gospel.

Q#9 for Daniel

2011-02-21T19:00:00.000-06:00

Well, I think you have rephrased my last question in order to answer it in a way that sounds like your way is the way Protestants were thinking, and it was not. It was the way Trent was thinking. See: the fellows at Trent believed that the only way to rectify the error of Protestantism was to anathematize it and stand separate from it. Plainly: they called those who were Christians "not Christians" and demanded they be run off.

Consider in juxtaposition the WCF on the canon of Scripture, which anathematizes no one, yet makes a vigorous affirmation that their view of the limits of the canon is the one by which believers ought to abide.

In your view, why does the WCF (as one example) fail to demand separation from those who affirm the wrong canon of Scripture? Asked another way, how can one abide that the WCF does not demand separation from those who would call those who receive only the shorter canon "not Christian"?

A8 (by Daniel)

2011-02-18T23:56:00.001-06:00

A8: Yes.

The issue here presented gets at the type and amount of error required for separation — an enquiry which is related to the first mark as we need to consider the content of the truth of the Word of God. They are two different positions on this issue: the confessional maximalist (Reformed) or the confessional minimalist (Evangelical). Historically speaking, both positions will present the same answer to Frank’s question, since one of the proof texts used to support Purgatory (2 Macc. 12:42-45) is in the Apocrypha.

However, if we remove Trent from its historical context and merely ask whether an insistence to add uninspired books to Scripture is reason to separate from a church, then I will not presume to speak for the Confessional Minimalist. As a Confessional Maximalist, I would still say that such necessitate separation because a good and necessary consequence (WCF Chapter 1, Section 6) of the Gospel message means that the grounds of its authority (the Scriptures) is just as important for the Church as the Gospel.

Q#8 for Daniel

2011-02-18T13:49:00.002-06:00

The key issue, as you have identified, between Nicea and Trent is that one council was declaring truth and the other error. I like it that you are centered on the issue of justification as the matter at which Trent makes a fatal error. But there’s something you have missed rather broadly in Trent: it anathematizes people for excluding certain books as inspired Scripture.

Here’s my question: if Trent had not delivered the anathemas against the doctrine of justification but only the anthemas against the Protestant canon of Scripture, would “the Biblical Christian” still be bound to separate from Rome? Asked another way, do the anathemas against the Protestant canon present a doctrinal crisis that can only be resolved by separation?

A7 (by Daniel)

2011-02-16T23:15:00.007-06:00

A7: This question is ambiguous. Certainly there are a lot of major differences between Nicea and Trent; it is almost like comparing apples and oranges, or maybe mangoes.

This question can be interpreted as enquiring into the key difference between Trent and Nicea in each council’s activity of demarcating truth from error, which is a historical question. Alternatively, we can interpret the question as to the key difference between Trent and Nicea in the implications the rulings of each council has on the Church’s method for determining truth from error, which is a hermeneutical question. Or maybe it is the key difference in the implications each has for how one determines the content of the Gospel. Perhaps what the question is driving at is what is the key difference each has on how a biblical Christian practice the doctrine of separation?

Seeing that our debate thesis is on the doctrine of separation, I will interpret the question as to the key difference in how the pronouncements of each council impact how a Christian practices the doctrine of separation. If Frank has something else in mind, he should be clearer in his questions.

The proceedings of Nicea in 325AD, especially when its doctrine is codified into the Nicene Creed (later modified at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD), proclaims the one holy catholic apostolic faith which is necessary for salvation. The council met in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy as Arius denied the Son’s eternity and consubstantiality with the Father. While unsuccessful at halting the Arian plague, the witness at Nicea provided the creedal backbone of the faith during Athanasius’ time when it faced onslaught by the Arians and the Semi-Arians. The Council of Constantinople of 381AD finally put Arianism and her children down as a viable threat to the Church.

The initial Nicene Creed ended the creed with an anathema aimed against the Arians, which was removed at Constantinople probably because creeds aren’t meant to contain anathemas. The original anathema reads as follows:

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

In light of the decree of the Council of Nicea, the implication it has on the doctrine of separation is that we are to separate and heed the anathema the Church has hurled against the [Arian] heretics. The Council ruled that the Christian message is to be found in the Nicene Creed over and against the teachings of Arius and others like him. A biblical Christian in light of Nicea therefore merely has to follow the Church as she fought and condemned those who would destroy the faith, and separate from those the Church has already condemned to hellfire.

Trent was the official answer of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation to the Protestant Reformation. At Trent, a handful of Roman Catholic clergy came together and pronounced the proceedings of that council to be authoritative on the Church. Seeing themselves as the successors of Peter and Paul, all the Apostles and all the Church Fathers (as Roman Catholicism has continued to perceive herself today), they made their decrees binding de jure on all who would call themselves Christians. In the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Trent pronounced these words against the Protestants and their message:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon IX)
If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (On Justification, Canon XI)
If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon XII)

In light of these pronouncements at the Council of Trent, the biblical Christian could not in good conscience agree with the denunciation of the Gospel by the Roman Church. Since the Christian’s fidelity is first and foremost to Christ and the true Gospel message, he cannot agree with Trent’s attack on the Gospel in anathemizing those who believe in the Gospel.

Practicing the doctrine of separation therefore becomes more difficult. The Christian has to discern the error of Rome, reject the Roman Church and her councils, and turn to churches which continue to confess the true Gospel. The anathema against the Gospel hurled by the Roman Church means that there is no way the gap can begin to be bridged short of Rome repudiating the many articles pronounced at Trent.

The key difference between Nicea and Trent therefore on how a biblical Christian practices the doctrine of separation is this: In the former, the institutional visible Church follows Christ and we follow the Church in her actions of separation from heretics. In the latter, a significant portion of the institutional visible Church turned against the faith and therefore we follow the congregations that remained faithful by separating from that false church. In short, at Nicea we follow the Church as she is faithful, while at Trent we follow Christ and the true Church when large portions of the visible Church apostatize.

Q#7 for Daniel

2011-02-16T12:00:00.001-06:00

Because I am running out of allotted questions, let’s switch gears.

You make what I would call the essential case historically for separation – using the councils all the way up to Trent to show what the doctrine can yield. As I see it, it is right, for example, for Nicea to create a creed and therefore separate the faith from the falsehoods which have sprung up around it. That’s the activity of the church: express the affirmative Gospel, and use that to exclude what is not true. It is the affirmative use of truth for unity.

There is something different about Trent, though, contra Nicea or other truly-ecumenical councils. What’s the key difference between Trent and (for example) Nicea?

Again, I offer you an open word limit to answer the question.

A6 (by Daniel)

2011-02-15T20:56:00.003-06:00

A6: Maybe I should have been clearer in my previous answer. The doctrine of separation has to do with public (or ecclesiastical) piety seen especially in the witness of the Gospel and the proclamation of the Truth. It does not pertain to individual private piety. Therefore, by “(individual) personal holiness”, I am referring to attending to the means of grace and growing in holiness of character as such is the default definition that Evangelicalism tends to have when it talks about holiness.

However, Christians while saved individually are not saved and left as individuals. Christ brings believers together to form the Church. As members in the Church therefore, God calls us to exercise public piety in relation to other Christians. This public piety is external as opposed to internal, and pertains to the obligations we have to others which God obligates us to. It is called “public” because such obligations do not exist if one stays in an island alone, whereas private piety such as holiness and reading the Scriptures are necessary even if one is alone on an island.

Included in this category of public piety are contending for the faith, evangelism, discipleship, rebuke, correction, the diaconal ministry of compassion and others like them.

In this light, the lists in Gal. 5 which we have been looking at are lists of private piety or vices. This is not to deny that any of those on the lists have a corporate dimension, but that they are primarily personal not ecclesiastical.

I do not know where you are trying to go so my answers would generally “lack detail”. Regardless, I will put it forward that there is a difference in kind between private and public piety. Failure in the former generally is a sin of commission whereas failure in the latter generally is a sin of omission.

Separation as an act of public piety therefore is external, just as the Gospel is an external fact outside of us, and as the Marks of a true Church is an external fact outside of us. The link with holiness, as I have mentioned in the Old Testament and 2 Cor. 6, is due to its corporate public dimension. Just as Israel had to be separate from the nations, and Christ from Belial, so the Church is to be separate from false religion and Christians from false churches and false believers. Such separateness is one of witness and not to be done for any other reason; for the witness of the Gospel so that the Gospel message will not be compromised.

Q#6 for Daniel

2011-02-15T08:31:00.000-06:00

While I would like to see more detail from you in your answers as I am enjoying them, I appreciate your candor. So far we have clarified expressly that separation is not about salvation, and it’s not about personal holiness. Those are spectacular insights regarding your objectives in promulgating this doctrine.

In your opener, you explicitly said, “the doctrine of separation permeates the entire Scriptures, seen in the motif of holiness especially in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel,” and you reference 2 Cor 6 as your proof text.

I think you can’t have it both ways. Using the proof text you have already referenced, how is it possible that “Separation has to do with the Gospel and the proclamation of the Truth, not (individual) personal holiness or the lack thereof?”

Again, I offer you an open word count to make your case.

A5 (by Daniel)

2011-02-14T22:38:00.001-06:00

A5: Frank, the reason for the initial focus on those two words in Gal. 5:19-21 was because you were focusing on them, even by underlining them.

As I have previously mentioned, the list of the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-21 is not a list meant to necessarily describe the Galatian Christians or the Judaizers. It is a list to show what attitudes and works are the fruits that originate from the flesh. Similarly, the list of the fruit of the Spirit is not meant to be describing any of the Galatian Christians, as if any Christian ever is perfect in this world.

The principle of separation has nothing formally to do with either of these two lists. Separation has to do with the Gospel and the proclamation of the Truth, not (individual) personal holiness or the lack thereof.

Q#5 for Daniel

2011-02-14T15:11:00.001-06:00

I think your last point is defeated by Gal 1:2, and I leave it to the reader to decide for himself.

It's interesting that you only focused on the two items I underscored in Gal 5:19-21, namely the "disputes" and "dissensions". [sentence removed as part of an old draft; my apology]

I'd think one would want to make sure "enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, ... factions, [and] envying" [NASB this time] were also able to be covered by one's theology of separation as well -- that somehow separation has to not be full of "enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, [and] envying."

How would you disambiguate someone who would say that your view of Separation is actually best described by these 8 characteristics?

Again, I offer you an open word count to address the question.

A4 (by Daniel)

2011-02-14T14:41:00.002-06:00

A4: Frank, the issue here is the difference between the visible and the invisible church. It is obviously the case that there is no way the letter to the Galatians can be read without the Judaizers being present hearing it read. Paul is addressing the Galatian church as a collective whole (the visible church), and the believers within that church as individuals (the invisible church). Therefore, Paul is addressing all of them (the visible church) with the intent of speaking to some of them (the invisible church). Within the Galatian congregation therefore, Paul is rebuking the believers who are following after the Judaizers who are currently within their midst. The last portion of verse 10 is Paul’s judgment on the Judaizers who are not addressed to but spoken of in an indirect manner.

It is analogous to speaking to person A about person B while both of them are present, and ignoring person B.

Q4 for Daniel

2011-02-14T08:48:00.000-06:00

Daniel, I have highlighted part of your last response for reference, to minimize my word count here. Yet Paul says in Galatians 5:

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.

Paul plainly states that that someone who is “troubling” the Galatians is in the midst of the people he is writing to.

Can you reconcile this difference? Asked another way, how do you reconcile your view that Paul thinks those people are not even worth addressing when in fact he makes it clear that he is addressing them in this passage?

I again offer an unlimited word count for your response.

A3 (by Daniel)

2011-02-14T00:19:00.003-06:00

Thanks Frank for the open word limit.

A3: These are the verses in the Greek, with the words underlined as you have done:

φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. (Gal 5:19-21 BGT)

The word translated “dissensions” is the word eritheiai (ἐριθεῖαι), which according to the abridged LSJ lexicon denotes “an attitude of self-seeking selfish ambition.” The word translated “divisions” in the same lexicon, dichostasiai (διχοστασίαι), denotes “a standing apart, dissension.” The other occurrences of this word are both in the genitive singular: in 1 Macc 3:29 (which refers to civil discord) and Rom. 16:17. It is in Rom. 16:17 that the word is used in association with the apostles’ teaching, as it is written:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Rom. 16:17 –ESV)

From this, the word dichostasia as used in the NT has a connotation of divisions caused by the introduction of false teachings into the church. Together with the next item on the list haireseis (αἱρέσεις), they both reflect on the divisions caused by introduction of false teachings into the church.

Paul by detailing the works of the flesh is therefore telling the believers in Galatians what are the actions and attitudes to avoid and not do. We must first of all realize that the Epistle to the Galatians was written to professing believers in the covenant community, not the Judaizers. These professed believers were in danger of falling away from the faith, and Paul wrote this letter with the intention that he would rebuke them and bring them back from their perilous state. Of course, we know from other Scriptures that true believers do not fall away (c.f. Jn. 6:37-39), and those who do were never saved in the first place (1 Jn. 2:19). However, in daily living and ministry we tend to those in the visible church not the invisible, and therefore Paul assumes that at least some of them are merely deluded and thus he sharply rebukes them for their error.

I disagree with you [Frank] that we can say that doing these things will not “undo Christ’s work for them.” The list is not meant to necessarily describe the Galatians believers. The list is to show what not to do and what to avoid in people. Paul’s slight in not even thinking the Judaizers worth writing to shows that those who indeed have these works of the flesh in the fullest degree, as the Judaizers have in the area of self-seeking ambition and causing dissension by spreading false teachings, are not to be considered Christians at all.

Q3 for Daniel

2011-02-13T15:56:00.000-06:00

That's fantastic -- we are exactly on the same page.

Here's a citation from Scripture:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.[Gal 5:19-21, ESV]

That's quite a list from Paul to the Galatians, yes? Now, you and I agree that what Paul does not mean here is that people who do this undo Christ's work for them.

But if that's what Paul does not mean, what in fact does Paul mean by saying this? For the answer to this question, I give you an open word limit -- you may use as much space as necessary to answer this question.

A#2 (by Daniel)

2011-02-13T00:37:00.002-06:00

A2: Since salvation is based on God’s grace not on our works of obedience, such people will still be saved and will be with Christ.

Nevertheless, such disobedience is contrary to God’s will and therefore they may invite chastisement by God for their sins (Heb. 12:10-11). Also, the works of their service and/or ministry will run the risk of being burned up and their rewards lost (1 Cor. 3:15).

Q#2 for Daniel

2011-02-12T19:21:00.000-06:00

I thank God for your answer as it is the only Biblical one. It demonstrates that you understand that the Bible has to rule our theology in all matters, and especially in salvation.

That said, what is the ultimate fate of those who, as you say, "disobey Christ" and do not exercise the discipline of separation as you have outlined it in your opening statements?

A#1 (by Daniel)

2011-02-12T18:16:00.003-06:00

Answer: No, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, not by works.

One can be saved even if one is a member in a Roman Catholic church, a fact that the Reformers agreed with. The question of separation has never been about salvation, but about obedience to Christ's commands.

Q#1 for Daniel

2011-02-11T22:29:00.000-06:00

First, thanks to Daniel for participating here. This is my first question to him:

Does someone have to separate from heretics in order to be saved?

Frank's Second Statement

2011-02-10T06:09:00.001-06:00

Well, we can see exactly were Daniel is gong in this debate: because we can separate from the wicked, we must separate from the wicked. That is: it seems overwhelmingly-obvious (to him) that when we identify sin in someone, our duty is to move on.

But here's something to consider -- when Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, he greeted them in this way:

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, … [1Cor 1:2-4, ESV]

You know: Paul here conflates the church with the people in it -- his greeting makes it clear that he thinks that "the church" and "those sanctified" and "[those] called to be saints" are all the same set of people.

But there's some radical audacity in Paul's perception of the matter here, and Calvin says it this way:

It may perhaps appear strange that [Paul] should give the name of a Church of God to a multitude of persons that were infested with so many distempers, that Satan might be said to reign among them rather than God. Certain it's, that he did not mean to flatter the Corinthians, for he speaks under the direction of the Spirit of God, who is not accustomed to flatter. But among so many pollutions, what appearance of a Church is any longer presented? I answer, the Lord having said to him, “Fear not: I have much people in this place” (Acts 18:9, 10;) keeping this promise in mind, he conferred upon a godly few so much honor as to recognize them as a Church amidst a vast multitude of ungodly persons. Farther, notwithstanding that many vices had crept in, and various corruptions both of doctrine and manners, there were, nevertheless, certain tokens still remaining of a true Church. This is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, that we may not require that the Church, while in this world, should be free from every wrinkle and stain, or forthwith pronounce unworthy of such a title every society in which everything is not as we would wish it. For it's a dangerous temptation to think that there is no Church at all where perfect purity is not to be seen. For the man that is prepossessed with this notion, must necessarily in the end withdraw from all others, and look upon himself as the only saint in the world, or set up a peculiar sect in company with a few hypocrites.

What ground, then, had Paul for recognizing a Church at Corinth? It was this: that he saw among them the doctrine of the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper — tokens by which a Church ought to be judged of. For although some had begun to have doubts as to the resurrection, the error not having spread over the entire body, the name of the Church and its reality are not thereby affected. Some faults had crept in among them in the administration of the Supper, discipline and propriety of conduct had very much declined: despising the simplicity of the gospel, they had given themselves up to show and pomp; and in consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into various parties. Notwithstanding of this, however, inasmuch as they retained fundamental doctrine: as the one God was adored among them, and was invoked in the name of Christ: as they placed their dependence for salvation upon Christ, and, had a ministry not altogether corrupted: there was, on these accounts, a Church still existing among them. Accordingly, wherever the worship of God is preserved uninfringed, and that fundamental doctrine, of which I have spoken, remains, we must without hesitation conclude that in that case a Church exists. [John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians Vol 1, Chapt 1.2][emph. added]

Because I have let Calvin be wordy, I shall be brief. True: Calvin resorts to the 3 marks to make his case. True: he says some are corrupt. But unlike Daniel, Calvin makes it clear that someone who thinks he can just seal himself off from everyone who is not everything we think they ought to be is suffering from a "dangerous temptation" which will cause him simply to be an isolated hypocrite.

See: the key for Paul is not that some people are evil -- it's true that in 1Cor he demands that the man in open sexual sin be cut off from the church in disciple. But what about the false teaches -- the super saints? Does Paul require them to be cut off? The answer is plainly "no", even though they are causing division in the church. His call is that all be reconciled in Christ, not divided! If Paul were using Daniel's view of what must be done, 1Cor would be full of the instructions we find in 1Cor 5 -- or better (for Daniel), full of instructions for the excellent few to shuck off the rest and start their own church since they have Paul still to guide them via ~~blog~~ letter.

But that's not Paul's guidance at all: it's Paul's view that because Christ died for these people, they have a basis for continuous and radical reconciliation even when discipline is not being practiced, the sacraments are not being rightly practiced, and the Gospel has been obscured.

Just to be as clear as possible: of course there are some who must go. The unrepentant sinner who flaunts God's law must be disciplined (cf. 1 Cor 5) the unrepentant false teacher must be "handed over to Satan" (cf. 1 Tim 1; 2 Tim 2). If Daniel wants me to list everyone that is in that category, our word count is probably too short -- so listing people he thinks I don't object to doesn't make any case whatsoever. But in both those cases (and there may be other broad categories), the answer Scripture provides is not "flee the local church". The answer is, "the local church must take action against them". That is: the church must remove these sorts of people from their ranks, not leave them as if those people are immovable and Christ is not.

The difference, then, between Paul's view and Daniel's view is how we wield the truth. Do we use the truth only to identify those who are corrupt in order to drive them out, or do we use the truth in the best use of Law and Gospel so that we can convict ourselves -- all of us together -- of our failings and take up the gift of Christ to overcome those failings. Is the truth of Christ greater than sin? If it's, it doesn't just overcome sin on paper or in the future: it overcomes the problem of sin for us and right now so that reconciliation inside the local church is possible.

I am sure more can and will be said in the cross-ex. I look forward to making my point clearer in answering Daniel's questions.

2nd Statement by Daniel Chew (Affirmative)

2011-02-10T00:27:00.001-06:00

In this second statement, I would like to further develop my thesis, especially interacting with what Frank has contended for in his opening statement.

As we can see, Frank’s main concern is that “the over-arching principle of the Christian life when it comes to ecclesiology is unity.” He does not dispute that sometimes separation is necessary from non-Christian organizations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Rather, Frank seems to be contending for something akin to “mere Christianity” and “mere Christian churches.” In such a mere Christianity, all people in it are sinners and therefore we are to stay united in these churches and not separate from them.

The question to be asked of Frank is, “How do we define such a generic Christianity?” Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ and as such are outside the pale of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. On the other hand, popular “Evangelical” Word-faith teacher T.D. Jakes as a Sabellian modalist denies the Trinity. Will Frank agree that we should also separate from T.D. Jakes and all non-Trinitarians? How about Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which deny the Gospel? What exactly is Frank’s criteria for defining what can be considered Christian and therefore not to be separated from, and what is not Christian like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and to be separated from? Or is anyone calling himself an “Evangelical” to be given a free pass?

The Confessional Reformed have recourse to the three marks of the true church as stated in our Confessions, which are amply supported with verses from the Scriptures. We are saying these marks are the criteria for distinguishing a true from a false church. It must be noted here that these objective marks refer to the practice of the church, not the stated orthodoxy in a confession of faith. It is the act of proclamation of the Word of God, the act of administrating the sacraments, and the act of church discipline that are the marks, not mere ink marks on paper or pixels on screens. This is thus probably the only instance whereby “deeds, not creeds” are proper in a Reformed setting.

Frank in his statement conflates the church with the people within her, but I will nevertheless address the point he raised.

The main appeal by Frank as I see it is that we should not be critical of others since all of us are sinners, and therefore we should not separate from fellow Christians. To be sure, all of us are indeed sinners, Christians included. But firstly, the main motive for the doctrine of separation has never been Pharisaic self-righteousness but holiness and submission to Christ’s commands. Just because everyone is a sinner does not mean that therefore we do not obey Christ. As an analogy, just because the judge and the accused are murderers does not mean that both are to be pardoned. Rather, they are both to be punished. So it is with Christ’s commands. The most that Frank’s argument can prove is that everyone is to be separated from including ourselves, not that separation is not to be done. We do not bring God’s Law down to our level just because we ourselves are lawbreakers, but we are to tremble before God’s Law and indict ourselves as we indict others!

Secondly, while we do not agree with the concepts of venial and mortal sin, not all sins are equal. Some sins are worse than others, like e.g. murder is worse than anger. Therefore, that all Christians are sinners does not mean that all sinners are equal and not to be punished. All sins are qualitatively equally wicked in God’s sight, but they are not quantitatively equal before God. Therefore, while the fact that we are all sinners means we cannot boast, that we are not equally sinful means that some sins are worthy of greater penalty even within the church.

One great weakness in Frank’s position is that it is incapable of dealing with wolves from within the church. Paul warns us that wolves will come out from within the churches (Acts 20:30) and Frank’s position of “You are a sinner, I am a sinner; we are all sinners” if consistently followed makes rebuke and church discipline all but impossible.

With this done, let us go back to our main thesis. I will further elucidate my argument for separation by looking at the practice of separation, which is where the rudder meets the road.

The Reformed Confessions’ standard of the three marks is to be applied to all churches regardless of outward profession. The impartial standard of God’s Word means that we are to be impartial, which means that it is wrong to judge “Evangelical” churches by closing one eye to her faults while scrutinizing the errors of Jehovah Witness kingdom halls with a magnifying glass. God does not play favorites! That a church is being called “Evangelical” or even “Reformed” is not supposed to function like a “Get out of Jail” card. If Rick Warren and Saddleback fails the test for example, it matters little even if Warren is “America’s pastor,” as if that meant anything to the Lord of heaven and earth! I am convinced and have written a paper on Warren’s distortion of the Gospel^[1], which implies that Saddleback and Warren fail to have the first mark. This test could be applied to many “Evangelical” churches which may fail the test and therefore qualify as being false churches too. We must remember here that the marks are based upon the ACTS of the church not her written confessions.

Such application of the marks of a true church may be judged to be too strict by some, which is why in my opening statement I gave the example of the Puritans. The Church of England had a Calvinistic creed (the 39 Articles), yet the Puritans still separated from the national church. What the Puritans knew is that an official creed means little when the clergy did not actually agree with what the creed itself teaches, plus the Anglican Reformation stopped short of reformation of her practice. As it has been said, Anglicanism with its doctrine of the via media is a Church with a Calvinistic creed, an Arminian clergy and Popish liturgy. Those who judge the application of the marks of a true church to be too strict when applied to people like Rick Warren should rightly reject the Puritans too.

In the remainder of this statement, I would like to elucidate for us the doctrine of secondary separation, a doctrine which is certainly more controversial. The main text we would look at is 2 John 10-11:

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works

The idea of “receiv[ing] into your house or giv[ing] him any greeting” in 2 John 10-11 is a way to indicate in that culture a welcoming of the person as a teacher and his message as being acceptable. What I would like to focus on here from the indicative in verse 11 is that welcoming a false teacher implicates the person as taking part in the same wicked works of the false teacher.

The implication of this verse gives rise to the doctrine of secondary separation. As I have argued elsewhere, secondary separation is not separating from every person who does not separate from someone who sins in that manner of compromise, and doing this ad infinitum^[2]. Rather, it is separation from the person in refusing to join him in compromising the faith and rebuking him accordingly.

How this is translated in practice can be thought of in the case of Pastor John Piper, an otherwise excellent Bible teacher who compromised with Federal Vision heretic Douglas Wilson in the Desiring God conference 2009, and Purpose Driven heretic Rick Warren in the Desiring God conference 2010. Secondary separation means that we are to rebuke Pastor Piper of his sin and to treat him as an erring brother under censor, as he has according to 2 John 11 taken part in the wicked deeds of Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren. He is still at least a brother in Christ, but his compromise with heretics means that we are to censure him in hopes that he will repent one day, not to encourage him in his sin by continuing on writing open letters to praise him as if nothing has actually happened.

In conclusion, it is hoped that this statement has helped to elucidate the doctrine of separation in its practice and answer Frank’s objection to it.

References:

[1] Daniel H. Chew, Evaluating the Purpose Driven Paradigm: Recapturing the Vision of the Centrality of the Gospel, CREDO500 blog conference paper. Currently accessible at http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/CREDO500/Part1/23_PurposeDrivenParadigm.pdf

[2] Daniel H. Chew, The Doctrine of Separation. Accessed online at http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/separation.html

Frank's Opening Statement

2011-02-09T09:05:00.000-06:00

Well, I think it’s quite amusing that this topic has come up for a few of reasons:

1. I don’t deny that people should separate from what the LBCF calls churches “so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.” I don’t actually know anyone who would deny that – except for the new wave of Mormon evangelists and apologists who are ironically, broadly, and self-ignorantly ecumenical.

2. I don’t deny that, historically, this has happened over and over.

3. I don’t deny that there are good reasons to do this today. If someone gets saved and finds himself in a Jehovah’s Witness church, he should leave immediately for spiritual refuge in any Christian church.

But here is what I would actually affirm:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

In the execution of this power wherewith he is so entrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.

The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.

No church members, upon any offence taken by them, having performed their duty required of them towards the person they are offended at, ought to disturb any church order, or absent themselves from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any ordinances, upon the account of such offence at any of their fellow members, but to wait upon Christ, in the further proceeding of the church.

I have omitted some parts of the LBCF Chapter XXVI which are not relevant to this discussion for the sake of word count, but there it is: I believe the over-arching principle of the Christian life when it comes to ecclesiology (which is what this question hinges on entirely) is unity entirely balanced on the truth that Christ saves sinners, and the church is full of people like that. That is: rather than have only the self-centered view that one is saved and therefore entitled to all sorts of benefits (including the benefit of the doubt when one is strident or imperious), I think that one who is saved is therefore called to be joined to the others who are also saved in a concrete and visible way, and one therefore has an obligation to give others the benefit of the doubt, to give them the benefits of Christ’s work for them, and to work as if Christ is the one who makes other believers holy rather than to believe tacitly that some other person’s sin is greater than my own and therefore forces me to separate from them because thank God, I am not like them.

This view does not abandon the warnings against false teaching in the NT: it regards them with an eye to God’s intention that the church is where God is working out His plan for all things specifically and ordinarily and every day.

I wish Daniel good luck and God’s blessing as we begin this discussion.

1st Affirmatve Statement by Daniel Chew

2011-02-08T21:12:00.004-06:00

The thesis statement for this debate is “It is necessary for Christians to separate from false churches that do not proclaim the Gospel and the essentials of the Faith.” In my first statement, I would like to give a brief overview of the issue under debate, and address specifics and objections in my second statement. I would therefore briefly define my understanding of the thesis and then attempt to support my view with a brief look at both church history as well as the text of Scripture itself.

The understanding of the thesis statement that I will be working with is this: It is a biblical imperative that Christians, those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, should stop going to false churches and not to associate with them. False churches are to be defined as those who “do not proclaim the Gospel and the essentials of the Faith.” As a confessional Reformed Christian, I am using that phrase as shorthand for the classic Reformed doctrine of the true church as those possessing the three marks of the true church: the pure preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of the sacrament and the proper exercise of church discipline (Belgic Confession Article 29). False churches therefore are those that do not have one or more of these marks. It must be noted here that I am not arguing for perfect possession and practice of these marks, but that true churches must have these marks in varying degrees.

With this, let us do a brief overview of church history.

Throughout the history of the church, there have been conflicts and schisms. Probably the best known schismatic which threatened the unity of the early church was Novatius in the third century AD. The Donatists in the fourth and fifth centuries also split African Christianity into two. The call of Novatians and Donatists was for the purity of the church, although this is admittedly an oversimplification. Needless to say, the orthodox catholic response to the schismatics was to emphasize the unity of the catholic Church, best seen perhaps in the dictum by Cyprian of Alexandria: Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus Est, or Outside the Church there is no salvation.

In the 16th century Reformation however, the Reformers split with the apostatizing Roman Catholic church over the issues of the Gospel and the authority of Scripture, a split which was sealed by the Roman Council of Trent. This separation from Rome forced the Reformers to dig deeper into Scripture and to re-evaluate the traditions of the Church. Out of this meditation upon the Word of God, the Reformers came up with a more mature doctrine of the Church as reflected in the Reformed Confessions. The magisterial Reformer John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion deals with this issue especially with reflection upon the understanding of the early church, which we look at later.

After the Reformation, the Puritans were notable for their split from the Church of England. The Puritans refused to be bounded by fixed liturgies and the use of clerical vestments, seeing their uses as being contrary to Scripture. The Puritans therefore founded separate congregations where they can practice their faith in a way that is pleasing to God.

Closer to our times we have the modernist controversies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In Britain, the most notable proponent for the Gospel, Charles H Spurgeon, separated from the Baptist Union over charges of apostasy within her ranks in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. In America, the Presbyterian scholar and theologian Dr. John G Machen separated from the apostate PC(USA) and founded both the OPC and Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

All of these examples show us that separation from what all of these men would consider to be false churches is not a novel idea in Church history. Separation from false churches is taken by them to be a Gospel imperative, however painful it might be to them personally. What I am arguing for therefore is nothing more than the historic Protestant doctrine of the church and its corresponding doctrine of separation.

As previously stated, John Calvin addressed the doctrine of the church and its practical application for Christians in his Institutes. In Book IV Chapter 1 Section 9, Calvin mentioned that the true churches are to be discerned as having two marks: the pure preaching of the Word of God and the right administration of the sacraments. In section 11, Calvin leads us to the implication this has on how we treat any institution that calls itself a church:

… every congregation which claims the name [of a church] must be brought to that test [of the two marks] as to a Lydian stone. If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments, we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun pride and presumption in the other. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.1.11)

Later sections in this chapter of Calvin’s Institutes reveal his interpretation of this doctrine of the church with regards to the Novatians of the early church. According to Calvin, the Novatians erred because they separated from the true church. The Reformers were right in separating from the false church which Rome had become, but separation from a true church is a grievous sin.

Historically speaking therefore, the Reformed consensus is that believers are to judge the true churches from the false according to these three marks (the Belgic Confession among others added the third). Where these three marks are missing, believers are duty bound to separate from these institutions.

With this short overview done, let us turn to the biblical texts.

It is in my opinion that the biblical witness to the doctrine of separation permeates the entire Scriptures, seen in the motif of holiness especially in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel. Nevertheless, for brevity sake and granting Dispensational bias just for the sake of argument, I will choose the New Testament passages of 2 Cor. 6:14-18 and Rev. 2:9 to prove my point.

2 Cor. 6:14-18 contains the famous imperative to “Come out from among them and be separate” (2 Cor. 6:17b – NIV2011). The imperative by God to separate from unbelievers is extremely clear here. The exegetical issue has therefore not been whether separation is commanded by God, but rather on what this separation is and what does it entail. Does it mean separation from unbelievers in the church, separation from unbelievers in society or perhaps separation from unbelievers outside the church in terms of spiritual matters?

When we read the passage in context, we can see that Paul is giving an explicit command of how the Corinthians ought to live holy lives. Such can be summarized in 2 Cor. 7:1 whereby the idea of cleansing from “defilement of body and spirit” is mentioned. Having commanded church discipline in his first letter on the man with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1-2) which was effective in bringing about his repentance (2 Cor. 2:5-11), Paul continued on with this motif of holiness and called the Corinthians to holiness of life and conduct.

Scripture in 1 Cor. 5:9-10 makes it clear that the separation from unbelievers must be spiritual in nature not social. This means that the separation is always from those who are unbelievers. While marriage is definitely an application of the teaching, the “yoke” in verse 14 shows us that ministry is what Paul had in mind, as Calvin said in his commentary on this passage. Christians are therefore not to be involved in ministry with those who do not confess the faith, of which false churches are one such example.

The second passage we would be looking at is found in the book of Revelations 2:9, which deals with one of the opponents of the Church in Smyrna. The Apostle John spoke of this group of people as “those who say they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” Whichever way we think of the “Jews” in this passage, they are considered the people of God. This expression of John therefore is the closest we have to a biblical mention of a false church since these people claimed to be Jews. While John does not mention separation from the false church, that he does not consider that assembly a church at all but a synagogue of Satan means that believers are obviously not supposed to be in that false church.

In conclusion, I have shown briefly how both church history and Scripture prove the thesis that Christians are to separate from false churches. I commend these arguments for our consideration, for the glory of our Lord. Amen.

Welcome Back

2011-02-07T07:23:00.000-06:00

Here we are about 3 years after the last exchange at the DebateBlog, and my open letter series at PyroManiacs has caused Daniel Chew to doubt my orthodoxy on a number of issues. After some e-mail exchanges, I think he has settled on the following thesis to defend:

It is necessary for Christians to separate from false churches that do not proclaim the Gospel and the essentials of the Faith.

Yeah, I know: very controversial. We'll see what he actually means by it as the exchange unfolds. The format for the exchange will likely take this form:

1st statement by both parties (simultaneously)
2nd statement/rebuttal by both parties (simultaneously)
Cross-ex by Frank (Max 10 questions)
Cross-ex by Daniel (Max 10 questions)
Final statement and conclusion (simultaneously)

It's a little different than the normal format, so I hope we don't bore you away from reading the whole thing. If you click on the label "separation 01", below, and bookmark it, you'll be able to find the whole exchnage as it posts and updates.

CLOSING COMMENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC

2009-07-13T15:28:00.001-05:00

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

2009-07-13T11:31:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-10T13:20:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-10T12:09:00.005-05:00

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.

2009-07-10T11:10:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-09T19:02:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-09T19:01:00.000-05:00

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.

2009-07-09T18:29:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-09T17:36:00.004-05:00

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

2009-07-08T22:27:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-08T22:20:00.001-05:00

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

2009-07-08T21:09:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-08T20:37:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-08T07:23:00.001-05:00

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

2009-07-08T06:59:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-07T20:46:00.005-05:00

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

2009-07-07T19:41:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-07T18:32:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-07T18:09:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-07T12:38:00.007-05:00

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

2009-07-07T00:07:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-06T22:52:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-06T22:34:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-06T15:11:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-06T14:06:00.005-05:00

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

2009-07-02T07:45:00.001-05:00

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

2009-07-02T07:29:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-02T00:02:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-01T23:28:00.005-05:00

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

2009-07-01T21:40:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-01T21:33:00.001-05:00

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

2009-07-01T11:46:00.003-05:00

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

2009-07-01T11:40:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-30T16:15:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-30T16:09:00.001-05:00

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

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

2009-06-30T01:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-29T21:06:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-27T18:30:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-27T18:25:00.000-05:00

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.

2009-06-27T16:34:00.005-05:00

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.

2009-06-27T16:10:00.005-05:00

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

2009-06-27T15:45:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-27T00:05:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-26T23:48:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-06-26T17:14:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-22T21:08:00.000-05:00

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

2009-05-30T09:30:00.003-05:00

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

2009-04-25T22:40:00.001-05:00

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

2009-04-20T11:10:00.002-05:00

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

2009-04-19T19:19:00.000-05:00

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

2009-04-17T11:02:00.003-05:00

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

2009-04-16T21:13:00.003-05:00

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

2009-04-16T21:10:00.000-05:00

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

2009-04-16T13:33:00.002-05:00

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

2009-04-15T07:51:00.003-05:00

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

2009-04-14T14:16:00.002-05:00

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

2009-04-14T10:05:00.000-05:00

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

2009-04-14T08:57:00.003-05:00

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