Thursday, October 19, 2017

Gino Jennings. A False Apostle Teaching Heresy

 NEW--> Gino Jennings, Cult Leader, or Simply Bombastic Heretic?<-- dir="ltr" div="" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <--new b="">
<-- dir="ltr" div="" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">

Gino Jennings
Director Of Heretic Central
I was recently directed towards a debate in which AN ALLEGED Apostle Gino Jennings , the leader of a Oneness Pentecostal organization called First Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ATTEMPTED to dismantle trinitarianism by "debating" a supposedly COGIC International minister during what I believe may have been a so called "Truth Of God" broadcast in which Jennings often attempts to debate those who don't believe what he does in order to make himself look good to his followers. 

In what appears to be a very shameful debate, shameful on Jennings part, (partially because he didn't follow a standard debate format, laying out both sides or cases and allowing proper rebuttal before a question/answer session) Gino declares that he is dismantling trinitarianism and making those who believe in it "lap it up off the floor".

In actuality, not only did Jennings, deliver a horrible format for debate, but he also delivered more false doctrine and heretical teachings than satanist Anton LaVey in his ode to satan himself called "satan speaks"... 

Yes, Jennings is really that bad! 

He and his docetic Jesus, that walked on water because he was a "spirit", and that did not physically raise in the resurrection,  is certainly a different Jesus than what is revealed and taught within scripture. 

Jennings not only ascribes to modalism, he also ascribes to arianism and marcionism and nearly every historically heretical teaching that one can name in his effort to be popular, famous and to deceive the masses. 

For all my apostolic friends and family, let's debate the trinity if you wish, but PLEASE don't make this man your champion. He doesn't know what he's talking about and his deceit and crafty handling of scripture will send you straight to hell.

In this post not only will you see the video of the event, but also read my detailed rebuttal to many of those man's false arguments, all of which have been placed on the video site itself.

Let's Critique This FIASCO Of A Debate And The Heresy Of Gino Jennings
(Much of this was posted on the video channel in the comments section)

Jennings says around 34 minutes in that one cannot use "hebrew, Greek, and Latin" to discern truth (essentially) because what we are using is "bible"...

What this means, is that Jennings is committed to destroying context and the bible in order to bolster his point.

In other words, he feels that the meaning we pour into words today is more important than the original context in which the words were written...This is EMBARRASSING!!!!

The FIRST rule of biblical interpretation is ALWAYS and SOLELY CONTEXT...CONTEXT...CONTEXT!!!! The German schools called it the "sitz-em-laban" that is the interpretive is ALWAYS understood in light of the actual setting. 

What is written is and must be interpreted in light of the usage of words in that day and in that time... In other words, one cannot take a word and the use of a word from a later period of time and ascribe it to an earlier epoch, UNLESS, it is justified to do so. The situation itself will settle that issue. However, doing so without warrant is what is called a anachronism.

This is not only an error, but will lead to FALSE doctrines like the one he believes in. Jennings whole premise is something that a beginning bible student would not do! or at least one that I teach anyway...

SECONDLY...among an infinite number of FALSE narratives that he presents...

NO TRINITARIAN communicates that God has three "personalities". We communicate that HE is three "PERSONS" based on what is clearly taught in scripture and viewed by the FACTS that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, EACH display the capacity to have "will", "mind", "intellect", and we see those things along with awareness of one another clearly throughout scripture

Example, Jesus prays in the Garden saying, 

  • "if it be thy WILL let this bitter cup pass from me, nevertheless not my WILL but THINE be done" (Lk. 22:42) 
  • John 4:34 ~ "my meat (WILL, work and mission) is to do the WILL of him that has sent me and to finish HIS work" 
  • Rom. 8:27 ~ And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 
The term "mind of the spirit" is the "WILL" of the spirit...That is NOT referencing your spirit, that is he spirit of God! Otherwise it (the verse) makes no sense at all.
Jennings misuses language suggesting that God saying "BY his Spirit", is simply a literary technique to reemphasize himself...

However, THAT IS NOT how language is used, nor Greek written...

God the Father has a MIND, 
God the Son has a MIND 

the Spirit, has a MIND... 

In Acts 5...they lied to who? The Holy Ghost! Only a PERSON can be lied to, not a revelatory expression or mere manifestation or someone changing hats... 

Further: Like Isaiah (the scripture referenced in the video), the scripture is replete with scriptures that distinctly outline that HE (God) "AND" HIS Spirit are outlined...It NEVER says that "he IS his Spirit"! The scripture is CLEAR! 

Here's more: 

So far as Jennings, false and illiterate questions regarding "partners" of God...We see and affirm what are called DOXOLOGIES all over the scripture, where Paul and other New testament writers distinguish the difference between God the Father and Jesus... 

  • Phil: 1:2 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • 1 Cor. 1:3 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • Ephes. 1:2 ~ Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • Gal. 1:3 ~ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Jesus here is called God and Savior but is "able to keep you from falling" and has the ability to "present you faultless before the presence of his glory"....
  • Jude 1:1-2 ~"1- Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2-Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied." Sanctified BY the Father and preserved "IN" Jesus Christ"...

Jude again: 

  • Jude 24-25: 24--Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25-To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

  • Romans 16:27 ~ To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. 

God, who IS God, is to be given glory THROUGH Jesus Christ, who the scripture clearly says is God. 

Because the words "through", "and', and "by" and others conjunctions like them, mean nothing to him. He (Jennings) needs a course in transitional grammar!

Jesus himself in John 14:16 says that he will pray "to" the father and the father shall send to you "another" comforter". 

(And this is partly why he doesn't want his followers to study Greek, Hebrew and the original languages of scripture) 

The GREEK word for "another" MEANS {IN CONTEXT}, "one who is of the same substance, but DIFFERENT" 

Example...Let's say that 2 chairs sit side by side, Both come from the same factor and look exactly alike. Are they the same chair? Of course not!!! The second one, does all the first one does, but is different...even has the same substance.... 

The difference here is that Jesus says that the Spirit, which is "another comforter" will testify of JESUS and not of himself... in fact he says this: 
  • John 15:26 ~ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 
Now, Jennings doesn't believe the word...How do I know? 

At about 1:00 (hour) into this Jennings teaches that Jesus came into being while simultaneously teaching that he (Jesus) is eternal. Saying that because he was "born" of a woman, that he had a beginning. This teaching is not only false, it is HERETICAL. 

In referencing John 1:1, Jennings must not know what it means or says...In the BEGINNING was the WORD. ...

Now, since God is eternal (without time), this would also mean that he existed BEFORE (or prior to) the beginning. Therefore, the scripture (John 1:1)is pointing to the beginning of time in this sentence (John 1:1) and not the beginning of God himself as there is no such point or place as the beginning of God. He is TIMELESS and without beginning and end. Jesus being born is NOT his beginning. 

The BIBLE says that God TOOK ON the nature of man in what the bible describes as the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) In John 1:14 the WORD "became" flesh. 

In order for something to "become" something else (even in it's most simple terms) means that it (whatever was to become something else) existed first. In other words, something had to be there BEFORE it began to be something else. 

For Jesus to "BECOME" flesh, he had to exist PRIOR TO being flesh. 

Now the study of "how" Jesus is God in a fleshly body is called the study of the hypostatic union. Jesus is the ONLY man with 2 natures. A nature that is 100% man, and a nature that is 100% God. he is not a 50/50 union or hybrid, which is how Jennings argues. Modalism is the argument that the Son comes into being at a certain time. Which is EXACTLY what Jennings teaches in this video. This is scripturally and certainly false.

We know him as Jesus, or God with us, because he dwells in flesh like we do. Not because his presence has not previously been here. He was in the Tent of Meeting in the Old testament wasn't he? Wasn't he a pillar of fire and smoke by night and a cloud by day over Israel? HIS presence was always here. The "Spirit" is also not some lesser "agent" of God. The spirit is a being. not a force. 

He cannot teach that Jesus is both eternal and also created at a certain point in time. What he must do, if his desire is to teach accurately, is affirm what scripture affirms. God is eternal. The WORD is eternal. The WORD "took on the likeness of sinful flesh" or "became" man. This means that God took on ANOTHER nature. Simply put, he put on something in order to do something. This leads into the next failed Jennings argument 

So far as who is doing the work (which is a ridiculous argument) JESUS said this:
  • John 9:4 ~ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 

  • John 10:37-38 ~ 37-If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38-But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 

  • John 14:12 ~ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 
Of COURSE Jesus did the work. Of COURSE the Father did the work. It would have to be because there is only ONE GOD...not two of them and there is a hypostatic union 

Jennings LIED if anyone did, because he doesn't seem to know scripture and what he does know, he intentionally deceives the public on to draw men to himself. 

Then there is John 1:2-3 which for some reason Jennings continued to deviate from, and would NEVER allow the argument to go there: 
  • John 1: 2-3 ~ 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

This verse says that the WORD (ie: "the same") was in the beginning WITH God. this displays a duality, of relationship and existence. to be WITH something suggests that there is more than one. One cannot be "with" themselves. One can either be ALONE or WITH someone else. 

Then the scripture goes on to say that everything (ie:"all things") were "made by him". Who is HIM? That is the WORD, who was God and who is WITH God. Now if you don't believe any of that, John 1:10 makes it even more clear: 
  • "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." 
The world was made by HIM???...Who was "him"??? 

The scripture describes him further:
  • John 1:11-13 11- He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12-But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13-Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

Then concludes with John 1:14 as we already discussed the incarnation. 

As Jennings would foolishly state, "show me 1 verse that says incarnation"??? Well, there is no verse that says "incarnation" HOWEVER, there are verses that describe it just as there are verses that describe the trinity. Therefore his whole argument of chapter and verse to prove trinity is a false narrative and logically is incoherent and therefore overcome!

I would suggest that this preacher, Jennings, also study the Granville Sharp rule . It would help illuminate his understanding and bring him out of the darkness that he leads his followers into as well. 

The bible said that FALSE prophets and Christs would arise and deceive many. We see this clearly in the teachings of Jennings and his lust for the spotlight. So sad, but yet so TRUE!

Second Posting
(which was deleted from the video comments)

At about 1 hour and 24 minutes, Gino references 1 Kings 22:19 and speaks of the vision of Micaiah which had been given a vision of the deceit that Ahab would be given by the false prophets to excite him to war.

Jennings says of this prophet, that he must be "put in the spirit to see the things of the spirit"...he said that this scripture indicated a man that was in the spirit looking on heaven and he "trusted' what he said. in other words he was excited about this beatific vision of the Lord.

Now, lets look at Revelation 5...
I wonder why this never came up?

We see John, "in the spirit" on the "Lord's day" as he says and he sees heaven too. Only John see's a heaven where God is on the throne, and all heaven bows down and casts down their crowns and worships him, THEN a Lamb come from the midst of the throne, wearing a robe that has been washed in blood, and receives a book from the one who sat upon the throne...immediately, ALL heaven, falls down and worships the Lamb, and calls him "Worthy, worthy, worthy, Lord God almighty"...JUST like they called the one who sat upon the throne previously...Who was this Lamb????

Why is not this scripture as venerated by Jennings as 1 Kings 22:19? 

Third Posting:
Now, Jennings is worse than I 1 hour and 31 seconds, he seems to deny the bodily, physical resurrection of Jesus, chiding Smith saying that "flesh" is in heaven. 

Now the Jehovah's Witness are the one who don't believe in a physical resurrection or Jesus with what the bible calls a glorified body...

Jennings, DO YOU DENY the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus??? Since you seem to believe that the risen Jesus has no FLESH. That is according to your teaching and your false doctrine???

1 hour 37 minutes you say that Jesus was not a "natural" or physical body walking on water. But at the same time, Jesus claims that a spirit cannot and does not do what he was doing.
  • Mt. 14:25-27 ~ 25-And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26-And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27-But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Now, Jennings spent a whole program affirming that Jesus was flesh. Why switch now? Maybe it was because that wasn't the focus of the scripture. Jesus was FLESH walking on the water, but he was also God. Remember???

Further, to deny this also denies another cardinal doctrine of scripture. The physical resurrection itself. It was that physical resurrection that gave credence to his doctrine and teaching. When Jesus shows up to the disciples, he did not say he was a spirit. READ what it says:
  • Lk. 24:39 ~ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
The RESURRECTED glorified body Jesus had FLESH AND BONES and that did not mysteriously change at the ascension. In fact Thomas who doubted it all was challenged the same way in John 20 and after seeing a PHYSICAL Jesus fell and hailed him as "my Lord, my God" John 20:20!

It is unbelievable that a teacher of the word teaches otherwise and contrary to scripture and yet has a following...


  1. Thank you soooooo much Supt. Burnett for shedding a powerful light on this. I want to forward this to our close friends of ours who are in danger of this terrible heretic, false teacher and so-called preacher. Our friends who are Husband and Wife invited us to their house and they introduced us to Gino Jennings on YouTube and he showed a Gino Jennings Holy Scriptures bible that he came up with and he told me somethings about Gino Jennings but I wasn't persuaded because their doctrine goes against the Church of God in Christ doctrine, especially in regards to baptism and oneness vs trinity. The crazy thing about it is that he is so catchy with his comments and the things that he says that it could almost be believable and that's why it's so important to study the word of God for yourself.

    1. Thank you brother Minister for the encouragements and glad you were able to gains some info to help you discern this false teacher.

      Now, I spent almost 2 to 3 days arguing with some people in a COGIC forum on this. At first they said the format of debate was wrong, which this debate was wrong and totally backwards...Then they said that since belief in the trinity wasn't a salvific belief (a belief that causes one to be saved) that it wasn't important...After all was said and done, they admitted finally that they had no problem believing in oneness doctrine or teaching...

      I was glad the truth finally came out, but it let me know the extent that people will go to n this topic to shade or hide their hand. And also what people will accept, even false teaching, in the name of "unity" and being able to "reach" the lost or whatever they were attempting to do.

      The scripture is clear however...The Saints were not to receive anyone that taught "another" Jesus. A Jesus that can only save a person if they are immersed in a pool is NOT the biblical Jesus. That is another Jesus! A Jesus that came into existence at a certain point in time and that changes himself into something else in the church age, is NOT the biblical JESUS!

      See, the problem is, that in order to come up with the apostolic concoction of the Jesus only myth, one has to destroy the real Jesus as a result. One has to destroy his works on the cross, create him at a certain time in history and say that his work, the work of the Son only exists today in so much as he, Jesus, is wearing another hat as the Holy Ghost today.

      We may not be able to comprehend God. I would expect that of God. However, we can apprehend HIM. We can simply bow in submission to what he says and who he describes himself to be! I can find no parallel to adequately describe him as he describes himself...he is not like an egg, he is not like a father, a husband and an employee, he not like any of these analogies.

      However, in the end, we must display mercy and humility on those to whom the light hasn't come on yet. That is an issue, because all too often, I know I have said, "look, either you believe God or you don't!"...I'm like, stop trying to make excuses for not believing the word of truth. but some people really don't know or have been led astray and they are different from those who don't believe because they refuse to believe.

      Jennings appeal is based on what some see as telling the truth. Some people like verbal abuse and abrasiveness. he will put things together to make himself sound good, but when you look under the surface or examine content, it's fluff. Just like his vision of Micaiah in 1 Kings 22. Why does he not also have the same vigor for Revelation Chapter 5 in particularly? Because he knows that based on the same standards he applies to 1 Kings, his whole theology would be totally messed up.

      Any, you got the vision...KEEP on studying and keep lifting HIM up! If there is anything that I want to inspire, its the people of God to examine scriptures even more closely and faithfully. That inspires me!!!!


    2. Go debate him. Show up to his convocation or invite him in your pulpit. Put up or shut up as PJ says to anybody who’s want to debate him.

    3. Pastor Jeno Jennings has open the eyes of many people I grew in the church of God in Christ. And never understood the Trinity until I saw this man of God debate the other man of God that thought like me that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were of separate personalities. But during the debate Pastor Jennings reveal that if you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father. Jesus came not to do his will but the will of the Father who sent him. Jesus was God in human flesh. There is in the beginning of time and now only one God. Jesus prayed to the Father as an example for us to call upon the Father. However if you do not agree with Pastor Jennings and can prove there are 3 Gods that just agree as one you should debate Pastor Jennings.

    4. The Minister could not disagree with the word of God. Pastor Smith was blessed to heard the teaching of Pastor Jenning as he revealed that if you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father. I like Pastor Smith was also confused and believed that Jesus the Holy Spirit were of different identities from God the Father but just agreed as one. And to had the incorrect teaching from the Church of God in Christ. But after hearing the holy spirit teaching from Pastor Gino Jennings gain enlightenment, in knowledge that if I have seen Jesus I have seen the Father. However Supt. Burnett if you can show that this man of God is wrong. You should debate him.

    5. Pastor Jennings has done nothing but open his mouth and let GARBAGE fly!!!! He is the worst biblical expositor nearly in history, his doctrine is false and his sub doctrines such as Jesus was a "spirit" are patently false and have been refuted for GENERATIONS!!!!

      He has thought of no new heresy. All of his shoddy propositions are found on the pages of history, debated, and put down as non-biblical and certainly not inspired by God...

      I didn't care anymore about what this man taught than anyone before doing this thread, but after seeing his cronies respond, I see this man has a stronghold on the minds of people and is worse than most of the cult leaders I have seen...He is worse than nearly everyone I can think of...

      Secondly, Anyone who teaches that God has separate "personalities" doesn't know what the heck Trinity is about and what the bible teaches...

      The is only ONE God and he exists as three distinct PERSONS (not personalities) and that is based on SIMPLE FACTS of awareness, will and relationship. All of which is evidenced by even the most simple reference. Such as (since all of you all insult God with this essential baptism mess) when Jesus was being Baptized by John, the Father spoke from heaven and the Spirit descended like a dove and God SAID..."This is my beloved Son..."...Another, Jesus says The Father will send the comforter, in another passage he says he will send the comforter, in a passage Jesus says the Father has a will, in another he says he himself has a will, in fact in the Garden he says, "nevertheless, not MY WILL but THY WILL be done"...This is the basis of personhood, not manifestation...Persons have will, mind and intellect, not manifestations...

      Children can understand that!!!!

      So first find something that is worth debating...his rants and jacked up interpretations are kindergartenish...We have 7 year old children who can take apart his diatribe and yours too!!!!

      So sad!!!!

    6. I disagree that there are three distinct persons of God in the beginning and now there is only 1 God. Ask a Rabbi is a site to answer the question what is meant by the words let us make man in Our image and likeness. Here is a link for question and answers in the Torah
      The commentator Rashi explains that God spoke to the Angles beforehand in creating the man that would in some way resemble God and the angels. But God acted alone in creating man.
      However, I believe one can be Baptist in the name of the Father & Son & Holy Spirit. Or in the name of Jesus, I am not a follower of either of the churches that were debating. I use to believe in the teaching of COGIC. I still agree with some of there teaching others I disagree. I feel that it is a sin to tell people in a church that smoking is a sin. I have not found any place in the bible that states that and what is worse both churches will try to speak for God and say God does not want a person to smoke or someone who does is not save. Or claim that doing this is of the world, my belief is the only things of the world that God was speaking about are the things forbidden by his laws. However, I do not smoke and would advise against it, but I do not believe in adding to the word of God. The churches are fighting and spending a lot of time trying to save people that are already saved. If we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and live the best Christ-life, we are covered by grace.

    7. So far as Rashi's commentary, it seems that Rabbi Rashi "invented" his apologetic in response to the claims of Christianity. Dr. Walter Martin dealt with this interpretation in a few of his works but here is a video of him talking about it specifically in a debate with some Oneness Pentecostals in 1985. He talks about the use of "Victorian Language" as one of the excuses as well and debunks both efforts to steer away from what scripture says.

      This is a good, but long video debate:

    8. That is an excellent video that incorporates both facets of the debate. Nevertheless, all my colleagues that are Jewish believe there is only one God. Moreover, do not eat what they consider as tainted food. Furthermore, the father apparition was inside of Jesus, that Christ came not to do his will but the will of his father that sent him. Jesus was both man and divine. Some of Gino pedagogy are not of my belief. Elder Gino teaches Mary did not birth the son of God into the world, but only the essence of Jesus. However, if Jesus was God in the flesh, and was in the baby of Jesus; Mary admittedly gave birth to the Son of God. However, God was always here and created everything and was here before his earthly mother. I believe we should baptize in the name of the father, son and
      the holy spirit and I do not believe I have to be re baptist to be right with God.

    9. Thanks Carlos for adding to this convo. The fact is that all Trinitarians (at least the one's who understand Trinitarian teaching) affirm that there is only ONE GOd as well. We certainly don't believe in three!

      Yes Jesus had both a fully human and fully divine nature. There is a mystery of the hypostatic union, however, Jesus did not have to Grow into being or becoming GOd. That is Jehovah's Witness teaching, not biblical teaching on the subject.

      The distinction is this, God took on the limitations of humanity without divesting himself from being God. As he said in John 8, "I Am" or "ego emi" (if memory serves me correctly) which was directly from Moses's encounter with God in Exodus 3.

      When we talk God, we are not talking about a being constrained either by time or our continuum of existence. So to "give birth" to God is an incoherent concept, as birth indicates creation and we know GOd was not created. So a Jew may view it in those terms, especially a traditional Jew holding to traditional views and understandings, but that's exactly why he came, to debunk those traditional views and demonstrate his power on another level.

      John 1 is clear...He was in the beginning "with" God and "was" God.
      Colossians 1 is clear...He was creator of all things created, and all things were created for and by him ie: God
      Hebrews 1 is clear... He was not an angel or lower created being, he is to receive all worship and is counted as GOd, not little g god, but big G God!
      Revelations 5 is clear, all heaven falls down and worships the one who sits on the throne AND the Lamb who is worthy to take the book out of his hand.

      In all of this, there is only ONE GOD, but the eternality of his being is clear as well. The Jews miss all of this, so I am not surprised when appealing to Jewish teaching they don;t see this. They certainly wouldn't except for those Jews who have believed in Jesus for salvation which there is an ever increasing number.

    10. To be clear, Mary giving birth to Jesus, as Jesus is GOD, is not the same as a mother giving birth to a child when there is no divine intervention. Mary's experience is unique among women. That baby. GOD, was also clothed in flesh...that is the John 1:14 incarnation, when GOd took upon himself the likeness of flesh and dwelt among us.

    11. Also Carlos, Help me out here, you said this about Jennings teachings: "Elder Gino teaches Mary did not birth the son of God into the world, but only the essence of Jesus,"

      What does that mean, do you know? I know Jennings teachings are full of flaws, but how does one birth "an essence"? Did he expound on that in any meaningful way?

      This is yet another point that proves the Jesus of Jennings teachings is NOT the Jesus of the bible. That is sad!!!!

    12. Gino's pedagogy is that God had no offspring, Mary delivered birth to a body that was flesh. Moreover, Mary did not birth God into the world God had no beginning. Notably, that is accurate God did not have a beginning and was here before Mary. However, Mary when she gave birth, she gave birth to the son of God. Likewise, God was inside the baby Jesus that was born.
      He also expounds that every sanctuary that does not interpret scripture the identical way he does are false prophets. Furthermore, Elder Gino goes as far to assert that unless you are baptized in just the name of Jesus Christ when Christ comes, you will go to hell. Also, I am not aware of the Bible-affirming that God would cast people into hell just because they did not get baptized in the name Jesus Christ only.
      However, I do agree with Gino that there is only one God. But we are not perfect or have the same understanding as God. Above all, if we accept Christ and abide by Jesus as Lord of our lives and repent of our sins, we will be saved by grace. Regardless of being baptized in the name of just Jesus Christ or the name of the father, son and the holy spirit.

    13. I think that is utterly fascinating and thanks for sharing this information. It helps paint a picture of his theology and basis for his commentary. Every Christian I am aware of believes in only ONE God. It is a false representation of trinitarians to say that they believe otherwise. So as i stated earlier, even a broke clock is right twice a day!

    14. Also, what Gino teaches is Praxaenism among other heresies:

    15. Carlos,

      Is there a single place or document where Gino ties all those things you mention together, or is that a result of listening to several messages? I have some people who want to know. Thanks.

  2. Jeno Jennings has fooled a lot of Jamaican. That is why we are told to study to shows thyself approve. May God have mercy on the innocent and confused converts of His.


    1. No one is questioning the message of holiness, neither is anyone calling Jenning's integrity into question. I'm sure he lives with a standard and is probably a good man from a moral perspective and point of view, HOWEVER, NONE of that makes Jenning's teaching inspired by God!

      He simply preaches ANOTHER GOSPEL and violates any law, rule or common understanding of biblical interpretation.

      His, "spirit" Jesus that walks on the water on Mt. 14 IS NOT the Jesus of the bible that is a God/man, walking on water. His Jesus that is raised a "spirit" without flesh and bone is NOT the Jesus of the Bible that is bodily and physically raised flesh and bone!

      His Jesus, that begin to exist at some point in time due to birth or being born IS NOT the Jesus or "the Word" that existed in teh beginning WITH GOd!

      So his doctrine IS NOT biblical and is not supportable within scripture itself. So make sure you are not in "full support" of false doctrine, because if you support Jennings and his teachings, you are guilty of the SIN of deceit, false doctrine and untruth and no LIAR has a place with God!!!

    2. This "Apostle" (not Biblical by the way) Gino Jennings is an ARROGANT and PRIDEFUL Individual!

      Per this debacle (because it's definitely not a "debate"), proved him to be an UNCOOTHED BULLY at BEST. All he did was criticized, interrupted, screamed, dismissed, cut short. The DOOFUS "Apostle" (of which he is not)" did not give the man an opportunity to speak. He displayed his UNINTELLIGENCE, and as you so rightly put it Rev, did not perform according to the true format of how a debate should be conducted. A Standard debate should follow -

      pro, 5 min;
      con, 5 min;
      pro rebuttal,5 min;
      con rebuttal, 5 min;
      alternating free-for-all, 25 min (be sure everyone participates)
      pro concluding remarks, 2 min; con concluding remarks 2 min.

      Even an 11th Grade High Schooler knows this.

      I APPLAUD the COGIC brother here, and I disagree with anyone who said he STUMBLED. I wish more in the church would be brave enough to become an apologist and defend the truth like Paul and the Bereans did, and this brother as well. The art of Apologetics is a huge lacking in a lot of our Black churches, and sadly because of this lacking, many can not even tell you why they believe what they believe.

      This COGIC brother represented himself and the Word Of God as an AMBASSADOR! He used a lot of wisdom saying "he was not there to get a victory". That idiot Jennings could really learn a lot from him. Jennings only quoted one bible verse, and even that was out of context (God said he has no child or brother, yet in many passages, God references Jesus as His BELOVED SON, in whom He was well pleased). I'm sure the COGIC Elder believes in ONE GOD, just as the LONE text that fool quoted.

      I hear you Rev, Jennings may live "with a standard and is probably a good man from a moral perspective", but I seriously DOUBT it. I know what Scriptures say about the character of a "false prophet", of which I believe Ole BOY is one of them. False prophets bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord. Their ways are pernicious. They are covetousness and their words are feigned. They walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness. They are presumptuous and self-willed. They speak evil of the things they don't understand. They have eyes full of adultery. They are spots and blemishes, wells without water, and clouds that are carried with a tempest. They speak great swelling words of vanity. How deplorable the group of people in his congregation applauded this man. The LORD come and judge them all.

    3. Agreed!

      Jennings is more of a showman than anything else and those deceived by showmanship are not given to scripture nor its true interpretation. And the other guy, Smith, I believe, did better than the critics think. I had some people who were laughing at him. He was actually on point on much if not most of his rebuttal (or should I say interrogation?) The part that he was wrong about was "personalities" I was able to reach him on that and the distinction between that and "persons".

      Jennings whole argument falls on 4 scriptures...John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and Revelation 5. Like most heretics, he likes to jump all over the bible halfway quoting scripture, but he avoids these scriptures intentionally because they destroy any context for his arguments.

    4. It's quite clear The LORD thy God is ONE GOD. He is revealed in Scriptures as Three Persons. Like YOU said no need for any one to attempt to explain Him using any type of illustration. It's plainly revealed in the WORD He gives to us, and really it's really not that difficult for anyone to understand and believe. It's not that they "can't" believe, rather they choose "not" to believe, and remain in the ignorance of the wisdom of their FLESH. All these numb-numbs who call themselves "teachers", the likes this nutcase, and Jakes, and Noel, and those tied to PAW are without excuse.
      I'm still taken back the Board approved Jakes and Noel preach at their Holy Convocation. I guess it comes a time when the essentials of the Christian faith should be put aside. What a SHAME!!!

    5. Well, Jakes and Jones were about , in my opinion, money and budget! No one can deny the fact that they are popular on the circuit and when they show, people come and people give. At the height of her confused mess, Juanita II was worth about $300,000 on her night or opportunity to preach if not more. Most of these conferences and meetings, aren't about being faithful to the word, it''s about collecting money.

      COGIC was always given to the "fellowship" of the Saints in being inviting to those who were not of the same doctrinal beliefs. That springs from Mason's dis-fellowship from Baptist circles. Even though the right hand had been withdrawn from him, as a method he held not to withdraw the right hand from others. So at least that much is sort of an enigma or somewhat less of an unspoken rule to NOT draw away from folk professing faith even if their belief is not aligned with their own.

      Now, one has to be careful with that, because as you state, some of these men preach a false gospel or a false message. However, most of them stick to the main and plain things when they come. For instance, Osteen, certainly has no spine when it comes to the gospel even having claimed that Mormon doctrine is "just like" the gospel we preach or that Mormons are "brothers in Christ"...Well, he didn't go near any of that when he preached at Convocation. He stuck to main and plain things and did not venture into any controversial topics at all.

      As far as I know, as I didn't really follow either message, Jones and Jakes did the same thing. They offered nothing controversial. I remember Jones preaching in Detroit at now GB member Sheard's church Immanuel COGIC, he stuck to preaching encouragements etc...nothing at all controversial.

      I wouldn't risk it, for 2 reasons...1- You never know what they may say that you might have to try to undo, and 2- by giving them a platform you give them credibility, not only in what they preach to you, but in teh false message they preach to others...I think the church can be better mindful of that..

      But I have not found an Evangelical Lutheran Church or otherwise that would let me preach. Why? They don't believe in the fellowship of the Saints and because my doctrine doesn't align with theirs, they don't consider me "worthy" of their pulpit. Personally, I believe that is equally shameful

    6. Gino Jennings has NEVER taught that Jesus flesh and bones did not resurrect from the grave. Listen to his messages without bias. He clearly states that the blood and water drained out when Jesus was pierced on the cross. That's the blood that redeemed us. His body, without blood, was buried. God raised that body supernaturally as a glorified body that manifested in different forms. Remember He was in the grave and raised after only 3 days and His disciples including Mary could no longer recognize Him!Why? Because that glorified body (the same He has promised us at His second coming when those living will be translated in the twinkling of an eye) manifested as a gardener, went through walls and closed doors, appeared and disappeared, appeared to disciples on the road to Emaus who also didn't recognize Him until He broke bread! Your error is to misquote Jennings when he says, "flesh and blood" cannot dwell in heaven. That is scriptural and true.

      On the substantive Trinity debate, if you think it was poorly conducted, Jennings has repeatedly thrown the challenge of a neutral venue or your church. Write him and try to disprove the Bible with your "superior" argument during the live debate. Your problem is that the Trinity doctrine has been with the Church for over 200 years. That's what you were taught in cathechism, at home, in school, and in the Seminary. So it is difficult to unlearn when the truth confronts you in your old age because your position is already fixed. Now "let me soak you in the word a little". The Bible says God was inside Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. Isaiah says unto us a CHILD(flesh -Mary's boy or Son of man) is born, unto us a SON (God, not Mary's boy,or Son of God) is given. You notice the difference? When God created man and gave him dominion on earth, He established an order. Man was god of this earth. The body suit was essential to dwell and dominate this earth. Spirit cannot operate on earth with 'the mud or body'. God is Spirit and even He will not upset His order to save man during and after the fall in the garden of Eden. Satan is spirit and had to borrow the body of the serpent to deceive Eve. The serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly from that day. God promised to redeem mankind but He had to do it in an orderly way and not like the rebellious satan. It took 4,000 years for that to happen. As He promised at Eden, the seed (body) of the woman (Mary) was made ready as Jesus for the Christ (God) to inhabit so the deliverance of mankind and eventual restoration can take place. So my dear brother, Yes, it was God that came down to save us. He has been manifesting in various forms: cloud, pillar of fire, manna, Jesus, gardener, transfigured body during the transfiguration, to Saul who became Paul, and will manifest in more forms until the restoration of mankind is complete at the close of the ages when satan ends up in the lake of fire. Then Christ will hand over all to God so that God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28). Let us argue and fight less for there are so many souls perishing and in need of salvation.

    7. Kennode you said: "Gino Jennings has NEVER taught that Jesus flesh and bones did not resurrect from the grave. Listen to his messages without bias."

      I believe that your comment is either disingenuous, flat out deceitful, or you have reinterpreted what Jennings suggests and says for himself. at both the 1 hour and 31 and 37 minute mark Jennings makes his reference in mockery of the statement of Smith (I believe that was the Elder's name) when he said Jesus was raised bodily of FLESH and BONE as the SCRIPTURES say...NOBODY said he was raised flesh and blood as you incoherently assert. The glorified body consisted of form, FLESH and structure BONE... Lk. 24:39 ~ See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” ESV

      So we have no reason to misstate or misrepresent what Jennings says or suggests...he says it for himself. He MOCKS scripture and you say "listen without bias"???

      Why don't YOU be the one to begin to listen without that bias?

      Jesus shielded his identity after the resurrection, but not in all cases. When he appeared to Mary after she turned around and looked at him, she knew him and was able to identify (John 20:17). Ultimately, every one that he spoke with identified him. He shielded his appearance for purpose, not because he could not be associated with the same Jesus that walked the earth. They ALL recognized him after he revealed himself.

      So far as your complete misrepresentation of history...Sabellianism was put down in the 3rd Century...I believe that was over 1,800 years ago. PRIOR to that and beyond that the church held and the bible taught TRINITARIANISM not so much by name but by description.

      I have much more...

    8. Kennode

      You go into a long tyrade and say that I need to "unlearn" bad doctrine...Before you go off on a tangent with the assumption that God and the devil are the same or similar class of beings...(which is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and unlearned notion!) you say this: The body suit was essential to dwell and dominate this earth. Spirit cannot operate on earth with 'the mud or body'. God is Spirit and even He will not upset His order to save man during and after the fall in the garden of Eden.

      Evidently you don't read scripture, or you need to cover you steps...I think that latter is the case. Because from Genesis and creation we see God in his fullness...Gen 1:1 ~ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now I am "assuming" that you understand God to be a Spirit? Then there is Gen 1:2b ~ ...and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters....Now that should speak for itself...God's Spirit, hovering over the waters. Looks like GOd operating there now doesn't it???...Then we see this Gen. 3:8 ~ And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

      Now, Jesus hasn't yet been born right? Yet, they, his creation, can see him, feel him and hear him. So how does that fit the error that you have learned? I hope it corrects it because what you are saying is ridiculous and not scripture.

      So far as debating Jennings...FIRST he doesn't want any of me. Secondly, I wouldn't be caught dead in that SHODDY forum that he has. There is no scholarly effort in any way shape or form to get to or expound on truth, it is an embarrassment...and THIRD, he wouldn't be subject to a proper debate format because he is a totalitarian.

      He and his format is shameful and I don;t know what's worse, his deceived cheerleaders or his openly false doctrines and positions which have already been debunked for ages. And noone knowing the truth should simply commission a person to a false Christ. Only the REAL Jesus can save. Jennings preaches a false Christ and you present one as yes, souls are dying...including those of you who believe this false mess and presentation that he makes.

      So if you want to tell something, go tell THAT!

    9. BOTTOM line...Jennings is a MODALIST who stated out of his very own mouth "JESUS CHRIST IS FATHER, WAS SON, IS HOLY GHOST."

      Point of the matter is -

      Jesus has always been the Son of God, not God the Father, neither is he the Holy Spirit.

      "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

      "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:


      He always will be the Son of God.

      "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

      So no need for anyone to take on his / your challenge to debate this "false apostle". The CHALLANGE should be offered to Jennings himself, he become familiar with DEBATE protocol and procedures.

      And NO... the Bible does not teach God was "inside" Jesus reconciling the world to Himself.
      It says and I quote "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Corinthians 5:19
      NOTE the DIFFERENCE between "inside" and "in", then you will not spin to make the word of God suitable to your pre-conceived ideology.

      Another thing...Be careful not to assign any "magical" power to his blood when quoting Jennings "He clearly states that the blood and water drained out when Jesus was pierced on the cross. That's the blood that redeemed us." The Scriptures clearly states "“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" Ephesians 1:7.

      The point here is The LORD died on the CROSS "where He shed His blood" so we can be redeemed and God's justice can be satisfied.

      And lastly...about your comment on the "substantive Trinity debate", it's not a matter of anyone "THINKING" it was poorly conducted. Fact of the MATTER is "IT WAS POORLY CONDUCTED". And Jennings, as the host, was NOT SPIRIT led, nor was he SPIRIT filled. His antics only proved the spirit of this man. So no need for anyone to take on his challenge or your challenge to debate this nutcase. The CHALLANGE should be offered to Jennings himself, he become familiar with DEBATE protocol and procedures.

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I appreciate your assessment here.

    Amazing one of the main verses COGIC used to teach "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14. What a great falling away from this biblical command, unless they poured more into this scripture to mean separation in terms of lifestyle, rather than separation in terms of doctrine. It's important however to note what Paul said in the Book of Romans, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17.

    I'm guessing all you've pointed out (the money, the false teachers, appeasement, etc), a lot of bad fruit will come about when leaders operate in the flesh this way. All at a "Holy Convocation". My GOD! And because of a lot of this foolishness, none of us should really be surprised when we hear about all the drama that takes place behind the scenes at these Convocations. "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption".

    COGIC has invited Jakes and Noel and Morton and Osteen and Bynum. They may as well add Jennings and Farakahan to their list as well (LOL).

    1. Well, if this sort of ecumenism can be called sin, we can say that the enemy has always presented "reasons" for sin. If it can be successfully argued that allowing these people, who profess to be Christians, but who teach contrary doctrine, to come to your pulpits, is a sin, I don't know exactly what the biblical reason would be, but I believe, (and I can't say that I know their specific motivations) their natural reason would be to show "love", "respect" and "tolerance" for those who don't necessarily embrace our beliefs.

      That opens a lot of cans of worms! The catholic church contends that both tradition (practice of the church) and biblical teachings constitute what a believer is supposed to embrace or do. The question can be posed, is that what some of these leaders believe as well? Is tradition, just because the church embraces it, acceptable for righteousness, or is the biblical doctrine only the determination of what's right and wrong.

      I hold to sola-scriptura or that the scripture is the final authority, but the question can be posed do we hold that whatever the church decides to do is also right simply because it is the church? Is the church right by allowing preachers of false doctrine in simply because it is the church, wants to display some kind of unity, love, or tolerance?

      Sun Yun Moon asked the late Bishop Chandler Owens for 15 minutes at the Convocation some years ago. He promised to give the church $1 Million for that opportunity. He coordinated his efforts through T. L Barrett, whom happens to be in my same Jurisdiction, Il. 3rd, who pastors Life Center COGIC in Chicago. In face Barrett had received watches and all kinds of expensive items from Barrett and tried to spin it at our State short, Barrett was rebuked by Owens and told Moon that the church wasn't a "prostitute" nor was it "for sale".

      Now, I don't know what else went on, but I had high respect for that.

      So this is interesting, but I agree, is we are faithful to the word we cannot go wrong, if our desire is to be right by HIM and it!

    2. I said: In face Barrett had received watches and all kinds of expensive items from Barrett and tried to spin it at our State Convocation

      I meant to say, In FACT Barrett had received watches and all kinds of expensive items from Moon and tried to "spin" it at our State Convocation"

  5. Well I tell you what, though we really don't know the hearts of these men, we can appeal to Scriptures, to discern a lot of what's going on with them. Case and point, that T. L Barrett Joker, you mentioned. His actions can definitely be aligned to Scriptures. One can sensibly conclude he was "greedy of filthy lucre".

    Not sure if he is/was a bishop, but the Bible plainly tells us "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, NOT GREEDY OF FILTHY LICURE; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;".

    I'm almost willing to bet, the Board who made the decision to ALLOW (they don't even have to creep in anymore) these false teachers to enter into the fold, possesses some of the same character flaws as described here by the LORD. Sorry, I can't give them the "tradition" pass on this one. That's WAY too easy.

    I think it has a lot more to do with ignorance and bias if anything. They've never allowed a Baptist to preach their Convocation, and I believe it's because they think the Baptists don't have nothing (the Holy Ghost). Kinda goes back to the comment you made about the Lutheran Church, never allowing you to grace their pulpit.

    I agree...Scripture is the Final Authority, and any decision made by any governing body should be backed by it. They should have an answer for the hope that lies within them, and as Bishops should be the best example of a Christian Apologist, where the parishioners follow in their steps because they are "APT TO TEACH". The Bishop is called to be "viligant". He has to watch over the Church, as well as watch for it!

    I'm thinking this is my last comment for this POST TOPIC. Don't want to come across as quarrelsome. Just wanted to give some shout out to the COGIC brother who showed a lot of courage going into the lion's den to debate this FOOL on his doctrine. He did something I wouldn't even entertain.

    Keep up the Good Work even though we disagree on all this sexual abuse stuff bombarding us in the MEDIA lately...LOL..

    1. No, you're good and I follow the convo here. Your opinion is valued and believe me, I am not in disagreement. Certainly agree about the bishop and or leader that GOd has called...that is the problem, too many are greedy for money and attention.

      Another problem is that God has never told the minister to yield to a "selection committee" when receiving preachers. We now have "people" some preachers, some not, making selections and then ministers calling "friends" to preach instead of seeking God for a word or consulting God sent people. This is that modern day church that is high on social ventures, but low on spiritual integrity and a high view of God's word.

      Now, so far as Baptists at the Convocation...I "lovingly" correct you on that one. They had E Dewey Smith, Mr. Michael Jackson, secular dance music on Sunday mornings himself preach at the Convocation a couple of years ago. Smith certainly doesn't believe in most doctrine that COGIC expouses but he was given a platform.

      So these people are incredulous.

      Thanks, but as you can see, I don't mind a vigorous defense of a position and (I don't take it as you do), but we don't have to hate one another to disagree.

    2. Amen...I wasn't sure about Ole Boy E DEWEY. In the back of my mind, I kinda remembered him preaching. Thanks for the correction.

      I've expressed my opinion about his carnal methods to incorporated "generational" music during "worship". Like I said before, a lot of bad fruit will come about when leaders, or any one in that matter, operate in the flesh. None of us should really be surprised to hear a Lil Wayne rap song playing on any given Sunday at a church where a person like E DEWEY is the pastor. Listen to his thoughts on homosexuality, his ties to TD, or his tribute to Prince. You got RED Flags all over the place.

      "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption".

    3. For an individual to "think" that God and the devil are in the same class because they are spiritual beings should make anyone and everyone run to the nearest exit.

      The devil is in no being or place like God. The devil is a CREATED being. GOd was not created. He IS!!! (John 1:1) When a parson associates the action of the devil to God saying, as Kennode was, that the devil could not do something and therefore God could not do it either or vice-versa, RUN!!!!

      The devil IS nothing like GOd ontologically. They are two different classes of beings all together. Just like men and angles...They never become or transform into one another etc...

      All I can say is COME OUT OF DARKNESS PLEASE!!!!

  6. I appreciate this post however If anyone knows of any Pastor that defended the sanctity of God so profoundly as this Pastor did during an unrelated debate regarding same sex marriage, until then my hat goes off to him.

  7. Greetings from Malaysia, I'm currently in a predicament where my pastor seems to believe in this sort of oneness theology. The pastor says that it was the spirit of God in Jesus Christ that was doing all the works and that means the Son of God was not God at all. How do I go about this?

    1. Brother Johnny,

      Thanks for sharing this with me and us. Blessing be upon you and Malaysia! First, I would consider that your pastor is caught in and with a "fault" or an error in judgement or perception of the scriptures...I would venture to say that you pastor holds that anyone less than God could save him from his sins. If he holds that he can be saved by anyone less than God, then we have a problem. So that is the first challenge in my opinion. Ask him, can anyone less than God save you or anyone from their sins? I am almost sure that he will soy no, only God can save from sin...that begs the question...then who is Jesus??? If he is NOT God then how are we saved through and by him?

      Now, I am assuming that he would contend that Jesus is God in salvation. So if he is GOd in salvation he is God at any other time as well. Now, it is true, the scripture says that God was IN Jesus Christ reconciling the world unto himself. (2 Cor. 5:19), However the scripture also says that God was IN Father and the Son was IN the Father as well. (John 14:10) In addition we would all agree that the WORD is Jesus...John 1:14, he put on flesh and dwelt among us, right??? However, John 1:1 says that the WORD was God and was WITH GOd as well...So if the WORD "was" God and was "with" God and became man, then how does the WORD change from being God to just being a man?

      What he is missing is the duplicitous nature of GOd as described within scripture...God is with, GOd is in, Go IS Jesus himself. However, simultaneously, Jesus, as GOd is eternally distinct from the Father...This is by ontology or being, not by nature or essence.

      So the pastor misses some complexity and nuance that totally illuminates the scriptures and affirms a GOd that can only be apprehended rather than comprehended as humans comprehend one another. In other words, in order to understand, we must understand GOd in his language and context, as opposed to our language and the context that we place upon him.

      So I would agree that the Spirit of God was upon Jesus, the Spirit of God was in Jesus, however none of that takes away the fact that he (Jesus) was or is GOd.

      If he affirms however, that Jesus was less than God in any way, RUN to the nearest exit. He would be preaching another Jesus and as such, that Jesus could not save him and certainly cannot save you!

    2. If I were you, I'd request my pastor provide Scriptures for his beliefs to conclude "the spirit of God in Jesus Christ that was doing all the works", when the Bible says on so many occasions, JESUS was OMNIPOTENT, and could perform many supernatural acts on His OWN.

      Even from OT, it was prophesied "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

      It was JESUS who was wounded, bruised, chasten, DIED so WE can LIVE.

      And about so many other of his WORKS and MIRACLES, it was JESUS possessing SUPERNATURAL POWER to touch and heal blinded eyes, to be born of a VIRGIN (although the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed MARY, not JESUS), to heal Peter's Mother in Law, to cast out demons, to calmed the storm - and with each of these stories, YOU DON'T Read from the WORD of God, Jesus doing any of this with the aid of the SPIRIT.

      Although they is ONE GOD, each person who make up the GODHEAD possesses the same attributes. This is the idea we get just from the WORD of God. Not that Jesus needed the Spirit of God to perform His miracles. Sorry, can't add or take away from it, because to do so in sin.

      About the Holy Spirit-

      He comforts the believers.

      John 14:26 - But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

      He guides us into all truth.

      John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

      And even with verses like Acts 2:33 - "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

      Jesus sits (in power of HIS OWN) on the RIGHT hand of GOD. The disciples are the ones who have received the Father and the PROMISE of the HOLY GHOST, the power to speak the language and declare the truth of the gospel.

      Again, ask your pastor to give verses that states his beliefs the and explain clearly these verses that may seem to simulate this idea, but REALLY don't support it.

      Then of course, study YOUR Bible to know the verses showing the work of each person in the GODHEAD (GOD the Father, GOD the SON, GOD the HOLY SPIRIT).

      You will find out your pastor is in ERROR!

  8. Good stuff G&H,


    Another piece of information that may assist from an apologetics standpoint, so that you can approach the conversation with an added level of confidence is can be summarized in a book "Putting Jesus in His Place. I've done an article HERE on the subject, the authors, whom I greatly admire, used the acronym HANDS as follows to describe the biblical view of Jesus:

    1- Jesus receives the HONORS of God,
    2- Jesus has ATTRIBUTES that only God has and is recorded to possess,
    3- Jesus shares the NAMES that are only given to God,
    4- Jesus does the DEEDS that only God can do,
    5- Jesus occupies the SEAT (sits in the seat that ONLY God can sit in)
    [R. M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski "Putting Jesus In His Place, The Case For The Deity Of Christ" 2007 Kregel Publications]

    So a "pastor" that knows and understands the bible would be hard pressed to simply sweep this under the rug, claiming that Jesus "flesh" wasn't God while his spirit was or some other sort of thing...Jesus wasn't divided...he is and was ONE!

    1. Thanks you for your answer. I have one more question that is what is the significance of Christ being God in the flesh? As in, how does it help in our growth as Christians ?

    2. Jonny, (I got your name right this time, please excuse me before)

      Christ being "in the flesh" speaks to our faith and growth in many different ways, but I'll name a few...1- Because it is recorded within the word of God that our savior would be the 'seed of a woman" (Gen. 15:) born of a virgin and and live among us (Isa 7:14, Isa. 9:6-7 ) we can come to understand that being in the "flesh" would be essential to identifying him. The apostles in the early church all identified him in the "flesh" even in his resurrection (John 20:20) It was through and by his flesh that he was identified as the same Lord and savior that had died and that was arisen.

      2- In addition, Isa. 53 identifies Christ, "the anointed one" as the "suffering servant". Jesus suffered. A "spirit" cannot suffer! Certainly cannot shed blood for remission of sins. So if one is to believe that we are saved by grace, through faith in HIS shed blood, as the early church taught and believed, if HE was not in the flesh, their teaching was false and a fantasy and we are yet in our sins. Suffering could not be done for us unto salvation if he wee not in the flesh.

      Finally, Christ being in the flesh is a matter of identification with humanity. Because of his sufferings, he can identify with our situations and as the scripture says be "touched with the feeling of our infirmity"(Heb. 4:15) It is from that standpoint that he can be our advocate. The Spirit also makes intercession for us, but with "groanings that cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8:26) but I believe I could make a case that the mediation of Jesus is different than that intercession of the Spirit, but that they work together to do for us what is necessary. But that's another story I won't go further into at this point.

      I believe that these are but a few reasons why we would want to hold to and contend that Jesus was "in the flesh" and not simply a "spirit" as the false teacher Gino Jennings contends.

    3. If you don't mind me asking, how does this correspond with the fact that Jesus also said that God is a spirit and he that worships him must do so in spirit and in truth?

  9. Not to steal YOU Thunder Rev, but I'd like to take a stab at answering this gentleman's question -

    The saying "God is a Spirit" means God is absolutely free from all limitations of space and time. This phrase describes the very NAUTRE of who God is.

    The Father possesses this attribute.

    The Son, even as a Man, possessed this attribute. And now as He sits on the RIGHT hand of the Father is a glorified BODY is absolutely free from all limitations of space and time.

    The Holy Spirit possesses this attribute.

    The Bible also said God is LIGHT. Doesn't mean He is LIGHT as we know even the GREATEST LIGHT He only CREATED.

    The Father is LIGHT.

    The Son is LIGHT.

    The Holy Spirit is LIGHT.

    All are PERFECT in knowledge and holiness and in all THEIR WAYS!

    It also says God is LOVE (I John 1:5)

    The Father is LOVE.

    The Son is LOVE.

    The Holy Spirit is LOVE.

    The Scripture is CLEAR. "The LORD thy GOD is ONE GOD".

    GOD the FATHER is GOD.

    GOD the SON is GOD.

    "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

    Notice what HE SAID the FATHER is IN ME, he doeth the works! Why would oneness NOT say here it was the FATHER who was doing the WORK through JESUS, as they claim the Spirit was working to JESUS and He could not do any work on his OWN being a MAN in the FLESH? Because "in me" doesn't mean "physically residing", more so here it means the WORK and all the MIRACLE the LORD does, the FATHER gives Him to DO.

    There is BUT One God, revealed as three persons, EACH POSSESSING the SAME ATTRIBUTES. We as humans can't begin to fathom the attributes of an infinite GOD. We can understand Him ONLY by what He revealed about Himself through Scriptures. HE IS INFINTE GOD, who POSSESSES AN INFINITE amount of attributes.

    Hope this helps.

    1. G& H


      Modalism attempts to compartmentalize and interprets all things in a literal compartmentalized manner. They think seeing the scripture "God is a Spirit" is an ontological statement of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost.

      Fact is, if that is to be taken like they take it, then Jesus would be a spirit because Jesus is God. That makes sense to them in their literal interpretive world where they attempt to make GOd something they can understand but it destroys all of scripture and in straight in line with heretics such as Valentenius, Simon, Marcion and other who all taught this docetic Jesus...

      Like I said, a SPIRIT cannot die and or suffer! Jesus was a theantropist a God/man union! There was what is called a hypostatic union between God and man. John 1:14 says that the WORD BECAME flesh and dwelt among us. He never stopped being God, but became 100% man and remained 100% GOd shielding his attributes from time to time.

      So people who are confused over this question, in light of the works of Christ on the cross are in a very bad condition. The line is clear, if Jesus was a spirit, he could not and did not die. That is Islam. Are those who believe that saying that they believe what Muslims teach? Secondly, If Jesus was a spirit, as those same heretics contend, then what of the flesh of Jesus? Can they actually believe that Jesus was some sort of "pretender"?

      Then look at the question...are we or do we become literal "spirits" when we worship HIM? If the question contends that because Jesus said, "they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth"...and that means a literal physical "spirit" as the question begs, Then how do any of us who are flesh do that?

      It is abundantly obvious that to worship him in the spirit, has nothing to do with worship him AS a spirit! So that association is boarderline illiterate, but it is something I can see Jennings teaching and it is STRAIGHT FALSE DOCTRINE and UNBIBLICAL to teach that...

      Meaning no offense to Jonny because I'm sure that listening to Jennings he has said that mess like he did in this atrocious so called debate, that's an interesting, but highly illiterate association and imposition on scripture.

  10. Rev, Great POINT to ponder "do we become literal "spirits" when we worship HIM?" We as humans possess physical bodies, souls and spirits. We are commanded to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy SOUL", and with all thy mind. We are called to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service. The LORD tells us "“The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.” AND it is the spirit of man that causes him to know the thoughts of his heart and mind.

    I am still taken back many say your COGIC brother did a poor representation of the GOSPEL. Far cry is ALLEGED Apostle Gino Jennings deserved way more criticism than this brother, if not for his imprudent behavior, but most certainly for his false teaching about GOD!

    1. Yes, thank you both for your answers, the reason I asked is because when dealing with proponents of the oneness theology they usually tend to cite the God is a Spirit verse and tend to read that into the rest of the other Scripture/ verses dealing with Christ and hence jumping to the conclusion that the Son is not God.

    2. Yes, that's interesting. I can see them using that to teach that Jesus was a Spirit because God is a spirit, but not the other way around. The question is in that case, if Jesus isn't God then how do we reconcile the scriptures that claim that he is GOd and further how can he save us and how does he lay his life down and pick it up again?

      Their interpretation is jacked up!!!!

    3. One more question if you don't mind me asking, when Jesus says I come in my Fathers name, what does he mean by that?

    4. The verse you picked out is John 5:43. I suggest you read the entire Chapter to note -

      1) Jesus performed a miracle, and healed a man on the Sabbath.

      - 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 9And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

      2)The man told the Jews that it was Jesus who healed him.

      - 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

      3) The Jews sought to kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath.

      - 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

      4) Jesus said the work He did, was the work the Father did (different persons, same works)

      - 17But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
      - 19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
      - 21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

      (Note they are different, yet ONE...)

      5) The Jews sought even more to kill Him, not just because he healed on the Sabbath, but THE JESUS KNEW HE WAS making HIMSELF EQUAL with GOD!

      - 18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

      6) Jesus challenge them according to their belief one could not testify of HIMSELF only, he must have a witness, Saying the FATHER bears witness He is the SON,

      - 31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

      7) Jesus challenge them according to their belief one could not testify of HIMSELF only, he must have a witness, Saying the SCRIPTURES bears witness He is the SON.

      So when he said "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." He is repeating vs 36 "for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me."

      - He told the Jews that what HE did was By the authority of God and not by men. He as God, did the work of GOD. He could heal on the Sabbath because HE IS LORD of the SABBATH.

    5. I see 2 things here in that question Jonny. As G&H above suggests, to do something in someone's name in antiquity would mean to have their power and authority to do so. For instance, someone says, even in modern times, "stop, in the name of the law" indicates that the person saying that is doing so in the authority or by the power of which they are commissioned. eg: it is NOT a formula, nor a mystic phrase.

      So Jesus doing anything, "in the name of the father" is indicative of the power or authority from which he gains his credibility or power to cause one to act and or more or to operate.

      Do for Jesus to come "in the Father's name" does not suggest a title or a literal word transliteration. It is far beyond that. In Jesus case it would mean that he is commissioned by God himself. The words and very presence was expressed directly by the Holy presence and edict of the true and living God.

      This is consistent with other parts of Jesus speech as he said he did not come on his own and did not come to testify of himself but of God.

      So the Jesus only would use this as a springboard to preach that "in his name" indicates the literal name "Jesus" which is incorrect, and that Jesus is speaking AS the father when he talks and that is not true either as noted above.

      In all of the NT we DO NOT see a formula for baptism outlined, only an authority by which we baptize and that authority is derived from GOd in his fullness, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost the triune being that was, is and always will be the ONE God!

    6. And keep the questions coming Jonny. If you are engaging in convo on these oneness sites and forums, we want to be able to help give you proper and correct insights and rebuttal material.

      After having debated daily on some of the leading atheist forums, if there is such a thing as "leading" among atheists, I understand how this sort of info can help in getting the truth out in these conversations.

    7. Thanks you both for your answers. I will most certainly come back if I have any questions cause I want to get as much opinions (based on the scripture of cause) as possible in order to put a good defence of the faith as possible. And being from Malaysia it's not just the oneness folks that I converse, there are also plenty of muslims that will ask such questions

    8. I've got a question, if Jesus is God why does he say to the disciples that they would be able to do greater things than he?

    9. Jonny,

      That word "greater" in the passage in question (John 14:12) DOES NOT indicate quality of works. It indicates quantity of works.

      For example: during Jesus day he was in one location and doing one work at a time. However, those whom he would send would be in multiple locations doing multiple works effecting more people at the same time. (Acts 1:8-10)

      Secondly, in 2000 years the church has done more works than Jesus did in 3.5 years or so because millions of believers have been empowered by his Spirit to carry forth HIS works. However that does not mean we have done "greater" things as in more miraculous things than he.

      Jesus spoke and said this would be the case "because I go to the Father". This is reflective of his death and that he would not live here on earth forever. So that is the context in which this was spoken and intended to be understood.

    10. John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." Why does Jesus say that he doesn't do anything out of his own authority but it it's the father that works in him ? Because some have said that this proves that Jesus has no power of his own . Would love to hear from you about this

    11. Well, who knows what the nature of this objection really is. The reason I say that is because it is passages like this that display that Jesus and the Father are not one in the same person or individual. If Jesus says that he is "in" the Father and the Father "in" him, doesn't that out of pocket confirm that there are TWO things here? I mean something cannot be "in" something either physically or metaphorically unless there are two distinct things.

      I mean, a person never says, "I am in myself"...What would that mean? But to say something (apart from me) is "in" me and I am "in" something means that we are dealing with two things.

      So the first lesson is that this is proof that there is a distinction between God the Father and God the Son.

      Now, your question hinges on "authority" or what the Greek calls exousia. Your contention is that this proves Jesus is "lesser", because that is the argument from this, because he does not have the authority. Only, what do you do with this?

      Mt. 28:18 ~ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

      This expression itself is the proof that Jesus and God share and have the exact same power. This is after the physical and bodily resurrection right? This is a revelation just in case anyone had missed it previously because Jesus displayed that he had all power prior to this, but certainly in rising he reaffirms it. Prior to the Resurrection what was his mission? Do do the will of him that had "sent" him and to finish his (the one that sent him) works. So what we see in John 14:9-10 is revealed or brought to light in Matthew 28:18.

      So what do we see:
      Jesus DOES have power. It is displayed by the awesome act that he does while living.
      Jesus shares power with the Father and that power produces the same identical results. Healing the sick, raising the dead, controlling the weather, overcoming the elements, forgiving sin.
      Jesus does the "work" as well as the father does the "work", not in duplicate, but in one and the same.
      In a physically resurrected form, that can eat, drink, be touched and feel, and communicate through speech and talking, Jesus said he has "all power" as God has "all power".

      So what is the question? I see nothing that causes me or anyone faithful to scripture to question the power or authority of Jesus as being lesser or less significant than the Father.

      In fact, Jennings whole tirade regarding "who is doing the works" in this was some ridiculous mess. It is what those of us in debate call "incoherent". It really makes no sense.

      What else?

    12. Also, on this, if one wants to argue that Jesus is a "lesser god" then that person is more than likely a polytheist and as such cannot truly argue that Jesus is God at any time.

      I successfully argue against the lesser God thesis in this article:

      See teaching like the one rendered in the question destroys everything we know about Jesus through scripture...It creates a Jesus that is not God in the flesh, contrary to John 1:14, a Jesus that did not perform any miracles, and we clearly see that Jesus preformed miracles, in part because people, even sinners appealed to him for them, and a Jesus that "becomes" God over time. There is no scriptural warrant for ANY of these postulations and what comes out as superimpositions upon scripture.

    13. Jonny...your question was already addressed/. Rev stated "to do something in someone's name in would mean to have authority to do so". I stated "Because "in me" doesn't mean "physically residing".

      Let me ask YOU. YOU are a Christian, RIGHT? I'm sure you believe in GOD, you seem to read the BIBLE?

      What view of God do you hold?

      Do you believe in One God, as three Persons?

      Or Do you subscribe to the doctrine of ONENESS, God the Father became the SON and the SON became the Holy Spirit?

      Could you please share Scriptures that would bend you towards your beliefs.

      Thanks in advance for YOUR answers.

    14. Hi, I agree that the scripture speak that of a Triune God. However, I'm surrounded with people who lean toward the Oneness theology similar to Gino Jennings and it's not a easy to just leave as most of them are my close family members. Hence, these are some of the responses that I get. Which is why I play the Devils advocate when asking questions to the both of you. Hope that helps!

    15. can play the devil's advocate and not ask repeat the question. You got to remember, it takes time to gather thoughts and put it in writing. And to have to do the same more than once is a WASTE. I believe you have enough information here to give biblical answers against ONENESS and for the TRINITY. I suggest you read a book on Church History so you can observe how this ONENESS doctrine came into play. This Oneness movement we have today derived a heresy in the 3rd Century called Monarchianism. And an off shoot of Monarchianism came a modalist type of movement called Sabelliansim. The early Church Polemicists (apologist) proved these beliefs to be unbiblical. Not so much the Early Church Fathers denied this false teachings, but the Bible clearly denounce the Godhead as modes of expression.

    16. can play the devil's advocate and not ask repeat the question. You got to remember, it takes time to gather thoughts and put it in writing. And to have to do the same more than once is a WASTE. I believe you have enough information here to give biblical answers against ONENESS and for the TRINITY. I suggest you read a book on Church History so you can observe how this ONENESS doctrine came into play. This Oneness movement we have today derived a heresy in the 3rd Century called Monarchianism. And an off shoot of Monarchianism came a modalist type of movement called Sabelliansim. The early Church Polemicists (apologist) proved these beliefs to be unbiblical. Not so much the Early Church Fathers denied this false teachings, but the Bible clearly denounce the Godhead as modes of expression.

    17. Yes, about that, are there any good books I can get of the Internet on Church history?


      A really really good one is entitled "EXPLORING Church History" by Howard F. Vos. Another one "Christian History Made Easy" by Timothy Paul Jones. You can order these off Amazon for really cheap. It will serve as "riches" to add to your library.

    19. Jesus as God became man, he had all the powers of God , but he was crucified as man and he prayed as man to let the cup pass from him, but he knew he had to do the will of his Father and die as a man, so he was obedient unto death... I hope this makes some sense.

  11. Evidently no one has taken this man's false doctrine to task. I say that because it seems that people are circulating COMPLETELY FALSE information regarding me and Gino Jennings. I received this FARCE of an email today:

    Form : Contact Us
    Registered at 2018-01-23 16:18:42
    Today's Date : 01/23/2018
    First Name : Harvey
    Last Name : Burnett
    Email :
    Phone : (877)677-6599
    Subject : Contacting First Church
    Message : Gino Jennings, On behalf our Presiding Bishop and the General Board of the largest and greatest Church in the United States, Church Of God In Christ. We accept your International Challenge on the Trinity debate with you. Please be mindful that there will be a proper format for this debate. It will not be like the one you had with Smith. The Church of God In Christ, Inc is very tired of you talking about our great church and the belief of the trinity. You will comply with our church’s demands and the Church Of God In Christ is making attempts to have you removed from your position and transfer it to the Church of God In Christ denomination. Gino Jennings you personally and with no remorse embarrassed our Presiding Bishop Charles Edward Blake and the General Board as well as the entire COGIC. The debate will take place in our headquarter city. Please expect more info within the next few weeks. Please announce this on your next live tv programming so the whole world know about this letter and our challenge to a debate to have you remove from your position. District Supt. Harvey Burnett – CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST
    ID : 1202
    IP Address :

    I want to reiterate, this email is FALLACIOUS! First of all, it is nowhere near protocol for a matter such as this, NOTHING that I would ever agree to enter into and secondly Bishop Blake and the General Board Members, are MORE than well equipped to deal with Jennings heretic teachings on their own, and believe me, are not in the LEAST bit intimidated by this man's false doctrines and teachings.

    So if anyone wants to know, please refer them to this. This is GARBAGE and whoever is circulating it is simply circulating GARBAGE.

    Now THAT is from me!
    Pastor Harvey Burnett

  12. I totally agree that Pastor Gino Jennings is preaching TRUTH and TRUTH of GOD! Why else so much controversy and those that want to challenge this man?! He is simply giving you the Word of God straight from the Holy Scriptures and his only mission is to be rightly accountable to God for preaching the Word of God! I don't take to well to all the opinions and side commentaries that is not scripture! For every statement he makes during his sermons or teachings, he is constantly quoting directly from the Word of God! I don't have to know Greek or Hebrew or any other language, that did not come into question, until a REAL preacher came along to give truth! I have NEVER seen so much debate or challenge given to a man who simply teaches and preaches Bible! Where are all the Bible scholars and commentaries toward a TD Jakes, or Creflo Dollar or others? I'm staying with the Word of God as it is being preached by anyone who wants to preach the Word of God as is written!! That's it!!

    1. Jerome,
      That is the perfect exercise of your personal freedom, to believe what you wish. The fact is that there is AMPLE evidence against most if not all of what Jennings contends.

      One could manipulate the bible to say anything one wants and still come directly from it as Jennings does. For example, one could say that the bible says "drive out all the inhabitants of the land" (Num. 33:52) and say "GO and do thou likewise" (Lk. 10:37)...BOTH scriptures are STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK aren't they?...However, the interpretation that one gets and the application is UNBIBLICAL and to follow such instruction is following a doctrine of demons, NOT the Word of God.

      This is how Jennings applies scriptures...TOTALLY and ALL THE WAY out of context and further in an unlearned manner!!!

      You want to know what I teach on Creflo and their name in the search and see for yourself...I treat all HERETICS the same!!!

      And so far as the language...the biblical characters DID NOT speak Victorian English that King James wrote and spoke in. ANY scholar worth his salt makes an appeal to the original language and writings, for that helps reveal not only context but also nuance of the language. If Jennings is not encouraging you to do that it is because he is the CULT leader that I have identified and is mishandling the word of God and holding the truth in unrighteousness.

      Like I said, believe what you wish. You are free to do that...but so are we!!!!

    2. He is not preaching love, he is preaching condemnation, and he seems to have the spirit of the Pharisees, and is self-promoting. He should prayerfully examine himself and stop being like Hillary Clinton

  13. I've got another one coming up on this sho-nuff HERETIC!!!! This fella recently said that if his son was ever a homosexual he would condemn and consign him to the depths of hell...HE would consign him....What a self exalted JOKE of a leader...I'll play it so you can hear it in his own words from his own mouth...totally and unequivocally a HERETIC and complete whackjob!!!!

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Thank you and sorry for the distress you suffered and believe me, I can see it with this false prophet. One thing God had to do, was open your eyes and he evidently used the relationship failure to do that...This fella has every characteristic of some of the greatest charlatans in history...His condemning folk to hell arbitrarily and talking just stupid and then some people in "fear" of him. Jennings is a mess and NOBODY around here is afraid of that big bad charlatan!!!

      So thanks my sistah and wish you the best!

    2. Be careful not to seem condemnatory like your brother, he deserves your prayers.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. PLEASE come out of the dark and into the light...This man leaves plenty of evidence that he is just and solely a charlatan that uses and manipulates scripture to his own benefit.

      FOr example, in a recent tape he adds to scripture telling people that not only is wearing garments pertaining to a man wrong, but "drawing a picture" is an abomination also...Then he goes on to dam everyone to hell that is a homosexual saying that they can't repent once he condemns them...He is the of the biggest false leaders of our time!

    2. If you are a true believer in the scriptures, it says that a wife is to submit to her husband, and the couple must be equally yoked. How do I continue a relationship where there would be discord when coming to family worship and raising children? I know and understand the scriptures, and people who are not of the Holy Spirit will never understand things of the Spirit. Be blessed A hamed.

  16. There’s no darkness here! While it is totally unscriptural for anyone to think they have the final say, maybe he is going off the scriptures 1Cor 5:5 and 1Tim 1:20 where Paul states “whom I delivered unto Satan...” Paul is speaking about Alexander and

    1. Yes, there is plenty of darkness both in him and in your understanding of his acts. He is more abrasive and unscriptural than father divine and rev. Ike put together. Boarderline Jim Jones!!!

      Then to use Alwxander and Hymenaeus is ridiculous...In fact to illustrate the blindness, let's look at all that for a minute:

      In 1 Cor. 5 Paul deals with a situation of a young man that had committed incestuous adultery with his mother in law or his mother. In this case the man is condemned because he DID NOT repent and the church refuses to call him into repentance. In fact in 1 Cor. 5, Paul tells the church to deliver this brother to satan so that "he may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". "Delivered to satan" means to have one's hands off of that person. That person no longer sits in and under your council. He is exposed to the world to receive the reward of his own actions. Paul admonishes the church not to fellowship with him in his unrepentant condition, but show me where scripture where Paul consigns this man to hell? The issue was not about sending the man to hell, but about bringing him out of immorality and into repentance.

      On to 1 Tim. 1:20...what do we see? The same thing. Except there is a little more to report here. First Hymenaeus was a false teacher. It seems that according to 2 Tim 2:17 that he had taught that the resurrection was already past and was a enemy of the church and the hope that the church taught. It seems he was a wolf in sheep's clothing deceiving the church teaching false doctrine. Alexander, is unsure from history, but Paul speaking of both them together seems to indicate that they were those who claimed to be a part of the church but that also taught false doctrine.

      Paul says he "turned them over to satan" just like in 1 Cor. 5 right? Same meaning there. No consignment to hell, although they would surely go to hell if they didn't repent. They did not enjoy the Apostle's blessing and or encouragement and the door of the church was closed to them.

      Once again, there was no condemnation to hell fire and damnation as Jennings says he has the power to do. He has no such authority and binding and loosing is another of his misinterpretations.

      So come WITH the bible and the bible correctly interpreted if you want to support Jennings. He is a FALSE teacher and condemns himself to hell with his false teachings and beliefs and every one of you that believes him is following his straight to hell...That's not my condemnation, that is my observation and very sad truth!

  17. First of all I already stated that “maybe” that’s where he is coming from but I did not say I agreed with him. There is no one on this earth that can condemn anyone to damnation!
    As far as Jim Jones, that’s going too far...
    I made an earlier reply to your statement that referred to him saying he is an apostle and you said that is unbiblical”. Why do you say that? Also you stated baptism is not salvational... Where does that come from? Where in the Bible is someone called a District superintendent? Or reverend? I agree that he is abrasive, but much of what he says is true.
    All through out the book of Acts, the word “saved” is used in conjunction with baptism... in Mark 16:16 he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved... Luke 24 reptance and remission of sins preached in “his name”. Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of sins, and he shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul was even baptized before he began his ministry. The jailer in Acts 16 asked, “Sirs what must I do to be SAVED?” The reply was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved and two scriptures down he and his household were baptized. Each reference to being saved or receiving the Holy Ghost the people are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus. Peter baptized Cornelius and his household. Baptism is very necessary for salvation....

    1. You said: "There is no one on this earth that can condemn anyone to damnation!"

      This is EXACTLY what Jennings did in a recent teaching on drawing pictures of men to look like women. He "damned" people to hell that did so without any possibility of repentance at his word. I have the tape and will make it and publish it soon. My schedule has been a little hectic.

      You said: "As far as Jim Jones, that’s going too far"

      No quite.
      Jim Jones reinterpreted scripture to fit his belief, Jennings does that.
      Jones claimed to be the unquestioned supreme authority, Jennings does that too.
      Jones claimed that only he and his ministry could interpret the bible, Jennings does that too.
      Jones claimed that you did not need to study the original context of scripture etc. Jennings does that too.
      Jones shames those that oppose him, claiming his vision to be superior to all. Jennings does that too.
      Jones demands allegiance of his followers and beats them down for not being subject to his teachings and thoughts. Jennings does that too.

      About the only thing that Jennings hasn't done is cause his followers to drink cyanide, what he lacks naturally he has done the damage spiritually and the natural manifestation is one the way.

      You also said: "I agree that he is abrasive, but much of what he says is true."

      Look, a BROKE CLOCK is right 2 times per day every day! But is it good for telling time? Is it reliable? NO!!! Rat poison is comprised of less that 5% of the ingredient, cumiden, that kills. So 95% of it is good stuff, at least to rats, but eating it KILLS...The same cumiden is give to humans as blood thinner, and guess what, in the wrong dose it is deadly...Now, what the bible say about a "little leven"? The truth that he contends is not unique to him. It is obvious and non-revelatory. In fact, I contend that he cannot live in revelation because for starters, he isn't saved...and we can judge that by the fruit that he bears and sets forth with his mouth. People are who they tell you they are!

    2. And to the "real" point that you are attempting to make that baptismal regeneration is how one is saved...Only that is not scriptural either. The bible teaches that the church and the believers in it are sanctified: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,"~ Ephes. 5:26

      The baptism is REPRESENTATIVE of the cleaning agent of the word. It is NOT a cleaning agent. The souls is cleansed at the cross not in a baptismal pool, no matter what expression words or phrases are pronounced over it. I have done a detailed study on this with plenty of CORRECTLY INTERPRETED biblical support IN THIS ARTICLE

      You reference Cornelious in Acts 10. The scripture actually reveals that Cornelius was already a believer when Peter met him. YES he was saved BEFORE baptism. The man had a vibrant life and communication with God, lived godly and was saved. Read the text and if you can say that a man who is seeking God daily, living right, seeing angels and communicating with God is not saved, then I question if you know what salvation is. You can read my complete article on that RIGHT HERE

      So BEFORE any baptism, BEFORE any formula could be said over a baptismal pool, Cornelius was speaking in tongues, seeing angels, receiving a word from the Lord and in relationship with God. The baptism WAS NOT to save him, it was to identify him with the visible church and believers.

      So any association of salvation with baptism is not a reference to literal waters of transformation, but to SPIRITUAL transformation which occurs at salvation.

      Baptism...Important...YES...Necessary to be saved...NO! What of the thief on the cross? Is he still in paradise?

    3. Is baptism not the evidence to the world that you have been saved?

    4. It "should" be, but under baptismal regeneration theology it is the method of salvation. In other words, one is not baptized because one is saved, one is baptized to be saved. That is a difference that makes all the difference.

      Under one rubric, the shed blood of Jesus and faith in HIS works are sufficient, under the other, salvation is not complete until a pool is drawn and the correct words pronounced over it.

  18. As far as Jennings, I don't attend his church I've only heard a few of his videos. I don't know him and have not met or spoken to him personally. I don't believe one pastor can only understand the scriptures. But, Mr. Burnett I would implore you to investigate that organization you affilate yourself with. From what I have seen, it is in more ways than one... So, that would not make you any different from Jennings according to what you write on your blog.
    Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 1 Timothy 4:16

    There is no attempt, baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism is not a symbol it is so.. Baptize is an actual word translated from the Greek word BAPTIZO and in Hebrew it referred to MIKVEH, AND BOTH OF THIS WORDS REFER TO an ACTUAL IMMERSION into water...
    I'd still like to hear you speak on this title business... District superintendent...there are no superintendents in the scriptures.

    What scripture says Cornelius was already speaking in tongues before he was baptized?... Peter preached to them the salvation message and baptized him and his family and close neighbors. The scripture says, in Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? This was Cornelius and his people... There were people who are mentioned that were mighty in the scriptures but it does not say they were saved... For instance, Apollos was a mighty man in the scriptures, but he needed more explained to him by Aquila and Priscilla. In Acts 19 there were people who had known only the baptism of repentance. They had not heard of the Holy Ghost nor been baptized in Jesus name, but once they heard how to be saved the scriptures in Acts 19:5-6 says they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and hands laid on them and the Holy ghost came upon them and spake with tongues, and prophesied. Paul was baptized first before he started his ministry. Also, Why does the jailer ask what must he do to be saved? Why does Mark 16:16 state, those that believe and are baptized shall be saved? Ephesians was written to the church in Ephesus not unbelievers!! All of the epistles were written to people that were already saved... The scriptures say we are buried in Christ the water is the burial.. The thief on the cross was talking to a live Jesus, Jesus had not died and risen at the moment of being on the cross. The scriptures in Romans states gifts come without repentance, so someone who is not saved can still hear from GOD.
    Moses was asked to lead the people out of Egypt, but he still had to be circumsized first. Remember the angel on the road ready to strike him down, but his wife Zipporah gave him the warning to be circumsized. So, just because someone is reading and praying does not mean they are saved, according to the scriptures.

    1. So far as organizations, we're not talking about organizations, we're talking about what is taught from scriptures. So that is a red herring, I will not follow.

      However, you started off saying this: "I’ve listened to him and I do know scriptures for myself... He is not a liar from the videos I’ve viewed, however I do believe he can go over board with his examples, but I haven’t heard a lie yet.

      Only in THIS article and in the video as I have pointed out Jennings LIES and says that Jesus did not raise flesh and bone, and that he was a "spirit" as he walked on the water. So I would only think that you either DON'T listen to Jennings, as you contend, or BELIEVE what Jennings says, and if so, also believe in a LIE! And that's just one!!!

      Secondly, there is no regenerative baptism and the scripture, especially the New Testament DOES NOT point to one. Until you can overcome the FACT that the bible says we are cleased by the washing of the water BY his WORD and until you can overcome the FACT that only repentance and faith in his shed blood (not the corpuscles, but the act of dieing for sins) saves, then you have no argument. Everything else is mute. Else one is just dipping themselves in a magical pool and claiming salvation...NONE of the NT figures either went through that process (a magical pool) nor did they teach a magical pool...They taught REPENTANCE and FAITH in HIS BLOOD as a the only means of salvation. You contention to the contrary is not a biblical argument, it is a modern day contrived argument of the Jesus only more than that!

      And I wrote a WHOLE thorough and complete diatribe on Cornelious, you have touched on NOTHING, nor overcome a single thing in anything that you said...The parallel you render of Apollos is a moot point...adds nothing to the description of Cornelious in Acts 10:2...he not only was devout, but prayed and God moved. What sinner prays and God moves and establishes relationship with him? Especially in light of Isa. 59 1-2 which says "1-Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2-But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." The principle is simple...Cornelious HAD to be saved, because God's abode is ONLY among the righteous. That is basic bible, plain and simple...

      You CONTORT scripture to match your preconceived views and notions. Let the bible teach, it does quite well, and in instances where there is confusion, there is always the plain to help that along.

      Then let's say for an instance that Mark 16:16 is in the oldest extant texts of Mark that are available. You reading of it is flawed. In your mind, just like in Acts 2:38 you read, baptism as the explication of repent. In other words you INCORRECTLY believe that repentance IS baptism. That's the FLAW of your belief system.

      However, Romans 1:5 Says "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

      Our justification is NOT by a baptismal pool or an act of men's movement. It is by an exercise of faith...Therefore REPENTANCE stands alone as an outgrowth of the exercise of faith. It may be signified by baptism and the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, but it, repentance stands above all other acts that we do.

      So you misread the scriptures and are helped in your error by your own cognition or by others confused on the issue. Either way, your interpretive is flawed!

    2. I forgot to add that Ephes 2:8 says clearly: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

      The problem I have with your method of salvation is 1- it's not biblical and 2, you are doing the work of salvation. You have no answer to the thief who spoke to a live Jesus but died AFTER the death of Jesus and Jesus, without ant regard to a baptism, promised that he (the thief) would be with Jesus...That by itself blows away your whole argument...if baptism is essential or salvation then Jesus lied...and one thing is for sure...JESUS DID NOT LIE!!! You and Jennings did, but not Jesus!

    3. And another of your issues revolves around my title...sounds like JEALOUSY to me...but if you must know:
      BISHOP...the definition of the word in GREEK:
      episkopos: a superintendent, an overseer
      Original Word: ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
      Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
      Transliteration: episkopos
      Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is'-kop-os)
      Short Definition: overseer, supervisor, ruler
      Definition: (used as an official title in civil life), overseer, supervisor, ruler, especially used with reference to the supervising function exercised by an elder or presbyter of a church or congregation

      So what was the question????

    4. ..but the man on the cross did not have the opportunity to be baptized, but he went to paradise! So what say you?

  19. I already wrote in an earlier post I have only viewed a video or two and the ones I’ve watched we’re not the ones you’ve mentioned. I am not confused I didn’t say baptism replaces repentance.... The scriptures say repent and be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost... There were no red herrings in my post... what I say is bible and just like you say I’m confused, the same can be said of you... Superintendent and reverend still were not used... There’s no jealousy brother... I could careless what you call yourself... Most of the disciples called each other brother... I only brought that point out because you or someone else brought up apostle.
    Mark says what it says... There is no work in being baptized... IT’s not my salvation buddy it’s the Word...

    1. You said: "I am not confused I didn’t say baptism replaces repentance."

      That's good to hear. So you would contend that repentance and baptism are TWO separate and distinct acts? So what is the relationship between baptism and repentance?

    2. You debate the bible and ind out why your belief is in error...debating Jennings would be a waste of my time. His forum is jacked up. so that is not worth a dime, and everyone else who knows anything about biblical debates would laugh him out of any venue of which I am aware. He has no argument that hasn't already been successfully refuted for centuries! Who would lend this charlatan any credibility?

    3. How would it be a waste of time? Unless you scared? so you won't take time to exposed him by debating him to show the world he's in error. So when the son of God had diagloue with the pharisees, was it a waste of time? no. All I see is a scared man who wont live up to debate him.

    4. PLEASE...sickening...his heresies and the one's you embrace have been REFUTED...did you read that??? REFUTED for generations!!!! Jennings offers the worse interpretation of the bible since Elijah Muhammad, and I believe that Elijah would kick his end in any debate....he was much smarter and as off as he was more accurate with his biblical contentions...This is a RANK idiot and those that trust him are more in his path...


  20. Why not use overseer, or elder?

  21. As I stated before according to the scriptures, Jesus Christ had not died and rose from the dead. So, how could the thief believe in the resurrection of Christ had he not died yet??

    According to the scriptures in Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    1 Cor 15:1-4
    15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
    Being saved requires believing in the gospel!!! The death, burial and resurrection... The thief was saved the same as those in the Old Testament and those that were baptized unto repentance in John the Baptist day... BEFORE the death of Jesus Christ. After his(Jesus Christ) death we all must believe the gospel Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost... this is the gospel... this is SALVATION...
    And just like you quote scriptures you say prove otherwise those of us who believe in the gospel have just as many scriptures to prove the gospel.
    Surely, in all your studies you’ve seen that the early church and even here in the early American religion history baptism was still recognized as salvational until people like Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Billy Bright, Dwight Moody, R A Torrey, J V Coombs, Charles Finney, and several others began the heretic doctrine that baptism is not necessary.
    Every conversion recorded in the scriptures is the same, repent, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, receive the Holy Ghost....

    1. You said: "As I stated before according to the scriptures, Jesus Christ had not died and rose from the dead. So, how could the thief believe in the resurrection of Christ had he not died yet??"

      What you are doing is punting the issue down the road. The church was actually born with the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The resurrection is a confirmation of the promise, but sin is only remitted by blood, not water as you would have to contend to remain faithful to your teaching. But let's just say, for the sake of argument that you push this back to Jesus PROMISE that this man would be "with me in paradise" as being Abraham's bosom...Then HOW is he and even others in Abraham's bosom saved since none of them go to the pool and or experience a ceremonial washing?

      The fact is that the scripture YOU quote does not mention and or require a ceremonial washing or baptism. It says, confess and believe and "thou shalt be saved". Not confess, believe and be baptized!

      Then you said, and to affirm my points above: "After his(Jesus Christ) death we all must believe the gospel Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost"

      In that, we "almost" have no problem, only you add a don't believe that salvation is concluded until you have a baptismal experience in the pool. There are some other issues, but not to beat a dead horse.

      This is what I was asking earlier about the relationship between repentance and baptism...You contend that repentance is some kind of precursor to salvation as you would not hold that a person is saved without baptism. IS that correct?

      If I am correct in my assessment about your statements, then a person is not saved at repentance. He or she is only saved at baptism? THAT is NOT and NO PLACE CLOSE to the message of the gospel. In fact that is bad news to someone who has no pool and someone who is in a situation where no pool can be drawn. That is an utterly ridiculous proposition and nothing that ANY of the Apostles taught.

      The gospel message is that Jesus came, lived died, breaking the chains of sin and death, and was resurrected. There is no message of baptism or remission of sins in the gospel message. Baptism exists for one purpose and one purpose only, not to make natural water wash away spiritual and moral sins. There is no magic in the water of the pool no matter what incantation you use over that water. You make yourself a witch in the modern sense of the word believing that. The POWER is in the blood shed for remission of sins and faith in that blood. NOTHING else can wash our sins away but that blood that we receive by faith.

      The reason that many of the people you mentioned taught against regenerative baptism is because the bible DOES NOT teach regenerative baptism and there is an element of spiritual growth called progressive revelation among believers. If baptism for salvation were universally accepted as is your claim, it is clear that the Holy Ghost had to correct the church and remove us from the error of moving from trusting in Jesus and the shed blood, to trusting in a pool of water and an incantation over it.

      Thank God he moved us from that, IF we were ever there!!!!

    2. What is the biblical teaching on baptism at birth as an expression of the commitment of the parents of the child to God in faith?

  22. It’s very obvious you don’t know the scriptures and you like to go in circles because you don’t understand the scriptures! GOD is not small like man, if someone repents GOD will provide the water just like he did for the Ethiopian eunuch Phillip baptized along side the road...

    1. No, I thoroughly understand the scriptures, but your whole proposition is UNBIBLICAL and totally out of context of the word of God. Then to take the Ethiopian eunuch and his experience as a "standard" for how God operates is incredulous. You make great LEAPS of fancy fantabulous and unsupportable conclusions.

      In the BIBLE Christ death and atonement on the cross saves whosoever will come as his blood has power making an open show of the devil and his minions.

      In your world, repentance is only about shame and or sorrow, not turning (as the TRUE definition of repentance is) in fact, you pay NO ATTENTION to the meaning of repentance and words in general and only redefine most words to fit your belief...that is sorrowful...

    2. Salvation completed in a pool or as a result of water is not salvation at all. It is a bath!

      Now, get this...In aLL the Old Testament, remission of sins was only provided through and by blood. It was the sacrificial blood shedding of animals that was the foreshadow of the blood atonement of Jesus. I think we can both agree on that.

      How is it that suddenly, God over looks the blood shed by his son and places remission of sins in a pool of water? That is not even close to anything suggested or hinted at within all of the Old Testament which is our what? Schoolmaster!

      However, in the world of the believer in baptismal regeneration, you feel that remission of sins is according to a pool of water and an incantation...That sounds ridiculous! It is ridiculous! It is NOT bible!!!!

      What it is is an imposition and reading into scripture what you want it to be and or teach.

      H2O NEVER saved anyone. No matter what formula is recited over it. In your world, "holy water" is a baptismal pool and offshoot of Catholicism's version of "holy water".

      Sorry, bru, but that case isn't even close. The baptismal experiences referenced and observed within scripture are all for identification. There is not one that is referenced for salvation of the believer.

      As I stated, Cornelious was already saved in relationship God prior to baptism. Since you use references spuriously, you can't overlook that one, because it is quite unambiguous. I mean there is much more, but your assumptions place you on a wrong trajectory to begin with...anyway...

  23. You say sin is only remitted by blood, however the scriptures say in Acts 2:38 be BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS....
    The reason those people taught against baptism is because they were heretics.... you should try studying the scriptures and not your churches religion....

    1. Because you don't understand what "for" means. You believe it means "in order to have your sins remitted"...only THAT is NOT the use of the word.

      In fact the Greek word Ies or "For" as it is translated, is used some 1700 plus times in the NT alone. Therefore we can clearly see how it was used. Aside the fact that Repent is separated from "be baptized" by a CONJUNCTION which is also important, ies is also translated as "to", "into" and "unto"

      In EACH case, without exception it denotes coming into something that is already there. Here is an example:

      John 11:27 ~ She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. (emphasis added) Same Greek word, "ies"

      One must believe that the world exists and that Jesus came into it at a point in time. That is common sense and everyone understand that right?

      Heb. 1:6 ~ And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (emphasis added) the same word "ies" is used.

      Clearly, the world exists and Jesus is brought into it. The concept of the word is clear. It (the word ies or for) is NEVER used to indicate "IN ORDER TO" However, it is always used to indicate entry into a succession o events and or things.

      "Repent and be baptized "for" (ies) the remission of sins", is a 2 step event. REPENT (the first instruction) separated by ...AND ( a conjunction) BE BAPTIZED into that action whereby your sins are remitted...Your sins are remitted in the act or action of repentance and faith in Jesus and his shed blood. The phrase is not "be baptized "in order to have" your sins remitted"!

      This is why Jennings and others who believe this and heresies like this, DO NOT want the original texts and language studied. You want to live in the vacuum of language where you make words be what you want them to be and even reinterpret words to suit your preconception.

      That is disingenuous and exposed in this thread...You can't just make stuff up, or interpret phrases in modern vernacular. You have to be faithful to the text and context of scripture. Jennings is certainly not, and neither are you.

    2. Here is another that should make the use of ies or for even more clear...

      Jesus instructs his disciples:

      Lk. 9:3~ And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

      Now, I know of NOBODY that would assume that the word "for" (ies in Greek) in this chapter and verse would mean, "in order to"...To infer such is a ridiculous proposition.

      So why would the critic treat it differently? Not because of is because they want to bolster their shoddy point and twist the scripture to make it fit their belief!

      "For" certainly doesn't mean, "in order to", in context, in almost all instances it would mean, "BECAUSE OF"...In applying that rationale here, it would certainly mean that a person is to take nothing on the journey. Not that a journey is created because you took nothing.

  24. You can’t speak for me! I know exactly what repent means.... It’s not my world it is the scriptures

  25. I don't care how magic you think the phrase that you say over a pool of water is, or how holy you think the water is, NOTHING can save from sin but the BLOOD OF JESUS!!!!

    Ephes. 1:7~ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

  26. So what you are saying is that you read Hebrew and Aramaic?

    1. No, what I am saying is that I am diligent to do what the bible says to do:

      2 Tim 2:15 ~ Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

      And like the first church:

      Acts 17:11 ~ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

      The bible wasn't written in English. Holy text was not written in Victorian English of King James day either. So our diligence is to discover the Kerygma of scripture along with the sitz-em-laban and apply those concepts to be faithful to the text instead of imposing POUR meaning on the text.

      Our Pentecostal fathers went as far as they could with what they knew. Revelation is progressive and understanding of context should be the goal of every bible reader and expositor. When light comes, walk in it, stop fighting it...that's the only reason people stay in the dark is because they resist the light...

      John 15:3 ~ Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

      Clean through THE WORD, not a baptismal pool or water...the WORD is the cleaning agent and that through and by the shed blood of the lamb. You disgrace his works with a false doctrine claiming that men are cleansed with water...that is why it's so important.

    2. Does the fact that blood and water flowed from the wounds of Jesus have any bearing on this matter, because the scriptures clearly state that one should be baptised. It does not mean that baptism is what saves you, but it is a sign that you have been saved by the blood, is it not?

    3. Blood and water flowing from Jesus body when he was pierced was a sign that death had occurred. This debunks the "swoon theory" that Jesus merely swooned or passed out for a duration of time due to shock and was later resuscitated. This is a medical evidence that he was physically dead.

      One writer said this:
      "To confirm that a victim was dead, the Romans inflicted a spear wound through the right side of the heart. When pierced, a sudden flow of blood and water came Jesus' body. The medical significance of the blood and water has been a matter of debate. One theory states that Jesus died of a massive myocardial infarction, in which the heart ruptured (Bergsma) which may have resulted from His falling while carrying the cross. (Ball) Another theory states that Jesus' heart was surrounded by fluid in the pericardium, which constricted the heart and caused death.(Davis) The physical stresses of crucifixion may have produced a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. (Johnson)

      The stated order of "blood and water" may not necessarily indicate the order of appearance, but rather the relative prominence of each fluid. In this case, a spear through the right side of the heart would allow the pleural fluid (fluid built up in the lungs) to escape first, followed by a flow of blood from the wall of the right ventricle.(Edwards) The important fact is that the medical evidence"

      One can spiritualize this further, but I would proceed with caution.

  27. From the Abrahamic Covenant onward, everything that God did among men was by the blood. The Old Covenant was established by blood. The New established by blood. Sins remitted by blood. Why? That is the HIGHEST for of covenant expression among men, because it represents life.

    These folk "think" that water can replace and or parallel that...they are RIDICULOUS!!!!

    Ain't NOBODY saved by no pool of water or an incantation...any salvation is by the BLOOD OF JESUS ONLY!!!!

  28. So, if you can’t read Hebrew/Aramaic, then how do you know that someone else’s summation is correct if you don’t read those languages for yourself... and basically what you are saying is that everyone before you was not saved... because most folk weren’t reading into scripture and making up heresies like yourself... in 1 Peter it says and 8 were saved by water...

  29. Paul fasted and prayed and was led to Ananias to be baptized before he started ministry... If he was led to baptism then surely that is what he taught and that is proven throughout the epistles as well as the gospels, the book of Acts.
    Also Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3... and eight were SAVED by water; referring to Noah and his family. Also 1 Cor 10 speaks of water and baptism
    1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

    Kerygma: the preaching of the gospel of Christ, especially in the manner of the early church.
    In the early church baptism was taught as a necessary part of salvation.

    The term κήρυγμα, (Kerugma) is a Greek word meaning “proclamation”. The Greek word κηρύσσω, (kerusso) means “herald,” or one who proclaims. And thus the Kerygma is what is proclaimed.
    As the apostles began the work of preaching and proclaiming Christ, they proclaimed a message that was rather basic and simple. More extended teaching or instruction came later, after BAPTISM....
    Kerygma (from the ancient Greek word κῆρυγμα kêrugma) is a Greek word used in the New Testament for "preaching" examples: Luke 4:18, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1
    It is related to the Greek verb κηρύσσω kērússō, literally meaning "to cry or proclaim as a herald" and being used in the sense of "to proclaim, announce, preach", such as John the Baptist...

    Sitz Im Leben(German Protestant term) is a way to tie things together that are found throughout the Bible: songs, poems, epistles, etc.

    2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    “bible scholars”...

    1. And...the problem is????

      We are to serve him (God) with our whole body, spirit and MIND aren't we? to do less is not what the scripture endorses.

      Now, anyone can copy and paste, but to know this is a pursuit. You gentleman that back and endorse this man's idiotic ramblings prove that you know very little. What is worse is that you are so willing and eager to lead others to hell...

      Now, NONE of what you have said has overcome any argument that I have set forth. There is no refutation and what refutations that have been produced are topical, off point and unsupported by the weight of evidence.

      Baptism, IS NOT a method of salvation. Paul was OBEDIENT prior to any baptismal experience. He called Jesus Lord and followed him. What more does any saved person do? Especially one whop hated Christians and Christ only minutes prior. Then this 8 souls "saved by water" is sophomoric, taken totally out of context and may even prove my point...They were's saved because they were baptized in the water, they were saved FROM drowning and being submerged in the water and dieing!

      It is an incredulous deceiver that would suggest otherwise as if the water saved them in the context that you are TRYING to suggest...that is RIDICULOUS!!!!

      One thing is for sure, Jennings has created some, blind, scripture twisting nuts!!!! That's because, as I can hear him, he is one too!!!!

      That is sad!!!!

  30. Harvey Burnett you lost bro,pay attention to gino and let him unfold the hidden truth to you. Stop be upset and accept the fact of true teaching. If you so don't agree with him set up a meeting and do it face to face or shut the fuck up. Yo I'm not even in the church like that and I kno right from wrong,and you and them sissy ass preachers out of cogic is wrong. Like you sad scripture is suppose to be in context,so do me a favor stay in context and stop tryna make people believe your theology and philosophy. Man up so called supertendent and set up a meet with jenn ings and prove your case other wise shut up and stop hating on your brother.

  31. And for ANYBODY that with all the stupidity on earth, trying to CUSS and defend Jennings, you're a STUPID, IDIOT too!!!!

    How can you cuss and defend the bible?.Uunbelievable...GET SAVED first, then read the bible instead of following this false prophet and cult leader. And that is exactly what he is...a CULT LEADER!!! No better than Jim Jones, father Divine or any litany of the run of the mill...

  32. Baptism is a step towards salvation. IT IS SCRIPTURAL; not an opinion. Just as I said before, if you don't speak and read Aramaic or Hebrew you are simply reading someone else's interpretation...Like your opinion on 1 Peter 3:20 which you quoted from the NIV. And are there any other translations that read saved from drowning?
    But, according to the Aramaic, 1 Peter 3:20 says, "These who from the first were not convinced in the days of Noah when the long-suffering of God commanded that there would be an ark, upon the hope of their repentance, and only eight souls entered it and were kept alive by water.

    You stated, "The problem I have with your method of salvation is 1- it's not biblical and 2, you are doing the work of salvation."
    The scriptures state faith without works is dead faith. Also, in the scriptures it states Abraham showed his faith in GOD by taking Isaac to the mountain, and Noah showed his faith by building the ark. Many in the scriptures ACTED according to their faith. It's not my works but the works of the Father.
    You wrote, "You have no answer to the thief who spoke to a live Jesus but died AFTER the death of Jesus and Jesus, without ant regard to a baptism, promised that he (the thief) would be with Jesus...That by itself blows away your whole argument...if baptism is essential or salvation then Jesus lied...and one thing is for sure...JESUS DID NOT LIE!!!"

    You are right Jesus did not lie. He was still alive... The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection. Romans 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So, to have the faith required by the gospel, we must believe that God "has raised" Jesus from the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 - Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is the gospel that we must receive, believe, and hold fast in order to be saved. The thief on the cross could not possibly believe Jesus had been raised from the dead, because He had not yet died, nor been buried and raised.

    1. You said: "Baptism is a step towards salvation. IT IS SCRIPTURAL; not an opinion"

      THANK YOU for FINALLY agreeing that baptism DOES NOT save you!!!! In other words for the "peanut gallery" you have admitted that you do not agree with baptismal regeneration. Since it is only, according to you, a "step towards salvation"...THANK YOU...that's all I've contended from the beginning!

      So far as your understanding of studying the original written languages, maybe one day the light will click on and you'll get it, because tight now, your insight is BUNK!!!!

      So far as the this, my argument yet stands and you haven't overcome it by any means including that he could not have been saved because Jesus hadn't been resurrected...POPPYCOCK!!!! Why, it was the DEATH OF JESUS THAT SAVES not the Resurrection!!!! The resurrection provides for us and earnest hope, a confirmation of salvation, not the salvation act itself.

      Paul's admonition was clearly given to the church who was being attacked by people like Jennings. Those who DID NOT believe in the physical, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Like Jennings taught in the above video, many teachers were teaching a "spiritual resurrection" and in some cases, as I have pointed out, that the resurrection of believers had already passed. Paul DID NOT render this word in order to prohibit anyone from being saved. That is yet another ridiculous, but fanciful, interpretation of scripture by you.

      SO context is everything, and understanding the point of the text sitz-em-laban, is essential to understanding what is being taught. We do this every day in our lives, why not do this with the word that has been left for us to live by???

    2. When we remember that it is the work of atonement ON THE CROSS that saves, we can understand the thief...Jesus work was FINISHED on the cross. The thief died afterwards and exercised his faith in the FINISHED work of Jesus!!!!

    3. Burnett, I don’t have to overcome your argument; the Word is the Word regardless of what anyone thinks they know!!! I didn’t say anything any different... I have Never said in the course of this thread baptism “by itself saves” but, I have said BAPTISM IS NECESSARY. It is a necessary step towards salvation, you said it is not needed for salvation....
      I have quoted the same scriptures that say repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost is salvation. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection! That’s what the word says, not me...
      The jailer in the book of Acts asked, “what must I do to be saved?”
      I agree context is everything and so many so called theologians take scriptures out of context. Piecing together bits and pieces of scriptures to come up with all sorts of heresies!
      Acts 4:13 says this, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”

    4. So far as overcoming the argument, yes you do. See I didn't call you or ask you to respond and or say anything. And since I don;t allow just "anything" to be said, it's upon you to set forth a solid opposition to what I have stated.

      You have changed your position on the issue and that is clear. To say that baptism is "necessary" for salvation is to also say that it is "essential" for salvation as well. That is the same thing. However, as you have stated, baptism is a "necessary step towards salvation"...that is TOTALLY different. Quitting smoking and drinking may be steps towards salvation. But folk who may quit may not be salved.

      So don't be disingenuous stand by your argument and what you believe, unless there is solid reason to change or modify, and I believe there is more than solid reasons to jettison both of the positions you've presented. Remember, you've said, 1- baptism is "necessary for salvation" and that 2- baptism is a "necessary step towards salvation" These are two different things.

      Both of those positions are different than what Jennings and most oneness pentecostals teach in that they teach that Baptism saves and without being baptized using the formula "in Jesus name" one is not saved, which is also NOT supportable from scripture.

      So, as I have reviewed your commentary, which is it? Is baptism 1- "necessary for salvation" 2- "a necessary step towards salvation" or 3- necessary or essential to be saved? (which is #1 stated differently)...

      You quote a good scripture regarding the jailer in Acts 16. You quote v. 30 where the jailer asks "what must I do to be saved?"...only you stop there...But read on:

      v-31 in response:31-And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

      They said believe which meant to exercise faith. Further, they acted upon their faith. after hearing the word of the Lord and were baptized.

      v.33- And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

      Now, what came first? The exercise of faith or the act of baptism? Then which one saved?

      I believe you would probably say it was a combination of both...The people displayed their faith by acting or submitting to baptism...I say, then what of the blood of Jesus? If atonement is in the pool at all, then does the blood atone at all???

      If salvation is only demonstrated by a baptismal experience, then the work on the cross is insufficient or salvation. It is not believe in the cross AND (do this and that) to be salved...

      Like Bishop Mason're either saved or not. A woman can never be a "little pregnant"...she either is or she is not!

      The problem with your step towards salvation or that baptism is necessary or essential for salvation is simply the problem that you add to the cross by believing such. Rather than understand the context of why baptism was done within the early church, you add to the cross and to salvation and move the focus from the cross to a ceremonial rite which is exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees fro doing.

      So I REJECT your whole premise as the bible does not teach it. When these heresies like your were first condemned in the 3rd and 4th centuries, they did so on the same basis as what I am contending and nothing in your argument or the argument of Jennings has changed any of it.

      It was NOT sent from God then and it is certainly not of GOd now!!!!

    5. Baptism is not "a step towards salvation" baptism is an outward show that one has accepted salvation by confessing and repenting and believing in the death and resurrection of Christ. But clearly the scriptures have shown that God can save people who never knew about the death and resurrection, so all this debating is distracting from the real message of salvation.

  33. You wrote, " Paul was OBEDIENT prior to any baptismal experience.” NOT TRUE!!!! According to Acts 9:1-6, he was still persecuting the saints...And Saul, yet breathing out THREATENINGS and SLAUGHTER AGAINST the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. 3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
    Ananias Baptizes Saul...
    And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and WAS BAPTIZED!!!
    THIS IS PAUL'S TESTIMONY IN ACTS 22...And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
    And whose voice did Paul hear? The scriptures say JESUS!

    1. You said:"You wrote, " Paul was OBEDIENT prior to any baptismal experience.” NOT TRUE!!!! According to Acts 9:1-6, he was still persecuting the saints"

      Now, you correctly point to the scripture, but I see you need help in reading it,m because important facts simply blow by you like an Boing 747....Did you see this: 5-And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6-And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

      2 points of emphasis...he responds to this event first not knowing who it is but submitting that what he is experiencing is an act or move of GOd. Jesus identifies himself, and the second time, he asks what he must do? REGENERATION had occurred in his heart already. Paul was saved by meeting Jesus and submitting himself to him. He was IDENTIFIED with the church through baptism!!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!

      Now, I am glad you must have the understanding of this that I have. As you have already agreed that baptism is not salvific with your statement that baptism is a "step towards salvation" Further you've stated that that was scriptural and not a matter of opinion. As I stated, I AGREE....That there is no saving power in the waters of baptism...

      Now, it would be ashamed if Saul's conversion experience is not recorded within scripture. If the verses that I point out, do not specifiy his salvation and since we both agree that baptism does not point out his salvation, we would be confronted with the question, was Paul's conversion experience recorded within scripture? Then we would hae uncovered some secret hidden from generations of bible elites....POPPYCOCK!!!!

      Paul was saved when he acknowledged Jesus as is recorded in these verses. He became OBEDIENT to Jesus PRIOR to any baptism. That's why he went to the city along with his consorts, and submitted himself in the manner he did.

      Paul intimately knew the story and message of Jesus as he, like Pliny the Younger, a Roman, some 70 to 80 years after him, Paul's job was to interview Christians to see if they were really Christians as Paul knew their teachings, and persecute them, to the point of death in lieu of them recanting their position. Paul was much closer to the actual events and understood who Jesus was and what was taught of him, that he had risen from the dead.

      Now, the absolute BEST retort that you have rendered in support of your previous position, because now you contend that baptism is only a "step towards salvation" is Paul's recounting of events in Acts 22 specifically v.16 as you note above.

      First, as I will note in Acts 9:17 Ananias work was to lay hands on Paul for him to receive his sight and so that he could be filled with the Holy Ghost. Now you believe that being filled with the Holy Ghost IS the point of salvation, only that is not biblical either. A person is filled with the Holy Ghost by way of Holy Ghost baptismal experience because they are saved. That goes back to Acts 10 in which Cornelious was in relationship with Christ and speaking in tongues prior to any baptism. He was certainly saved as I have argued, without refutation earlier.

      Second, in Acts 26 Paul also recites what happened to him in Acts 9, the same story of Acts 22, to Agrippa. Only the last time, Acts 22, he does not mention his experience in Damascus.

      So the question that any faithful bible reader would ask, why the variation of the account. If Paul is saying in Acts 22 that baptism is essential for salvation, then certainly we would find that in Acts 25...or at least it would make sense to see such.

      See my next part:

    2. The answer is this:

      Paul spoke to a Jewish crowd in Acts 22. V.2 affirms this when it says that he spoke "in Hebrew tongue". That was the language of the teaching elite of the day. So we conclude he was talking to Jews, as affirmed by his opening in v.1 "Men brethren, and fathers"...To the cut of this, They would have understood clearly the significance of ceremonial washings, which John culminates in full immersion of the body. Historically speaking, at no point do we ever see Jews baptizing to remit sins. We do see them washing for ceremonial and ritual purification. This is in part why John's baptism was an anomaly and was of such interest to Jewish teachers and leaders of the day.

      So Paul's testimony was to impact the audience. It was to shock them into seeing that there was a change brought about within him and that was brought about by Christ. Not some baptismal pool!!!

      The Jews understood the message to be about Christ, because some wanted him killed and others wanted him scourged or beaten. That's when he appeals as a Jewish citizen and eventually ends up before Agrippa in Acts 26. In Acts 26, no mention of baptism, but mention of Jesus!!!

      Now, IF the message of baptism was essential and that no one could be saved without it, as is the oneness Pentecostal position and yours too up until you recanted and said that baptism is "a step towards salvation"...then why would Paul, seeking to persuade Agrippa to be a Christian, leave off a baptismal celebration or mention of being baptized "in Jesus name" as many of you say???? Why fail to mention something so essential to being saved in his discourse?

      That is because Paul was not teaching and NEVER taught that Baptism was essential to salvation. He taught that baptism was to IDENTIFY all believers with the church and with Christ OPENLY!!!!....Only the Christians baptized, not the Jews! Their method was ceremonial washings. Anyone they would have witnessed being baptized, they would have recognized as being a part of the Christian movement or what was called "The Way" at that time

      So I think the scripture you mentioned is a good one. It is worthy o bible study and I hope you have followed my answer. For anyone who has not studied the issue, language and does not know history as presented in the text itself, this could be confusing...On the other hand, this sort of confusion is what Jennings prey's off of...them that don't know, who aren't prepared and who have not studied...

      I can understand your stated, I am not critical of it...However, I am taking it further...Jennings does this sort of thing and condemns the people for studying further, because he claims to be the one that knows it all and no one else need know any additional information...He is a CULT leader, full of demonic influence and he is wrong!!!

      If you believe what you believe, we can talk and debate all day and like many of my family who are Apostolic believers we can get along, but PLEASE do not accept apostolic doctrine based on what Jennings teaches...his teaching is not only false but deceptive as well!!!

    3. A Hamed, You have argued and made your position known and others pose contrary positions. That is fine. Please take additional commentary to the new thread and we can deal with issues one by one as they arise. Thanks and I appreciate you staying around to at least debate, agree or disagree with the topics.

  34. Firstly my Father is a Pentecostal pastor so I was raised serving the Lord; fully in the trinity. I admit that when I came back to the church I found apostle Jennings and I almost bought or was tricked into modalism.

    My brother, to deny Christ, is an APOSTASY. This is leading many, my ex is one, to believe that Jesus Christ is NOT lord. This is luciferan as well. Jesus Christ is LORD. He is the living word. When Steven was getting stoned and he was IN THE SPIRIT, as John was in the spirit on the island of Patmos, Steven saw the son of man (Jesus) standing on the right hand of God.

    Your post is needed and is helping many fooled by Apostole Jennings. For he will have to give an account. For one cannot get to the Father except BY JESUS. Jesus is LORD. We serve him in Spirit and Truth.

    Further when Jesus was in his glorified state and Elijah and Moses was before him on that mountain top, talkative Peter wanted to make an altar to them. God then echoed “this is my Son, HEAR YE HIM.”

    Hear ye him.

    This is a time period where apostasy seems so close to truth that even the very elect will be FOOLED.

    Thank you again for this post. Nearly a year ago I would have argued against the hypostatic union but i serve the Lord. I do not reject my King, for Jesus is my Lord and Savior. God is the center of my life; he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believe in him shall have everlasting LIFE.

    Thank you again Superintendent. Also yes speaking the truth will gain enemies but we know that if one is not ready to bare their own cross for preaching the gospel; that person does not have a Bold spirit. Apostolics; the apostles prayed for this BOLD spirit loll. My God, the word of the Lord is life! Jesus is alive and lives forever more!!!!

  35. First of all allow me to say that I am amazed and appalled that there is a debate on whether God is a trinity, when any astute bible student knows that the trinity is a pagan man made belief that was adopted and ratified in 325 AD at the council of Nicea. There is no such thing as three persons that make up a trinity. The scripture declares the the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus. "For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power" (Colossians 2:9-10). There is no scripture in the bible which uses the term "God the Son." The correct scripture term is "the Son of God" note, "For this purpose the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). Again, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding" (1 John 5:20). There are a multitude of scriptures which will confirm this fact.

    A true bible scholar knows that both water and Spirit baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. No man, woman boy or girl sins are initially washed away without water baptism. Now listen to the Word of God! "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). For the District Supt. to use the following scripture, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26), is to use the scripture out of context. This scripture is addressed to people who are already saved by water and Spirit. Note: When the Ephesians church was first started in the 19th chapter of the book of Acts, the scripture says, He said unto them, Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he (Paul) said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized? And they said,Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentence, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts 19: 2-6). No man or woman who is living, dead, or yet to be born can change the Word of God. The apostle Peter said, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:) (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is not to cleanse our body, but to wash away our sins. This cannot be denied by a honest heart. The blood of Jesus is initially applied to our lives upon repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ according to (Acts 2:38).Also note Revelation 1:5 "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," this scripture correlates with (Acts 22:16) which indicates our sins are initially washed away upon baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. After a person is born again of the water and Spirit he/she are continuously cleanse through the washing of the water by the word (Ephesians 5:26) and confessing. Note: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). The District Supt. should note that the Ephesians were Gentiles and needed the same baptism and Holy Ghost that the Jews were required to accept on the day of Pentecost. To suggest otherwise is to either be dishonest or ignorant of the scriptures.

    1. Cut out the LYING to leave the impression due to YOUR lack of understanding, it was a Council that decided to create an idea of a TRINITY. And to say further what the Council did was pagan is OUTRIGHT IRRESPONSIBLE and STUPID of you to say. I'm not sure your motive here, but God judge you for YOUR DISHONESTY!

      THE Council at Nicea in 325 was a discussion involving over 300 bishops about the controversy concerning the NATURE OF CHRIST. The Church during this era suffered many challenges, externally where many were martyred for their faith, and internally where some pressed to spread different doctrine other than what the apostles taught. about 318 AD, an elder from Alexandria had great difficulty accepting the trinitarian nature of the Godhead. Just that piece of information alone should let you know Trinitatian was BEFORE THE Council of Nicea held inn 325. Arius began to teach that Christ was different in ESSENCE from the FATHER. That he was created by the Father, and before that he did not exist. Athanasius, another elder in Alexandria, challenged Arius, asserting that Christ and the Father were the SAME in ESSENCE, and that the Son was ETERNAL. When the synod at Alexandria deposed Arius in 321 AD because of his teaching, matters grew worse causing division. To restore harmony in the Church, the emperor Constantine called for a Council in Nicea in 325, where the bishop discussed the issue. The Athanisian party won and a creed was drawn up that declared the Son was the Same in Essence as the Father. Similar discussion took place about the Essence of the Holy Spirit as well.

      This was not man made. Only done to avoid heresy. The Bible teaches clearly and plainly, the LORD THY GOD is ONE God, GOD THE FATHER is God, The Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They are Different, each of the same ESSENCE.

      Other controversies arose that called for COUNCILS. Not many want to talk about the Council at Chalcedon in 451 where it was discussed and settled the person and nature of Christ, that Christ was both truly God and truly man, and the two natures were united in One person without Confusion. This was followed by another Council with regards to the issue of Christ having 1 will or 2 wills. That Council was held in 553. Another Council was held in 681 where the Chalcedonian Creed was ratified to state Christ had 2 wills, the human will being subjected to the divine will.

      Cut out the foolishness to come up with your revision of History to support your unbiblical doctrine of the GOD you choose to believe. You like Arius are WRONG my friend!

    2. The Trinity is a false pagan belief that again was adopted and ratified at the council of Nicea 325 AD. Yes history declares that Tertullian was a notable lawyer in Rome during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and introduced the term Trinity as the Latin "trinitas, to the Christian vocabulary in the 200s from which we get our word trinity, yet it's still not a biblical doctrine used by the apostles nor prophets. I'm not impressed with your so-called knowledge of church history. What impresses me is the knowledge and rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Now if you knew the Holy scriptures the way you think you know church history, you would know that no one was ever baptized by the apostles using the trinity formula of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Catholicism caused many people to be burned at stake and even drowned for not baptizing infants in these titles. Does that sound like a work of God? Even the Protestant churches took on this same spirit. John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at stake because he didn't believe in a trinity and was one who baptized believers in the name of Jesus Christ.
      Having knowledge of different councils cannot save you. God's church does not follow a Chalcedonian Creed, Athanasian Creed, so-called Apostles Creed,or Westminster Confession. We follow the scriptures without any man made pagan beliefs as the trinity. Now I submit to you that no man regardless of how learned he may be, can't go to the scripture and find the phrase "three persons," "trinity" "God the Son" or "eternal Son."

    3. Now you come to say "you are not impressed with your so-called knowledge of history", yet YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP HISTORY, the COUNCIL OF NICEA! So don't speak now in your dismissive TONE, because YOU GAVE a REVISED version of HISTORY YOU BROUGHT UP IN THE DISCUSSION.

      IT's OBVIOUS at the COUNCIL, many of the BISHOPS believed in a TRINITY as it was CONCLUDED Jesus was same in ESSENCE as the FATHER. Later at another COUNCIL, it was determined the HOLY SPIRIT was GOD in ESSENCE as WELL.

      If you wanted to prove STRICTLY from SCRIPTURES, YOU SHOULD have CITED SCRIPTURES ONLY! You even cited here in your last reply, “MORE HISTORY” to LIE about John Calvin having Michael Servetus burned. What is WRONG with YOU? Fact of the Matter is Michael Servetus was called to trial and executed for his “UNITARIAN” views, not his belief in the TRINITY.

      YOU are coming off as DISHONEST, and to speak with a fork tongue, is never a trait of a CHRISTIAN. Then you say “We follow the scriptures without any man made pagan beliefs as the trinity.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You are no better at debating than O Boy Geno.

    4. Absolutely right GloryandHonor, one can't simply dismiss true statements and go on as if to say they are a self-repository of truth and right...that is not the case.

      As I pointed out elsewhere Acts 15 was a council and in that council leaders came together to discuss and hash over what God had spoken and what they were experiencing. Are we to discounts Acts 15 because it was a council of church leaders, some of who we know and others whom we don't? It is pride that makes folk fee as if what they believe is straight from the throne without exception and everyone else's belief is just noise. That is arrogance and pride and both are contrary to the scriptures.

    5. You both missed the main point and that is you trinitarians think you are the only people who have knowledge of church history. I'm more than glad to stick with the scriptures because it proves your false doctrine of the trinity. You dismiss "Acts 2:38" and say the name of Jesus Christ does not have to be used when baptizing a convert, yet you don't use common sense to see the name Jesus Christ was used to heal the sick, the name Jesus Christ was used to raise the dead, the name Jesus Christ was used to give sight to the blind, the name Jesus Christ was used to cast out devils, the name Jesus Christ was used to make the lame to walk,the name Jesus Christ was used in prayer, yet when it comes to being baptized for the remission of sins which is the greatest deliverance any man, woman, boy or girl can receive, you deny that it's necessary to use the name of Jesus Christ. How blind can you be. If you would learn as much about the scriptures as you think you know about church history, you would humble yourselves and obey "Acts 2:38." Be blessed in the name of Jesus Christ.

    6. No we did NOT miss the POINT!

      Again you were the one who bought HISTORY into the discussion. And you continue to be dishonest, saying now here, trinitarians think they are the only people who have knowledge of church history. ONCE AAIN, YOU bought history into the DISCUSSION! So no need to say what you said about "Trinitarians".

      You mentioned ACTS 2:38, and like I said before, Peter is not actually baptizing anyone in Jesus’ name here, rather he commands and instructs “REPENT and be baptized in Jesus name”. It has already been mentioned here several times, Christ instructed his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You who said you stick to Scriptures and put it before all the creeds and confessions, should follow the same thinking to esteem what Christ said over what Peter and any of the apostles did. And you can spare me with any of your interpretative gymnastics to say the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is JESUS either, because to do that is not proper Biblical Interpretation. Fact of the matter is when Acts 2:38 and Matthews 28:19 and tons of other Bible verses mention “in the name”, it means “by the authority of”.

  36. Donald,

    You said: "First of all allow me to say that I am amazed and appalled that there is a debate on whether God is a trinity, when any astute bible student knows that the trinity is a pagan man made belief that was adopted and ratified in 325 AD at the council of Nicea."

    That IS NOT TRUE! Nicea wasn't about establishing the Trinity. The Trinity was a clear teaching from scriptures which arose right after the death and resurrection of Jesus in the First Century. For those that gathered, the deity of Jesus, and the Trinity itself was not in question. The question was how was Jesus deity, and how could that best be described. This was against the teachings of Arius and Arianism which contended that Jesus had a "like substance" instead of having the "same substance" or was of "one substance" of the Father. The use of the term "Son Of God" was a term that was already understood to be the effective relationship of Jesus to the Father found within scripture. GOd says this himself in the gospels, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him" (Lk. 9:35, Mk. 9:7) So for you to contend that "there is no scripture that uses the term Son Of God as if Jesus was not the Son Of God, is the very epitome of biblical illiteracy!

    His Sonship was NOT the question. How he was deity was the issue! So I appreciate the effort to sound scholarly, but that effort actually fails when examined in light of TRUTH as opposed to novel and incoherent ramblings of a generation of people who only want to affirm their false belief and not yield to the truth. I would appreciate you IF you rendered a correct argument, but this point alone allows me and anyone else seeking truth to discount your ramblings as the noise that it is not even factually accurate!!!!

    Now, I've already dealt with the baptism issue and there is No scripture, correctly interpreted, that suggests that any pool of water can save a man from sins. None o the scriptures you render have any bearing on the act that we are saved by the Blood of Jesus, not water of a baptismal pool and that his WORD is the water of refreshing that regenerates our spirit. You even quote the scripture in Colosians 1:14

    You method is more akin to an Old Testament methodology and as such is totally insufficient for New Testament salvation. The instances you see of water baptism and the scriptures invoking it are ALL about identification and unification with the church and body of believers that these same people had rejected and crucified.

    Interestingly, you invoke Colossians 2, which is just a rehashing of Colossians 1 which says in v.2 "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Now, you probably believe that the conjunction "and" is restating the antecedent phrase which allows you to incorrectly contend that "GOd our Father" and the "Lord Jesus Christ" are one in the same. Only with little exception your interpretation does not follow either our language use of the conjunction or the Granville Sharp rule of interpretation of like phrases in Greek translation. Let me cut it short, that sentence by itself DEMANDS the interpretation that God the Father and The Lord Jesus Christ are two distinct beings, but we also know that there is only ONE GOD!!!!

  37. So far as the nature of GOd, your interpretive offers nothing that we already don't know. We already knew there is only One God. However, that one God is described distinctly in three persons who have mind, will, intellect, spacial awareness of one another.

    Above I mention 1 Col. 1:14 which says: " In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" The forgiveness of sins is through the blood NOT a baptismal pool. To call on the name of the Lord and be baptized is an EXPRESSION, not a method of salvation. It is clear that you and people like you have no or very little understanding of scriptural semantics or expressions that draw out a point or make a distinction on certain issues. I believe that is why many of oneness leading teachers avoid education and sound rules of interpretation contending that they are inspired by men. NO they are inspired by study of language and basics such as how to read.

    Further, your effort to prove baptism is a hodge-podge of misused scriptures and scriptural abuse and is not a succinct theology, yet along a sound methodology of interpretation. Every time we see baptism DOES NOT mean baptism in water. Paul contends in Romans 6 that the baptism of water was representative of the death of our old life and self to the life of the new one found within Christ. The whole teaching was representative and not one stating that the pool had some mystical power.

    Then, just be real...many of the folk you have that "go down in Jesus name" come up doing some of the same things, living ungodly and are STILL unsaved. You have the audacity to PRETEND that folk in a pool of water with a phrase said over it are in a spiritual condition that is "better" than anyone else...That is FOOLISH!!!

    When the HEART changes, and repentance is made to God salvation occurs. Pool or no pool, salvation is had when a heart repents. Wherever and whenever that might be.

    So sorry, your diatribe falls on it's face like they all do on this issue.

    1. Thanks for your reply, though I totally disagree with your assessment of the council of Nicea in 325 AD. This was a gathering of bishops/church leaders from both Arianism and Trinitarians to debate the substance of God. Arianism (two persons) and Trinity (three persons). Nevertheless neither one is correct according to the scriptures.To say that the trinity is a scripture fact is a false statement which has been repeated for centuries.

      Either you misread what I said or you outright misinterpreted my statement when I said, there is no scripture which uses the term "God the Son." Reread it and be man enough to admit that you misquoted what I said. Now I'll see how honest or dishonest you are by your reply.

      You falsely accuse me of rambling because you can't accept the scriptures I have given you. No need to argue unless you can prove by the Word of God that there are three persons within One God. In fact you can't find one scripture which uses the term "three persons." If you can prove it, put forth the scriptures or hold your peace.

      You claim that forgiveness of sins is through the blood and not through a pool of water. Sir it matters not to me whether you use a pool of water, a lake, a river, or an ocean. I can discern through your comments that you are not even aware according to the scriptures when the blood is applied to a person's life. The bible is extremely clear about this fact, but to those whose eyes are blind to the truth, they will never see it.

      Allow me to inform you that God has always used water (h2o) to separate his people from the world and sin. God used water to separate Noah from the world and sin, God used water (the Red Sea) to separate Israel from Egypt and sin, God used water (the Jordan river) to separate Naaman from sin (leprosy) and the world (Syrians), and God used water to separate Gideon's army of three hundred men from the fearful and unbelievers.

      I agree with you that many people who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ continue in their sins. Likewise many people who confess with their mouth and say they believe in their heart likewise continue in their sins. That's no excuse for disobeying the Word of God.

      You said, "When the HEART changes, and repentance is made to God salvation occurs. Pool or no pool, salvation is had when a heart repents. Wherever and whenever that might be."

      Now please give me the book, chapter, and verse from which you made this statement. You can't do it if your life depended upon it. You are totally WRONG!

      Now allow me to give you book, chapter, and verse which requires that a man, woman, boy, or girl must be born again of water and Spirit. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Many other scriptures agree with this, as (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:5-6, Acts 22:16 and Titus 3:5).

      I know you have heard it before and haven't accepted it, so I have no expectations that you will accept it now. God bless you, but you can never negate Acts 2:38 and run to other scriptures in the bible in order to gender a false salvation.

    2. Nope…YOU are WRONG.

      You can brush over it all you want. Everyone want to talk about the Council at Nicea to LIE this council was to “create JESUS” or CREATE the TRINITY. This Council was to settle beliefs as to whether Christ was 1) different in ESSENCE from the FATHER, 2) created by the Father and 3) and never existed before His physical Birth. These were what Arius taught. Athanasius on the other hand asserted that Christ and the Father were the SAME in ESSENCE, and that the Son was ETERNAL.
      This was not man made. Only done to avoid heresy. The Bible teaches clearly and plainly, the LORD THY GOD is ONE God, GOD THE FATHER is God, The Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They are Different, each of the same ESSENCE. The creed drawn up declared the Son was the same in essence as the Father. It was in 381 AD an ecumenical council of Constantinople finally asserted His full and true Humanity.

      One can read all throughout history the Church fought to dismiss heresy. For example, a council met in Ephesus in 431 AD to anathemize the teaching of Nestorious with regards to the two nature of Christ. There were many councils of sort, only done not to CREATE ANYTHING, but to stick to the TRUTH of what the Bible taught.

    3. Now where does the bible teach the trinity or three persons in one God. You will notice according to the scriptures the biblical terms used by the apostles are manifest, manifested, or manifestations.
      1. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was MANIFEST in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16)
      2. "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and MANIFESTED forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him" (John 2:11).
      3. "But the MANIFESTATION of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" (1 Corinthians 12:7).
      This is an example of using scripture terms and not man made terms such as trinity, three persons, eternal Son, co-equal or co-eternal. Which the apostles never used or implied!
      No man will see the truth of God with an arrogant spirit. In order to receive God's truth you must humble yourself under the mighty hand of God. Now gloryandhonor you said, "Fact of the matter is Michael Servetus was called to trial and executed for his "UNITARIAN" views, not his belief in the TRINITY." Note: reread what I said and you will realize I NEVER said Michael Servetus believed in the Trinity. He believed in baptizing people in the name of Jesus Christ, and he believed in One God, He didn't agree with the false doctrine of the Trinity.
      The demonic actions of Trinitarians was to kill people who didn't aspire to there false doctrine of the Trinity and false baptism in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Be blessed in the name of Jesus Christ.

    4. Mr. Jennings has really taught you guys well to misuse the word of God to mean what you want it to mean. As I am no theologian, let me speak simply:
      MANIFEST : clear or obvious to the eye or mind, also meaning unquestionable, apparent, undeniable, visible, transparent.
      With that being said, lets discuss 1 Timothy 3:16, this chapter was a chapter that Paul was using to give directives to members of the New Church that were desirous of becoming elders and deacons (leaders). The guidelines were clear on how they should conduct themselves in the house of God and the message of Truth they should spread. That God manifested (became clear to the eyes and mind) in the flesh... I'll stop there, he manifested, he took on the appearance of flesh, he became clear to the eyes and mind as flesh, Jesus' flesh was God made flesh. It's clear. Was vindicated (made clear of blame and suspicion) meaning he was not a liar when he said he and the Father are one, and "I AM" meaning he was God from the beginning and all eternity, the angles did see him, he was preached about and went back to the Father (Mark 16:19 "So then, after speaking to them the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and took his place at the right hand of God."). The scripture doesn't say he was just a representation of God or a flesh body inhabited by God as you and Jennings imply.
      John 2 this chapter was about Jesus turning water to wine, the first miricale as recorded by our bibles, Verse 11 "... manifest his glory" simply means (became clear to the eyes and mind) showed that he was God, the Son of God was and is God, so to work miracles was a God work, and so he could do the work, as he was the one who did the work of the Father as he was the word from John 1, in the beginning with God and now on earth as God in flesh, still God tho, who else could turn water to the best wine? Whatever the Father willed and Spoke; The Word (The Son) brought into being, God, one God. #God.
      1 Corinthians 12 Was a chapter of gifts of the Spirit given to newly converted believers who would be the church in Corinth, they were experiencing gifts that were not all similar: Verse 7 "manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for the common good".. this speaks of man (humans) being given gifts from the Holy Spirit to do things supernatural to build the church. So this doesn't disprove the Trinity, it confirms it, because they could have simply said "Manifestation of God". The apostles could have if they wanted to purport one God with no separate persons (Father, or Son or Holy Spirit), used the word God, or Jesus to refer to The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, instead they kept showing the different persons of the Godhead with their distinct functions and purposes, while expounding on the Single none multiple Godhead. Why would they keep saying The Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in different parts of their letters, if not to show the Tri-un God? They could have simply said Jesus in every sphere, not The Father or The Son of God Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Open you heart to the Truth.
      Listen, God is One single being, but he has three persons working as one, none works by himself independent of the other, they all work as a single entity, you do not need to understand this in a logical sense because clearly you don't, but faith in God being limitless will make the scriptures clear.

    5. First of all, the word "manifest" is a VERB, not a NOUN which primarily means to "show", "reveal" or "appear". Now, I remember that a NOUN is a "person, place or thing"...a VERB is not a noun!

      You state that Jesus is a manifestation, and quick to quote every scripture where you think that "manifestation" is a noun or a description of a noun that noun being God. That is language abuse! Then what you are saying is a tautology. Your description adds NOTHING to the equation and or conversation. In other words, what you are saying is not only incoherent it is also not biblical. That God was "manifested" says NOTHING, but that he was revealed to which we say kidding???

      The trinity is a doctrine accepted by the church because that's what the bible teaches. It is an evident relationship within scripture and is something that cannot be denied.

      So far as humility, if you don't mind, please disregard that. People can be humble and not agree that heresy should be accepted no matter how nice or decent the people are who accept it.

      I and many others reject your interpretive because it is NOT biblical! That is it. Nothing to do with humility, has everything to do with the word of truth!

    6. Thank you Asha, I see we were thinking along similar lines. I don;t see how a person goes from a VERB applying it as a NOUN and thinking that their interpretation is correct or accurate. It is a total misuse of language, both the Greek, and Aramaic and the English language.

  38. Excuse me Don, I had to reread what you said there is no term "God the Son" as opposed to "Son Of God"...So I stand corrected on that part, but in this case, that is a difference without a difference.

    The implication is the same. Jesus IS the Son of God as in Peter's confession. (Mk. 8:27-30; Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-20; John 6:66-71) As stated God calls him "beloved son" (Mt. 3:17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34) also rehearsed by Peter in 2 Peter 1:17 ~ For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    This just wasn't a voice out was God, aka: "excellent glory" in other translations "majestic glory". This was a description of God himself. So this by itself is definitive proof of an ontological distinction between God the Father and God the Son or Jesus the Son of God however you want to say it.

    Then answer what of Revelations 4 & 5? There is one who sits on the throne and receives all the worship of heaven. (Rev. 4:9-11) Then there is a "Lamb" who comes forth and ALL of heaven not only worships him but also the one who sits on the throne (Rev. 5:13-14)

    BOTH of them were given praise honor and glory of all creation...I said BOTH...Now, I like you believe in only ONE GOD!!!! We are confident in this.

    However, that vision is not just a mystical or mythical vision, it is a reality and a surety. It can't be explained away as some figment of the imagination or some type of representative or figurative vision.

    If John is to be believed, as he certainly is, this is a distinct and specific backdrop of the nature of God and a nail in the coffin of ontological oneness teaching or sabellianism or modalism all of which was debunked and rejected through and by scripture and not just the early church fathers.

    So gerrymander if you wish, but I believe like truth does, it speaks for itself!!!!

    1. May the Grace of Jesus Christ the Lord, the love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. I have tried not not enter into this debate, as God is not a God who's Spirit delights in arguments, but I must say this and leave it as all I'll say on the matter.

      Romans 8:34 "Who will dare to condemn them? Christ, who died,and better still, rose, and is seated at the right hand of God -and is interceding for us?...
      Mark 16:19 "So then, after speaking to them the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and took his place at the right hand of God."
      Acts 7:55-56 "But he (Stephen), full of the Holy Spirit, fixed his eyes on heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus at God's right hand; so he declared: "I see the heavens open and the Son of Man at the right hand of God"
      Colossians 3:1 "So then, if you are risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God."
      Ephesians 1:20 "He revealed His almighty power in Christ when He raised Him from the dead, and had Him sit at His right hand in heaven".
      Hebrews 1:3 "He is the radiance of God's glory, and bears the stamp of God's hidden being, so that, His powerful word upholds the universe. And after taking away sin, he took his place, at the right hand of the divine Majesty, in heaven."
      Acts 2:33 "He has been exalted at God's right side; and the Father has entrusted the Holy Spirit to him; this Spirit, He has just poured upon us, as you now see and hear."
      John 14:26 "The advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I have told you.
      Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
      Rev 3:21 "The one who is victorious, I will let him sit with Me on my throne, just as I was victorious, and took my place with my Father on his throne."
      Now I could go on and on as I haven't even begun to quote the scriptures showing the persons of the Trinity clearly and distinctly, but the point is clear. There is only ONE GOD as Jesus continually reiterates that he is in the Father and the Father in Him and that Spirit will come from them. But there are three persons, not just one person that fuses back into himself and then separates from himself and the goes back to himself (as is implied by Mr. Jennings). How else does Jesus Christ sit at his father's right hand and intercedes? How then does the Holy Spirit intercede and yet they do nothing of themselves but always of each other? Ask God to give you discernment. Let Him make you susceptible to listening to what the Spirit says to the churches (Rev 3:22). For we are the church. Don't limit God to what we can and cannot do. The scriptures is clear with and without cultural and language context exposition; we just need to allow the Holy Spirit to show us. Use ALL scriptures, not just some, otherwise the user has ulterior motives and is trying to deceive by cutting up the word of God. Be careful! Many will come in God's name, and yet not be of him; Test the Spirit always.

    2. You're telling me, that in the 2000 plus years since Christ died, nobody has been following the bible correctly? None of the writings of the Apostles could be used in its entirety or was spread correctly or valid enough to just stand on its own? Mr. Jennings is the only person in all this time -up until 20 and a little years ago when he started his ministry- that has heard the voice of God and understands scripture? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and his belief that only he interprets the scriptures correctly, yet he purposefully omits the use of many and I'll dare say most scriptures in his explanations, shows the corruption in his doctrine.
      Brothers (and sisters if there be any reading this) I implore you, seek the face of God, read the word of God with a humble and open disposition, do not let this Spirit of Pride overshadow your minds/ spirits/ hearts and blind you from seeing the truth and accepting the truth that God has revealed to us. I am no theologian, I have not gone to bible school either, but I am humble enough to learn, and when I first heard this man, my Spirit was unsettled and so I deluged myself in the word of God searching and studying it while listening to videos from Mr. Jennings, and his doctrine never added up to me. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the Truth of God.
      May God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, give you peace and grace. Amen. This is how the Apostles greeted at the start of their letters, God bless you all.

    3. District Supt. I just noticed your last statement that you had to reread what I said concerning the term "God the Son" never being used toward Jesus. Otherwise I wouldn't have addressed it the way I did in my last statement. Thanks for rereading it and being man enough to admit it. My whole impression of you have to changed. Thanks, maybe an honest debate can make a difference!

    4. Asha, Pastor G Jennings is not the only one that preaches this... Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ did not start with him. In Acts 2:38, Luke 24:24, Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, Acts 4:10,13... All of these scriptures are in sync... every time “in the name of” is mentioned the name IS Jesus Christ. There is no other name that a man can be saved, except by Jesus Christ Acts 4:13.The scriptures SAY this, not Geno Jennings... In Acts 1 the apostles were taught for 40 days by Jesus Christ after his resurrection, about the things of the kingdom of God... Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem to receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon them. Also John and Peter, in Acts 4:13, it is said of them that “they were unlearned men, but they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus Christ”.... So, if you say he is a heretic because he quotes these scriptures find something else... There are NO accounts of anyone in the scriptures that were baptized in the titles...

    5. No, Gino Jennings is not the only preacher that baptizes in the name of Jesus Christ... the scriptures give account after account of people baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ...

    6. So tell me of all the account after account of people being baptized in Jesus' name?

      I believe I only could find ONE in Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

      Even in Acts 2:38, Peter was not actually baptizing ANYONE in "Jesus's Name". He merely preached instructions "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

    7. Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Jesus said it himself, it was the Apostles that condensed it into "In the name of Jesus Christ", as they associated Jesus with God and God being Jesus (which is correct). But if you desire to follow Christ and not just the people who speak of him, then do as he says, "in the Name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit", imagine, Jesus shows us the Tri-un God and you choose to ignore that and everything else said to you using scriptural account so as to continue purporting an empty faithless belief. Seek God in spirit and truth.

  39. Thank you Asha and GloryandHonor...ON POINT!!!!

    Just wait until the next part I do on this heretic, they'll really be jumping then. This fella is a straight cult leader and unworthy of a following of anyone that wants truth and wants to be saved. I did't know but he leaves plenty of evidence every time he opens his mouth. He can't help it...Error, error everywhere!!!

  40. Asha, what scripture gives an account of people being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.... what is the NAME?
    Acts 4 verses 10 and 12, states, “let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. ( the man referred to was a man healed after John and Peter prayed for him). Verse 12 says, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other NAME under heaven given among men by which we MUST be saved.” According to the scriptures every account of baptism the people were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ.
    There is not one scripture that uses the words, “trinity” or 3 persons, or 3 personalities, whichever term a person uses, those terms are NOT in the scriptures! Also, Pastor G Jennings is not the only pastor that preaches this and certainly not the first. This message has been preached for ages... In Acts 2:42 states, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine... read up before this scripture and it states in verse 38, Then Peter said to them, REPENT, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost!”
    Peter and the disciples were with Jesus Christ for 40 days AFTER he was resurrected according to Acts 1:3,”to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during FORTY days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD! The Holy Spirit is promised to them in the beginning of the book of Acts by Jesus Christ... so if they already had it why did He promise it again? And the disciples baptized in His name because they were taught so by Jesus Christ... in Acts 4:13, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”
    The apostles were taught directly by Jesus Christ, not in some pagan classroom...

    1. A hamed, as I would have already said if you read to understand and not to defend a man that is fallible, that the Apostle's condensed it into the Name of Jesus, because Jesus said "I and the Father are one" he also referred to himself as "I AM" which is the only way God really revealed himself in the old testament, but Our Lord Jesus himself said Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
      For men who walked with a man who showed them he was God, then of Course they would use the name they knew, they could not read to see Yahweh, they could not read to see Elohim(which is a plural noun btw) so Jesus was their only Scripture, their only account of the word of God; God himself spoke to them. They chose to use the name of Jesus, but they never forgot the Father or Holy Spirit. They could not read the scriptures as they were unlearned men, and they could not even write their own letters as they used scribes. Now nothing is wrong with using the Name of Jesus, he is God, but to omit the Father and Holy Spirit is not right! Hence the apostles would have mentioned glorifying God the Father through Jesus Christ the Lord. Philippians 2:11 "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" or Ephesians 1:17 "and asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in your knowledge of Him" or Colossians 3:17 "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." They showed us the Trinity (without using the word Trinity; which means Tri-un God, Three persons one God). Did you even read article under which you commented, did you even read the word of God that is clear? Rev 3:22 "let whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit tells them". Be Blessed loves, May the Grace of Jesus Christ the Lord, the love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2Cor. 13:14).

  41. Look, for anyone wanting further debate on Oneness and Trinitarianism, you can go HERE for that conversation or copy and paste this link:

    Otherwise we'll limit this to Jennings heresy, as he is a heretic by all standards and certainly a cult leader.

    1. I think that wouldn't even make sense, as they are not reading to understand, but rather repeating their preconceived notions and beliefs over and over. They are brainwashed and only the Holy Spirit can bring them out of their blind darkness. Pray for them.
      Blessings be upon us all.

  42. Are you people serious? Are you trying to dissect the words manifest, manifested, and manifestation? Yet you accept the word trinity without hesitation, you accept the phrase "three persons" which is not biblical. You accept the false terms "co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existing" which can never be found in the scriptures. The Word of God is true when it says, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7). This scriptures fits every Trinitarian who refuses to acknowledge God as One, and only One (NO trinity). God's Word says, "Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19). Notice that no trinity is mentioned in this scripture.

    The words manifest, manifested, or manifestation needs no explanation from anyone who is in error and bent on denying what the Word of God plainly speaks, and believe the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is God's proper mode of baptism. The wisdom of men is foolishness to God. You who insist on making God a trinity, are totally in error and blinded by the devil. All Trinitarians are an offspring of Catholicism seeing that all Protestant churches are considered the daughters of the Catholic Church.

  43. Donald,

    You said:Are you people serious? Are you trying to dissect the words manifest, manifested, and manifestation? Yet you accept the word trinity without hesitation, you accept the phrase "three persons" which is not biblical.

    NO, noone is balking over the word. We just know better than to use a verb as a noun! The definition of the word does not just just because you want it to. It has a meaning and that meaning is not as you or most oneness adherents use it.

    God has "revealed" or "shown" himself but we already know that. That does not say anything about the nature of or oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as you contend. Further, you can't get by the rules of linguistic interpretation namely the Grandville Sharp rule when we observe Matthew 28. In the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" does not imply different names or titles for one person. I have dealt with that adequately in this article:

    Now, all your retort is that these are "man made" rules etc. In other words you have NO RESPONSE to the sound arguments. Yes, there is a right way to interpret and a wrong way and no matter what you feel about your relationship to God, you can be in error. You are here, I believe because God is trying to draw you out of that error. And just like you, I believe that you are blinded by the devil himself to be in and promote the heretical and error filled teaching that you ONE of us can be right, but we both can't be...

    I believe that I have no only shown where I am being faithful to scripture, but to language, interpretation and intellectually honest. Not to mention you have not rendered ANY retort to Revelation chapters 4 and 5 or any of the more complex and nuanced arguments any of us have rendered. That is intellectual dishonesty in my opinion and I am sure that it can be seen by any reader.

    1. Harvey you're WRONG again. You're not faithful to scripture but rather blind to scripture with fleshly arrogance! I never associated the words manifest, manifested, or manifestation in any form, but to enlighten you to the point these are scriptures terms and to give you three scriptures where these words can be found and used properly in the scriptures. Never have I used the term incarnation if you notice. I don't use terms like you do just because they are popular. God didn't send me to this sight to learn anything about the trinity, only to be another witness of the truth of the oneness of God so that you and others will be without excuse when you face God and have to give an account for the false doctrine you are teaching.

      To give you an answer of the 4th and 5th chapter of Revelation would absolutely be no problem, but the arrogance that you have shown will not allow you to receive the truth of God's Word even if I show you. As the Word of God says. "...."they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (twist), as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). This is exactly what you and all trinitarians do, and that is wrest (twist) the scriptures unto your own destruction.

      It takes the Holy Ghost along with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to understand the Holy scriptures and especially the book of Revelation. I suppose you are seeking information of the Lord being on the throne, then there's the Lion of the tribe of Judah and also the Lamb that had been slain. Simply put these are three different manifestations of the One God (no trinity). Notice there is one throne, not thrones. The Lord Jesus is he who sits upon the throne (Revelation 4: 10-11), notice Revelation 22:1,3 it's called the throne of God and of the Lamb. Now again it said "throne" not "thrones," indicating one throne.

      Now notice closely, the bible says "the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof" (Revelation 5:5). Yet the Lion is not the one that open the book, notice it's the Lamb (Revelation 5:8-9) that is now deemed worthy to open the book and loose the seals. "And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals...." (Revelation 6:1). This same Lamb opened all seven seals, "And when he (the Lamb) had opened the seveth seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour" (Revelation 8:1).

    2. To continue with the explanation of the 4th and 5th chapter of Revelation, this would cause Trinitarians to see three different persons, but this is untrue. A oneness believer would automatically know that the Lord (Jesus) on the throne, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, and the Lamb that was slain are ONE AND THE SAME. The Lord Jesus sitting upon the throne (as God), yet also seen as the Lion of the tribe of Juda, and likewise the Lamb who opened the book and loosed the seals is proof of One God manifested in three different forms. The carnal person would say how can this be? The answer is, God is One and can manifest himself in any way he sees fit, but yet remain One!

      I don't like to reveal my spiritual plight, but having read the Bible 28 times from Genesis to Revelation (every book, chapter, and verse), having fasted and prayed weekly for 45 years, having taught and preached the Word of God for 39 years with the understanding of the oneness of God, having read the entire Koran, the entire Book of Mormon, and the apocrypha, I absolutely know false doctrine when I see or hear it. I'm completely satisfied with the understanding God has given me even though he's yet giving me more understanding daily. To also add, the many philosophers I've studied, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Soren Kierkegaard etc, having completed a 250 page dissertation, likewise being a published author. So to offer me false interpretation of the scriptures is an insult to my intelligence. Finally, I can say like David, "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119: 128). Maybe God is giving you an opportunity to reexamine your doctrine. Be blessed in Jesus name.

    3. You take on Revelation is about the most loony I have ever read. You contend that Jesus sits on the throne, take a book from himself and hails himself??? Can you possibly be serious that you believe the "spirit" led you to that?

      What spirit is that? It is NOT the spirit of is the spirit of ERROR!!!!

      Revelations 4 and 5 identify who is where. God is sitting on the throne...the bible says that the Lamb who proceeds from the midst of the throne TOOK the book from the hand of the one who SAT on the throne. You can sit and you can stand, but you can't do both at the same time.

      The case is CLEAR as possible. It is manifest as you revert back to the same old silly misuse of language claiming that it is a manifestation of God and really believe what you say means something or adds to the account...well it doesn't!!!

      Let me REQUOTE the scriptures:

      Rev. 4:8-11 ~ 8-And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. 9-And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10-The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11-Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


      Rev. 5:1-2 ~ 1-And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. 2-And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

      We all agree God is sitting upon the throne...But then look at this:

      Rev. 5:6-9 ~ 6-And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7-And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. 8-And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9-And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

      Now according to you he took the book from himself. He did a smoke and mirrors trick to make you think he was in one place and mysteriously appeared in another...

      One thing is for sure, this wasn't the "flesh" of Jesus. This was God himself. Heaven only worships GOd!!!!

      You reasoning is GARBAGE utterly and like I said the worst I have seen beside another that really lived in Praxaeanism by saying this was the flesh of Jesus while the spirit or God was on the throne...what a polytheistic mess!!!!

      So you pay no attention to the fact that he "took the book" stated twice, out of the "right hand" of him who sat on the throne??? WHAT A FARCE OF A BIBLE READER YOU ARE!!!!

      That is NOT Spirit, as in the Spirit of the Lord led...THAT is FLESH, arrogance, pride, and plain ole deceit...You handle the word of GOd incorrectly and will be condemned...PLEASE GET SAVED and leave the heretical understanding because yes, it will send people to hell!!!

    4. Harvey
      Let's take a look at who the bible declares to be the one that sits upon the throne. Likewise we will notice who the scriptures determines to be the Lion of the tribe of Juda. Then we will also determine from the scriptures who the Lamb is that was slain.

      Even though God can manifest himself in as many ways as he desires, our human minds cannot comprehend the fullness of God nor his ways.

      Again God said, "For my thoughts are not yours thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55: 8-9)

      The scriptures declare that the Lord sits upon the throne. "The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4: 10-11).

      Now in order to determine the name of who sits on the throne, the scriptures says, "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely" (Revelation 21: 5-6).

      We see the one who is called the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end sitting upon the throne. His name is Jesus according Revelation 1:5-8.

      The bible says , "Judah is a lion's whelp" (Genesis 49:9). Micah 5:2 lets us know that Jesus came from the tribe of Judah. In the book of Revelation 5:5 ""the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."(Revelation 5:5). All bible students should know that this is also Jesus Christ.

      Then there's the Lamb. " And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain......" (Revelation 5:6). Again all bible students should know this also is Jesus.

      We must not forget that God can function in a million places and a million ways at one time. So to put God on man's level and think it's ridiculous for Jesus to sit on the throne, yet be the Lamb in the midst of the throne which receives the book from him that sat on the throne is hard to comprehend, but yet the scriptures identifies every participant whether the Lion, the Lamb, or the Alpha and Omega who sits upon the throne are ONE AND THE SAME. To say otherwise will be a total denial of the scriptures.

      God doesn't require that we understand every mystery in his Word, but we must believe it regardless of whether we understand it or NOT.

      Where we err, is when we seek to confine God's ways and actions into a human box. So to believe that the Lord on the throne, the Lion who prevailed, or the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne and receives the book from him who sits on the throne is anyone else but Jesus in each instance is not being honest.

      It is absolute loony when you seek to identify the Alpha and Omega, the Lamb slain, or the Lion of the tribe of Juda as any one else but Jesus Christ.

      To teach otherwise is to teach false doctrine, but 45 years of bible study has taught me when anyone denies that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost they can never understand why they must repent and be baptized in that wonderful name of Jesus Christ.

      Jesus died for you, rose again for you, and is coming back for his people, but you reject his name. Down with the trinity and up with Jesus!

  44. Asha and Glory/Honor once again neither one of you quoted a scripture where anyone used "titles" to baptize. And Asha when the scripture says "unlearned men" it doesn't mean they couldn't read, as you stated. Also, remember Peter and John did write a few of the books in the NT. "Unlearned men" most likely means, that they were not of the Sadducees or Pharisees like Saul(Paul) had been before converting. Paul's teacher the scripture says was a man named Gamaliel(Acts 22:3). However, Paul and John were not theologians so to speak. Read the scriptures before commenting on them. Also, you keep mentioning Jennings, Donald and I are simply reading the scriptures I have never gone to Jennings' church and I have only heard of him just recently, but I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ many, many years ago.
    The disciples in the New Testament did have scriptures to read, they read what is called the "Old Testament". If you will recall, the Old Testament is quoted all the time throughout the New Testament. Remember the disciples were mostly Jews, which meant they would have grown up attending the synagogue.
    Also, Asha you should read Acts chapter 1 and Luke 24:47; in both of these areas of scripture Jesus is speaking to the disciples after he was risen! This is when he tells them to teach, preach, and baptize in the name of Jesus! The apostles didn't shorten anything as you stated. Even in Acts 4, Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas and all the rulers, scribes, and elders asked Peter and John "by what name have ye done this? Referring to them performing a miracle. Read Acts 4!

    As far as baptism in the name of Jesus: Paul was baptized by Ananias, who was "a devout man according to the Jews". The account is in Acts chapters 9 and 22. Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
    In Acts 8:12 Philip baptizes men and women after preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 8:15-16 in Samaria they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but had not received the Holy Ghost until Peter and John went and prayed and laid hands on them. In Acts 10, Cornelius and all that were with him were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. In Acts 16 the jailer and his household were baptized at night...In Acts 18 Justus and Crispus, chief ruler of the syngagoue in his area they and "all their house" were baptized. In Acts 19:1-6, Paul preached in Ephesus to disciples of John the baptist and they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. In Romans 6:3, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? As a believer in Jesus Christ, baptism signifies "a" dying with Christ and being buried with him, then resurrected(receiving the Holy Ghost) to live a new life with Him.

    Matthew 23:24, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    1. But Jesus said "Baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON and the HOLY GHOST". Asha has quoted this PASSAGE OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN!

    2. They quoted it as well, but they ignore it like all the other New testament scriptures we've quoted showing the Apostle's mentioning God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
      But of course they would, oneness believers have to ignore certain scriptures because they cannot explain it away.

    3. We don't bring up examples where anyone used "titles" because proper interpretation of "in the name" means “by the AUTHORITY of”. The whole ideal of Baptism is God's sacrament for the believer. He by HIS POWER and AUTHORITY, commissioned the believer to perform this act. We do IT BECAUSE HE CHARGED us to DO SO.

      I mean... even the some of the verses you use here are OUT OF CONTEXT. You quotes Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


      AND Acts 8:12 Philip baptizes men and women after preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.

      AGAIN Simple UNDERSTANDING.. the VERSE said Phillip baptized after “PREACHING the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” It DID NOT SAY He BAPTIZED in the NAME OF JESUS.

      In Acts 8:15-16 in Samaria they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but had not received the Holy Ghost until Peter and John went and prayed and laid hands on them.

      I’ll give you that ONE! AGAIN When SCRIPTURES states “in the name”, it means “by the AUTHORITY of”.

      And unlike YOU, I can render tons of SCRIPTURES this meaning (by the authority) is brought out…

      “For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.” Deu 18:5

      “And when David had made an end of offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD.” 1Ch 16:2

      “Then were the king's scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king's ring.” Est 3:12

      “They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.” Psa 118:11

      I CAN go ON and ON and ON…this phrase “in the name”.

  45. We cannot fill vessels that are already filled... This is pointless, you both ignore everything we say using biblical texts because of a word that you cannot comprehend from a humanistic and humanly logical perspective (Trinity). I pray that God through the Holy Spirit convicts your hearts and removes the ignorance there-in. Shalom.

  46. A hamed,

    You are one of the most biblically mislead and dogmatic heretics that I have seen in the nearly 10 years of doing this. You pay no attention to context and consistently quote mine and nearly ALL of the mined quotes are out of context and misapplied to fit your bias. In that though I can understand differences between baptism and the nature of GOd. Those differences are common, however, your is the worst type of extremism. It is a literal extremism that takes quotes without any context and simply runs with it all while condemning others. Well, YOU are to be condemned or your misuse and misapplication of scripture that you claim you are "just reading"...No you are not just reading, you are attempting to make the bible say what you believe. That is extremism.

    You started off by trying to convince Asha that her experience was wrong with a man who had followed your unbiblical ramblings into the wrong spirit that it is...well God did not lead you to a system of belief. Neither did the Apostles DID NOT teach or or believe what you contend. Baptism is not the issue in its entirety. Noone rejects that on its face. What we reject and what the bible rejects is that baptism or anything else for that matter, has saving power. Doesn't matter what the phrase is, and that's another issues, that is said over the pool. Salvation is NOT in the water, it is only in the blood of Jesus.

    There is a song sang in heaven. That song is like this:

    Rev. 5:9 ~ 9-And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

    We haven't been redeemed by a pool or a magic phrase. We have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb at the cross!!!!

    The heretical ramblings that you promote were rejected in every age under whatever name it was presented. Your belief was a late second century HERESY...NOT a biblical doctrine and or teaching!!! It showed up, like error often does, under many different names promoted by many different teachers who all ran into the same error, most of whom recanted and said that they were wrong. Others were done like the bible said to do, put out of the church for false belief and error filled doctrine so that they could not continue to deceive.

    Sorry, I know that may hurt, but your allegiance is not to a false doctrine, it is to God and the fidelity of scripture. It was HIM that saved you (if you are saved) and not the waters of a baptismal pool no matter how well intending you may be in doing so.

    Now we have already dealt with and REFUTED nearly each and every one of your arguments. Being "baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord" is an expression not a method of salvation. Baptism does not mean go to a pool every time we see it as you contend. We have already established that. When we are baptized in Christ when we believe and trust him for salvation and surrender our lives to him. Not when we go to a pool of water. The water we are saved by is his WORD, not H2O...

    So what you need to do at this point is first consider, that all the witness for 2000 years just may be right and what you believe is a fringe element rejected because it is a false belief and secondly push on because you are not convincing anyone with the same repetitive arguments and out of context scripture mining.

    So thanks, but you are through at least in this thread.

  47. Large numbers do not make anything true.... in Noah’s day 8 were saved!!!! I don’t have to convince anyone on this thread of anything... It is quite obvious Asha has not read the scriptures she commented on.... And you should get out of the commentary books and get back in the “BOOK”

  48. And Asha you are ignoring that the apostles were with Jesus Christ after he had risen from the grave and the scriptures says he taught for 40 days about things pertaining to the kingdom of God.... did you read the last chapter of Luke and first chapter of Acts obviously NOT...

  49. A hamed You are so judgmental to assume I have not read my Bible, but I have, and all the scriptures I have sent you, you have not addressed them in your arguments. You have both (including Mr Hall) ignored me, except to attack my integrity on one point "Me believing in the Trinitarian Baptism".
    I have read the last chapters of Acts and Luke. Luke was just about Jesus' Resurrection and the few conversations he had when he appeared to the Apostles, Luke wasn't very detailed in the time he stayed with them or to speak on where he went in detail except to say "He was taken to heaven" (final verse). However this Chapter did show us that the three person God exists Luke 24: 49 Jesus said "And that is why I will send you what my father promised. So remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on High". Clearly, he and his Father are separate, and the Power from on High promised was the Holy Spirit the advocate mentioned in John 14:16 "and I will ask my Father, and he will send you another advocate to be with you...". Acts however, the final chapter was about Paul's time in Rome and trying to convince the Jews of the Kingdom of God and preaching to them about Jesus Christ. Whats amazing about you bringing up these scriptures is the fact that you bring them up and when I explain them or respond to them, you bring something else and do not address what I say. To address the unlearned men statement I used earlier; Hebrew children must learn the Pentateuch (1st 5 books of the Torah we call the old testament), so the apostles would have had some level of literacy, but I agree they did not have access to the scriptures as the Scribes and Pharisee and Sadducee would have, hence that fact that I drew reference to them not using the word Yahweh or Elohim to describe the Godhead, but rather the name with which they were familiar and in direct association; JESUS.
    I understand the Scriptures that I read, that's why I can respond to you, Oneness doctrine is false and limiting of God and the word of God that explains him. I can use spot on scriptures, not regurgitate the words of men and misuse scriptures out of context to purport a false doctrine. So maybe you should read your bible.

  50. That's the name of their game Asha, they do what is called obfuscate. They reinterpret the texts as well.

    I've know and have Apostolic friends and family. Folk who really believe what they teach. But these are extra radical folk...Look at it. At least Donald has argued that one being baptized without the specific formula being said, is not saved. Then they contend that all humanity, whoever that believes in the Trinity anyway, are in sin and devils. So in essence no body is saved except for people who believe like them and teach what they teach. Then they contend that it is a pool of baptism that saves, as opposed to the cross of Christ.

    All of those individuals may be considered flaws in understanding, etc...but put them all together and you have what is called Christian CULT belief!!!!

    When salvation is exclusive, can only be gained by doing things as outlined and overseen by them, and is void of the atoning work of Christ on the cross and is a perfunctory work of man...THAT IS A CULT!!!

    I have no problem with Apostolic folk other than debating over the issues of the trinity, the nature of GOd and mode of baptism, but when you go the extra step of extremism like these, claiming that nobody is saved but them and folk like them, you are dealing with a radical cult that will destroy the lives of anyone who gets in their path.

    See, I don't stand up and call Apostolic folk unsaved because they're in error. Neither do I beat them over the head because of varying understandings. However, I and we, don't receive the same courtesy. When we hold to the bible and what it teaches and admit that 3 persons IN One God can only be apprehended, they claim a superior knowledge as if they just stepped out of God's pocket...They are CLUELESS!!!!

    So obfuscate they will, but they won;t have any definitive word here...We stand for the TRUTH and that IN CHRIST!!!

  51. “Judgmental” such an over used buzz word... You wrote all of that to say nothing... You are not being ignored; you wrote assumptions.
    you wrote, “the apostles just shortened what Jesus Christ told them to say during baptism”.... If, that were the case that would have been against the Word of God... According to your logic then anything is up for grabs... What else did they change? .... Trinitarians use a word that is not even BIBLICAL!!!! Trinity not in the scriptures... pagan...

    1. I say it better, uniformed and spiritually deceived...Now, as I have stated before, but you persist in confusion, INCARNATION is NOT in the bible either...Now is that pagan??? I DARE you to make a biblical case and argue against it!

      Everyone knows the word is applied to what is described!!! Interestingly, Oneness IS NOT in the bible either...where is the chapter and verse? (As you foolishly say) Everyone knows that words describe what is taught. Throughout scripture the Trinity is taught. The word is descriptive, no matter who else used it, that doesn't make it untrue of describing what the bible teaches.

      Now the bible uses Greek God myth names to communicate hell too. Tataroo, and Hades. The living abode of Hades was Sheol. Now, since names are so pagan, were the translators wrong here? And if so, how and why could you preach hell???

      Your assertions are ridiculous!!!!

    2. Well Said Rev...

      BOTTON LINE, when the APOSTLES baptized in the NAME of JESUS, they BAPTIZED by the AUTHORITY given by to them BY JESUS. And when the LORD commissioned they BAPTIZE in the name of the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST, all THREE making up the ONE GOD, authorize this CHARGE because THEY ARE EQUAL IN ESSENCE.

      It's REALLY STRANGE Oneness would use a FORMULA, and cater to DOCTRINE other than the TRINITY using of all things "BAPTISM" to support their beliefs.


    3. (Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Jesus said it himself, it was the Apostles that condensed it into "In the name of Jesus Christ", as they associated Jesus with God and God being Jesus (which is correct). But if you desire to follow Christ and not just the people who speak of him, then do as he says, "in the Name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit", imagine, Jesus shows us the Tri-un God and you choose to ignore that and everything else said to you using scriptural account so as to continue purporting an empty faithless belief. Seek God in spirit and truth.) This is what I said...

      I never said “the apostles just shortened what Jesus Christ told them to say during baptism” Even though condensed means shortened, you omitted that I said they associated Jesus with being God himself. I will now add that this would therefore be the basis under which they used His Name in authority as the scriptures show they purported. I also said Follow what Christ himself said in Matt 28:19 as opposed to what his apostles said; simply because you take everything you read so literally, that you ignore grammar and context of speech. You should therefore not continue to ignore the words of Jesus in your defense of Him, or are you only defending a belief you created out of your own understanding?

      Now: Acts 2:38 "Each of you must repent and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ" is the same context as "And whatever you do or say, do it in the Name of Jesus, the Lord, giving thanks to God, the Father, through him." -Colosians 3:17. Pay attention to the last part of that verse as well... Authority in the name of Jesus as GloryandHonor would have explained in full before, Giving thanks to God the Father through him, because we cannot come to the Father except through Jesus - John 14:6... Jesus has repeatedly shown us the distinctions of the Godhead, by referring to himself as the Son of Man and referring to God the Father and using the phrase advocated or companion in describing the Holy Spirit; though they are one as he keeps saying They are ONE.

      Be very careful not to dissect the word so much that you lose the essence of it. Be blessed love.

    4. AMEN Asha...

      AMAZING the ACTS of the HOLY SPIRIT in the EARLY CHURCH...And how the Spirit of God operated to GLORIFY the SON, even as CHRIST said He WOU:D.

      "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. HE SHALL GLORIFY ME: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (Sounds like we are TALKING of TWO persons HERE!)

      The WORKS HE accomplished through CHRIST's very OWN APOSTLES to baptize in the "Name Of JESUS" - that same Jesus... who the JEWS denied as the MESSIAH. IT's only RIGHT, these stiff-necked people identify with the NAME "JESUS" as a public expression of their FAITH as their ONLY TRUE MESSIAH and SAVIOR!

      That once they believed, they would be reminded by this AWESOME sacrament called "BAPTISM" authorized by GOD HIMSELF -

      "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

      For anyone to miss the idea of a TRINITY and BAPTISM is SIMPLY BLIND!

    5. Also... Look at verse 41 "So, those who accepted his message were baptized; some three thousand persons were added to their number that day."... Notice, it did not say "were baptized in the Name of Jesus that day." but rather because they accepted the message of Jesus from the apostle Peter - who under the authority of Jesus was able to convince the populace-then they were baptized. How were they baptized? As Jesus commanded them to Baptize. In the Name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. One God forever and ever. Amen.

  52. I agree with you. The thief on the right hand of our Lord was not baptized. He's in paradise.

    1. Absolutely, now most people will teach that the church began in Acts 2. However, that is too late. The church began when Jesus said, "It is finished" and died on the cross! The church age began at that moment.

      The thief expressed faith in a living Jesus that died prior to him. Obviously he understood that Jesus kingdom was not of this world and asked for entry. He went from a mocker to a believer while on the cross. (Mt. 27:44; Lk. 23:40-43) He identified with Christ before the world in his death. He was baptized in Jesus at that point. A pool wasn't necessary, because the power to save is not is in Jesus himself alone!!!!

      Paradise was moved as Jesus led all from the bosom of Abraham to the presence of God. So to be with Jesus is paradise, but wherever he is, that's where the former thief is and where we shall be also!!!

  53. I have not used the word oneness... they already had stated baptism in Jesus Christ in verse 2:38 Asha

    1. Now YOU are being DISHONEST. Asha did quote the verse not so much to be in agreement with YOU.

      She highlighted however, Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

      You conveniently neglected her mention of that verse.


    2. Now you are being DISHONEST. Asha didn't mention ACTS 2:38 to agree with you. You conveniently neglected to mention she referenced Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." as well. She made it clear the distinction between these

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. GloryandHonor, he has no more argument left in him. There is nothing more for him to say, the Truth is the truth and cannot be refuted. A hamed, I pray for your conversion to the truth, I pray that God convicts your heart. There is no defeat to be felt in being shown and open to the Truth of Almighty God. May the Grace of Jesus Christ the Lord, the love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you, I love you!

  54. But your standard is still garbage...the word INCARNATION is not in the bible YET, John 1:14 teaches just the standard IS NOT that a word is unbiblical because it can't be found it the text...That idea and standard is proven to be in error and is not what any bible student should consider as some type of standard of judging truth.

    1. He Rev...

      It's not that they cant believe, BUT RATHER they choose NOT TO BELIEVE!!!

  55. YUP...The Lord commissioned his disciples to baptize the the name (by the authority given them) of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. It is an outright lie to say the name of the FATHER SON and HOLY GHOST is "JESUS".

  56. GH dishonest!!! Asha, asked where in verse Acts 2:41 where did they say in the name of Jesus Christ they said in Acts 2:38, three verses above it...

  57. I did not ask that, I asked "How were they baptized?" as a rhetorical question... Be careful, we've had you misinterpret me before.

  58. We all have to be careful... according to Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

  59. Right Asha. Now this fellow wants to pull a Bible verse about "working out your soul SALVATION" after you warn to be careful. HOW CHILDISH!.

  60. Glory, a seed has been planted. Let us pray that conversion to the truth is near, according to the perfect will of God. Amen. Have a blessed and productive weekend.

  61. The scriptures are never childish... I quoted that scripture because it is very obvious you believe what you believe and the same goes for me... I believe your understanding is heresy and you obviously believe the same of me, henceforth, everybody on this thread has to work out their own salvation! And seek God!!! Nothing childish about that!!! That scripture is the truth and there is no other way to take it except for what it says....

  62. See this is EXACTLY what I mean. I never SAID THE SCRIPTURES were CHILDISH. And anyone with the slightest COMPRENSHION skill would note what YOU said was CHILDISH.

    - YOU said “Asha, asked where in verse Acts 2:41 where did they say in the name of Jesus Christ they said in Acts 2:38, three verses above it”

    - Asha then replied “I did not ask that, I asked "How were they baptized?" as a rhetorical question... Be careful, we've had you misinterpret me before.”

    And YOU so bent on using SCRIPTURES in YOUR superfluous way responded “We all have to be careful... according to Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The WORD of God is not "childish" (whatever that means), BUT your actions SURELY ARE!

    And the BAD thing about it is. this is EXACTLY the way you handle SCRIPTURES. YOU hop around like the EASTER Bunny, missing the main point.

    Peter said baptize in the “name of JESUS”, meaning upon HIS AUTHORITY do so. What a GREAT way these new JEWSISH converts to identify with the SAVIOR who was CRUCIFIED by their OWN. The LORD Himself said BAPTIZE in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. I referenced several places in SCRIPTURES where “in the name” means by the AUTHORITY of. You are bent to believe the name of the FATHER SON and HOLY GHOST is “JESUS” and there is NO WHERE in SCRIPTURES, this can be proven as TRUTH!

  63. Please quit commenting for some one else... What’s childish is to post a comment then when someone challenges it; go back and delete the post then try to defend a deleted post, really?!!

    1. Not commenting for anyone. I only commented on what I read, as This is a blog. I never deleted any post as you inferred. Simply not true.


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.