Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Modalistic Monarchianism & The Praxaen Heresey

I don't want to get overly theological and or technical, as I do not consider myself the one to lead into indepth or comprehensive theological discourse, but I have noticed that in debate and conversation with most believers who oppose trinitarianism in favor of Sabellianism or what is otherwise known as modalism or oneness teachings, there is often a caveat or an idea that emerges that can be rather disturbing. The thought is summarized in the following statement:

"Jesus is the Son of God according to the flesh and the very God Himself according to the Spirit"

This is a statement that can be found on many Apostolic church web sites and within statements of faith. It  is often thought to be a purely oneness statement. But in reality it is a belief system taught by an excommunicated late second century early third century priest named Praxeas and is the root of a heretical teaching that could be called Praxeanism. 

To draw a distinction, I must lay a little ground here.

Modalism 
First, modalism, often referred to as monarchianism and Sabellianism (after a priest named Sabellius who taught the idea) is a Christiological theory that God has revealed himself to man in 3 manifestations, roles or modes as opposed to 3 persons with mind, will, intellect and awareness of one another. Under modalistic belief, the Son has no personal independence or subsistence. A modalist contends that there is only one God and he is revealed as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Oneness Pentecostals further contend that the name of that one God, that is common to all three modes, is the name Jesus. Therefore Jesus is not only God, but ontologically the Father and the Holy Ghost and each mode is summarized by the name Jesus, thus "Jesus only" is often an appellation applied to those who hold this belief.

Praxeanism 
The teaching that Jesus is forever and always the God/Man or theantropist, describes what is called the hypostatic union of Christ. Praxeanism essentially denies the unalterable hypostatic union of Jesus's nature as both 100% man and 100% God. Praxeanism in its endeavor to emphasize the oneness of God in his being, actually dissolves the hypostasis of Jesus as God, by contending that  the "flesh" (or physical body) of Jesus is human only, while his Spirit, is God only, therefore creating two distinct beings within one, as opposed to one complete inseparable being known as Jesus. 

Church apologist Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) who lived roughly at the same time as Praxeus and Sabellius, noted the following in his defense of the faith regarding Praxean teaching:
"For, confuted on all sides on the distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without destroying their inseparable union... they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather than uniting them."
Further, phrases of Jesus such as "nevertheless, not my will but thy will be done" (Lk. 22:42; Matthew 26:36-46Mark 14:32-42) under Praxean interpretation,  could be seen as the man Jesus, surrendering his will to Christ (aka: God), as there would have been a distinction between the two.   

Now, at first glace some of this may make sense, as we know that God cannot die, neither can his spirit or any spirit bleed. However, Jesus as God, took upon himself the limitations of humanity (John 1:14) and lived, suffered and died to redeem us from our sins. It was not the corpuscles of his blood that saved us, but it was the act of Jesus, pouring out his passion and love for us as God that actually redeems us. That is what is inferred when we speak of being redeemed by his blood.  

Of A Certainty This Is A Great Mystery
Paul told Timothy that this whole and complete story of the nature of Jesus is without any argument, a topic and subject full of great "mystery":

1 Tim. 3:16 ~ 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.

Immediately the focus of most oneness adherents when looking at this verse, is the word "manifest".  But that is not the point of the scripture or the emphasis of the verse. The emphasis is the how, why and method of God in doing what he did through and by Jesus in redeeming us. What Paul is saying that everyone agrees that it is a great mystery. The thought of God's method of redemption is "without controversy" a mysterious event and fact.  

Back to the point of the article:

At no point and time was Jesus not God, even as a baby or even on the cross. A God/man union was born at Jesus birth. Mary did not birth a "God essence" (whatever that ridiculous teaching could possibly mean) From birth Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In addition, God never departed from Jesus, although at times he hid himself behind the veil of flesh. He was 100% human but he was also 100% divine his whole and complete life. To believe to the contrary, is to construct a Jesus that is not taught within the scriptures. 

God In Salvation 
The fact is that if he were just a man, and if the nature of his deity could depart from him on the cross then, (as I would contend) his death as a man only would not be sufficient to redeem us from our sins, but as a mere man his death, as righteous as it may have been, could not take away our sins. The remission of sins is an act that only God can perform. 

Ephes. 1:7 ~ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Also Col. 1:14) 

I know, the critic here may assert that the scripture says that "whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted" (John 20:23) but the whole and complete issue is that without the shedding of the blood of Jesus on the cross, and faith in HIS works noone has the power to remit anything. Nobody can be saved without the atoning work of Christ on the cross, so the scripture is indicating whosoever(s) sins are remitted through that process of us bringing the souls to Christ through the cross, those sins are the only sins that can be remitted indeed. 

I keep getting distracted...back to the point 
The Revelation Reality
In addition, since according to Revelation 4 and 5 that all heaven worships both the one who "sits on the throne" and the "lamb" who took away the sins of the world, we can only be reminded that it is only God, not men nor angels, that is worshiped in heaven and in earth. 

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.

And

Rev. 5:11-14 ~ 11-And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;12-Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 13-And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14-And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshiped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Only GOD is worshiped especially in heaven. There would be no flesh that would be worshiped in heaven unless that flesh is in a glorified state or condition and is God.

Arianism In The Mix

Arianism, which was a rejected doctrine during the same era of time, survived the Council of Nicea in 325AD and was rehashed by demons and adopted in more modern times by what would become known as Jehovah's Witness cult and its founder Charles Taze Russell. This antibiblical and anti-Christian belief contends that Jesus is not God as in the same substance but a lesser god, one who created according to the instructions of God, but one that is also a created being himself, not co-existent and certainly not co-equal with God. However, Jesus was commissioned to do the work of saving the word. 

It would seem that there are some elements of Praxeanism in Arianism or vice-versa and most certainly in modalism or oneness theology as it is taught in most modern circles. If Jesus was a created being, or if Jesus could be separated or divided into a human part and a spiritual part, he would certainly not be God.  Neither could he become God, except in the minds of people who believed in him, but his spirit would have been and must have been "empowered" in some manner to endure saving the world. Either way, all these teachings whether independent of one another or together are contrary to how scripture presents Jesus and are not biblical. 
 
I will end this in as abrupt fashion as John when he spoke in 1 John 4:6:

"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
 
These heresies have existed for thousands of years and as we can see, through the years and in every generation these teachings faced the truth of scripture and were put down. They are attempts to comprehend and incomprehensible God, we know that, however, we do not have to contrive or create God to suit our understanding. If he is God, of a certainty he is also incomprehensible and beyond our understandings.

I certainly don;t accept the word of God especially as it pertains to the nature of God because I fully understand it. I accept it because this is what God says about himself and how he has used scripture to describe himself and I submit to HIS understanding of those facts not my rationalizations.

I invite all of my oneness friends to follow that path and to lay down the effort of reinventing or recreating God to suit, but simply follow the scriptures where they lead in the sense that they lead. It is much more easy to believe the truth, rather than contort a lie. That Jesus is God is not the question or issue. But that he is God eternally and of the same substance of the Father forever inseparable as 100% God and 100% man is  the difference maker, and the God that the early church was willing to lay down their lives for...That's the ONE I serve!!!!

Blessed!

57 comments:

  1. And remember in this thread...first deal with the issues raised in the article and if you make an argument and someone makes a counter, deal FIRST with their argument. Restating the same thing over and over is not welcome and is not in the best interest of learning and I am the ONLY one who can rant, because it is my thread...but certainly alternate viewpoints are welcomed...

    And yes, I am the only one who can badger a witness...and believe me, I will!!! (always in love though!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. District Supt. it's good that you have opened a thread which deals with these important subjects. Let me first deal with the fact that a true oneness believer accepts only the Word of God as the final authority on all scripture matters.

    Being familiar with and having studied religious philosophy and its different branches of epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics and the many different philosophers who have had a huge influence on what is taught in the different churches today. We who are determined to follow the Word of God must renounce any and all man made philosophies and religions.

    Modalism, Sabellianism, Praxeanism, or such creeds as the Apostle Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, Athanasian Creed, or Westminster Confession. None of the fleshly wisdom of men impress me. Many of the so-called religious leaders such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo,John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Marcus Aurelius, and many, many more I could name and explain their doctrinal beliefs, means absolutely nothing to me when comparing the Word of God to the doctrine of men.

    That said, the bible view of Jesus Christ has been diluted and changed by the doctrine and fleshly wisdom of men. The scriptures absolutely and without a shadow of doubt teach that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Almighty God himself. Jesus himself said, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1: 8).

    When we teach and preach that God never addressed himself as three persons, but only as one, we stand strictly upon the scriptures which declare, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me" (Isaiah 45:5). Again, "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." (Isaiah 45: 12).

    Now this is one scripture which the Trinitarians will run to in order to justify three persons in One God, "And God said, let US make man in our image, after our likeness......(Genesis 1:26). Now the very next verse clears this up by saying,"So God created man in HIS own image in the image of God created HE him; male and female created HE them." (Genesis 1: 27). Another scripture which most people are unfamiliar with says, "I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me." (Jeremiah 27: 5). Note: The singular form of the word "I" and not "US". God always works all things after the counsel of his own will (Ephesians 1:11). This is why the word "US" is often used, but never indicates three persons.

    Another scripture which is used by the Trinitarians to prove three persons in One God says, "And Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3: 16-17). The fact that God was giving John the Baptist a sign is verified in the scripture, "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." (John 1:33).

    With absolutely no prophet of the Old Testament, and no apostle or prophet of the New Testament EVER using the term three persons to identify God, this speaks for itself that this is a man made doctrine and not verified by the scripture writers.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald you said:Modalism, Sabellianism, Praxeanism, or such creeds as the Apostle Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, Athanasian Creed, or Westminster Confession. None of the fleshly wisdom of men impress me.

      Everyone, but everyone thinks that their belief is directly inspired at the throne of heaven. The fact is however, you are arguing modalism, Sabellianism and Praxaenism in your oneness theology, all of which ideas were REJECTED in late second and early third century by appeal to BIBLICAL authority. The first council of leadership that we see in the bible is in the book of Acts chapter 15. There were religious centered issues that needed to be discussed. Prior to that, in Acts 1, there was coming together to decide who would take Judas's apostleship. That was done by lot.

      So I believe it is not a sign of humility to reject gathers of spiritual leaders as they seek to discuss, discover and uncover biblical truths. It is disingenuous to not be "impressed" and revert ones self to an enclosed and small world of "ME against the world" type of theology. That is not Christianity nor a good expression of the Christian faith. We are commended to study the scriptures daily, but never commended to do this in isolation and or to be exalted above others. So I reject the argument of reductionism (as I see it) against any and all who seek the Lord either through councils, gatherings or independent study outside of study that you approve of. Your's is more akin to arrogance and pride, rather than Christ centered humility. I don't know you. but I am sure you are a great person, but please, check your polemic in this.

      Delete
    2. Donald,

      Now, I know you were cut off, but please finish...You've outlined scriptures that you have said that trinitarians use to prove the trinity. I believe that is a flawed argument to begin with. I'll tell you why...

      After 35 years or so of examining scripture, I have seen people use a text here and there to prove just about anything they want to prove and or argue. I don't believe that "quote mining" is the best reading or interpretation of scripture. This is where the critic often bashes the word as you know. They look at a scripture here or there and make or draw a whole conclusion or an absolute moral value when many of them don't believe in absolute moral values. They only quote to bolster their belief.

      I believe the story of any doctrine is found in the fullness of the account. From Genesis on the story of the trinity is taught in various ways and methods and revealed progressively throughout the narrative. EVERY Trinitiarian, of which I am aware, firmly believes in only one God and all the scriptures you quote. However, we see theophanies, Christophanies, and various others things, including the "servant of the Lord" or as the KJV states the "angel of the Lord" appearing to Moses in Ex. 3:2...

      The entire story, when examined, sets forth doctrine or teaching. The scripture says that ALL scripture is inspired and profitable and is to be used for doctrine or teaching. (2 Tim. 3:16) Did it not?

      So there is not just one scripture that nails down trinity, or another word you won't find, but won't argue, and that is incarnation or any number of doctrines and or teachings that are derived from scripture that have no specific name or outline within scripture. In addition, Jews DID NOT speak Victorian or King James English...many of the expressions we quote have nothing to do with what was actually written. Some of the "Thee"(s), "and "thou"(s) are not in the original text in the way that King James English was spoken.

      So just be real...we don't use one or even a handfull of scriptures to establish doctrine. The BIBLE establishes doctrine by what it teaches. This is what we certainly reject your previous assertions regarding Nicea. The Council in 325 AD was not Dan Brown's council. It was a council of leaders, leading the people of God seeking to set forth in a modern expression what God taught from scripture on HOW Jesus was deity and how his relationship to the Father could be adequately expressed.

      At the end of the day, though some wanted Arianism to exist, scriptures DID NOT support it as the bible taught that Jesus was of the "same substance" of the Father not in "like substance" of the Father. That he was God FROM God. Why? Because when we read a full testimony of Jesus we see that he came with a mind, will, that he voluntarily subjected, and an intellect, and showed compassion. He wasn't a man's body and God's spirit, HE, JESUS was FULLY and AT ALL TIMES 100% God and 100% man even from birth...

      Those were not doctrines comprised of men, THAT is what the testimonies taught and what people gave their lives for! That's why it's offensive to have people change the story and "pretend" that those teachings did not exist clearly before Nicea...they did!!!!

      So that's why this is important, because in your zeal to be faithful to scripture, you fall in error, creating another Jesus who the church DID NOT teach. Paul Said that you were anathema for doing even that. The early church did exactly what the scripture taught, they kicked out the modalists, sabellianists, and praxaenists and many others because their teachings were not faithful to scripture. That's what makes this so important.

      Delete
    3. District Supt. again as I said before, I had to delete more information than I initially wrote. Nevertheless I now understand how to complete my statements through writing more than one post back to back.

      Most Trinitarians seek to align Oneness with Modalism, Sabellianism, Monarchianism, or other doctrinal beliefs in order to label us as heretics. When the truth is, those who are sincere and honest, adhere only to the written Word of God and not man made creeds.

      I also like you have studied the Word of God astutely for 45 years. Therefore I'm no novice in the scriptures and the doctrines of men. The Word of God says, "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Ephesians 4:14).

      As you know, God has revealed himself through manifold manifestations and has always declared himself to be One. The scriptures declare plainly that God is One which I think we both agree. You do know that our difference comes from the view that Trinitarians insist on making God three distinct persons. When no scripture in the bible ever points toward such a theory. Man has invented this false belief because of the different manifestations God has chosen to use.

      The Word of God clearly states that, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). The Holy Ghost is not another Spirit, but the same Spirit of God. The scripture verifies this by saying, "There is one body, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;" (Ephesians 4:4).

      A clear example of the Holy Ghost and God being one and the same is revealed in the 5th chapter of Acts. The scripture says, "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the HOLY GHOST" (the very next verse says).........."thou hast not lied unto men but unto GOD" (Acts 5:3-4). Note the HOLY GHOST and GOD are considered the SAME SPIRIT! Not two different persons of God.

      I know you and others as yourself think we are arrogant because we don't accept man made creeds, and man made councils. We likewise think Trinitarians are arrogant and full of Pride because they accept doctrinal views outside of the written scriptures.

      Delete
    4. I must disagree with you that I fall in error because I stand firm to the scriptures. God's Word says,"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

      The same men who held different councils beyond the days of the first century apostles, such men as you accept and take heed to their doctrines, many would turn around and kill others who would not receive the message of the Trinity or being baptized in the name (titles) Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Please be honest and admit this fact!

      Multitude of people have died at the hands of the so-called church because of the unrighteous zeal of the creeds and council followers.

      Yes some trinity doctrines existed before Nicea, but my point is 325 AD brought about the adoption and ratification of the Trinity. Once the Trinity was adopted and ratified many people died at the hands of Trinitarians. Do you not realize that you associate yourself with men who were considered as religious and murderers at the same time.

      Is this what you choose to unite with in doctrine. I'm a firm believer if the law would allow it, there would yet be religious killings by Trinitarians today.

      Again as I've pointed out in another thread, When people were healed, the name of Jesus Christ was used (Acts 3:6). When the spirit of divination was cast out, the name of Jesus Christ was used (Acts 16:18). When God through Peter healed AEneas the name of Jesus Christ was used (Acts 9:34). Now when it comes to the greatest deliverance a man can receive which is the deliverance from sin, the Trinitarians declare that the name of Jesus Christ is not necessary to be called or pronounced over a convert while being baptized, this is a farce that Trinitarians need to repent of. Would it make any sense to actually use and pronounce the name of Jesus Christ in all other healing matters and delivernaces, but renounced the name of Jesus Christ during water baptism.

      Being learned in history, you absolutely must know that the baptism formula was changed by the Catholic church many centuries ago from the name of Jesus Christ to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.This information can be found through normal research. The Protestant Reformation continued the same false baptism through pouring water, sprinkling water, and some immersed their converts using the false baptism in the name (titles) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

      It takes a humble heart to admit the errors of the Trinitarians and accept that God is one without adding in "three persons."

      The Word of God will stand without adding or taking anything away.

      Delete
    5. Donald,

      You said: "Most Trinitarians seek to align Oneness with Modalism, Sabellianism, Monarchianism, or other doctrinal beliefs in order to label us as heretics."

      NO, most people don't seek to align oneness with these heresies, oneness aligns itself with these false doctrines when one proponents explain their belief. Those beliefs are heretical and most, if not all oneness adherents appeal to those beliefs whether knowingly or not. So it's like which came first, the chicken or the egg?

      So be clear, oneness doctrine isn't a heresy because people seek to align it with erroneous dogma. It simply is a regurgitation of that erroneous dogma.

      You said:"As you know, God has revealed himself through manifold manifestations and has always declared himself to be One."

      That is no new news to Trinitarian or biblical believers. We AFFIRM that God is ONE and that there is only ONE GOD!

      You said:"You do know that our difference comes from the view that Trinitarians insist on making God three distinct persons. When no scripture in the bible ever points toward such a theory. Man has invented this false belief because of the different manifestations God has chosen to use."

      Now, what is a person and how is a person defined? Not by body parts etc...but by mind, will, intellect, awareness and subject object distinctions.

      We see EACH of these things as it pertains to God and his relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit. We see the Father who has a will. We see Jesus, who has a will. We see the Holy Ghost who has a mind, can be lied to, and can be grieved (has emotion)...All of these things we see with the Father and with the Son, independently of one another. We see subject object distinctions...the Father SENDS Jesus, Jesus prays TO the Father, Jesus SENDS the Holy Spirit, he also says that the Father SENDS the Holy Spirit. We see submission...Jesus says, "nevertheless, not MY WILL, but THY WILL be done"...only persons have wills and only a person can subject his will to another...

      The scripture is replete with instances like this. Jesus tells Peter "flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you you but my Father which is in heaven" (Mt. 16:17) Here Jesus not only says that the Father has spoken to Peter independently, but that he has a spacial location which is "in heaven" this is spacial awareness. As you stated in Acts Peter asks "why have you lied to the Holy Ghost?"v3 and then goes on to say that the Holy Ghost is God, not just a mist or mystical presence or ether...HE is God as well!

      These things and more constitute a person. A "manifestation" as I stated earlier is a tautology and an incorrect use of language. The word "manifestation" is a verb, not a noun and is an incorrect description of God. It is stating what God did, not who he was and or is.

      Delete
    6. Further you said: "Multitude of people have died at the hands of the so-called church because of the unrighteous zeal of the creeds and council followers."

      The martyrs I am referring to died believing in a trinitarianism long before 325 AD. You know what I was saying. These are the men and women upon whom the church was built because they held on to and taught a biblical faith. I am not talking about second century heretics. Has nothing to do with my conversation. I am talking about first and early second century believers. These were they we find as early as Stephen who looked up and what did he see??? JESUS standing at THE RIGHT HAND of the Father!!! In fact allow me to quote EXACTLY what was said in the text:

      Acts 7:55-56 ~ "55-But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56-And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

      Those are the biblical martyrs who even in death recognized an ontological distinction between God the Father and JESUS the Lamb of God. That is TOTALLY consistent with Revelation 4 and 5 which no oneness or Jesus only adherent addresses. In fact you like others avoid it like the plague!!!

      Now so far as the rest, I believe it was Ewert that taught that when the "name of Jesus" is invoked in the church GOd moves...That is the initial and only reason that you use the name so intently, because you have reduced it to a mantra...it is a charm for most oneness churches that they feel if they chant it enough God moves...

      There are NO MANTRAS in Christ. God moves if his name can't be uttered by a mute or heard by the deaf. The early church did not use the name of Jesus as some kind of charm to make folk feel the power...They were moved IN HIS AUTHORITY which is all the phrase means...It was NOT meant to be recited like some good luck phrase or magical phrase.

      That if anything is MAN at work...That's is what we have the tetragrammation of the name of God in the OT now...because men worship anything including a name that translates differently in every language. It is not the letters of the name or the phrase that saves, it is the POWER behind that name and that power is the power of GOd!

      Delete
    7. Harvey have you read the Holy scriptures with discernment and prayer.What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. You are even denying that the name of Jesus Christ was spoken when the lame man was healed at the gate called beautiful. "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee In the name of JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth rise up and walk" (Acts 3:6).

      Again the bible says, "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST to come out of her. And he came out the same hour" (Acts 16:18).

      Now you may consider this just a mantra, but the scriptures indicate that the actual name of Jesus Christ was used in these and many other occasions. It's a false statement just to say IN HIS AUTHORITY. Are you that blind to actually not see that the apostles called the name Jesus Christ. When you go to the bank to cash a check, do you just sign it with these words, "upon my authority" or do you actually sign your name.

      The tetragrammaton has absolutely nothing to do with using the name of Jesus Christ.
      Again, if a man is a father, son, and husband, is that his name, or are those his titles.When he signs a check or any other documents, can he use father, son, or husband as his signature, absolutely not.

      When converts are baptized,if the preacher repeats the words in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he has not obeyed Jesus command, he has only repeated what Jesus said. There is a difference between repeating what Jesus said, and obeying what Jesus said. All trinitarians preachers only repeat Jesus command, but they don't obey his command. Neither does it only mean "upon the authority."

      Now this scripture you used to try and indicate two in heaven, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).This is where trinitarians miss the point. God is a Spirit and as a Spirit he has no right hand. The term right hand means standing in power. He didn't see two in heaven, only ONE!

      Delete
    8. Donald you ask and assert: Harvey have you read the Holy scriptures with discernment and prayer.What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

      Nothing makes sense to a person who cherrypicks scripture and does not understand the use of language and terms of language. That is after all how we communicate.

      I deny nothing, What I contend is that the phrase IS NOT magic!!! It was the AUTHORITY behind the name that creates miracles. Jesus came in the fullness of the volume of the book...the WORD is the power. How do I know...David said it of God: Psalms 138:2 ~ I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

      The name of Jesus by which no man can be saved is not by the literal alphabetical order of letters as you suggest...it by the AUTHORITY of God himself that we are and can be saved. When do all things by his authority. That is what it means to do something according to or in his name...That is basic bible learning. No seminary for that...that is KIDS Sunday school.

      Mt. 28:18 is what the NAME or AUTHORITY is all about. He has "ALL POWER". That word "power" is not Dunamis in that scripture. It is Exousia. This mean AUTHORITY or the place where the ability to act comes from. So when hands are laid, they are laid according to the AUTHORITY that has been given by Christ. Not because someone pronounces a name. What is someone can't talk? Are they less powerful? What you espouse if you believe that would be ableism. That too is heretical and unscriptural.

      In fact to contend that the only ones who can really be saved are those who can be baptized is another form of ableism and unworthy of the gospel. A person can be saved in the desert where there is no water. You are contending that God can only exercise his gift of salvation around a pool and that is RIDICULOUS!!!!

      Just think it through and you will see like I do how ridiculous and unworthy of a doctrine of salvation in a pool using a name (pronouncing an incantation) actually is, when God said now that his word would be written within our hearts.

      Your's is a doctrine rejected in EVERY age because it is unscriptural and unworthy of appellation. It is deceitful. So deceitful that it seeks, as you do, to conclude that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus when the scripture NO PLACE says that under every interpretive rule that exists...It is A LIE!!!

      Jesus is NOT the father. He is the Son ETERNALLY...Jesus is NOT the Holy Ghost.Jesus is not the Father in Creation, the son in redemption nor the Holy Ghost in the church. Jesus is the son of God ETERNALLY without altercation. He SENDS the Holy Ghost along with the Father to the church and each believer that has received him. He, the Holy Ghost is God and brings back to our remembrance the things that JESUS has taught us.

      This is why I am not deceived by your error filled rendering of scripture. Because I know the truth and that truth has made me free...Any person that wants Jesus and wants to be saved, you can be saved RIGHT THERE...no pool of water necessary!!!

      All one has to do is make him Lord and savior of one's life through REPENTANCE and faith in the BLOOD that he shed for remission of sins. Everything you do after that is BECAUSE you are saved, not in order to be saved. The cross is the place where our sins are rolled and washed away, not in some pool of water. If water could make us clean all of us would have done that years ago. Water and an incantation spoken over it has no power...ONLY God has power and that is in HIS works not ours!!!!

      Delete
    9. And this is called an ad hoc rationalization...ie: something totally made up to fit. So far as the stoning of Stephen and what the scripture recounts, you said: Now this scripture you used to try and indicate two in heaven, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).This is where trinitarians miss the point. God is a Spirit and as a Spirit he has no right hand. The term right hand means standing in power. He didn't see two in heaven, only ONE!"

      So is that your explanation of a heavenly vision recorded not just one, but TWICE in the same narrative? Saying it two times, again every biblical student understands is a literary technique in ANE writing that seek to authenticate what is being said. This is not something that is fictitious. this is what this man sees and as such is TOTAL consistent to what we see in Revelation 4 and 5...1 throne, the Father sitting on it, and the Lamb or Jesus himself.

      Your reductionism argument fails. You can't simply reduce it to "right hand means power, so this means Jesus was standing in power"...he said he was standing at the "right hand of God". Now, Jesus IS GOd. What would it mean for him to stand at his own right hand if he he were the same being? That would be a ridiculous method of communicating and confusion and one thing is for sure, God is NOT the author of confusion.

      The early church KNEW what they were saying. I just simply believe them, obviously you sand many others don't. Yet you say we are associated with Catholic dogma...PLEASE!!!! You create your own rules, interpretations and don;t listen to anyone with contrary beliefs...if that is not the essence of Catholicism and WORTH criticism I don't know what is.

      Delete
  3. I wrote much more but had to delete most because it could not be accepted by your sight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blogger has a word limit or character limit in comments. For long comments try placing them in parts. such as part 1 and part 2 etc.

      Thanks.

      Delete
  4. Harvey do you not realize that you have more than one will, does that make you two persons. You said a person has a mind, a will, an intellect, awareness etc. Does that make Satan a person? No, Satan is a spirit! Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, because God is a Spirit, not a person. The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as God, but the term Holy Ghost indicates him residing in man. The terms Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ are one and the same. Note: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:9). Not two spirits, just one. Not two persons, or three. Just ONE!






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald,

      No matter how many things I do, or positions I occupy, or titles I have, I , as an individual, only have one will. I do estate planning. And in estate planning only one last will and testament is acceptable no matter how many positions and or titles a person has.

      You run afoul because it is evident that you don't understand person-hood as that concept pertains to GOd. Personhood has NOTHING to do with humanity or being human.

      You ask about satan. Stating that satan must be a person too according to me. satan has a free will just like all other angels doesn't he? I can imagine that he can be upset too. All the things that personhood entails satan can do just like all other angels. Angels can be caught in folly, can communicate with one another and God and can make freewill decisions. A third of them decided to follow satan didn't they? satan and all angels exercise the ability to exercise will and in that sense they are persons as well. In fact what does Isaiah say that satan said? The 5 I will's of scripture In Isaiah 14:13-14. satan exercised his will, mind and intellect to rebel against God. So in that sense he is a person. Has nothing to do with humanity at all. So if nothing else that establishes that personhood is not unique to being a human.

      Now, what you believe I and every person that believes in the trinity is saying is that personhood requires material independence. While arguably, that may be true of lower class being such as angels and men, but that "independence" does not apply to God. An example of this would be the inability of Christ to sin. Like Adam, Jesus was sinless. However unlike Adam Jesus could not entertain or embrace sin because he was also God.

      Because the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost is God, does not mean that they (the persons of the Godhead) can be or ever will be independent of one another. If so, God would not be God.

      Christ demonstrates that dissension is not a possibility with God both at the beginning and end of his ministry on earth. In john 4:34 he says: "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

      Here Jesus is aware of a subject/object distinction. 1- that he has been SENT. 2- that the Father (one that sent him) has a will and 3- that his will was subject to the one that had sent him.

      Later in the Garden of passion he says the same thing praying: Saying, Father, thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

      Jesus acknowledges that the Father, again, has a will and subjects his will to the father. This isn't some hocus pocus you change places and I throw my voice kind of stuff...this is REAL. He prayed to a REAL father that was certainly not himself ontologically...That type of interpretation would be ridiculously silly, but that's what you hold to. That is SAD!!!!

      The Holy Ghost enjoins the same relationship. He can be SENT, has a MIND, INTERCEDES can be grieved, and can be lied to...These are the attributes of personhood.

      Can there be schism? NO...ABSOLUTELY NOT and that is the mystery of it all, THERE IS NO SCHISM. The relationship is always a subject one and one based on all complete and perfect knowledge and union, unlike anything that we or angels experience.

      So sorry, I can't help that GOd demonstrates clearly three, but those three are one. That is God's math and it is beyond me to understand it. However,. I DARE NOT change it and attempt to reduce it to something that fits my finite understanding...ERGO...that is EXACTLY what you do with all your contrived doctrine, rejections of truth and cherrypicking of scriptures...You seek to create a God that you understand and can measure. whereas, I may not understand how it works or exactly what it is, but I ACCEPT IT because that's how he describes himself.

      Delete
    2. One thing is for sure...I feel sorry for the folk that have been brainwashed by your abusive and erroneous biblical interpretations for years. I have known many to come out and be enlightened and go on to fruitful and fulfilling understandings of God. But for those raised to abuse the scriptures like you do, and call everyone devils who disagree...that is radical extremism and bible enlightenment turned into darkness.

      So sorry, until you understand what is actually meant by the terms, you can not render a counter argument successfully. Words cannot and do not simply have the meaning that we place upon them They have a meaning that we must apprehend and accept, not the other way around.

      Delete
    3. Harvey
      We both can acknowledge what the bible says, "There is a way which seemth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). There is so much you said which is not scriptural it would take a book to refute it all.

      Nevertheless I will point out some things you said which absolutely go contrary to the scriptures.You made the statement, "The name of Jesus by which no man can be saved".......
      I must respectfully disagree with you for the bible says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). If the name of Jesus Christ is not used in water baptism, no convert can receive the washing away of his sins, (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

      You likewise said "A person can be saved in the desert where there is no water." Let's examine the scriptures. "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, WHICH IS DESERT" (Acts 8:26).Notice what God allowed to happen in the desert where there was no water. "Then Philip opened his month, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they CAME UNTO A CERTAIN WATER: and the enunch said, See, HERE IS WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized/" (Acts 8:35-36).

      So you see God made it possible for a sincere hearted person to find water in the desert to be baptized, after Philip had baptized the whole city of Samaria in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16). So this proves that God intends for every person to receive the proper water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

      Again you said "Your doctrine is rejected in every age..... (Unquote) To this I agree, because the devil knows it's the only doctrine that can save mankind. Remember, Jesus was likewise rejected. The scripture says,"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes" (Matthew 21:42).

      You use the word "incantation" as though anyone who believes in using the name of Jesus Christ is actually doing something evil. The scripture says, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Colossians 3:17).

      Again you said "Jesus is not the Father." Well let's delve into the scriptures which I hope you believe to be the Word of God. "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me" John 12: 44-45). This scripture clearly indicates that Jesus is the father. Also the scripture says, "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" (John 14:8-9). The scriptures surely blows apart your man made theory.

      One last statement in this post, you said that Jesus is the Son ETERNALLY. Now what book, chapter, and verse do you reach such a vile conclusion. The Word of God declares Jesus to be the only BEGOTTEN SON. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

      Delete
    4. Donald,

      we know the scripture, mine was a PARAPHRASE...We know the meaning as well and you theory of the name of Jesus must be said over baptism is GARBAGE!!!! You are even more a fringe than I thought...That is an extremist view and a cult one as well. Now, its not the cross that saves, it is water baptism AND a phrase...

      that is the sign of a WITCH not a sign of the power of God...Sorry, you're off base in that understanding.!!!

      Then you abuse the text of Acts 8:26 regarding the desert. It was NOT a desert as you contend. The word does not suggest it. This is what the word desert here means:

      2048 érēmos – properly, an uncultivated, unpopulated place; a desolate (deserted) area; (figuratively) a barren, solitary place that also provides needed quiet (freedom from disturbance).

      In Scripture, a "desert" (2048 /érēmos) is ironically also where God richly grants His presence and provision for those seeking Him. The limitless Lord shows Himself strong in the "limiting" (difficult) scenes of life.

      [2048 (érēmos) in the strict sense expresses a lack of population (not merely "sparse vegetation"). This root (erēmo-) does "not suggest absolute barrenness but unappropriated territory affording free range for shepherds and their flocks. Hepworth Dixon (The Holy Land) says, 'Even in the wilderness nature is not so stern as man. Here and there, in clefts and basins, and on the hillsides, grade on grade, you observe a patch of corn, a clump of olives, a single palm' " (WS, 22).]


      Now I am sure you have done a word study on that, at least you should have but the scripture DOES NOT support your conjecture here either.

      In your world as I will restate, one needs a pool for baptism and a phrase spoken over that and if either are wrong, one cannot be saved...UNGODLY DOCTRINE!!!! Sorry but it is way off!!!!

      And don't even try to equate your heretical doctrine to Jesus holiness...there is no comparison...Your teaching is rejected because it is a lie...Jesus was rejected because he is the truth...Those things do not share a connection.

      And I reach the "vile conclusion" that Jesus is the son eternally with John 1:1 and John 1:14, where the WORD was God and Was WITH God a and the WORD PUT ON flesh and dwelt among us... Once again PARAPHRASING..,I certainly know the the exact statements.

      Begotten is the word MONOGENES which suggest, ANOTHER of the same nature or essence but different...So that is what "begotten" means...So that Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father has very little to do with his earthly birth. It has to do with the nature of God itself.

      Now, I have demonstrated the substratum of trinity all throughout scripture. A word is not essential to establish doctrine. You believe in John 1:14 don't you? The WORD becoming flesh is called the incarnation. Now that word is not found any place in the bible. Now I want you to argue against it.

      You state: "God has given me a deeper revelation of the Word than yourself, because any honest bible scholar could detect the difference in what you and I teach.

      Now, when you come back from COMEDY CENTRAL we can have a serious conversation, Until then..don't quit your day job!!!! That was a good JOKE!!!!

      Delete
    5. YOU get so twisted when it comes to Scripture and word meaning. "Will" as it pertain to man, is the ability to make meaningful moral choices. Man does not have but ONE WILL. Satan, though not human but as ANGEL(fallen), possesses a WILL.

      About person - Job said “Hear now my reasoning, and hearken to the pleadings of my lips. Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God. Job 13:6-8 He wasn’t talking about Jesus here either.

      Delete
  5. Harvey
    You have yet to show the words "trinity" "three persons" and others in the scriptures, yet everything I've given you has been based on the scriptures. You said, I feel sorry for those folks who have been brainwashed by your abusive and erroneous biblical interpretation.......

    What I've given you has been the Word of God rightly divided yet as the early trinitarains refused any truth outside of their own corrupted ways, you too follow in the same spirit which killed those who refused infant baptism and those who refused the trinity baptism using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

    It might be best for you to be more concerned about the people who follow your man made teachings and those who have been known to be violated in that organization. I have much confidence in what I preach and teach and it will not be changing. God has given me a deeper revelation of the Word than yourself, because any honest bible scholar could detect the difference in what you and I teach.

    You have dismissed every scriptures which admonishes believers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. You have even surmised that a person may be mute or deaf. To this the scripture says, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2: 10-11). Even the mute people, their voices will speak one day, the deaf will hear when they stand before God.

    I'm likewise aware of honest hearted people who have left your organization for a closer walk with God. Those whose eyes God have opened to denounced the trinity and repent, get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. In fact I know of a bishop who left your organization and his entire church received the water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. They renounced worldliness, homosexuality, women preachers, and sin period. Be blessed in Jesus name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After your joke you said: "You have dismissed every scriptures which admonishes believers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. You have even surmised that a person may be mute or deaf."

      No I have not dismissed any scripture that teaches this. I have dismissed your interpretation that water in a baptismal pool with a phrase said over it is what saves a person from their sins. That is a heresy that you peddle among others. In addition, I have outlined another problem with your doctrine and that is called ableism. This means that a person who is unable to be baptized for whatever reason, can't be saved. I have pointed out the ridiculous silliness of that sort of extremist belief and see no scriptural support for it within scripture...Within scripture we see baptism was REPRESENTATIVE of our life and walk within and with Christ. This was always for IDENTIFICATION with the church and fellow believers. There were no purification to remit sins ever. Sins were only remitted by and through the blood, not baptisms in water. Certainly the mute will hear and the deaf talk on the great day, your reference to what I stated has no value because I wasn't talking about those things in the context that you stated.

      And believe me, for folk to renounce sin, they sure did not have to get re-baptized to do it...There is no power in H2O...There is only power in the Blood that Jesus shed for remission of sins and faith in that blood.

      We've seen plenty of Jesus Only folk come into fullness too...I have no problem with folk calling on the name of Jesus...I have a problem when you dogmatically assert that baptism saves and that a formula, no matter the phrase, has the ability to save...That is not bible and it is not what Jesus bled and died for us to believe. No way!!!

      AT THE CROSS is where I found the Light of the Lord and my burdens rolled away there....Everything else that is done is done in response to that event...If The blood can;t save a person then for sure a pool of water won't!!!

      Sorry, but I believe the scriptures are right and true ONLY Jesus is Lord and he is not in a pool, he is in the heart mind and soul of the believer!!!!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Harvey
    In obedience to the scriptures the bible says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2: 15). You have said that Jesus is the eternal Son of God which is untrue. He was and is the Word of God but the Son has a beginning and he has an end. Yes there is prophecy about the Son of God in the Old Testament, but you know when he appears as a man in the Old Testament it's a theophany.

    The actual Son (not Word of God) began at Bethlehem Judea when he was birth by Mary. The end of the Sonship will come when the last enemy death is destroyed. Note: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 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 God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Again he is the begotten Son, not eternal Son!

    Now concerning the blood of Jesus we both agree that it is necessary for the forgiveness and washing away of our sins. My question to you is, when and where is the blood of Jesus applied to our lives? Give me book, chapter, and verse. I'm not looking for what Dr. Walter Martin said, nor the belief of the Westminster Confession, nor what the Chalcedonian Creed says, nor a word search from the Strong's Concordance, nor what Calvin Beisner teaches, nor the Athanasius Creed.

    Is the blood of Jesus applied upon repentance, (give me scripture, book, chapter, and verse).

    Is the blood applied upon the initial confession of a sinner, (give me scripture, book, chapter, and verse).

    The scripture says, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). Now when is the blood applied for the forgiveness and washing away of our sins?

    You said AT THE CROSS is where I found the Light of the Lord and my burdens rolled away there. When and where did you go to the cross. What scripture verse can you give that will back up your claim.

    The bible says, "and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Romans 16:18)

    Again apostle Paul said, "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).

    Now this is about the truth of when our sins are forgiven and washed away. This concerns salvation. It's more important than knowing how did the Lamb take the book from the Lord who sat on the throne, or is the Lion, Lamb, and the Lord on the throne, one and the same. It's more important than believing whether there is a trinity, which has nothing to do with salvation.

    Again this is about truly being washed from our sins and it requires a scripture answer, book, chapter, and verse. Otherwise you are misleading people to hell through ignorance of the scriptures if you can't verify by the Word of God when our sins, are remitted, forgiven, washed away!

    Your answer to this question should be verified by scripture only. Be blessed in Jesus Name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald. Please ask the the Lord for understanding. You are off track. Do you really here what you are saying? You are dismissing what Jesus did at the cross. He paid for our sins with his sinless life. What you are teaching is heretical and you will have to give an account for every word. Genesis reveals the the trinity. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning "God"..." God in this scripture means Elohim in Hebrew.In this passage it is referring to the name of God in this passage and is plural in context. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let "us"make man in "our" image, after "our' likeness:..." Start there and ask the Lord for clarity through the holy spirit. I am sharing this with you in love. Please pray and ask God to enlighten your understanding.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Angela,

      Donald has no clue and discredits the atoning work of Christ on the cross for certain. One thing is for sure, a pool of water didn't wash away anyone's sins. Only repentance and faith in his atoning work on the cross did that. The H2O doesn't suddenly receive a "charge" and remove the sins of mankind, else that would have been done generations ago...

      John the baptist under the Old Testament baptized for repentance. That was an anomaly as they only had ceremonial washings prior to that. Nevertheless John said the one that was coming after him would be mightier than he and he would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire! (Mt. 3:11)

      To be baptized in Jesus is not to get in a pool of water. This is to undergo a truly spiritual transformation.

      Donald,

      You say "study"...well that's a good word, we are called to do that so that we do not make the Lord ashamed or lead folk astray.

      And since it seems that you miss the concept of how the covenant was established, both old and new, all one has to do is STUDY Old Testament types to know how blood establishes the covenant between man and God and how and when the blood of remission is applied. Hebrews has the answer and read it for yourself PLAINLY:

      Heb. 9:13-22 ~ 13-For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14-How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15-And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16-For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17-For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18-Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19-For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20- Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21-Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22-And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

      Christ is the ONLY mediator and remover of sins and that was through and by his blood, not a baptismal pool with an incantation said over it!!!

      The REPENT part of Acts 2:38 did this...allowed the blood to remit sins BY FAITH!!! The "and be baptized" part was what to do AFTER the sins were covered!!!! I know you been taught wrong, BUT Now you're being taught right!!!!

      Ephes. 1:17 ~ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

      Col. 1:14 ~ In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


      We get in the pool out of obedience and for identification WITH the body of believers who also have redemption in his blood!!!!

      And this "actual Son" mess you got going...Listen, when Jesus was born he had 2 natures!!!! 100% God and 100% Man!!!! He wasn't just born flesh. He was God WITH US, just as had been prophesied as the word said he was. (Is. 7:14)

      So thanks for sharing your Jesus Only views, but as you can see, we believe there is ample enough word, when interpreted correctly and examined carefully that leads us to know that the nature of GOd is NOT defined by modalism and that repentance, salvation and whatever we need is in the cross o Christ and we dare not look anyplace else.

      Delete
    3. Donald, I hope the word of God speaks to in special way here. Please read:

      Chapter 14 KJV
      1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

      2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

      3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

      4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

      5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

      6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

      7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

      8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

      9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

      10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

      11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

      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.

      13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

      14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

      15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

      16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

      17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

      18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

      19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

      20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

      21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

      22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

      23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

      24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

      25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

      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.

      27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

      28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

      29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

      30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

      31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

      Delete
  7. https://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2018/03/modalistic-monarchianism-praxaen-heresey.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Angela Kane
    The Lord has given me understanding of his true plan of salvation 45 years ago. The Word of God does not change. Concerning Genesis 1:1, I know Elohim in Hebrew is plural, but not in persons, it's in attributes. Note "Thus saith the LORD; thy redeemer, and HE that FORMED THEE from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth by MYSELF" (Isaiah 44:24). You can't get a trinity from this scripture and any other scriptures. Read Genesis "1:27" it will explain verse "26". Be Blessed in Jesus Name.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harvey
    I see you did finally go to "Acts 2:38" and try to give an explanation. You said "The REPENT part of Acts 2:38 did this.....allowed the blood to remit sins BY FAITH!!! The "and be baptized" part was what to do AFTER the sins were covered!!!! I know you been taught wrong, BUT now you're taught right!!!!

    Now let's compare scripture with scripture. We must accept the entire scripture and not slice and dice it. "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" (Acts 2:38). Repentance by itself cannot wash away sins without the completion of being baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.

    Our sins are forgiven and washed away upon obedience to this entire scripture. Our sins are not COVERED as said by you, but they are washed away (completely). Again, the Word of God says, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Now notice that Paul's sins were not washed away until the completion of the baptism. What does the blood of Jesus do for us? (WASH AWAY OUR SINS) ".....Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD" (Revelation 1:5). It's plain and simple when you put these scriptures together "Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Revelation 1:5" it opens up clearly when the blood is applied upon our lives and washes away our sins. Within the name Jesus Christ is the blood, and it is applied upon our repenting and being baptized in that name Jesus Christ.

    Again the scripture says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Also, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for HE SHALL SAVE his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21).

    Salvation is in the wonderful name of Jesus. Not only are we identified with Jesus and other saints through baptism, but we are also buried with him (Jesus) by baptism. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism" (Roman 6:4).

    You have said before that "water does not save." but the bible says different, ".....wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by WATER. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter: 3:20-21). Allow me to make clear that a man must be born again (saved) of water and Spirit (John 3:5).

    Now I know this is hard to swallow, but through prayer and humbling down to the Word and not our traditions causes light to be revealed unto us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald you said: "Repentance by itself cannot wash away sins without the completion of being baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ...Our sins are forgiven and washed away upon obedience to this entire scripture."

      I would agree that one must obey the commandments of the Lord to be saved, however those commandments are less instructional as in "Step A, Step B and Step C" and are more relational as in turning, transformation and relationship or walk of faith, and ultimately wrapped up in surrender to HIM.

      Now you look at Acts 2:38 and are convinced that it is a "method" by which men can be saved. But do you give the same credence and attention to Romans 10:9 which says: "That 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."

      That doesn't mention baptism as a step of salvation at all does it? Now, why, in your doctrine and belief and instruction to those who seek salvation, is THIS not emphasized? Is it emphasized IN CONJUNCTION WITH the process of baptismal regeneration?

      If so, then the process of salvation must be, 1- Confess with your mouth, 2- Believe in your heart, (specifically that God raised Jesus from the dead) 3- Repent, 4- Be Baptized (specifically using the words "in the name of Jesus") and THEN you can be saved....???

      So here we have a PROCESS that does a lot of things, but no mention of FAITH when the scripture says this:

      Rom. 5:1 ~ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

      Faith seems to be the transformative agent when that faith is placed in Jesus and HIS works. Now, one can say well, we do all those things listed above because of faith, but that is a circular argument and does not address the issue.

      Salvation can occur ANYTIME and ANYPLACE with or without water because it begins in the innermost being of the believer, not with any internal circumstance. A prisoner in ISO where no water is available can be saved, instantly! According to you he has to wait for a pool of water to "complete" his steps of being saved.

      That is GARBAGE and hopeless and exactly why a doctrine such as your has been rejected throughout history. It is NOT biblical!

      God's power and acts are not limited by man's ability or inability to perform and or act. Here is an example beyond this conversation but drives the point of what I am saying home:

      One may say, "well we can baptize the cognitively impaired to salvation, rather those who are impaired cannot exercise faith."

      The response is, how do we know that the cognitively impaired cannot exercise faith that God understands? To believe that God can and will only grant salvation to a person who is "able" to experience or go through certain rituals or ceremonies is ableism and is NOT what the bible teaches either. Remember the man at the pool of Bethesda? Unable to "save" himself by his physical limitations, but he exercised his "will" according to the call of God!

      Delete
    2. To you, that may sound arcane but what I am emphasizing is that God RECEIVES and saves the willing heart and mind ready to receive him regardless of process.

      Anyone can go through your formulaic diatribe and STILL not be saved. They have just followed the steps literally as you outlined them as I've stated above. And it is certainly true people exercise a "said faith" rather than an "actual faith" regularly. So I am not saying that simple "confession" is the method of salvation alone either.

      But all of that outlines a big difference and drives home the point. No we SHOULD NOT disobey.

      However, there is no ceremony that can make us clean as salvation is birthed in the heart as the scripture has sated:

      Rom. 10:10 ~ For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

      That inner transformation is where it happens. All other things we do we do BECAUSE of that inner transformation. THAT was the message of Peter and what those standing around heard and acted upon. They were CONVINCED in their hearts because of what they saw, heard and they believed...BAPTISM in every case was as a RESULT of this inner transformation!!!!

      As I stated, I love a baptismal ceremony, but a pool is not a requirement to be saved. It is an expression of what we believe in our hearts.

      We get in the pool to let the world know of our life being hidden and raised in and with Christ and to associate ourselves openly with them that do as long as we LIVE.

      So yes, Jesus commands the church to baptize as many as who will associate themselves with HIM. Peter preaches, just like GloryandHonor said, to a world who rejected Christ, NOW the message is clear anyone wanting to associate themselves with salvation must also openly associate themselves with Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith!

      That plan of salvation can be gained in the middle of the Sahara desert where there is no water at all!!! That is God saving ALL and the WHOSOEVER will that come because that is found in one place...AT THE CROSS!!! That is where sins are rolled away!!!!

      Delete
    3. Repent means "to change one's mind".

      After PETER preached in ACTS 2 to the men of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God, was crucified and slain, Whom God hath raised up. and that David spoke concerning him that His flesh saw no CORRUPTION, being by the right hand of God exalted, these men of Israel hearts were pricked.

      Thus, Peter admonished them to REPENT (change their minds about who they were and who Jesus WAS - for they did NOT know JESUS as the SAVIOR. They expected a KING who would come to rescue THEM in another way.

      When they REPENTED they CHANGED their MINDS, believing (trusting, placing their FAITH in) the ONE whom PETER preached about for the remission of their sins. He instructed them to be BAPTIZED in HIS NAME (by the AUTHORITY) because he was commanded by Christ to do so. Christ never spoke in any way that BAPTISM was a part of the SALVATION process.

      Peter mentioned in Acts 3:19 - Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (NO BAPTISM)

      Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (NO BAPTISM) Act 8:22


      And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (NO BAPTISM) Act 17:30


      But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should REPENT and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (NO BAPTISM) Act 26:20

      Delete
    4. Donald you said: "You have said before that "water does not save." but the bible says different, ".....wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by WATER.

      This is also a horrible reinterpretation that your boy AHamed gave. This is an egregious misuse of the word and context of Peter's words.

      First of all the word used for the expression "saved" is a Greek word "diasozo". The primary word we associate with salvation is "sozo". Nevertheless, this expression means to cure, heal or bring through danger or to safely escape.

      This word has nothing to do with "salvation" in the sense of going to heaven, especially in this context. It has to do with being safely delivered through danger or a dangerous situation in this case, the flood.

      So to be "saved by water" has NO connection to baptism in the sense that you interpret Acts 2:38. It simply means that the inhabitants of the boat were saved through a flood. The ESV says it better than the Victorian language of the king James:

      "because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water."

      Further the object lesson that Jesus taught to Nicodemus, was not one of baptism or a ceremony. It was one of spiritual regeneration and rebirth. To be "born of the water" meant that one has to live and or exist first in order to be "born again". We were all born "of the water" (as the KJV says) when were were born. It was that second part, "born of the Spirit" that Nicodemus could not fathom in conjunction with what Jesus was saying.

      I would contend that Nicodemus, like you, were expecting some series of processes to be saved. Jesus did not outline any process except for "rebirth"...not naturally, but spiritually.

      He never equated the water of baptism with a regenerative experience. However rational that may be to your mind, that is not the case.

      So those are at least two more points and things that I have noticed that you use to support your arguments that are refuted by thorough examination.

      So I am glad that you recognize that when one is saved, there will be a change of actions and attitudes and the heart in their lives, however, that is not by process. Cornelius in Acts 10 proves and more than supports what I am saying for the reasons I have outlined in my article on the subject. Here, Cornelius was the opposite of your "process". He was already saved, and was baptized AFTER receiving the word of God and speaking in tongues. So obviously baptism WAS NOT a method of salvation for him. It was a method whereby he and his household would identify openly with other believers in Jesus.

      https://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cornelius-was-he-already-a-believer/

      Delete
  10. Harvey
    Concerning the Son of God I agree that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. Two natures (divine and human), to this I agree. Yet the Son was begotten in Bethlehem (this began his Sonship) and it (the Sonship) will end after the last enemy death is destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) when He shall become God all in all.

    Before his birth even though he was seen in the fiery furnace and other places, this was not the Son of God in the flesh (Word made flesh), only a theophany. He was yet the Word at that time, but BECAME the Son (begotten) in Bethlehem. Not eternal, but begotten, the Son has a beginning and shall have an end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1 Cor. 15:28 ~ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

      From this verse you contend that the WORD is eternal, but not the Son and therefore there is a distinguish(ment) between the Son and the WORD.

      First, that is a bad argument if not yet another heretical argument. It's more akin to a Jehovah's Witness statement than anyone faithful to the text as it pertains to Jesus that he was created or began at some point in time. In addition, it seems to destroy the hypostatic union of Jesus destroying the Son or "flesh" at some point and only emphasizing the eternal existence of the spirit or "Word" as you have called it here. Jesus is ALWAYS God and ALWAYS man eternally, not just at the advent of his birth. The very fact that his sonship begins upon earth would make his sonship an earthly one, and he said that was not the case, his Kingdom was NOT of this world.

      First, we all agree that Jesus is the Unique Son of God in that his relationship to the Father is unlike any other. However, even in that we understand that Jesus must be eternal not only as the word but as the Son as well. How do I know this? I would point to two things:

      1- He was a lamb slain before (prior to) the foundation of the world:

      Rev. 13:8 ~ and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."ESV

      He was the "Lamb" prior to this. And secondly, Jesus acknowledges the Glory that he shared WITH the Father prior to his time on Earth. Jesus prays:

      John 17:3-5 ~ 3-And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4-I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5-And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

      Now, one could argue that that that glory was as "the WORD" and I certainly would not argue against that, however I would also contend that as the "Lamb" and that would and could only be referring to his eternal Sonship or work of redemption from eternally and not just temporally.

      A third thing is that under your understanding we have a problem as John describes Jesus in John 1:10

      "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

      Now, this was alluding to JESUS himself, not just the abiding presence of God in the world. It was He was "in the word"

      So scripture in my opinion affirms an eternal sonship and a unique eternal relationship between the Father and Son. I think if we view a "temporal Son" we also view a "temporal salvation" whereas, an eternal Son, an eternal salvation and avoid all the other mis-implications as I have pointed out.

      Delete
    2. Harvey
      There's so much error in your response that it would take a entire book to correct all the flawed interpretations you have given. What I detect is a spirit of pride that is ashamed to admit error because it would mean you must apologize to me and all those you have ignorantly misled. It also would mean a reduction in financial gain for every false preacher who would lose members. Financial gain does not bother me, seeing I've pastored for 35 years free of charge. God has blessed me to get whatever I need and even what I desire.

      I notice you didn't deal with the scriptures I've given which plainly explains that our sins are washed away upon baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Using "UPON THE AUTHORITY" is a lie from hell and nothing but a trick of the devil to divert you and others away from the name of Jesus Christ. You said baptism "covered our sins" which is a lie and you never admitted that your statement was wrong. You just casually said nothing else about it because you were wrong. Again the bible does not say that baptism covers our sins. The scripture says "And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS CALLING on the NAME of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Now to not accept this scripture means that you do not accept the Word of God and in essence are CALLING GOD A LIE.

      Why is there such hatred against the name of Jesus Christ. Yet the bible says,"And ye shall be hated of all men for my NAME SAKE" (Luke 21:17). I've shown you and the rest of the unbelievers where the apostles actually pronounced the name Jesus Christ when they healed the sick. They pronounced the name of Jesus Christ when they cast out devils, they pronounced the name Jesus Christ when they preached and taught. And they pronounced the name Jesus Christ when they baptized converts. Not as you and others FALSELY claim "upon the authority." FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. Neither did they ever use Father, Son, or Holy Ghost when administering baptism.

      If you and others are not going to accept the Word of God when it plainly tells you when your sins are washed away, you might as well just throw the bible away because it's not benefiting you.

      Then you try and act as if repentance alone can wash away sins, How foolish,Jesus said, "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). This is what Peter did in "Acts 2:38," But now you're trying to find any loop hole you can find.

      Such misinterpretation of the scriptures that it proves what Jesus said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21).

      Delete
  11. Harvey
    Again you went to "Romans 10:9" to try and use this scripture as a salvation scripture. First of all the book of Romans is not written to the unsaved but rather to the saved. This should never be quoted to sinners who haven't repented and been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, neither should we say "upon the authority."

    You said baptism cannot save us. Now God cannot lie and his word says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now SAVE US......" (1Peter 3:21).

    You tried to be slick and quoted only this portion of the scripture, "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water" (1Peter 3:20). You went into a false interpretation saying "the greek word is diasozo" but you stopped right there and didn't read the following scripture. This is a trick of the devil. If baptism doesn't save then the bible is a lie. Any bible student knows that the scriptures declares we are saved by grace through faith, we are saved by hope, we are saved by mercy, and we are saved by baptism. You should take the time and find each of these scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Donald,

    Your reconciliation of Romans 10 is RIDICULOUS!!!!The SAVED have ALREADY CONFESSED and believed!!! Then to say some totally ad hoc, stuff like the passage should never be used for sinners, is something that is based on a church doctrine, an Apostolic or Jesus Only church doctrine, rather than scripture itself.

    Now you think that 1 Pet. 3:21 is teaching that we are saved by baptism. And I am glad you bring that up, because it is yet another confusion to address...So let's look at it and the following verse:

    1 Pet. 3:21-22 ~ 21-The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22-Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

    The same word "sozo" is used and you agree. However, within parenthesis, there is a clarification in v.21. That clarification states that he is NOT talking about "putting away the filth of the flesh"...Now, isn't being saved about "putting away the filth of the flesh"? So IF your argument is to be scripturally true, it should say "to the putting away of the filth of the flesh and..." However, the text doesn't do or say that does it???

    Now, V.22 simply speaks or itself now doesn't it? Like V.21 it doesn't speak in favor of your heresy as it further paints the picture of Jesus "at the right hand of God" in authority over all, to which I believe we have already successfully refuted your "right hand" simply means power motif. That is a another ridiculous rendering and contrived understanding.

    So I am not "slick", I am simply examining the text for what it says instead o attempting to make it say what I want to say. I think you do enough of that for both of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harvey
      Your examination and interpretation of the scriptures is wrong, putting away the filth of the flesh in essence is speaking of cleaning your flesh from earthly filth (dirt). The answer of a good conscience toward God is because your sins have been washed away by baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. To try and dismiss baptism as not washing away our sins, you must delete "Acts 22:16 from the bible. Again the book of Acts is the only book which actually shows people being saved. Where in the book of Acts did Paul ever tell a sinner to Confess with your mouth. So you're saying what's written in the book of Romans is not for the church but for the sinner. How foolish.

      Delete
  13. Harvey
    You questioned whether in essence we believed in Romans 10:9 as we do in "Acts 2:38. "That if thou 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"(Romans 10:9).Now again this scripture is written to the saints at Rome, not to sinners. All of the epistles are written to the saints of God (the church). The book of Acts is the only book in the bible which actually shows people being saved in the New Testament Church. No other book in the bible shows people being saved in the church. Again the epistles are for those who are already in the church.

    Now even the book of Romans compliments the book of Acts by repeating the same steps of salvation which are given in Acts 2:38.

    Acts 2:38 says, Repent
    Notice
    Romans 2:4 "......not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to "REPENTANCE"

    Acts 2:38 "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
    Notice
    Romans 6:3-4 "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"

    Acts 2:38 "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    Notice
    Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"
    My point being the same things Peter required in Acts 2:38, Paul acknowledged the same plan to those who had obeyed Acts 2:38.

    Another trick of the devil to try and ignore Acts 2:38, you quoted Acts 3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
    This scripture does not delegitimize Acts 2:38, seeing that baptism can also be used in the place of the word "converted".

    The enemy will use you to try and find any scripture that you think contradicts "Acts 2:38". This will bring damnation to your soul, for Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and what was preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost must be preached to all men, for salvation is always to the Jew first, then to the Gentile. So the message Peter preached to the Jews the bible says, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL" (Acts 2:39)

    Any man who tries to denounce the name of Jesus Christ and instead use "upon the authority" is being deceived and led astray.

    More to come.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Donald,

    You're like that broke clock...You are right at least 2 times, but wrong most o the time...Your exegesis is ridiculous and straight out of heretic central...

    You said: "Now again this scripture is written to the saints at Rome, not to sinners."

    That is understood, however, sinners or those who lead sinners to Christ cannot be excluded. According to you every epistle is only written to the church and not to sinners. There is NOBODY who applies scripture in the way that you contend...Your's is an ad hoc contrived defense against the message o the verse that DOES NOT point to baptism, but points to confession and faith. In fact, as I stated, salvation is not about perfunctory commands and steps 1 to 10...it is much more than that and your proscription only offers a performance oriented approach. Salvation is not about step, a, b, and c...it is about what Christ did and you obviously minimize that while claiming to hold him in high esteem. You DO NOT hold him in high esteem as you claim. You hold your ceremonies and ability to preform them in high esteem...That is fanciful GARBAGE as far as I can see.

    Romans 6 anyone can see Paul is using baptism allegorically. He also uses the contrast of life and death even saying in v.9 that were are "dead with Christ". This is not a teaching on the value of baptism and ceremonial washings. This is a teaching on the life of the believer and how we are to live in this present world.

    And the bible doesn't begin or end with Acts 2:38...The sad part of your argument is that if Acts 2:38 was not in the bible, you couldn't make it...you'd not know what to do or even what salvation means because you've already said that it doesn't mean washing away sins or something to that effect which is another BOGUS assertion.

    So whatever you say will only be examined in light of truth and be refuted as always...Shortly, I will shut you off as saying the same thing over and over is going nowhere for you and the TRUTH not your heresy, will be the final word on this blog!!!!

    So try again if you wish, but you'll only be corrected AGAIN!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harvey
      Do as you must, but as you say I'm repeating myself, so are you. I'm not going to bring a different doctrine because you disagree with me. Your corrections are no corrections. If the COGIC was what you and others make it out to be, it wouldn't be in chaos as it is. You might need to clean up your own house before you seek to denounce others of what they preach.

      Delete
    2. Donald, I repeat myself because I CAN and because this is a space that I forged...So I can do that all day on something that I do and set forth...and I'll take COGIC with all it's faults ANY DAY over cults and false doctrines like you espouse and set forth...And believe me a green tree is on good ground. If we have problems, you've got 10 times more and it is obvious from your interpretations and what you set forth here what they are about.

      So THANKS but we don't need that poison. If you can address the topics with something new, continue, otherwise, you need to push on, or address one of the many other topics on the similar issue. One being an article called "In The Name Of..."The Truth & The Granville Sharp Rule" which also addresses and debunks some of your more repetitive heresies...But I encourage you to actually deal with the information set forth and to say in response like you do, "that isn't true" is not an argument. That stupidity and arrogance!

      One can paste this:

      http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-name-ofthe-truth-granville-sharp.html

      Delete
    3. Harvey
      The Word of God says, "And they continued stedfastly in the "APOSTLES' DOCTRINE" and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42)."The Truth & Granville Sharp Rule" is not what the scriptures said they continued stedfastly in, neither is it inspired scripture. All extra-biblical writings are written by bias men, many of whom affirm the false trinity and have not the Holy Ghost.

      You choose to denounce what we believe as a cult, but our scripture fidelity is absolutely of greater honesty than COGIC. You quote Greek words which totally contradicts what the actual scriptures are saying. I've notice that A hamed (whom I do not know, and never met) has basically told you the same things as I have. Neither Granville Sharp,greek, or hebrew can open a person's understanding to the scriptures. God must do that, "Then OPENED he THEIR UNDERSTANDING, that they MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES" (Luke 24:25).

      Delete
    4. Donald,

      To which I agree, God must open our understanding. He is the only one that can do that.

      Now, I also want to say that I backtrack on presenting the implication that you are just plainly wrong and of little or no value doctrinally. I think that was HARSH of me and certainly not good to do in any manner or way, disagreement or otherwise.

      I you are like me, there is a lot of things we do that are no so much as chapter and verse, but are helping people at the point of their need. I think sometimes we forget, while arguing position, belief and interpretation that there are lifetimes of valuable service, service that God WILL honor and reward behind it all.

      While I contend that you are wrong on some points of doctrine as we vehemently discussed, I think it is wrong when we label one another as either devil inspired or hell bound. THAT to me is not in a Christian ethic and or moral value.

      At the end of the day, you are entitled to be right or wrong. You are entitled to view the scriptures as you believe that God has revealed them to you. Doesn't mean that anyone doesn't have the right or obligation to correct you or I, but it does mean that even in our fault, misunderstanding, weakness, and even misinterpretation(s) God is still faithful. He is Lord of us all and he will have the final say in all things.

      So DOnald, we have said some pretty poignant things to one another, but if I have offended you, which I made it a point to do at times, I'm sorry and do not mean to imply that you, calling on the name of Jesus for help is worthless in any way...because THAT is not the truth!!!!

      With all the faults of brothers and sisters in Christ, I would rather have them than the coldness and emptiness of sin and those who agree to sin. I believe, that if I were in trouble, I could get some help from you, a believer in Oneness in a more genuine manner and with more love than anything that the world has to offer.

      So yes, debate and debate vehemently as we do...At the end of the day, if we can't love one another, it doesn't matter what doctrinal position we have or how right we "think" we may be, without Love we are what? A tinkling cymbal!!!

      So yes, we disagree and will continue to has those things out, but one thing we don't disagree about...Only Jesus can help this lost and dying generation and believe me, it is a lost one that needs HIM more now than seemingly ever before.

      So please stay around and comment and I hope you enjoy the articles and feel free to comment because we are in a culture war beyond doctrine and it's like this, all hands on board!!!!

      Delete
  15. PLEASE people, if you present an argument and it is refuted, DO NOT continue to say or present the same thing over and over. That is overkill and your attempt to monopolize the conversation or force your point of view across is unwelcome!!!!

    As it stands, I am the ONLY ONE that can force through my point of view and monopolize the conversation...after nearly 600 articles and countless hours of study on each one as well as addressing questions and comments of heretics and observers, I am entitled...

    Thanks!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Harvey
    Now you claim that Jesus is the eternal Son of God by using this scripture, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

    This is absolutely an abuse of the scriptures for God has always called those things which be not as though they were. The bible says, "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17). The Lamb was said to be slain from the foundations of the world because God sees and knows all things. This absolutely does not make Jesus the eternal Son.

    Now notice the bible says, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world," (Ephesians 1:4). Now according to your false interpretation of the scriptures, this would likewise make us eternal sons of God, because we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.

    Again you used another scripture out of context, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:10). When the world was spoken into existence, God was in Spirit form and his Word was his spoken thought. Jesus was never in the form of the Son of God when the world was created.The Word was in Spirit form. You can't see spoken words, you can only hear them. You couldn't have seen the Word of God when the world was made, you could have only heard the Word if you were able to be present at that time.

    The bible does say, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

    Again, ".....which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 3:9).

    These scripture reveal that all things were created by Jesus Christ, but he was not in the form of the Son of God during creation. He created all things as the Word of God, which he was in Spirit form, not flesh and blood, neither in a body."And the SPIRIT of God (not the body of the Son) moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light" Genesis 1:2-3).

    Again you said we have been rejected. This is true because the doctrine of the Catholic church of whom you and others received your trinity doctrine, killed those of us who refused infant baptism and those who refused baptism into the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and likewise killed those who received Acts 2:38 baptism.

    God's Word says, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2Peter 2:1).

    This is the same preacher speaking these words which baptized about 3000 souls in the name of Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost. He didn't believe the lie which is being taught today "upon the authority"

    If you stop trying to fight the Word of God and accept that you must be born of water and Spirit as so says the Word of God. Now you're trying to say being born of the water does not mean baptism. But that it's talking about human birth. Wrong again. There should be another scripture or two that would agree with what you have said, but there is not.

    You have taken the scripture out of context, and that still doesn't give you an excuse to disobey "Acts 2:38."

    Now when Peter said, "Can any man forbid water," (Acts 10:47) was he talking about the human birth.

    When the Ethiopian eunuch said "See, here is water" (Acts 8:36) was he talking about a human birth.
    You twist the scriptures every way you can to keep from OBEYING Acts 2:38.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donald,

      You base most if not all of your arguments and assertions on the Praxaen heresy as outlined in this article. As I stated, that false belief, which you defend vehemently. Praxaenism is NOT necessarily a tenet of mainline oneness theology. However, yours is an extreme fringe cult as I have already outlined and you continue to set forth the outgrowth of that false belief and in every case That false doctrine and teaching is never more obvious than when it intersects the divine and unique nature of Christ as outlined within scripture. Like a JW, I believe that if you could rewrite every text that goes against your primary belief you would, but too bad...you can't do that and you're not God!

      Before I go further into your misguided Praxaen interpretation, I noticed that you said: Now notice the bible says, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world," (Ephesians 1:4). Now according to your false interpretation of the scriptures, this would likewise make us eternal sons of God, because we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.

      And your question? That just happens to be part of the doctrine in reformed theology called PREDESTINATION. It is arguable, BUT it is a Christian doctrine, unlike your heretical Praxaen teachings which are non-Christian and were rejected when they were examined in the 3rd and 4th centuries when they arose.

      Praxaenism always comes up over the nature of God and the person of Jesus himself. Just like Tertullian said hundreds of years ago, in seeking to affirm Jesus you destroy the hypostatic union in the process (paraphrased)

      For example: ...Concerning John 1:10 you said: When the world was spoken into existence, God was in Spirit form and his Word was his spoken thought. Jesus was never in the form of the Son of God when the world was created.The Word was in Spirit form. You can't see spoken words, you can only hear them

      Praxaenism would deny the eternal Son, just like you do. However, one who also believes in what is called incarnational sonship would also deny eternal sonship as well but not the eternal being or Second Person of the God head. Now, a disagreement in this is normally understood by those who teach the Trinity because at the end of the day we would believe that one God eternally exists as Three Persons. Although there are various implications of this belief according to scripture it is an orthodox viewpoint.

      However as a oneness adherent, you already embrace false doctrine and would not contend that there is an eternal second person, but a later manifestation or changing of roles of God. In addition to that, I would contend that your further dissent is rooted in Praxaenism. What you are asserting is what I call the "abiding presence" argument, or a "version" of it.

      The "abiding presence" argument or "eternal presence" argument fails in this case for a number of reasons but chiefly because as a oneness adherent, you contend that it divides the nature of Jesus into man or flesh and deity or God. This you confirm by asserting that the pre-incarnate Jesus (which is a qualification that you don't make, but I am giving that to you, as I really can't believe you're that spiritually mislead) "was never in the form of the Son of God". I also know that as you have argued your understanding of the unique union and relationship of Christ and the father begins at the birth of Jesus, since you don;t believe he was the son previously. As I stated when that sentiment comes from a Trinitarian we can understand it, because the basic acts are the same...there is ONE GOd who eternally exists as three persons, however when the basis is Praxaenism and oneness theology, the basis is not the same.

      Delete
    2. Donald,

      Secondly your argument destroys the context of the scripture. John, v.9 says "that light CAME INTO the world"...This infers JESUS, God the SECOND PERSON in his fullness as Theantropist the God/Man...Yes the world was created by and for him (Col. 1) but He (JESUS), not simply referring to the abiding presence of God only; John was referring to his time here on earth. He, being Jesus, was IN the world and the world did not know him...John's argument is supported by the scriptures from which he was drawing. Specifically the suffering servant doctrine of Is. 53 which also says:

      Is. 53:2-3 ~ 2-For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3-He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

      He, being Jesus was IN THE WORD and the word did not know him. Now, you counter would be that John is outlining a type of chronology, because John 1:14 goes on to identify the INCARNATION of Christ or when God took on flesh and dwelt among us. That would be a bad move as well and would undermine what we find in Is. 53 and other scriptures as well because Isa. 53 clearly deals with a suffering servant who is identified and dwells among men and mankind.

      As I stated, I know you are a die hard Praxaeist and that is the downfall of your entire argument. The Son did not come into being at a point in time, he is ALWAYS the Son of God eternally who is God!

      So far as baptism we've already been there and done that and your argument is not convincing simply because you say it is.

      Delete
  17. Until you and all your followers obey Acts 2:38, your sins are not washed away. You're fighting a losing battle when you fight against the first message preached to open the church in this grace dispensation

    ReplyDelete
  18. And you are a CULT and not a Christ follower and don't even think for a minute you're following what the Apostles taught as you are full of heretical doctrines that they themselves stood fully and thoroughly against!

    You are shameful the bible doesn't center around one passage, it centers around one person and that is JESUS who is the author and finisher of our faith...the ONLY faith that will save!

    Romans 5:1-2 ~ 1-Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2-By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

    The BIBLE teaches that we are justified by grace through faith in HIS work not in what we have done. There is no saving power in the H2O...the saving power is in the blood of Christ.

    Your method is shameful...Somebody comes to you in the middle of the day seeking salvation and you have to tell them to wait until you draw a pool of water...SHAMEFUL!!!! That is RIDICULOUS and not according to a God who can save ANYPLACE and at ANYTIME as he moves on the hearts of men!!!!

    The only water we need is the water of the WORD of God which is able to save men's souls and regenerate their spirits by the power of the Holy Ghost the THIRD PERSON of the Trinity or Triune God!!!! Sorry, your ultra fake apostolic doctrine isn't what the Apostles taught as we've demonstrated. What you have done is preach and teach heresy, many of them the Apostles stood against in their times...

    So we KNOW we are saved, but until you drop those heretical teachings, you're only binding people and leading them astray, not freeing them. And that is obvious!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I thought I should place this towards the end oft he convo as well, so it can be more readily seen. Here is what I said:

    Donald,

    To which I agree, God must open our understanding. He is the only one that can do that.

    Now, I also want to say that I backtrack on presenting the implication that you are just plainly wrong and of little or no value doctrinally. I think that was HARSH of me and certainly not good to do in any manner or way, disagreement or otherwise.

    I you are like me, there is a lot of things we do that are no so much as chapter and verse, but are helping people at the point of their need. I think sometimes we forget, while arguing position, belief and interpretation that there are lifetimes of valuable service, service that God WILL honor and reward behind it all.

    While I contend that you are wrong on some points of doctrine as we vehemently discussed, I think it is wrong when we label one another as either devil inspired or hell bound. THAT to me is not in a Christian ethic and or moral value.

    At the end of the day, you are entitled to be right or wrong. You are entitled to view the scriptures as you believe that God has revealed them to you. Doesn't mean that anyone doesn't have the right or obligation to correct you or I, but it does mean that even in our fault, misunderstanding, weakness, and even misinterpretation(s) God is still faithful. He is Lord of us all and he will have the final say in all things.

    So DOnald, we have said some pretty poignant things to one another, but if I have offended you, which I made it a point to do at times, I'm sorry and do not mean to imply that you, calling on the name of Jesus for help is worthless in any way...because THAT is not the truth!!!!

    With all the faults of brothers and sisters in Christ, I would rather have them than the coldness and emptiness of sin and those who agree to sin. I believe, that if I were in trouble, I could get some help from you, a believer in Oneness in a more genuine manner and with more love than anything that the world has to offer.

    So yes, debate and debate vehemently as we do...At the end of the day, if we can't love one another, it doesn't matter what doctrinal position we have or how right we "think" we may be, without Love we are what? A tinkling cymbal!!!

    So yes, we disagree and will continue to has those things out, but one thing we don't disagree about...Only Jesus can help this lost and dying generation and believe me, it is a lost one that needs HIM more now than seemingly ever before.

    So please stay around and comment and I hope you enjoy the articles and feel free to comment because we are in a culture war beyond doctrine and it's like this, all hands on board!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No No No Rev. You did a GREAT JOB defending the faith. I understand your conviction maybe about your tone at times, but false teachings need to be exposed.

      Delete
    2. Not that standing for truth or what one believes should be compromised in any way, BUT the way that is done should be better.

      From my experience, and the experience of many, there are a lot of people helped and they don't care about a persons theology as much as caring about getting someone to love them at the time of need.

      To take a person who sacrifices all in doing that and tell them that they are led by devils or tell them that their work or belief is nothing, is not good. Notwithstanding some beliefs are more biblically accurate than others etc.

      In this thread, the differences have been outlined, but to give the impression that because someone doesn't agree with me that they are someplace in a type of demonic trance is well beyond anything that is part o the argument.

      So I am not saying stop exposing differences, but behind it all there are real people, with real feelings. There are people's moms and dads and like I said, if they are like me, they lay it all on the line with very little if any thanks even from people who agree with everything they believe 100%...

      So no...I want this to be the place of poignant discussion and affirmation of truth without compromise, but can we do that without dissecting the person???

      Within Pentecostalism, if these folk had the nerve to do it back in 1912 we maybe wouldn't be having this sort o conversation today. Why is it that the old Saints were afraid to really get into the conversation and get their feet wet? They were right there as schisms were developing and I don;t really know if they fully laid out and said, "no we're going to stay in this room until we get this right!"

      I mean, Donald knows the history, but here we have Assemblies splitting from COGIC because of RACIAL sentiments, not doctrine, The PAW and eventually UPC splits from Assemblies over doctrine and everybody stands around like they have God in their back pocket...I understand splits and divisions, but the spirit that that thing has left behind, in my opinion, is pervasive and dangerous.

      Like I said, the fact is, if one of us are in trouble, who will help us??? It's the household of faith...and no matter how many faults or flaws that is in that household, I am seeing that only us really understand us -LOL...

      I don't know, just writing as I think...All I know is at the end of the day, we can help by telling the truth and praying for God to open understandings. I know I examine my belief according to the scriptures and if my tancktling is loose, I am willing to tighten it up.

      Just like you...when you first started commenting, we were discussing the "Mee too" movement and what was actually going on with it. You were cautious, I said it was a good thing wholesale and I think both of us have lived to see what is going on...It is being used in a good way to a certain extent and being used in a bad way in others. I believe our disagreements helped but of us to reexamine, look, and watch some of these things develop and, in my opinion, I have a more broad view of the issues and listen for some of the underlying suggestions behind some of the issues. So your disagreement helped me, and I hope mine helped you as well, but I don't "think" I treated you like a dog in the process...I don't know...

      Anyway, I don't expect Donalad or Ahamed to simply drop what they believe, but hopefully there is a relationship established that will give us all the ability to GROW as each of us deal with issues we are bombarded with everyday, which don't come with a Jesus Only tag, a COGIC tag, a Methodist tag or any other tag on them. They are human sin conditions tags that are common to all of us.

      So fight...but lets do that with bible based nerf swords instead of David's head choppin sword-LOL!!!!

      Just my thoughts here...

      Delete
    3. And GloryandHonr and Asha and others,

      I expect and REQUIRE you to hold me and my argumentation accountable as well...At the end of the day, I can't argue weakly and wrong and think that God is served well...I just want to make sure that I represent the Christ that I "believe" I represent...Yes, challenge, correct and as the scripture says root up and throw down, but do it right...

      I have really appreciated the conversation in this and the other thread however. I'll get back on the guy who started the topic because I don't believe he is saved, but that has nothing to do with the commentors here...they just happen to share some of his beliefs, but Jennings is in a class of apostasy on his own...

      Delete
  20. Harvey
    Amen, Amen, and Amen. If I can be of help to you during sickness or trouble, let me know. Peace be unto you! Jesus is LOVE!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's my take Rev…

    I have no problem calling folks names, being sarcastic, expressing tones of frustration, and casting righteous judgment. Jesus did so (VIPERS and HYPOCRITE, and SNAKES,YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER the DEVIL...etc). As well as Paul (Oh ye foolish Galations, who have bewitched YOU!).

    I think the conversation here went down a rabbit hole at times, because of maybe the AMOUNT of information given. There were points and counter-points and cross-points and different Scriptures used where many are taken out of context. Especially with the ONENESS, they quote one Scripture, and raise to correlate a point from another Scripture, where the meaning of the secondary Scripture does not apply. You gave a lot of information, I think for this argument, maybe too much at times, IMHO. Sometimes too much can serve as a detriment and information and truth can get lost.

    Like I joked with you before, Ya'll COGIC preachers can be long-winded at times. My wife's DAD was a COGIC pastor for years, and when he felt hindered preaching in the confinement of a "CHURCH", he decided to go full throttle, and became an EVANGELSIT. You know the church culture, people give EVANGELSITS more ROOM and MORE TIME TO TALK, at least where I'm from. My father-in-law took advantage of opportunity to become exhaustive.

    About us and METOO, I think the discussion went well. I got the feeling YOU wanted to put me on BLAST, but you pulled back and were very tactful and diplomatic. You did not treat me like a dog at all. I understood YOUR deep concern for those who were victimized.

    ReplyDelete

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. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.