STUDY TIME: The Black Church & The Oneness/Trinitarian Divide...

Over the years we have not avoided the issue of Oneness Pentecostalism and the confusion and misinterpretation of scripture as it pertains to the issue of salvation. 

From the "Revelatory Expressions" of Noel Jones, who thought to attempt to "pretend" that he had somehow changed his teaching to that of Trinitarian belief, to the false message that anyone can diminish the meaning of the Cross, and actually gain salvation in a baptismal pool with the proper words said over them, HERE. In addition, we have seen the most dogmatic and error filled person, at least on this subject, Gino Jennings, basically claim that anyone who is not both baptized in his formula, nor believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all Jesus, are on their way to hell.

RANK STUPIDITY

Believe me, I have seen it all and spoken on the rise of anti-biblical doctrines and characters as they continue to spout heresy. Thank GOD for continuing to raise up a generation of young people who are as adamant and more in standing against the invasion of false doctrine that continues to attempt to choke this generation and remove it far away from truth, through and by manipulation and false teaching.  

Take the time to listen to and study this video. It reaches back over 120 years into the past and outlines the foundation of much of the confusion that exists today as it pertains to Biblical teaching and doctrine on the nature of God and the modern acceptance of Sabellianism, modalism and what we know as the teaching of Oneness (often misnomered and associated with Apostolic doctrine) 

As I have posted in the comments of the video, can a person who embraces Jesus as God, even without an understanding of how he is God, be saved? 

I don't know, but you may wish to chew on that in the comments. Please feel free. 

Blessed!

Read more!

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 26:36-46; Mark 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!

Read more!

Commentary & Notes: Colossians 1:12-20 Debunking Modalism

I have addressed the error of Sabellianism or modalism on this blog in various ways including uncovering the misuse of language that backs the Oneness platform of confusion on the nature of God. Recently, I had the opportunity to display why the particular teachings of a heretic were insufficient and non-biblical, only to find out that many believers, who claim to adhere to trinitarian doctrine, really didn't think it was a "big issue" to believe otherwise because they felt that since "belief" of doctrine wasn't an issue at salvation and that adherence to doctrinal teaching along this line was also not a matter or issue of salvation. 

Sentiments of this can be dangerous and could also be unbiblical. Not that it was the case in this particular situation, but it seems that by far and large the church has abandoned indepth teaching as it pertains to the nature of God and the examination of who God is, what HIS nature means to the world, and why those teachings are relevant to the day to day life of every believer. 

The need and longing to know and explore the nature of God has been replaced by the the sentiments and desires to be "peaceful" and "unified" with all them who claim to be "believers" no matter what those "said" believers actually believe.

This is devastating because the fact is that people gave their lives for what they "believed", in the early church and those beliefs were without compromise. What one believes is of great significance and vitally important to the life and relationship and even fellowship of every believer with Christ. In addition, if one can simply redefine God to meet ones own terms and beliefs, then HE is not the God of the bible nor the God of history. When men invent or create a God that they can readily understand or compartmentalize, then it is questionable whether faith is truly placed within the God who has both defined himself as he is and the faith that we were told to earnestly contend for. (Jude 3) 

What do you say? A case of circular reasoning? Well, I don't think so. I believe it is a demand and persistence to seek and know truth. The truth of the matter is that God the Father and God the Son exist eternally, have never changed hats, are not merely defined by their role, and, though distinct, are yet ONE God. This is what the scripture repeatedly affirms and what the Holy Writ, when examined for what it says, certainly affirms. 

Let's review a portion of the first chapter of Colossians in a verse-by-verse study on the nature of God.

Colossians 

Delivered by Tychicus, the epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul while under house arrest in Rome. Written to the mostly Greek Saints and believers who lived in an area located in what was known as Greater Phrygia which included the cities of Antioch in Pisidia , Colosse, Hierapolis, Iconium, and Laodicea . The church itself, probably founded by Epaphras sat on the river Lycus. 

The aim of the letter was to counter false teaching regarding the majesty, nature, mission and complete redemption of mankind found in Jesus himself. The epistle proved to be a strong and poignant stance against the backdrop of an early and developing gnosticism and theosophy of Judaizers who's mission was to redefine the faith. The letter was a direct assault on novel speculations of the day and false teachings which sought to redefine the Jesus of history and his unique place in all of creation and among mankind. 

In this segment, we will look at a section of Chapter 1 of Colossians (v.12-20) that is strong evidence that Jesus and God the Father acted, moved and operated in in relationship to one another and were not confused by early church believers as being one in the same, although they were certainly ONE God. This teaching itself is ample proof, that the nature of God was an issue of utmost importance within the church and among its most early adherents and should not be compromised.   

I have highlighted my commentary within the verses and provided 4 notes as supplement to make sure that context remains clear through and regarding what is being taught in this valuable Pauline epistle. 

Colossians 1:12-20

12-Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13-Who (eg: referring to the Father) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:(aka: JESUS) 

14-In whom (eg: the "dear Son" aka: Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15-Who (referring to Jesus) is the image (See note 1) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (See note 2)

16-For by him (eg: the "dear Son" aka: JESUS) 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: (All of these are the acts of God Almighty himself)

17-And he is before all things, (eg: everything spiritual and natural can be credited in their existence to God the creator.) [In this case referring to JESUS himself] and by him all things consist.

18-And he is the head of the body, the church: (This is continuing to speak of JESUS) who is the beginning, the firstborn (See note 2) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.(See note 3)

19-For it pleased the Father (Herein is the distinction) that in him (the "dear Son") should all fulness (see note 4) dwell;  

20-And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Special Notes:

(Note 1) ~ v.15 ~ Image: the Greek word from which we get "Icon". Strong's "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). (eikṓn) then is more than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).

Something that is separate, yet drawn "from" something that exists and is in itself tangibly real as from the thing it was drawn from. By virtue of that (the image, eikon) would have to have the same "nature" and "essence" but is distinctly NOT the primary thing spoken of though it is identical in every way. 

(Note 2) ~ "firstborn of every creature". Deal with this in 2 parts.

1- "firstborn" ~ From a word group indicating first to experience or one who is in an pre-eminent position. From Strong's 4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416/prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). [4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

2- "creature" ~  Strong's Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). See 2936 (ktizō) and 2939 /ktístēs ("the Creator") for lengthy discussion on "creation-facts."

These phrases combined in this verse do not indicate that Jesus is the "first one made" or "created" among creatures that God made. To the contrary, this verse indicates that Jesus is at the arch-pinnacle of all of creation, or the one to whom all creation and everything (everyone) that is made looks. This contextual understanding can be best understood in the antecedent phrase that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". From that, if Jesus is the image "eikon" of the invisible God, sharing the same nature and essence of that "invisible God" as the scripture indicates, he could have not, in any manner, come into existence, operation or function whether by being created and or by being born of Mary. Thus Jesus himself precedes Mary tracing existence prior to John 1:1 as God would certainly have existed prior to any "beginning" and would have been present "in the beginning". Further, this concept takes better shape in light of the next verse or V.16.

(Note 3) ~ Strong's 4409 "proteuo" same word grouping as note 2, means to be chief, or to have first place, AS OPPOSED to being first as in a succession. Example, The Supreme Court has who is called a "Chief Justice". This Chief Justice may not be the "first Justice" or "first one" chosen to sit on the court, however he has leading or pre-eminent role of authority on the Court. Thus, as this word is used here, it indicates the one who has the preeminent role, place and authority.     

(Note 4) ~ Strong's  says a Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō). this word also indicates fulfillment or completion. This would be wholly and contextually consistent with the narrative as v.20 deals with the cross and redemption. Simply put, rather than "fulness" having to do with the embodiment of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the body and personage of Jesus, as some people contend, this phrase has everything to do with the PLAN of God and what was fulfilled or "finished" by Jesus himself. This verse (v. 19) is rendered as an indicator of the maturity of the plan of salvation contained within Jesus himself. So in this verse, "fulness" and later "fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9) is indicative of the salvation plan, or the highest point at which Heaven (God) speaks and acts in delivering men and mankind from sin and death.  

Blessed!

Read more!

Gino Jennings. A False Apostle Teaching Heresy

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

<-- dir="ltr" div="" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">

Gino Jennings
Director Of Heretic Central

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

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

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

Yes, Jennings is really that bad! 

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

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

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

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

VIDEO EITHER DELETED OR MOVED

Let's Critique This FIASCO Of A Debate And The Heresy Of Gino Jennings

(Much of this was posted on the video channel in the comments section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

Example, Jesus prays in the Garden saying, 

• "if it be thy WILL let this bitter cup pass from me, nevertheless not my WILL but THINE be done" (Lk. 22:42) 

• John 4:34 ~ "my meat (WILL, work and mission) is to do the WILL of him that has sent me and to finish HIS work" 

• Rom. 8:27 ~ And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 

The term "mind of the spirit" is the "WILL" of the spirit...That is NOT referencing your spirit, that is he spirit of God! Otherwise it (the verse) makes no sense at all.

  

Jennings misuses language suggesting that God saying "BY his Spirit", is simply a literary technique to reemphasize himself...

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

God the Father has a MIND, 

God the Son has a MIND 

and 
the Spirit, has a MIND... 

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

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

Here's more: 

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

Examples: 

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

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

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

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

Jesus here is called God and Savior but is "able to keep you from falling" and has the ability to "present you faultless before the presence of his glory"....

• Jude 1:1-2 ~"1- Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2-Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied." Sanctified BY the Father and preserved "IN" Jesus Christ"...

Jude again: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference here is that Jesus says that the Spirit, which is "another comforter" will testify of JESUS and not of himself... in fact he says this: 

• John 15:26 ~ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 

Now, Jennings doesn't believe the word...How do I know? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far as who is doing the work (which is a ridiculous argument) JESUS said this:

• John 9:4 ~ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 

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

• John 14:12 ~ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 

Of COURSE Jesus did the work. Of COURSE the Father did the work. It would have to be because there is only ONE GOD...not two of them and there is a hypostatic union 

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

Then there is John 1:2-3 which for some reason Jennings continued to deviate from, and would NEVER allow the argument to go there: 

• John 1: 2-3 ~ 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

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

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

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

The world was made by HIM???...Who was "him"??? 

The scripture describes him further:

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

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

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

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

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

Second Posting
(which was deleted from the video comments)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 hour 37 minutes you say that Jesus was not a "natural" or physical body walking on water. But at the same time, Jesus claims that a spirit cannot and does not do what he was doing.

• Mt. 14:25-27 ~ 25-And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26-And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27-But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

Now, Jennings spent a whole program affirming that Jesus was flesh. Why switch now? Maybe it was because that wasn't the focus of the scripture. Jesus was FLESH walking on the water, but he was also God. Remember???

Further, to deny this also denies another cardinal doctrine of scripture. The physical and bodily resurrection itself. It was that physical resurrection that gave credence to his doctrine and teaching. When Jesus shows up to the disciples, he did not say he was a spirit. READ what it says:

• Lk. 24:39 ~ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The RESURRECTED glorified body Jesus had FLESH AND BONES and that did not mysteriously change at the ascension. In fact Thomas who doubted it all was challenged the same way in John 20 and after seeing a PHYSICAL Jesus fell and hailed him as "my Lord, my God" John 20:20!

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

Now, or all the dissenters, and as you can see we have some in the comments, please deal with an argument...any argument here. We have a man, by his own words that proves he is either biblically illiterate or one who simply doesn't care what the word says. Deal with that instead of going off trying to defend this heretic when his very words and what the words mean are revealed. 

Some of you have made a god out of this man, and believe me, you will PAY for it, both here and in eternity. 

Blessed!

Read more!

Persons Or Manifestations? "neither one of them totally get it for me" ~ Bishop T.D. Jakes

Recently (1/25/2012) at an event named "The Elephant Room" a round table discussion was moderated by Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald in which Bishop T.D. Jakes was put on the spot regarding his proposed belief in modalism aka" oneness doctrine. 

I have featured posts on modalism on this blog. Sabellianism, as it was initially known, was a third century teaching deemed a heresy by the early church. The concept, rooted in a method of interpretation of certain biblical passages, affirms that there is only one God, but claims that the one God's name is Jesus and that Jesus simply changes role from Father to the Son and from Son to Holy Ghost. Sabellianism holds that Jesus merely "manifests" himself as the Father, and as the Holy Ghost. In contrast, trinitarian believers hold that based on the biblical description, that there is only one God who eternally exists as three persons. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Trinitarians affirm an eternal distinction of the personal identity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost based on mind, will, intellect, self-awareness and not merely based on role or actions.

Read more!

"In The Name Of"...The TRUTH & The Granville Sharp Rule

Matthew 28:19-20 ~ "19-Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20-Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Acts 2:38 ~ "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."

In my post dealing with Bishop Noel Jones and his recent attempts to make the heretical belief in oneness doctrine and its resultant baptismal formula requirement "In Jesus Name" more palatable and acceptable for mainstream and trinitarian believers, the Bishop challenges those that disagree with him with the following statement:

"Well if they were baptized in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, it can't be a contradiction"...."It' can't be a contradiction or Jesus would have started the biggest revolution in the whole Christian matrix"...In Matthew 28:19: the name of Jesus was implicit, it was implied. In Acts 2:38 the name is not implied, it's explicated. Now, my word to anybody who would call me a heretic, is, if something is implicit and something is explicit, it can't be contradictory"..."Matthew 28:19 does not contradict Acts 2:38, neither does Acts 2:38 contradict Matthew 28:19."

I have dealt with the bishop's assertion previously in print HERE, and by audio HERE and HERE, but I thought to revisit the issue adding a little more detail to my previous argument in effort to equip believers with additional information. 

Preface

I would like to say that, this topic wasn't confused by the early church as some may think. The early church certainly struggled with the concept that God revealed himself as three distinct persons in his dealings with the church and the world, but this distinction wasn't blurred until the 4th Century  heretical beliefs of Sabellianism appeared. The misteaching is that The Council Of Nicea established the Trinity. This is a patently false understanding! Nicea defended how Jesus was deity rising to establish a standard against the heresy of Arius, who taught that Jesus was god but not the eternal God. Arianism taught that Jesus was the greatest of all God's created beings, was created out of nothing and was divine in as much as he was like the Father but that he was yet a created being. I will deal with this issue and what happened at Nicea in a separate post.

Read more!

"Revelatory Expressions?" Does Bishop Noel Jones Deny "Oneness"?

Review these enlightening audio podcasts and hear Bishop Jones in his own words

Noel Jones.Trinity Pt. 1 

Noel Jones. Trinity Pt. 2

In what can only be deemed as a highly confused if not even down right deceptive, radio interview, former (current) PAW (Pentecostal Assemblies of the World) Bishop Noel Jones appears to have denied the teaching of Oneness. Oneness, is a doctrine mostly prevalent in organizational Apostolic circles and is normally called "Jesus Only" teaching. This doctrine primarily centers around the thought that Jesus is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost within the the church. This is called modalism. In this teaching we observe Jesus in three "modes" or roles as God. To be more specific, the emphasis is that God (more specifically Jesus) has "manifested" himself as the Father, "manifested" himself as the Son and "manifests" himself today as the Holy Ghost. Please keep this in mind as you will see it later in new clothes.

Early in church history, modalism was rejected as a description of God not contained or found within scripture. It was considered to be a heretical doctrine and those that believed it were considered to be heretics. It was hailed as an ascription or imposition upon the nature of God and an inaccurate portrayal of the person of Jesus. One of the reasons that this is a heresy is because under the modalistic construct, Jesus cannot be truly eternal. He (as son) "begins" or starts "to be" as it pertains to the redemption of man and mankind and more specifically when he puts on flesh. Trinitarians hold however that Jesus exists eternally, from the beginning with God, is God and is a participant within creation itself as scripture describes:

John 1:1-3:~"1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was

not any thing made that was made."

Read more!