Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:

Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1

And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:

…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2

And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:

Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3

Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4

And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:

Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5

Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:

To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6

Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.

The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7

Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:

A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8

This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.

Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:

And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9

Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10

Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:

And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

This is the central truth of Christianity, the nature of Jesus Christ our Lord. There can be no settlement between those who deny this and those who affirm it. It’s the difference between being a Christian and not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is what men have decided being a ‘Christian’ is by their interpretation of scripture.

Men have also determined Mary was born by an immaculate conception.

Lived a sinless life.

Is a perpetual virgin.

Had no other children.

The second Eve.

Queen of Heaven.

Co- redemptrix

An intercessor

Asked to pray for them along with other saints.

Was assumed into heaven

Peter and his assignees can forgive a man’s sin or sins against God for God.

How many of these things do you believe God says you have to believe to be a ‘Christian’?

God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believe in Him will not parish but have everlasting life. It does not say; “he who believes He is God the Son will be saved”

I believe My heavenly Father has placed His Son’s human blood on the mercy seat in place of my human blood in accord with His New Covenant with His people. I also believe He will raise my body from the dead as He raised His Son’s Body from the dead.

Only God the Father can judge wether that is true. The only thing scripture states can keep me out of that body is “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”.

Several times you have stated I do not worship the God of scripture which would mean I am not saved as well. You can suggest I am not saved but you cannot state it. Stating it means you know the mind of God the Father.

I have never pinged the RM. If you ever make that claim again, I will. Claiming to know wether one is saved or not makes you a mind reader of God, or worst yet, God

May God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB

Sorry for not answering sooner, We spent yesterday with our daughter’s family and brought our 4 year old grandson home with us.

“Men have also determined Mary was born by an immaculate conception.”

That’s not in the scripture, but this is:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Therefore your comparison fails.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You keep referring to that scripture to prove what I feel men use to define what a Christian is. I suspect you have others.

One definition of a Christian is; “One who believes in the teaching of the Christ.”

Lets look at how the Christ describes those who believe in Him;

John 14:12-14
12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[a] anything in My name, I will do it.

Mark 16:17-19
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

The Christ said to do those things in His Name, not by His power. All through Acts Christians did similar things in His name.

Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Do you believe His Church is doing any of those things today?

If not, why not?

My original post asked if you thought a righteous God could punish you if He could not prove a man can live a sinless life. I believe we have agreed that we are all sinners. You posted scripture to prove it but I believe you did not answer the question I posed.

One definition of righteousness is; “Morally right or justifiable.”

Do you believe God is morally right or justified if He punishes you for something He cannot prove you can accomplish?

My God our Father lead us to His truth, BVB

I don’t post very often but when I do, I believe I try to answer questions in context. I believe you have not.

I have no problem with you calling me a mere man if you will call the men who decided the Doctrine of the Trinity 300+ years after the Christ’s death between opposing views with a majority vote. After the vote, they told the others they were heretics and couldn’t be a member of their church unless they believed it as well. Sounds like a cult to me. Unless you can prove their writings and church councils are on par with scripture, they are of mere men as well.

I have lived long enough to see how good a deceiver the god of this world is. When I was in grade school, we had the Ten Commandments on the wall and Bibles in the classrooms. We said the pledge of allegiance and a prayer every morning and blessed our food as a class at noon.

We had Christmas and Easter vacation. A Christmas tree and gave gifts. Sang carols and were taught what Easter represented. We were taught the Pilgrims gave thanks to God at Thanksgiving, not to the Indians. Nativity scenes were allowed any where you wanted to put them, public or private..

I was taught the United Sates was based on Judeo-Christian principles. Freedom of Religion meant everyone could practice their Christian sect’s beliefs. Today, for all practical purposes, it means you can practice any religion other than Christianity.

The only business that I can remember that did not respect the Sabbath was a steel mill that had to run 24 7 because of the furnaces. Police, fire and a hospital for similar reasons. The workers got premium pay to work on the Sabbath.

Sport competition between schools was after school hours on week days. The only sport competition outside of school was Little League and Pony League baseball. They were played after school and some Saturdays. Nothing was scheduled for Sundays because we were in Sunday school and/or church as a family.

The definition in Webster’s dictionary for homosexual was; “A man who has unnatural perverted sex with another man.”

We were taught manners and etiquette. Boys and men opened doors for woman and those older than they. We called all adults Mr, or Mrs. Single women were called Miss. We sinned, but when we did, we knew God knew we did it, even in the dark.

Thirty years ago a liberal could not win the presidency. Now we have reelected a Marxist who won mainly by class warfare because more than 51 percent of the people have never learned or understand; “Do not covet your neighbor’s possessions”.

This is the reason I don’t care what the Church Fathers wrote about traditions and beliefs of the church in their day. I have seen how ‘traditions’ evolved in my lifetime. The tradition of the church today would have to include Homosexual bishops, churches marrying men to men, women to women and homosexual priests molesting boys. Would the Christ consider that His Church, I think not.

I posted most of this to show why I don’t trust man’s interpretation of scripture. The Christ said He would ask His Father to send us His spirit to lead us in truth. I make no claim that I get it right.

I find nowhere in scripture that says a man has to interpret scripture for me. If you know of such scripture, I would appreciate you showing me where it is.

Now I will try one more time to have you answer what I feel should be a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think a righteous God could punish you if He could not prove a man can live a sinless life?

I all ready believe you think the Christ is God. I do not believe that is a yes or no answer to my question.

Giving more reasons why God thinks we are sinners is not a yes or no answer. I believe I have disobeyed all of God’s Thou shall nots with the possible exception of, Thou shall not murder. Because of my thoughts about a neighbor, He could say I have already done it in my heart. I could be guilty of that as well.

It confounds me as to why I feel you are reluctant to give a yes or no answer with several chances.

Would you please give a yes or no answer to the question?

If you don’t want to, I won’t ask again. I will put your name in the have not given a yes or no answer at this time column.

May God the Father lead us to his truth, BVB

I’m doing my best, given the insane work schedule I’ve had as of late, to answer you opinions. And, once I’m home, there are family obligations. If they are long replies, it’s because I DO JUST THAT. I don’t intentionally skip, skim, spin, or dodge.

**No, I saw it, and it’s the 3rd or 4th time I’ve seen it. I basically ignore it, since it isn’t even a proper reply to the original objection to begin with. **

This is your conclusion to your original objection:

**The scriptures declare that there are three who are called God, and yet there is only one God. Yet these same three have different roles, perform different acts, and speak one to another. Therefore, we can only conclude the trinity.**

The scriptures do NOT declare that there are three that are declared God. Among your quotes:

**Heb 1:8-12 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (9) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (11) They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; (12) And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.**

The Son was annointed by someone. Musta been the Father, since that’s the only one the Son credits for empowering him. “..therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee..” Annointed, just as Peter testified: “God annointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost” (which proceedeth from the Father). The Son is God because of the Father in him WITHOUT MEASURE (that is not the case for anyone else that is ‘filled with the Spirit’).

**Therefore, I have to settle with the plain words of the scripture which declare that Jesus has always been with God, and is God, and “the same in the beginning with God.”**

The ‘beginning’ was the creation of the Son. The Father is not created. “The Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jesus’ words, not mine). The first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, is the image of the invisible God.
In an earlier post you said this:

**In proper “grammer” [sic], the Father and the Holy Spirit, two separate yet divine beings, are sending the Son.**

Since you believe in ‘the plain reading’ of the scriptures, show me the chapter and verse, where the Son speaks verbatum of the Holy Ghost sending him. He says this of the Father many times.

**According to you, Jesus Christ can claim to be God because the Father is in Him. Therefore, since the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us, from your logic, we can claim to be God.**

That’s your logic. Only the Son is given the Spirit without measure.

**To be honest, I skim through most of your posts and don’t really read them completely. If I don’t respond to every little thing, just assume that I thought it was insignificant or not worth commenting on, since other scriptures make my argument without going through the effort of untangling yours.**

No, you’re just dodging. AND, if I would have made the above statement, you’d have been saying the same thing. “Don’t read them completely”....”I thought it was insignificant”. Yeah, you’d have been demanding I stop dodging and respond.

**..other scriptures make my argument without going through the effort of entangling yours.............Luckily, I’m not a Oneness Pentecostal, so I can just read the scripture plainly and not have to make convoluted logic like that to explain what the scripture clearly says.**

Do these words from scriptures listed below (from John, unless otherwise noted) make your argument? Look them up and ‘read them plainly’ (maybe if I just post the references you’ll read them out of your bible, since you admit that you just skip, skim, or don’t read all of my posts anyway).

gave: 3:16, 10:29, 12:49, 14:31
gavest: 17:4,6,8,12,22, 18:9
give: 14:6, 15:16, 16:23
given: 3:35, 5:26,27,36, 6:39,65, 7:39, 13:3, 17:2(2),7,8,9,11,24(2)
received: 10:18
send: 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, Acts 3:20
sent: 3:17,34, 4:34, 5:23,24,30,36,37,38, 6:29,38,39,40,44,57, 7:16,18,28,29,33, 8:16,18,26,29,42, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44,45,49, 13:16,20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3,18,21,23,25, 20:21
will (noun): 4:34, 5:30(2), 6:38,39,40, 7:17
will (verb): 5:20, 11:22, 12:26, 14:26, 15:26, 16:23
word and words (actually there are others that should be included, but the Son made it clear in the following ones whose ‘words’ they were): 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
work and works: 4:34, 5:20,36(2), 9:4, 10:25,37,38, 14:10, 17:4

doctrine: (I’ll spell it out) 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”

That’s over 100 references (from the book of John alone) showing that the Son’s source of ALL things divine, ALL power, ALL wisdom, etc., is from God the Father. There are plenty more alluding to the same.

BUT......here is a question for you: With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?

**Keep in mind I have absolutely no reason to accept any of your arguments, since they all demand that when I read “The Word was with God and the Word was God,” or any of those other scriptures, that I must either disbelieve them or rationalize them as a “just kidding!” moment. The Father has always been the Father, and the Father has always had the Son, and the Son did indeed create all things and is Himself uncreated.**

“Himself uncreated”? So, when Paul (under the inspiration of God) declares, in Col. 1:15, that the Son is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature..”, Paul was just kidding? So in your theology, firstborn=uncreated. (notice how I don’t make comments that include ‘flaky’, ‘convoluted’, ‘tangled’, etc)

**Apparently you forgot your own argument, since you essentially were stating that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ. Since I’ve refuted that. Can you tell me why it is an unforigvable sin to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Can you tell me why we are called the Temples of God because the Holy Spirit dwells within us? Can you tell me why the Holy Spirit is involved in creation, is eternal, ascribed all the attributes of God, and so on and so forth?**

By your own logic, how can the ‘second person’ be the creator, when the Spirit of God (the ‘third person’) beat him to the punch in creation (Gen 1:2), yet the ‘second person’ is creditted with making everything? I have pointed out how the Son declares the source of the Holy Ghost: 14:26 “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in my NAME..” (that name would be JESUS). 15:26 “the Comforter..whom I will send unto you FROM the FATHER, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDETH from the FATHER...”. Luke 11:13 “..how much more shall your heavenly FATHER GIVE the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” And 1Thess. 4:8, “..but God, who hath GIVEN unto us his (there’s that possessive again) holy Spirit”. The Spirit is ‘sent’, and does the will of the Father. Notice how the ‘second’ and ‘third’ ‘persons’ of the ‘trinity’ are under complete control of the ‘first person’ of the ‘trinity’. That is a very unequal ‘trinity’, and even shown to be so here:

But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons of God’ don’t know??)?

**Presumably you harped on John 14 in the first place in order to argue that the whenever Jesus Christ declares Himself to be God, that He was really just kidding.**

Was he kidding when he said: “..the Father that dwelleth in me, HE doeth the works.” You mock, but, in reality who are you mocking? Again, in another passage, the Lord testifies: “...I do nothing of myself” (separate and distinct, coequal,...that’s not what HE says)..”but as my FATHER hath taught me, I speak these things, And he that SENT me is WITH me:”.. (remember 14:10)..”the FATHER hath not LEFT ME ALONE; for I do always those things that please him.” 8:28,29

Satan, Peter, and Martha, all testified to the Christ that he is the ‘Son of God’, TO HIS FACE. He didn’t correct them. THAT is the plain reading of the scriptures. The phrse is found in the NT almost 50 times, and the phrases ‘God the Son’, and ‘God the Holy Ghost’ are found nowhere.

Below are questions that you have yet to answer:
1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?)

2. Who’s greater: The Son says, “My Father, which is GAVE them me, is GREATER than ALL..”. 10:29; and “..for my Father is GREATER than I..”. 14:28.

3. Mat_28:19 “ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:..”. The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS. Now, first of all, note that he says ‘name’ in the singular, not ‘names’. ‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21. Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it. The apostles knew what they were doing when they baptized in the name of ‘Jesus’. Do you use his name in water baptism?

4. “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. So, what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?

5. AND........don’t forget Matthew 28:18; Jesus..spake...”All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in Earth” (that’s pretty much everywhere, and let’s see, who GAVE it unto him?......could it be the Father that dwelleth in him, and he in the Father?).

6. Jesus praying to the Father (17:1), “And this is life eternal, that they might know THEE the ONLY TRUE GOD, ........AND........JESUS CHRIST, whom THOU hast SENT.” John 17:3. So, do you disagree with the Son, who declares the Father to be the “ONLY TRUE GOD”? (That’s some more ‘plain reading’; just like ‘the ‘Father in me, and I in the Father’)..

And you didn’t deal with this:
Food for thought: 15:1 A vine (Son) and a husbandman (the Father). The husbandman plants the vine and cares for it, etc. The ‘husbandman’ gave the ‘vine’ it’s start, provides all it’s needs, and has the power to prune or even kill the vine. Of itself, the vine has no such power.

Have a great Memorial Day!

“The Son was annointed by someone. Musta been the Father, since that’s the only one the Son credits for empowering him. “..therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee..” “

Just FYI:

Isa_44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and BESIDE me THERE IS NO GOD.

If the Father calls the Son God. Therefore, they must be the same God.

On Jesus Christ:

Rev_1:8 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.

“The ‘beginning’ was the creation of the Son. “

Joh 1:1-2 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.

Ooops, it says In the beginning was the WORD... AND “The same was in the beginning with GOD.”

If the Word was created at the beginning, so was GOD. And, just FYI, the Word IS God.

“Since you believe in ‘the plain reading’ of the scriptures, show me the chapter and verse, where the Son speaks verbatum of the Holy Ghost sending him. “

Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

“That’s your logic.”

Nope, pretty sure it’s yours.

“That’s over 100 references (from the book of John alone) showing that the Son’s source of ALL things divine, ALL power, ALL wisdom, etc., is from God the Father. “

And Jesus is God the Son, who on Earth depended entirely upon the will of the Father, to save a world that was created for Him, by Him, and for His enjoyment.

Col 1:15-17 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) 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: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Gen_1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Oops!

**Isa_44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and BESIDE me THERE IS NO GOD.**

I like all of the ‘first and last’ verses. The Father’ that dwells in Christ (the Son said it’s so, like it or not), MADE him the first and last. And that God, spoke from him then in prophecy, and speaks from him now. (Heb. 1:1)

**If the Father calls the Son God. Therefore, they must be the same God.**

The omnipresent Father is in Christ, and has GIVEN him all power. Matt. 28:18

**Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.**

‘the Lord God (that would be the Father), and HIS Spirit (there’s that pesky possessive!), sent the Son of God (a phrase you insist on modifying to ‘God the Son’. a phrase found nowhere in the WORD) who has the Father dwelling in him.

**Joh 1:1-2 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.**

God the Father has no beginning, if he does, who made him, if thou canst tell? God the Father begat the Son; there’s your beginning. Then everything else in history follows.

**And Jesus is God the Son**

Satan (cringe), Peter, and Martha called him the Son of God. I think they know better than you. Peter even used the name of Jesus in baptism (oh, that’s right,...that one of those several points you’ve continued to dodge)

**who on Earth depended entirely upon the will of the Father, to save a world that was created for Him, by Him, and for His enjoyment.**

So, the ‘second person of God’ was entirely powerless for approx. 33 yrs. (picturing a scenario: The Son says to himself, “well, I could heal this leper myself, but the Father insists on doing all the miracles for now).

**Col 1:15-17 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:..........Gen_1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.**

I agree with that, and that the Son is the firstborn, but again, who made the Father?.....oh, that’s right, you haven’t answered that.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

“The Father’ that dwells in Christ”

This distortion of John 14 has already been corrected. You’ve not responded to it even once, though you’ve told me everything else many times before.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

If Jesus can speak as God and claim to be God based on the Father being in Him, then we also can speak as God and claim to be God based on the fact that, along with the Father, we are in Him, and He in us, and the Father in Him.

John 14 does not declare that Christ is not God. He declares here the special unity between Christian people and their creator.

Upon John 14 your entire excuse for disproving all the scriptures wherein Christ is called God rests, and that is why I have not seriously handled any of your posts since then. It’s like talking to a madman, whose tale, full of sound and fury, signifies nothing, no matter how many times it is repeated.

“I like all of the ‘first and last’ verses.”

You should. It’s Christ declaring that He is God. He isn’t, after all, the “second and second to last,’ or the “not so Almighty,” now is He?

“‘the Lord God (that would be the Father), and HIS Spirit (there’s that pesky possessive!)”

Mat_16:17 ... my Father
Mat_18:10 ... my Father
Mat_18:19 ... my Father
Mat_18:35 ... my heavenly Father
Mar 8:38 ... his Father

(There’s that pesky possessive again)

I can’t help but to find your retorts silly. What do you hope to prove by “His” or “my,” when we are talking about a trinity in the Godhead? Is the Spirit of God not really the spirit of God, but a created being? Are we deceived when we are told that we are the temples of God, for God dwells in us? Is the Son another God who exists side by side God? Whether the Son belongs to the Father, and the Father belongs to the Son, or the Holy Spirit belongs to them both, and they both belong to the Spirit, doesn’t say anything except reveal the relationship of the three persons in the Godhead.

“Satan (cringe), Peter, and Martha called him the Son of God.”

The Son of God IS God according to Old Testament understanding. Even teachers like Joseph Ben Uziel, 30 years before the time of Christ, acknowledged this truth.

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)

Even the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be God’s Son “making himself equal with God”:

Joh 5:17-18 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Christ Himself, if you will not believe all the witnesses given so far, declares that He is uncreated, having perpetual existence:

Joh 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

And yet, you would absurdly retort, “It is the Father in Him that allows Him to claim He has always existed!”

Your constant drumbeat of absurdities makes no difference to me.

“I agree with that”

The Firstborn is in reference to preeminence, not being a creature:

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Christ is the creator of the universe, which is strictly the working of God.

This is the second time I’ve told you this. Please don’t distort these scriptures without at least attempting to respond to the objections first.

**This distortion of John 14 has already been corrected. You’ve not responded to it even once, though you’ve told me everything else many times before.“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20**

Distortion....everything else?...You are interpretting John 14 to fit your ‘unity only theory’, when the Christ is explaining that the Father is in literally in him, doing the works. He expressed surprise that Philip still hadn’t realized that. He further explain that those that receive the Spirit of God will have the same dual nature as him: a human being filled with Spirit....”..and greater works shall he do; because I go unto the Father”. (remember, he had to go away before the Comforter would come)

The words “AT THAT DAY” expressly tell us that we will be like him, when filled with the Spirit, BECAUSE.....”For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (not ‘God the Spirit’), they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, AND JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST......”. Rom. 8:14-17

The Son was appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2). How can he be ‘appointed heir’ to something that was already his, according to your belief system?

**You’ve not responded to it even once, though you’ve told me everything else many times before.**

Post 674 was the first of several; they just don’t fit your theology
:
He started out explaining how he is the Father’s express image in divinity: “..he that hath seen me hath seen the Father (9)....the Father that dwelleth IN ME, he doeth the works.” (10); but the Son in humanity: “..the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself...”.(10). “..and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me”. (24). He of his own self could do nothing. Why?...because the man Christ Jesus was not sent to do his own will, but the Father that sent him. John 5:30.

**Mat_16:17 ... my Father
Mat_18:10 ... my Father
Mat_18:19 ... my Father
Mat_18:35 ... my heavenly Father
Mar 8:38 ... his Father
(There’s that pesky possessive again)
I can’t help but to find your retorts silly. What do you hope to prove by “His” or “my,” when we are talking about a trinity in the Godhead?**

Well, we’re making progress...you agree that there are possessives. The Spirit IS the Father’s to do with as he so pleases. The Father IS the Son’s father.

**Upon John 14 your entire excuse for disproving all the scriptures wherein Christ is called God rests, and that is why I have not seriously handled any of your posts since then.**

You haven’t seriously handled them, because you can’t handle them under you man-made parameters. If you could answer the questions, you would, since you seem to declare a vast superiority in understanding the Word. Here they are again:

1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?)

2. Who’s greater: The Son says, “My Father, which is GAVE them me, is GREATER than ALL..”. 10:29; and “..for my Father is GREATER than I..”. 14:28.

4. “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. So, what name are YOU going to use to request the coming of the Holy Ghost?

**The Firstborn is in reference to preeminence, not being a creature:**

That’s your interpretation. He is begotten of the Father, remember? Heb. 1:5,6

Gotta go to the Memorial Day parade! I’ll be back later.

“He further explain that those that receive the Spirit of God will have the same dual nature as him: a human being filled with Spirit....”..and greater works shall he do; because I go unto the Father”. (remember, he had to go away before the Comforter would come)

The words “AT THAT DAY” expressly tell us that we will be like him, when filled with the Spirit, BECAUSE.....”For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (not ‘God the Spirit’),”

These ideas are barely even coherent, since all it does is make the accusation stronger. So, essentially, you say that believers “will have the same dual nature” as you allege Christ has, yet you don’t explain why it is believers cannot claim to be God, as Christ does, or receive worship, as Christ does, even though they have the same Spirit in them that you claim allowed Christ to claim divinity.

Rom_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.

Notice the Holy Spirit is here called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ who dwells within us. Yet, despite having Christ in us, and the Father in us (he’s in Christ!) as you would read John 14th, the Apostles reject worship, even when Christ accepts it routinely.

“The Son was appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2). How can he be ‘appointed heir’ to something that was already his, according to your belief system?”

For the very simple reason that Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of David. In other words, He is truly God and truly man. As God made flesh, He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Php 2:6-7). That Christ submitted Himself to the Father, and relied on the power given to Him alone as the perfect human being rather than on His own power, does not take away from the fact that Christ is “the Almighty” & “the Mighty God” (Rev 1:8, Isaiah 9:6).

“Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?)”

Apparently you can’t make up your mind on whether the Word is God or not. If the Word is not distinct from God, then the Word is just another name for God (thus, you’re a modalist). But the scripture teaches that the Word is both with God and is God.

Joh_1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That is why the Holy Spirit is both God, and is yet with God:

Isa_48:16 ... and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Act 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Did they lie to the Holy Ghost, or did they lie to God? Is the Holy Spirit God because He has the Father in Him too? So goes your silly argument.

Joh_20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Is Jesus Christ God because of the Father in Him, but not Thomas himself who would later be filled with the ‘Spirit of God’ & “The Spirit of Christ”?

“Well, we’re making progress...you agree that there are possessives.”

That’s like saying the Spirit of God isn’t God, because God owns His own Spirit. And yet, God wouldn’t be God unless He had His Spirit, and the Father wouldn’t be a Father at all unless He had the Son. To take away any of the members of the Trinity, then God is no longer God.

I’ll stick with the firm word of the scripture over your confusion any day.

**That’s like saying the Spirit of God isn’t God, because God owns His own Spirit. And yet, God wouldn’t be God unless He had His Spirit, and the Father wouldn’t be a Father at all unless He had the Son. To take away any of the members of the Trinity, then God is no longer God.**

That’s your carnal man reasoning: You see God moving here,...then over here,...then over here, and decide that it takes three separate being to do that, whe the reality is: We haven’t the faintest grasp of what it’s like to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

**These ideas are barely even coherent, since all it does is make the accusation stronger. So, essentially, you say that believers “will have the same dual nature” as you allege Christ has, yet you don’t explain why it is believers cannot claim to be God, as Christ does, or receive worship, as Christ does, even though they have the same Spirit in them that you claim allowed Christ to claim divinity.**

I’ve covered that before, but I’ll try again: Was your physical body fathered by God? Have you had the Spirit GIVEN to you without measure? Has God placed all fulness in you?

**For the very simple reason that Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of David. In other words, He is truly God and truly man.**

...God, because of the Father in him.

**..God wouldn’t be God unless He had His Spirit..**

The Son, speaking of the Father in John 4:23,24, declared that “God is a Spirit”. Can you define God better than the Son? The Son is the image of the invisible God.

**Isa_48:16 ... and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.**

Already covered that a couple of posts back.

Your situation is quite similar to Philip’s. You see the Son of God (not ‘God the Son’), although not literally like Philip, but in the scriptures, yet are expecting the Father to be another being that’s separate, visible (though immortal). Jesus told Philip, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet thou hast NOT known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (you probably have the next two verse memorized by now;..includes the phrase, “he doeth the works”).

**Did they lie to the Holy Ghost, or did they lie to God? Is the Holy Spirit God because He has the Father in Him too? So goes your silly argument.**

The Holy Ghost proceedeth FROM the Father......SENT from the Father. The Father SENT the Son....
The source of all power is traced back to the Father (who dwells in his Son). The Son tells you many times that everything comes from the Father. I have two hands, two legs, eyes, ears, etc. They all have different capabilities, and mostly work at the same time.......under the direction of ONE brain. Reminds me of Heb. 1.1

**Apparently you can’t make up your mind on whether the Word is God or not. If the Word is not distinct from God, then the Word is just another name for God (thus, you’re a modalist). But the scripture teaches that the Word is both with God and is God.**

That’s one of my questions you won’t answer, remember?....Are you made in the image of God? Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons?

Well, it’s past bedtime, and I’ve answered most of you questions. If I missed some, they’ll just have to wait. Just like I have to wait for you to answer the list of questions I’ve given you three times.

Hopefully my schedule won’t be so demanding this week, and I’ll be home more often. A 5 truck company is a 4 truck company when one driver quits. The rest of us have to cover the loads until a replacement is hired. Cheers.

“I’ve covered that before, but I’ll try again: Was your physical body fathered by God?

First of all, Christ already had existence before the incarnation. His incarnation was merely the Word made flesh, but before that the Word was with God and was God from the BEGINNING (John 1:1). Do you suppose, then, that God “physically Fathered” the “Mighty God” in eternity? (Isaiah 9:6). Christ further asserts that He had always existed, “Before Abraham was, I am,” before they took up stones to stone Him. The verb used is that of present tense, as in continual Being, not “I was” in the Greek. He uses the same title as God in the Old Testament “I Am” (From Exodus). So, is Jesus Christ the perpetually existing “I AM” because in eternity, the Father physically reproduced, and filled the Word (who was still spirit) with the Holy Spirit without measure? How is one perpetually existing if He has a beginning, and how does one receive the Holy Spirit in your body before you have a body? And, how is it that God is able to form another separate God?

FYI, was Jesus physically fathered by God? It says here He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no sexual intercourse... I do agree that the Holy Spirit is God though:

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

“The Holy Ghost proceedeth FROM the Father......SENT from the Father. The Father SENT the Son....
The source of all power is traced back to the Father (who dwells in his Son). “

The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son, as He is called both the “Spirit of God” and “The Spirit of Christ,” (unless you want to say that Christ is God, and therefore He is only one person’s Spirit) as already shown. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit and the Son are not just extended bits of energy. They are distinct individuals with their own identities. The Son prays to the Father (why would a piece of energy, or a created projection, pray to the projectee?), the Holy Spirit speaks of Himself, can be lied to, and is called God in the fullest sense. How does one lie to God, if they are actually lying to the Holy Spirit who is not actually God? What you say only makes sense if the Holy Spirit and the Son had no identities of their own. But if they have their own identities, then their claims to be God are fully justified, because they are fully God.

“Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons?”

I’m perfectly okay if you go down this route, though it makes you a modalist, which is a different heresy than the one you have promoted. If you say that the Word is not a separate and distinct person from God, then you confess that the Word that was made flesh (Christ) is actually God all along. In which case, to fix your modalism, I would again point you to what I said one paragraph above, and add “The Word is WITH God AND IS God,” to prove they are both distinct and yet one God.

“Hopefully my schedule won’t be so demanding this week, and I’ll be home more often. “

To be honest with you, I am perfectly indifferent to your presence, so there’s no need to tell me your schedule all the time.

This is quick. Only home briefly. So, if I didn’t cover it all, I’ll be back sometime.

**And, how is it that God is able to form another separate God?**

He didn’t.

**Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.**

The Son constantly referred to his Father. The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father (which is what the Son said to be the case). Now.......you can say, in your three separate system, that the Father is the father of the Son, and that the Holy Ghost is is the father as well, therefore God had two fathers.....(facepalm).

**The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son, as He is called both the “Spirit of God” and “The Spirit of Christ,”**

And in those passages, the Spirit is never called “God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)”. It’s the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead. “..that like as Christ was raised by the GLORY OF THE FATHER...”. Rom. 6:4

“..If we believe on him”..(which ‘person’?)..”that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead..”. Rom. 4:24

Everything divine is traced back to the Father.

**“The Word is WITH God AND IS God,” to prove they are both distinct and yet one God.**

So.....someone else does the talking for you?

**Word that was made flesh (Christ) is actually God all along.**

The image of the invisible God. Not ‘God the image’. “God was IN Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” 2Cor. 5:19. The invisible God just so happens to be the Father. Jesus Christ showed you that in his prayer in John 17:1-3 (remember?....one of the several questions you still haven’t answered.)

**To be honest with you, I am perfectly indifferent to your presence, so there’s no need to tell me your schedule all the time.**

I’m glad you’re being honest with me. Actually you once equired as to my absence, remember?...(from your post 1017)

**(I’m not sure why you needed time to know how to reply,**

Actually, giving my schedule out is a bit of a OTR driver’s habit. We seem to always be giving out such info to dispatchers, logistics brokers, shippers, receivers, and of course, the WIFE!

“Now.......you can say, in your three separate system, that the Father is the father of the Son, and that the Holy Ghost is is the father as well, therefore God had two fathers.....(facepalm).”

I was responding to your assertion that the Father physically produced Jesus, so therefore I quoted that it is the Holy Spirit’s doing. In other words, what you just accused me of, was your position, not mine.

You also ignored the first part of my response as well. Kind of makes it pointless to respond to you, if you’ll just cherry pick parts of my post and make pointless retorts about arguments I did not make.

“And in those passages, the Spirit is never called “God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)”.”

Again, the cherry picking and ignoring of most of what I say. I’ll just copy and paste the previous example I used of the Holy Spirit being called God:

Did they lie to the Holy Ghost, or did they lie to God? Is the Holy Spirit God because He has the Father in Him too? So goes your silly argument.

It’s tedious to have to repeat points I’ve made just so you can ignore them like they were never made at all.

All the rest of your assertions I already responded to, though you responded to none of my points which refute them.

“I’m glad you’re being honest with me. Actually you once equired as to my absence, remember?...(from your post 1017)”

Here’s post 1017:

“We’ve been over this before. Christ continues: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”

Thus, your proof text that every scripture where Christ is called God is simply referring to the Father “in Him” simply doesn’t fly, because Christ here is only telling us of the special unity we have with Christians with our God. If taken as you do, then we also can claim to be God, receive worship, and make the claims that Christ does, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us.

Each of your “I say..” comments is based upon this one premise, which you’ve repeated each time you’ve posted to me. (I’m not sure why you needed time to know how to reply, when this post is nearly identical to what you’ve told me before!) Therefore, I have to settle with the plain words of the scripture which declare that Jesus has always been with God, and is God, and “the same in the beginning with God.”

Looks like back then I couldn’t care less either, and was still frustrated, 200 posts ago, about the repetitious nature of the arguments you present me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.