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.

I am glad to continue this debate, and have been encouraged by lurkers, friends and family to patiently continue.

**You also ignored the first part of my response as well.**

Hmmm, maybe I skipped, skimmed, or the like as you admit doing. So, let’s break it down...

**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). **

You wouldn’t answer if you and your word are separate entities. (clue: your word comes from your brain. The physical mechanism simply makes it heard). You just want to argue about 1:1, and not answer the question. Nevertheless, here I reply:

You repeatedly point to John 1:1, but you don’t seem to understand it. The Word was there from the beginning, which was WHEN it was begotten. The Word was made flesh, and John tells you, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN Son, which is IN THE BOSOM of the FATHER, he hath declared him.” 1:18. .....and more of where the Son came from: “Jesus knowing that the FATHER had GIVEN him ALL things into his hands, and that he was COME FROM GOD, and WENT TO GOD..” 13:3 (sounds like the Son is possessed by God the Father. more on that farther below).
God the Father has no beginning, unless maybe you know who created him.

**Do you suppose, then, that God “physically Fathered” the “Mighty God” in eternity? (Isaiah 9:6).**

He’s the Mighty God and everlasting Father because the Father is IN him (and he in the Father), just like he told you three places in John.

**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).**

Here is ‘plain reading’, direct from the Son, answering your ‘I AM’ argument: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he GAVE me commandment, WHAT I should SAY, and WHAT I should SPEAK. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I SPEAK therefore, even as the FATHER SAID unto me, so I SPEAK” (John 12:49,50).

**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?**

From his beginning creation (the only begotten), the Son has always had the Father in him, and he in the Father (because he said so). When the Son speaks, it is as the mouthpiece of God the Father. God the Father is the ‘I am’. The Christ is simply the image of the invisible Father, the ‘only true God’ (remember John 17:1-3; which you have yet to deal with).

**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....Who, by the authority that the Father gave him, sends the Comforter FROM the Father (15:26)

The source of all power is traced back to the Father (who dwells in his Son).
Paul, writing to the church, said in 1Cor. 3:23, “And ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s”. (there’s that possessive again).

**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.**

The Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the Father”. You just can’t seem to grasp that fact. The Son said that to be the case. John 15:26. And you still seem to think you have a better understanding than the inspired writers, who NEVER referred to the Holy Ghost(Spirit) as “God the Holy Ghost”, or the Son of God as “God the Son”. The phasing of those words in your approved fashion verily contradict the scriptures, and the proper definition of God. Example: Is it proper to define ‘St. Louis of Missouri’, or ‘Missouri the St Louis’?How about another: ‘Pacific Ocean of Planet Earth’, or ‘Planet Earth the Pacific Ocean’. Should I prophesy that you will mock that argument, as you mock others?

**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.”**

Yes, we HAVE been over it before, and you refuse to accept the whole passage (just cherry picking one verse out of it), where the Lord teaches of the experience of being filled with Spirit of God, and how AT THAT DAY we can feel a portion of what the Christ felt at an immeasurable level. Musta been one of the areas you admitted to just skimming or skipping. Or maybe you read it, and declared it not to be an answer. Here it is again from post 1213:

Notice Jesus Christ said, “AT THAT DAY”. What day?...the day when people are filled with his Spirit (aka Comforter, aka Holy Ghost).

The Christ said that the Comforter will not come unless he goes away. 16:7. AND told the disciples in 14:17 “ye know him for he dwelleth with you, and shall be IN you. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will COME to you.” (18). How?...as the Comforter.

He had to go away physically, because he couldn’t abide physically with ‘whosover will’ constantly. It’s not physically possible. He had to return as the Comforter so that ‘whosoever will’ can receive of him, and because of his being poured out, “..the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” 14:12

**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.**

No, the Christ is not ‘only telling us of a special unity’. There’s a whole passage there where the Lord is telling them of the coming Comforter, saying the “..ye know him; for he dwelleth WITH you, and SHALL (future) be IN you.” 14:17

Once again: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will COME TO YOU.........AT THAT DAY...”. He’s telling them of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; which he commanded them to receive, and later tells them to wait for it in Jerusalem. It was not going to be poured out until he bodily departed. AT THAT DAY they too would discover how we become like the Son, fully realizing what it’s like to be in the Father, and he in us.

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

Wow! You took the words right out of my mouth! Oh, you respond. You just somehow manage skip over the same questions over and over. They are once again patiently waiting for you at the end of this post.

**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: 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?**

The Holy Ghost is sent from God the Father, which is what the Son (who is IN the bosom of the Father) said. The Son elaborates the phenomenom: “..the Comforter..whom I will send unto you FROM the FATHER, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDETH FROM the FATHER..” 15:26 and “..whom the Father will send in my name..” 14:26. And since the Father has given all authority to the Son (that is in his Father’s bosom), he can send the Spirit forth from the Father. I can speak to someone thousands of miles away with a cell phone (which has no will of it’s own). The cell phone at the far end is simply echoing my will. Lying to it, is lying to me.

**Is the Holy Spirit God because He has the Father in Him too? So goes your silly argument.**

That’s the silly argument of your three God position. Remember these lines I pasted from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’?

17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.

Forbidden?? Well, when you are defining God as three entities, that are each equal to the other, and yet are God individually, the result is three Gods nomatter how you add it up. You should define your position as three Gods in one unified committee.

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

Remember how you pointed out Isa 48:16, and again later, saying : “I already quoted the scripture from Isaiah which has “The LORD God, and His Spirit, hath sent me.” A rather perfect distinction.”

, and how I didn’t answer.........oops,....it was answered in #1232:

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

Here’s your response (keeping in mind that a response in not neccessarily an answer):

**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?**

You are talking about a ‘trinity’. I’m talking about the plain reading of the possessives in context with who is sending who. You should re-write Isa 48:16 to say: “the LORD God, and God the Spirit, hath sent me..”. John 17:1-3 is waiting for you in the list of questions below.

No, you haven’t responded to all my assertions. Below, for the third time, are questions that you have yet to answer (or refute, if you prefer):

1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?) You say you’ve answered it, by using John 1:1. But you still didn’t answer the question.

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.

Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?

**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.**

Thou that judgest art guilty of the same. lol. BUT, I’m not at all frustrated, and I do care.

“I am glad to continue this debate, and have been encouraged by lurkers, friends and family to patiently continue.”

You sure do like to talk about yourself a lot.

“You wouldn’t answer if you and your word are separate entities.”

The “Word” does not mean that Christ is merely a sound vibration. It would not describe Christ as distinct from the Father, and yet the same God as the Father, otherwise. You yourself confess that someone’s word is not separate from yourself. The Word that is God is also with God. It is an expression that depicts Christ as the image of God, the active and expressive power by which God reveals Himself to the world. Christ is similarly called “the light of the world,” “the way and the truth and the life,” “the resurrection,” “the door,” “the lamb;” and in Revelation, “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the almighty.” Is Christ a number? Is Christ a physical door? Is Christ literally a lamb? All these words merely tell us Christ’s essential character, of which His chiefest characteristic is “God with us.” All are true, though you chop out the parts you do not like.

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN Son,”

You should capitalize the word “Only” as well, as it is fatal to your assumption. You assume that “begotten” means created. Yet, we are “begotten” through creation by your logic, and yet are not regarded as begotten at all, since Christ is the “only” one to have ever been begotten.

“God the Father has no beginning, unless maybe you know who created him.”

Neither was 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.

“Here is ‘plain reading’, direct from the Son, answering your ‘I AM’ argument:”

So the Father directed the Son to assert that He is the God of Moses, the Almighty “I am” who has always existed. Way to go Dad!

“From his beginning creation (the only begotten), the Son has always had the Father in him, and he in the Father (because he said so).”

The Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. That’s because they’re two members of the Trinity.

“The Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the Father”. You just can’t seem to grasp that fact.”

What are you talking about? I already asserted that myself. It’s pointless for you to keep spamming me with the same tired nonsense, and then ignoring everything that I say, forcing myself to repeat myself again and again.

I guess those Lurkers (Demons watching?) Friends and Family members like the torture that is repetition.

“(just cherry picking one verse out of it),”

What? Aren’t you the one who is cherry picking by saying that the Father is in the Son, as if that gives the Son right to call Himself God, but refusing to say the Son is in the Father, and both of them in us?

Your entire argument is based on the act of cherry picking. Though, I call it ‘wresting the scriptures unto damnation.”

“The cell phone at the far end is simply echoing my will. Lying to it, is lying to me.”

As blasphemous as this is, it’s already been firmly refuted. How does a cell phone have an independent identity of its user? “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, His cell phone, and His picture. And lo, I shall be with you always, even unto the roaming areas of the world, Amen.”

“Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this:”

Actually, pretty sure I already responded to most of what you’ve written dozens of posts ago, probably multiple times too.

**You sure do like to talk about yourself a lot.**

LOL! Actually, your screen name tells me a lot about you.

I said, “You wouldn’t answer if you and your word are separate entities.”

And you still haven’t answered it.

**You yourself confess that someone’s word is not separate from yourself.**

Made in the image of God.

**The Word that is God is also with God. It is an expression that depicts Christ as the image of God, the active and expressive power by which God reveals Himself to the world. Christ is similarly called “the light of the world,” “the way and the truth and the life,” “the resurrection,” “the door,” “the lamb;” and in Revelation, “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the almighty.” Is Christ a number? Is Christ a physical door? Is Christ literally a lamb? All these words merely tell us Christ’s essential character, of which His chiefest characteristic is “God with us.”**

Good comment, especially because you recognize that the Son is ‘the image of God’, NOT ‘God the image’. Because the Father is in him, and he is in the Father. That’s what he tries to tell you all through the book of John. Oh, and your ‘interpretation’ of 17:1-3 must still be in a holding pattern.

**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.**

“..he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also”. Because......

**So the Father directed the Son to assert that He is the God of Moses, the Almighty “I am” who has always existed. Way to go Dad!**

Actually, that is not mocking me, but the Son, and his words, such as those from John 12:49,50.

**The Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. That’s because they’re two members of the Trinity.**

No, because the Son said that that is literally the relationship; the Father in him, giving everthing divine, whenever needed, doing the works. I gave you over 100 references pointing that out, but you prefer man-made terms and phrases: ‘trinity’, ‘God the Son, and ‘God the Holy Ghost’. By the way, you skipped right over that issue in my last post. Here it is again, and I’m giving you another opportunity to mock it:

The Holy Ghost “proceedeth from the Father”. The Son said that to be the case. John 15:26. And you still seem to think you have a better understanding than the inspired writers, who NEVER referred to the Holy Ghost(Spirit) as “God the Holy Ghost”, or the Son of God as “God the Son”. The phasing of those words in your approved fashion verily contradict the scriptures, and the proper definition of God. Example: Is it proper to define ‘St. Louis of Missouri’, or ‘Missouri the St Louis’?How about another: ‘Pacific Ocean of Planet Earth’, or ‘Planet Earth the Pacific Ocean’.

**As blasphemous as this is, it’s already been firmly refuted. How does a cell phone have an independent identity of its user?**

Would you want a cell phone that doesn’t relay the words of the source? The Son doesn’t have an indepentent DIVINE identity: “I and my FATHER are ONE”, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. The Son is the perfect audio and visual expression of the Father; which is what John told you in 1:18. BUT, the MAN Christ Jesus, had an independent SOUL and MIND of a man (”I thirst”), and tempted in all points, but able to overcome the world, BECAUSE........

Maybe you don’t like parables and similtudes, like the Son used regularly in getting his points across. “God......hath spoken to us by his Son”, who only spoke the words the Father told him to say.

**It’s pointless for you to keep spamming me with the same tired nonsense, and then ignoring everything that I say, forcing myself to repeat myself again and again.**

“Ignore everything that I say” Exaggerate much?? I use the ** to mark your words and then reply.

**Actually, pretty sure I already responded to most of what you’ve written dozens of posts ago, probably multiple times too.**

I’m REALLY sure you haven’t replied to the “same tired nonsense”....that for the FOURTH time, are questions that you have yet to answer in agreement or disagreement:

1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?) You say you’ve answered it, by using John 1:1. But you still didn’t answer the question.

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?

Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?

Aren’t you glad I haven’t forgotten you?

You: Yes I have. Many times. And that’s a serious problem.

Me: ”Because the Father is in him, and he is in the Father.“ The fulness of the Godhead is IN Christ.

“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Matt. 3:17
“Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11
“Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Luke 3:22
“Behold MY servant, whom I uphold; MINE elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put MY spirit upon him: he bring forth judgment to the Gentiles”. Isa. 42:1

Kinda strange that the Father would have WORDS to say, when He is not God the Word (using trinity logic).

You: **This assertion has already been refuted.**

Refuted? Out of the entire chapter 14 you pull (cherry pick) one verse (20) to declare it to only show a unity of likemindedness when describing the relationship of the Father and the Son (and followers of the Lord). I point out to you that the Christ is telling of the upcoming experience of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and how it will make us similar to him: knowing what it is like to have the Spirit of God (not God the Spirit) in us. You cherry pick the verse and use it to deny the plain reading of 14:7-11; especially 10, where the Son says: “..the Father that dwelleth in me, HE doeth the works.”

“I gave you over 100 references pointing that out,”

**Not only did you give me 100 of your references, which in no way contradicted anything I wrote, you did it 100 times.**

How could you say I’ve given you 100 references when you admit to skipping, skimming, etc. what I’ve written? Oh wait, you said I did it 100 times. You probably do read what I say, but you likely read it over several times, thus multiplying my responses approx. tenfold.

Your ‘trinity’ of equal (somehow, but not equal in abilities) persons of God (or is it ‘God the persons’) seems to be explained by your opinions thus far as:

God the Father is mute, since God the Son is God the Word.

God the Father does no creating, and only displays any power during the 33 yrs of the Christ’s earthly life.

God the Son has the power to do anything himself, but refuses to during his earthly visitation, and calls on God the Father during that time to lend his power to him when needed.

God the Father tells (oops.....gestures to) God the Holy Ghost to attend to this or that. God the Holy Ghost never gets to order God the Father around. Not very equal if you ask me.

** Why should I regard your position when it is based on the false premise that the Father is ONLY in the Son, and the Son isn’t in the Father, and the two aren’t in us, with the Holy Spirit who is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ? Who Himself is called ‘God’?**

Boy, you HAVE been skipping and skimming a lot! I told you (oops....John the baptist told you) that the Son was filled with the Spirit without measure. Only the Christ has that limitless design. But, those that receive the baptism of the Spirit are fellow heirs with Christ, heirs of God, and sons of God. A least you haven’t been using the “phrases ‘God the Son’, and ‘God the Holy Ghost’ in the last few posts. So, we’re making progress on your plain reading claims.

I said: “Would you want a cell phone that doesn’t relay the words of the source?”

You said: **Huh? How exactly is this a response?**

John 12:49,50 gives you a great example. (Oh, I forgot you skip, skim, etc.) “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he GAVE me commandment, WHAT I should SAY, and WHAT I should SPEAK. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I SPEAK therefore, even as the FATHER SAID unto me, so I SPEAK”.

You wrote: **I wrote: “As blasphemous as this is, it’s already been firmly refuted. How does a cell phone have an independent identity of its user?”**

I said: “The Son doesn’t have an indepentent DIVINE identity:

You said: **“So now you’re saying He has an identity, but He’s not divine? Earlier you said that the Word and God are not separate. 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. Sounds like the Son is pretty divine to me.**

As I’ve said all along: It’s the omnipresent God the Father, by means of HIS Spirit, dwelling without measure in the Son, that makes the Son divine. The Son had his own will of the flesh, which was independent. Yet, with the power of ‘the only true God’ in him (see 17:1-3), his will was willing to obey God the Father, and with that power, overcome the world. The body of the Son was POTENTIALLY corruptible (see Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27). All divinity is sourced back to the Father, otherwise your ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost’ phrases would be spelled out that way in the scriptures. I’ve probably pointed that out ‘a 100 times’. (lol)

I’ll give you credit for not repasting your excuses for not answering the list of questions I’ve placed at the end of my posts. You just word them differently each time:

**At this point I really wouldn’t be surprised if you’re copying and pasting what you’ve written to me before. It looks so similar that I just kind of glaze over and end up skimming through it. I’ll end this reply at this, and then we’ll repeat it again with your next post where you’ll say the same things for the 101st time.**

**Actually, pretty sure I already responded to most of what you’ve written dozens of posts ago, probably multiple times too.** from #1242

**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.** from #1240

**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.** from #1216

If my list of questions were easy for you to answer directly, you would have answered them. You manage to reply rather quickly to other comments I’ve made.

For the FIFTH time:

1. Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons? (we are made in the image of God aren’t we?) You say you’ve answered it, by using John 1:1. But you still didn’t answer the question.

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?

Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?

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.