I Am Accused of Something Called "Modalism" (Edwardpf123)

[creationliberty]

NOTE (12-5-19): Before anyone reads this, the teaching "The Trinity vs God in Three Persons" has been rewritten and renamed "The Godhead vs The Trinity" in which I have stopped using the phrase "God in Three Persons," as it may have confused heretics like Edwardpf123, and I now adhere strictly to the Biblical term 'Godhead'. If you would like to learn more about this, see our corrections page on that subject here:

http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=939.0

I was searching around Youtube and happened to find this video today in which I'm being falsely accused by "edwardpf123," who I will from here on out refer to as "Edward:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkVwityBlkg
I can't find much of any information on this guy, except that his Youtube channel consists of KJB teachings, Austrian economics, and boxing. I have no idea what those three things have to do with each other, but looking at his "About" page shows that he teaches false doctrine on repentance and has no understanding of it, so that raises red flags immediately.

EXPOSING THE DECEPTION OF EDWARDPF123

I am against repenting of sins and the sinner's prayer for salvation since they are works.
Repentance for salvation is a change of mind of unbelief to belief -Jn.16:9
The Christian walk involves repentance and confession of personal sins (2Cor.7,1Jn.1:9)

Edward teaches that repentance is works, which is error: Repentance is a gift form God:
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2Ti 2:25
He also teaches that repent means "a change of mind," which is not what repentance means. Conversion is a turning and changing of mind, but repentance is grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing. The Bible did not tell us we need to "turn and change" in order to "turn and change" in nonsensical redundancy -- that is false, works-based doctrine; rather we are instructed told to come to godly sorrow of our sin, and be turned and changed by the Holy Spirit.
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
-Acts 3:19
So already, we can see that Edward does not understand the fullness of basic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that's a huge problem. It is dangerous for a man who does not understand the foundational principles of the Gospel to proceed to claim he has understanding of the nature of God.
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

If anyone is reading this and wants to know more about what these things mean, I highly recommend reading or listening to this teaching:
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?

So to address Edward's argument, this is the first I've ever been accused of this. I've never heard of this before. I had no idea what a "modalist" was, and I just now had to go look it up, and after I saw a definition of it, I am not a modalist. Here's a quick definition I found:
modalism: the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature
Those of you who listen to my teachings on a regular basis, you know for a fact I don't teach that. I do not teach that the Holy Spirit is just an "aspect" or "mode" that God portrays Himself in, but rather, that the Holy Spirit is God, and the same goes with the Lord Jesus Christ. So the question we need to ask is this: How did he come to the conclusion that I teach modalism?

Now, before we begin, if you look at Edward's video, you'll see that he does not define what modalism is, so everyone can understand it, and therefore, without defining exactly what he means by what he says, he cannot actually prove his claim, which is what we're about to see.

@0:10 - He reads the title, says that I "worded it very cleverly" and then proceeds to call my teaching "modalism." What he did is called "judging a book by its cover," meaning that he made a judgment based on the title alone, that is the outward appearance, rather than looking inwardly to find the truth. (i.e. He started out with a presuppositional bias against what I teaching before he looked at it objectively.)
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24
He's not even 20 seconds into his video, and he's already set the stage for how deceptive he is going to be.

@0:20 - He says "God IS three persons, not IN three persons," and I find it sad that we are now subjected down into a discussion about the differences between "is" and "in."
For example, by "God in Three Persons," I am saying that God's existence is in Three Persons, God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are One God and Three Persons at the same time. For example:
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
-Mal 2:10
Correct; one God, God the Father, has created us.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 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:
-Col 1:13-16
One God created us, and now we're told that Jesus created us. Correct. But I thought God the Father created us? Correct. Because God and Christ are one, as Christ Himself stated:
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
-John 10:29-30
They are one and two separate persons at the same time. We cannot comprehend how God can be at more than one place at the same time, nor can we comprehend how He can be more than one person at the same time. The point I've been making to people is that just because we cannot comprehend how that is possible with our simple minds and limited understanding is not a reason to deny the truth of Scripture.

I don't teach the oneness doctrine that I've been accused of, nor do I teach this modalism which I've now been accused of. I've been accused of teaching things on both sides of the fence; how can I be guilty of all that at once? The fact is that I don't teach any of them, but rather, rely on Scripture alone.
I chose to say God "IN" Three Persons in the way the word 'in' is taken to mean "within," that is, One God in three separate Persons, but still One God at the same time. I could have said "IS" Three Persons, but it doesn't have the same application that God and Christ are one and separate at the same time as the word "IN" would imply. I don't care which one any of you use; that doesn't bother me, but the fact that Edward seems to think he's discovered some secret false doctrine from the word "in" vs "is" IS vain and wastes our time.

Edward continues on to complain about how long my teaching is, which generally means that he didn't read it or listen to it. In fact, no where does he ever state that he read or listened to my entire teaching, and therefore, he doesn't know what I teach, but he skimmed through the article to try and find some key phrase he could cherry-pick so that he could falsely accuse me.

He then says that "you can spot a modalist by how they call the 'Trinity' pagan" -- I don't know if that's true or not. I don't study modalists enough to know. Perhaps they do. However, to say that all people who teach the concept of the 'Trinity' is pagan are automatically modalists is not only a logical fallacy, it's a lie based on the assumption of Edwards's arrogance. All I will say back to Edward is this: "You can generally spot a lazy and foolish man by how he answers a matter before he hears it."
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Pro 18:13

At about the 1:00 minute mark, he quotes me saying, "Let's begin to address the doctrine of God in three persons by using Scripture to connect the Lord God (Father) to the Lord Jesus Christ (Son)." That's a direct quote I got from my article, which you can find here:
Trinity vs God in Three Persons
He tells everyone that I quoted Isa 9:6, but doesn't quote Isa 9:6 in his video. Therefore, when he quotes me the second time, his listeners will not have a context to understand what I was saying. It's very deceptive, and I've seen a lot of false preachers do this.
Here's Isa 9:6, and this is the prophecy of the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ:
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.
-Isaiah 9:6
(NOTE: At least he mentions that I quoted Isa 9:6 here, because after this point, he won't even bring up the Scriptures I'm quoting.)
Now, I highlighted those parts in the article. He never mentions this; he just keeps quiet about it so no one catches on. The reason I started out with this is because there are many false cults out there, like Jehovah's Witnesses for example, that do not believe that Jesus is God, so I went through a lot of verses to demonstrate that point. He then quotes me from the article saying:
"The child, who is Lord Jesus Christ, is directly called 'the Father.' That alone should be enough to prove the point,"
Then Edward bobbles his head back and forth, rolls his eyes, and scoffs. He just says, "No it doesn't." That's not an argument Edward.
scoff: to treat with insolent ridicule, mockery or contumelious language
Scoffing at something is not how you debate a doctrine, but perhaps it helps get you more views and subscribers, so with that understanding, I totally get why you do it.

It should only take one verse for us to understand the matter, but God gave us many, which is why he cuts me off on the quote, because I continued that sentence to say: "but we can keep going."
He then skips over the next verse I quote as well, meaning that he does not mention to his listening audience this verse, and I've already quoted it in this expose on Edward's video:
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
-John 10:29-30
Jesus is called the Father, and He says that He and His Father are one. Edward skips over this (very convenient I might add), then goes on to quote what I've written.

Here's where I'm not going to go much further with Edward because I've seen through his deception. He repeats this over and over. He quotes me, but will not quote the Scripture I'm talking about in reference. All he does is scoff, and then make a vague, useless comment to go along with it. So for example he skips over the next verses and then quotes a paragraph I wrote, then says, "That left me shaking my head," as if to say that he didn't understand any of it. Okay Edward, I have a contact page in the directory on the side that you can use to write and ask me if you didn't understand it, but just because you don't understand it does not give you the right to lie and deceive other people.

He goes on and just states "This is how they just confuse everything." He makes no other comments, he doesn't say anything relevant. He's not teaching anything; he just scoffs. Right after that, he skips over eight different passages I used to prove my point, and then scoffs at the next thing I say.

Edward is not responding to anything. I talk about how the Holy Spirit and God the Father are used interchangeably in Scripture, and then I quoted A LOT of Scripture to demonstrate the point; Edward deceitfully skips over all of it, shakes his head no, and says, "Okay."

I'm done. I'm only halfway through his video, and I'm done. If this is the best he's got, then I don't need to waste my time. I was hoping to hear an argument that might help me make the article better, or to improve my understanding of the matter, but all I found was a scoffer and a false teacher.

If those of you who are born again in Christ find any errors in what I said, let me know. If you find that Edward points out something relevant (or actually makes an argument instead of just lazily shaking his head in front of a camera), let me know and I'll do my best to address it.

*EDIT* - One of the men in our church says he used to (a few years ago) listen to Edward on a regular basis, but soon began to see the same deception in him that I saw, he stopped listening to him. He testified that, after watching many of Edward's teachings, it is commonplace for him to say things that are difficult to be understood, he doesn't define what he's talking about, he scoffs a lot, and generally doesn't explain much, but deceives everyone into thinking that he understands Scripture.
I would conclude that is one of the major reasons he makes sure the background on his camera has tons of Scriptures plastered all over the wall, so it gives the outward appearance that the man has studied and been given understanding, rather than proving it with his doctrine.

[creationliberty]

I went through the comments on the video too, and they were absurd. People saying, "Thank you, that was very clear," when he didn't say anything. There was one comment from a guy thanking him for "taking his request," so that means this "PackManJake" (who has all sorts of worldly idolatry of sports junk on his channel, which makes sense) requested him to cover this topic about my teaching, but he never contacted me to talk about it. No one is making an argument; this turned out to be a waste of my time.

[creationliberty]

One more comment, here is Edward's false doctrine on repentance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IffRKbajdAg

He teaches that repentance is defined in Gen 6 when it is first mentioned. We teach the same thing. However, he says that it is defined "clearly" as a "change of mind" because of what is being repented of. Wrong. (He says that at the beginning, so you don't have to go too far.)

God is grieving, which is why it says "it grieved him at his heart."
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
-Gen 6:6
Thus, as Noah Webster aptly put it:
repent (v): to feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken
These people falsely assume that in order to have grief, one must have done something wrong. That's not true. People grief when someone dies, but that doesn't mean they did anything wrong. I've seen enough of Edward to see through his deception; he starts with a false premise, and then scoffs his way through the rest of his videos. I'm just glad that I verified that I don't need to waste time with a false teacher that will not hear.

[Jeanne]

So already, we can see that Edward does understand the fullness of basic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that's a huge problem.

Didn't you mean to say that 'Edward does NOT understand the fullness of (the) basic Gospel of Jesus Christ'?

Btw, my first thought when I saw the title of this post was 'what is a modalist?' I'm glad you saved me the trouble of looking it up.

[creationliberty]

Yeah, I fixed that. It's interesting to me that, since Edward wanted to bring up the subject of patterns, I find that people who use those types of those "ism" terms a lot when they teach are typically false preachers because they spend more time looking up worldly terms instead of trying to understand doctrine. I understand there are things like evolutionism and feminism, etc, but I don't play the "isms" game when it comes to Scripture because there is a near-endless list of "isms" that would take someone a lifetime to memorize.

[anvilhauler]

They are one and two separate persons at the same time. We cannot comprehend how God can be at more than one place at the same time, nor can we comprehend how He can be more than one person at the same time. The point I've been making to people is that just because we cannot comprehend how that is possible with our simple minds and limited understanding is not a reason to deny the truth of Scripture.

An analogy I tend to use and have never verbalized to anyone before is that from our brain we have cranial nerves that are a part of our brain and they extend throughout our body.  The retinas of our eyes are a part of our brain and they do a lot of brain image processing before sending their information off to the other parts of our brain for further processing. 

Of the twelve cranial nerves we have, the vagus nerve is counted as the tenth cranial nerve and interfaces down in our chest and abdomen with the heart, lungs, and digestive tract. If you have seen the vagus nerve you have seen the brain.  Like the retina of the eye the vagus nerve and the brain are one.  It is the same for all of the rest of the cranial nerves.

If anyone thinks it is a bad analogy it is quite OK to shoot me down, I'm hopefully humble enough to take it and I won't run away. 

[Joop]

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
-John 10:29-30
While it is clear from this scripture that Jesus and the Father are one, it still raises the question: Are Jesus and (God) the Father the same? I don't think so.
Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons.
The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. While at the same time, Jesus is not (God) the Father.
What do you think about that?

[Jeanne]

Again, then, how do you explain this?

Isaiah 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.

[anvilhauler]

I was going to send some others but there is really no need because what Jeanne posted is proof enough.

[Joop]

Again, then, how do you explain this?

Isaiah 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.

My explanation would be: The everlasting Father is a title rather than a designation that Jesus and God the Father are the same.

We are his children. Whose children? God's children.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2


Either God the Father and God the Son are two distinct persons, or they are the same.
To me, the latter would be (a form of) modalism:

modalism: the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature
or

the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself according to Merriam-Webster.

I have an analogy too: I am Joop, and I have arms and legs. When somebody would touch my arm, he is touching me (Joop). When somebody is touching my leg, he is also touching me (Joop). Yet my arms are quite distinct from my legs.

[creationliberty]

To me, the latter would be (a form of) modalism

Again, it's not about what YOU think. It's not about what I think either. If you want to make an accusation, then make it and write down a full argument, but don't throw out your vain opinion as if it means something because you're doing the exact same useless thing that Edward was doing. How do you think that's helpful?

I should ask: Joop, did you actually sit down and study the teaching I made on the Trinity? Because it doesn't sound like you did; you're not addressing the Scripture I talked about in that teaching, just like Edward did not do that either. If you haven't studied that, you need to go study first and then you can come back and talk about it.

What you did was exactly what Edward and his followers have done, and you did not even pay attention to what you were saying:

Either God the Father and God the Son are two distinct persons, or they are the same.

That's called a false dilemma; which is a logical fallacy. You gave two choices, neither of which is correct. You left out the option that BOTH are correct, and that the Bible teaches both, so we should believe both.

All the analogies you guys gave are wrong, just as the analogy I gave in the teaching is wrong. I even stated that my analogy was wrong in the teaching. I haven't found a good analogy because we cannot comprehend how God can be in two places at once, nor comprehend how He can be more than one person and one God at the same time. There is no good analogy for things we cannot comprehend.

To say that "God is Three Persons" is an over-simplification of who God is, and it's also part of the "Trinity" concept of witchcraft from their triple goddess. In short, Edward is denying God's nature in Scripture, clinging the to the traditions handed down by the pagan Catholic Church instead.

[Joop]

This quote comes from the teachings on het Trinity:

The Lord God has always been three disctinct persons from before the creation

Always. Yes I agree. But then, also from this teaching (Bold added):

The Lord Jesus Christ, who is God the Father, was less than the Father while he was in the flesh because He humbled Himself to the form of a man for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiah. After He returned to the Father, He was then again equal to the Father because they are one, but whether or not we fully understand this is not a requirement for believing its true.

That is, to me, a contradiction: Either The Lord God has always been three distinct persons from before the creation or The Lord Jesus Christ is, sometimes?, God the Father.

To say that "God is Three Persons" is an over-simplification of who God is, and it's also part of the "Trinity" concept of witchcraft from their triple goddess

The Lord God has always been three disctinct persons from before the creation

So, which one is it?

Maybe I am messing up with the semantics (English is not my native language). However, I did read some commentaries on Isaiah 9:6 which were quite helpful to me.

[Timothy]

However, I did read some commentaries on Isaiah 9:6 which were quite helpful to me.

Joop. That right there is your problem. Same problem with Ruckmanites who read the "Ruckman Reference Bible". Same problem those that teach from the "Scofield reference Bible". Same problem with Edward because, like I mentioned before today's teaching, Edward relies a lot on authors and commentaries of what other men say the Bible says to teach what the Bible says (which is really only what he 'thinks' the Bible says). Some of his videos is literally him quoting those authors and commentaries, making a couple of comments about it, then saying something to the extent of "See that's what this means and anyone that teaches otherwise is a heritick and can't read" without him putting any effort to study anything for himself.

You went to commentaries instead of relying on what the Word of God says, replacing the understanding that God gives His children with opinion and doubt (lack of faith in God's Word). It's not that you can never read a commentary, but you have a duty to study these things for yourself and check the scriptures which you're not doing. Why?

Jeremiah 17:5 - Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
-John 10:29-30
While it is clear from this scripture that Jesus and the Father are one, it still raises the question: Are Jesus and (God) the Father the same? I don't think so.

Stop right there! When you started out saying "I don't think so" is where you begin your personal opinions on the subject.

Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons.
The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. While at the same time, *Jesus is not (God) the Father. <--- *Lack of Scriptural reference to back this last assertion
What do you think about that? <--- Even better question. Have you read the article? lol

And just like Edward, all you do is assert what you think the Bible teaches without going to the Bible to explain anything or actually address the verses. Edward's videos are saturated with that sort of thing.

All the questions you're asking to place doubt on God's Word are actually addressed in the article. Jeanne gave you an excellent verse on this topic that, for many of us, is all we need to have faith in what God's word says. The real question you need to ask is one for yourself. Do you believe it?

The Lord Jesus Christ, who is God the Father, was less than the Father while he was in the flesh because He humbled Himself to the form of a man for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiah. After He returned to the Father, He was then again equal to the Father because they are one, but whether or not we fully understand this is not a requirement for believing its true.

That is, to me, a contradiction: Either The Lord God has always been three distinct persons from before the creation or The Lord Jesus Christ is, sometimes?, God the Father.

Think for one moment. You and Edward believe there is one God right? God is in three persons right? All three persons are God right? Basic math tells us that three does not equal one or the other way around. There are not three Gods even though all three are God. It doesn't make sense. Why is it such a hard thing for you, if you already believe something that doesn't make sense, to believe something that doesn't make sense about the Almighty God that is beyond all our understanding and that we can't fully make sense of with our limited minds? That doesn't even make sense lol.

I mean, I mentioned this to the church this morning. It's like Edward will teach something somewhat right, then turn around and teach the opposite without even realizing it. Chris had commented:

James 1:8 - A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

And I'm convinced that is Edward's issue. He is unstable and in his case, that's because he is a false convert. My concern is are you the same way? I'm not saying this to question your salvation but moreso asking if you're double minded.

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. <--- God the Father indwells His children as does the Holy Spirit, just like Jesus Christ

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you (The Holy Spirit). Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you (Jesus Christ indwells his children), the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead (Spirit of God the Father. The Father that also indwells His children according to Ephesians 4:6) dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; <--- The man Christ Jesus who happens to also be God

[creationliberty]

Thanks for answering that Tim, I couldn't have done a better job. You're right on all counts.

[Joop]

Me:

However, I did read some commentaries on Isaiah 9:6 which were quite helpful to me.

Joop. That right there is your problem.

My comment: I didn't read just one commentary. And yes, I know, commentaries can be flawed (from Ruckman, Scofield)

However: in the teaching of the Trinity, Christ gave also a commantary: "everlasting Father" would be "God the Father" i.e. the first Person of the so called "trinity".
I don't agree with that.

You are comparing me with Edward. Actually, I haven't read or seen anything from Edward.
You are saying that when Jesus said: Me and my Father are one" would be the same meaning as: "Me and my Father are the same"
I don't agree with that.

When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, a voice came from heaven, as we know. The voice from God the Father. How come that Jesus and the Father are the same? Clearly there were three distinct persons: The Father, the Son, being baptized and the Holy spirit (as a dove).
If you are correct, Tim, that would mean that at times there are three distinct persons, and (mostly?) the three Persons are one and the same (i.e. no distinction anymore)

Yes, I know, we cannot comprehend everything, especially when it comes to the -so called- trinity.

What is being taught here is VERY new to me. That said, I readily admit, this is not an argument.

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Yes, they are one. But are they the same?
I am curious: Do you know of any Christians who also teach this. (Brian Moonan? Nate Marino?)

I rest my case here.
I hope we can agree to disagree here and move on.
Thanks for your elaborated respons, Tim.
God bless, Joop

[anvilhauler]

I appreciate the kind rebuke I got for writing what I did.  I have to admit that I do muse over the concept of God in multiple persons and know full well that the answer is beyond what our brains can understand. 

I don't know what causes gravity either 

I hope this piece of scripture isn't just me making another incorrect posting.

1 Corinthians 13 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

[Timothy]

You are comparing me with Edward

That's because you both teach the exact same false doctrine. I'm not trying to be mean about it by calling it a false doctrine, but I'm going to stand firm and call it what it is.

I am curious: Do you know of any Christians who also teach this. (Brian Moonan? Nate Marino?)

Why would that matter if God teaches it in His word? Again, your making the same mistake.

Jeremiah 17:5 - Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.


God did not say this as a joke. He is serious about it. And you aught to be ashamed that you even asked this question because it shows me you don't study to show yourself approved.

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

I hope we can agree to disagree here and move on.
Thanks for your elaborated respons, Tim.

No, I'm not going to agree with any disagreement. But I'm not going to force you to believe something you don't want to. And you don't have to lie to me. If you were really thanking me you wouldn't have ignored all my points.

[Jeanne]

Joop, you ought to realise that when it comes to core principles of doctrine, 'agreeing to disagree' is not an option. It is critical to get a true interpretation -- not only on this issue, but on all issues concerning who God is. We can't 'move on' until this is resolved and you are able to come to a clear understanding.

The term the Bible uses to describe the one God in three persons is 'Godhead.'

Acts 17:3 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

[creationliberty]

I am curious: Do you know of any Christians who also teach this. (Brian Moonan? Nate Marino?)

Tim addressed Joop very thoroughly, and so I don't believe I need to say much here, especially since Joop skipped over most of Tim's argument. I just want to make one comment: Joop's question here is invoking ad populem, that is, majority opinion as as argument. I have no idea who Nate Marino is (I don't really care either because it's not relevant), but Brian Moonan doesn't teach everything right either. Brian's still stuck in the false doctrine that "repent" means "to turn and change," and that is wrong. (i.e. 'Convert' means to turn and change; repent means having grief and sorrow of wrongdoing.) So to act like I, and Brian, and Nate all have to be in agreement on doctrine for it to be correct is calling for a majority opinion, which is a logical fallacy, not to mention, that in most cases throughout Scripture, the majority was wrong.

That's like when Jeremiah was preaching before Babylon besieged the city. Almost no one listened to him. All the other so-called "prophets" denounced him. Yet, he spoke the truth, even though very few would hear. Joop's argument to Jeremiah would be, "Have any of the other prophets taught what you're teaching?" That's exactly the argument the false prophets made if you read the book of Jeremiah; they claimed that Jeremiah was false, and gave the fluffy feel-good message to everyone else, and the majority turned to the false prophets.

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves, if Nate or Brian are not teaching these things correctly, then why has God blinded their eyes that they cannot see? I would not just say that here; I would be fine saying that directly to either of them because I stand confident on the doctrine of Scripture, as should you all. It does not matter if 99.99% of all preachers disagree with a doctrine, the Word of God proves itself, and does not need to rely on me, or anyone else, for confirmation of truth.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-1Jo 2:27

[Jeanne]

I would also like to point out here that shortly after Tim's and my last posts, Joop started another thread in which he announced that he was leaving the forum but declined to detail his reasons for that decision. He simply stated that it had to do with his 'last posts' which he also neglected to provide a link to.