Roger Perkins and the Hebrew Bible

Just recently Dr. James White played a debate on his podcast link between a modalist named Roger Perkins and a Church of Christ minister named Bruce Reeves. Now, I am no theologian, but as someone who is interested in hermeneutics and linguistics, I was just shaking my head at the amount of simply horrendous linguistic reasoning coming from Mr. Perkins. You can watch the section I will be reviewing here:

Roger Perkins – The Nature of the Godhead – Affirmative 01 from Bruce Reeves on Vimeo.

I will be reviewing the first 12:37 of this video. Beginning at about 5:17, Mr Perkins states the following:

The Hebrew word most often translated “God” is from Strongs number 430, and it is אֱלֺהִים. You can look in Strongs, Vines, Browns Drivers and Briggs, and so forth, and they will define this term as a plurality of God’s attributes, his majesty, and his greatness; and its plural form, אֱלֺהִים, means multiple gods, but in its singular form it means the one true God which is why אֱלֺהִים is translated in the singular. אֱלֺהִים is the plural form of the singular אֱלוֹהַּ number 433, which is the singular form denoting the numerical one. אֵל, number 410, is the shortened form of אֱלוֹהַּ which is, again, the numerical singular “one God,” but אֵל, number 410 is the shortened singular form meaning “the almighty” denoting the one singular God of Israel. You can go to Brown Driver and Briggs pages 41-43 for more on this. So, we see that אֱלֺהִים is a plurality of the one God’s attributes, and אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is the one singular, individual God.

Approximately 265 times, ladies and gentlemen, אֵל and אֱלוֹהַּ is applied to the Old Testament God using the strongest term available to denote his singular, numerical oneness.

This presentation is entirely confused. The first big problem is this idea that the plural means a “plurality of God’s attributes.” There are numerous problems with this. The difficulty is that this use of the plurality of the word “God” to refer to one God did not begin with the Israelites. It is this fact that really causes a problem for this idea that the plural here is meant to refer to a “plural of attributes.” For example, take this text from the Amarna Letters, EA 299. The first line and a quarter is transliterated and translated:

a-na LUGAL EN-ia DINGER.MEŠ-ia dUTU-ia
To the king, my lord, my god, my sun god…

What is interesting is that the logogram DINGER [the logogram for “īlu,” the Akkadian word for “god”] clearly has the MEŠ sign immediately following it, which is the sign used to make logograms plural. Yet, this word is clearly in apposition to LUGAL [šarru], which is clearly singular. In fact, the very next phrase identifies this receipient of this letter with the sun god [dUTU] which is clearly singular. Hence, if you tried to translate according to the number, you would get something like, “To the king, my lord, my gods, my sun god…” which doesn’t make any sense. That is why most Semitists will recognize that these usages in the Amarna letters are the first examples we have of the plural form of “God” being used as a singular. For example, Marvin H. Pope writes:

That the use of the so called plural of majesty in reference to a single god is pre-Israelite is virtually certain from the use of īlanī as singular in the Amarna letters, but there is no certain attestation of the pre-Israelite use of אֱלֺהִים as a singular [Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Brill Academic. Boston, Massachusetts. 1955. p.21]

Even George Barton, clear back in 1890 recognized this fact about the Amarna letters:

It will be seen, therefore, that ilani-PL with the force of a singular occurs more than forty times. That it really is a singular is shown not only by the fact that it is in apposition with a singular noun, but by a variant, sarri, bili-ya ili-ya ILU šamši-ya etc., where ilu occurs in place of ilani-PL (See No.193: 1, 10, and No. 198: 1, 3) [Barton, George A. A Peculiar use of Ilani in the El-Amarna tablets. JAOS 15 p.cxcvii

What this shows is that the use of the plural of “god” to refer to one god was not unique to Israel[1]. However, does this mean that the king of Gezer in EA 299 is referring to all of the king’s attributes? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

That is why most Hebrew grammars take this to be the “plural of majesty” that Pope was talking about. However, this does not refer to the attributes of God. Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor define the “Plural of Majesty in this way:

Related to the plurals of extension and of abstract reference is a group of intensive plurals. In this usage (sometimes called the pluralis majestatis) the referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used. Two of the great monsters in the Bible are designated with intensive plurals.[Waltke, Bruce. O’Connor, Michael. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns Publications. Winona Lake, IN. 1990. 7.4.3a][2]

In other words, what Waltke and O’Connor are saying is that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used because the God of Israel is so completely characterized by divinity. The excellent update to Williams’ Hebrew Syntax by John C. Beckman describes this as a “Plural of Respect,” and defines it this way:

A plural word may refer to a single, honorable or fearful object or person [Williams, Ronald J. Beckman, John C. Ed. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. The University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. p.2]

Likewise, the classical grammar of Gesenius describes the “plural of majesty” in this way:

Of (c): the pluralis excellentiae or maiestatis, as has been remarked above, is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification, treated under e, which are mostly found in poetry [Gesenius, Wilhelm. Kautzsch, E. Cowley, A.E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1909 §234g].

In other words, the plural of majesty does not refer to “a plurality of God’s attributes,” but, rather, it refers to a summation of these attributes, and the fact that the person so addressed is so fully characterized by these attributes that the plural is used. In other words, it refers specifically to the attributes if deity, and the fact that the Lord is fully and completely characterized by the attribute of deity, not the fact that he has more than one attribute.

What is more fascinating is the fact that the plural of majesty is not simply used of God, but also of humans as well. The grammars list these uses:

Isaiah 1:3 “An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master’s [בְּעָלָיו] manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand[3].”

1 Kings 1:43 But Jonathan replied to Adonijah, “No! Our lord [אֲדֹנֵינוּ] King David has made Solomon king.

Isaiah 19:4 “Moreover, I will deliver the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel master[אֲדֹנִים], And a mighty king will rule over them,” declares the Lord GOD of hosts.

2 Kings 22:20 “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave [קִבְרֹתֶיךָ] in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.”‘” So they brought back word to the king.

Hence, are all of these things speaking of the plurality of attributes of the master of a donkey, David, the Assyrians, and Josiah’s grave? It doesn’t make any sense.

Secondly, there is a major problem with this usage of the singular. Mr. Perkins assumes that, whenever the singular is used in reference to God it refers to a singularity of person. The problem is that the uses of the singular in any given language are far more complex than this. You have mass nouns such as “mail” which may refer to one or more letter [Go get the mail]. You have collective nouns such as fruit. If I were to say “I want fruit for dessert,” it wouldn’t mean that I want only one piece of fruit simply because the singular is used.

Worse than that, even in cases where the singular is a numerical “one,” the semantics of this oneness must be defined contextually. For example, I have a [singular] blanket on my bed. However, does that mean that the blanket is an absolute singular, and cannot have mixed fibers, or different colors simply because I used the singular? I can speak of a [singular] salt granule, but that one salt granule contains both a sodium ion and a chlorine ion. It would be absurd to conclude that, just because I use the singular “blanket” that I therefore have ruled out the possibility that my blanket has mixed fibers, or that it is multiple colors. It would likewise be absurd to conclude that, just because I speak of one salt granule, that I therefore am saying that this granule is not made up of sodium and chlorine ions. The point is that the nature of the singularity must be argued from the context. The fact that the singular is used of God 265 times is absolutely meaningless, without some conception of what the singularity means when it refers to God in the singular.

For example, let us take a look at some of the passages he lists:

Isaiah 43:10-12 You are my witnesses, utters the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you will know, and you will believe on me, and you will understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed; after me there will not be one. I, I am the Lord. There is no savior apart from me. I have declared, I have delivered, and I have proclaimed that there is no foreign thing among you, but you are my witnesses declares the Lord, and I am God.

Also, we must note the context of this passage. The context of this passage is the return from exile, and Israel as the witness of God. The point is that Israel is a witness of God to his uniqueness among the nations. No other gods are like him. There is no other savior besides him, and there is no foreign thing [probably meant as “foreign god”] amongst Israel; they are the Lord’s witnesses. Hence, the oneness here is stressed upon his unique divinity, and his uniqueness among the nations. There is no one else who is like God, and Israel and their return from exile is a witness to his uniqueness. However, that says nothing about whether this unique God is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being, only that no one is like him in his divinity.

Genesis 14:18-20 Now Melchizedek, the king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. Then he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High who acquired heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then he gave him a tenth of everything.

Now, I think it should be obvious what the phrase “God Most High” is referring to here. It is not referring to a singularity in person, but, again, the uniqueness of God’s attributes. He is “God Most High.” Hence, again, the context is not a context of the personhood of God, but a contrast in his attributes with the attributes of other beings and other gods[4].

Nehemiah 9:17 But they refused to hear, and they did not remember your wondrous deeds which you did with them, and they stiffened their neck, and the set themselves first of all to return to their bondage in their rebellion. but you are a forgiving, merciful, and compassionate God, slow to anger, and great in loving-kindness, and you did not desert them.

The context of this passage is the great works which God did for the people of Israel, and yet, even though they rebelled against him, God still was gracious and merciful. Therefore, again, we see an emphasis upon God’s attributes, and not on his personality.

Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble and do not be afraid. Have I not proclaimed and declared from then on that you are my witnesses? Is there a God or a rock beside me? I do not know of one.

Again, the key to this verse is its context:

Isaiah 44:9 As for those who form idols, all of them are meaningless; their delight will be of no profit; their witnesses do not see, and will not know so that they will be ashamed.

Again, the contrast is between the witnesses of God and the witnesses of the idols, and the one true living God verses all of the false idols among the nations. Again, this has nothing to do with whether this one true God exists in three persons. All it is saying about him is that he is the one true God against all of the false Gods. Hence, again, there is nothing in this verse that speaks of whether this one true God who is distinct from all false Gods is a uni-personal or a tri-personal being[5].

I think it would be best quote Perkins at this point in this next verse:

Isaiah 45 and 21 tells us [now listen very closely to this if you would], there is no other אֱלֺהִים, plural besides me, a just אֱלוֹהַּ, singular. So, one individual אֵל says there is no says there is no plurality beside me. Imagine how the two other divine persons felt if one of them declared that there was no other plurality beside me.

There are a couple of things that should be noted here. First of all, the Hebrew term used here is not אֱלוֹהַּ but אֵל. Second, the Amarna material I quoted above should be enough to refute the notion that we are referring to a plurality just because of the fact that the plural אֱלֺהִים is used. Perkins is simply in error. Again the context, verse 20, clearly points out that we are dealing with the one true God against the false Gods of the nations. However, we must ask, why is the plural and the singular used. The answer is that this is parallelism. As I pointed out before in my response to Kent Brandenburg, the singular and plural set in parallelism is a common grammatical feature of parallelism in Biblical Hebrew. Also, the end of this verse would refute him as well: “There is not, except me.” That is very clearly parallel to the “plural” phrase he quotes “there is no God beside me.” Thus, apparently, God is a plurality if we read the text in the way that Perkins is reading it!

Again, the same thing is true of the Hebrew term אֶחׇד. It must be examined in its context. Perkins quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4, but, again, fails to quote 6:5:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Again, the context is the worship of God. The point is that God alone is to be worshiped, and God alone is to be loved with all of our heart and with all of our being. Again, this text says nothing about whether this one God who is to be worshiped exists in three persons or one person.

Next, Perkins says this:

Isaiah prophesied that the son would be born, and that he would be given. Then he gave the attributes of that name; he gave the attributes; he says “wonderful counselor, the mighty God, the eternal father” did you hear that? It says tonight, I will repeat it again, Isaiah 9 and 6, he called Jesus, he referred to the name, and he puts the attributes in that name, and part of that was the mighty God [not a mighty god] and the eternal father [not a eternal father]. This would be very strange language, ladies and gentlemen, if it was a second individual in the Godhead, being called by the name of the first individual in the Godhead. The mighty God and the eternal father, and I would ask tonight, respectfully, what is the first divine individual doing wrapped up in the name of the second divine individual. My opponent’s position would have Isaiah’s prophecy unfulfilled. If Isaiah is not calling Jesus the eternal father, ladies and gentlemen, then is he also not calling him “wonderful,” is he also not calling him “counselor,” and is he also not calling him “the prince of peace?” Will my honorable opponent be consistent and say that Jesus is also not “wonderful,” that Jesus is also not “the prince of peace?” The actual text itself ties the eternal father to the name of Jesus. So, we have a clear demonstration here of the duality in Christ Jesus that he was simultaneously the son given and the eternal father, and the mighty God.

This argument hinges upon the use of the article “the” by Perkins. The problem is that the definite article is not found in the Hebrew at all. I suppose it could be assumed, because we are dealing with a name, but, again, as Perkins notes here, the point is to give the attributes of this person. A much better translation could be achieved by capitalizing the beginning of each of these titles, and to leaving off the definite article as the NASB has done. That gets across the fact that we are talking about a name, but also shows the attributive nature of these titles.

Finally, why is all of this important? It is important because of Perkins’ conclusion:

So that my first premise tonight is well-established based upon the actual grammar of the Old Testament Hebrew and the Old Testament Jewish writers believed one אֶחׇד individual אֵל of God. That is my first premise.

Of course, he discusses whether or not the Hebrews before the time of Jesus believed in the Trinity. My own opinion is that the Hebrew scriptures leave the issue ambiguous. They will make statements like “God cannot be seen,” and then show instances such as Isaiah 6 where God was indeed seen. The ambiguity requires resolution, and that resolution will either come in the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament, or in the Jewish traditions which seek to explain [however inadequately, I believe] the way in which these paradoxes can be understood. Still, if the Hebrew Bible teaches that God is uni-personal, then the Hebrew Bible, as scripture, must be believed. However, Perkins fails to interact with the actual context of the Hebrew Bible to show that, in any way shape or form, any of its statements about the oneness of God are dealing with his person rather than his being. Because of that, I would conclude that Perkins has not established the modalist perspective from the Hebrew Bible.

[1]There have been attempts to connect the Ugaritic ‘ilm, ‘ilhm, and the Phoenician ‘lm with this plural, but the examples are too ambiguous to be conclusive.

[2]See also, Jouon, Paul. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax Pontifical Biblical Institute. Rome, Italy. 2005. §136d-f, who separates the plural of majesty and the plural of intensity, although still allows that the two uses are analogous.

[3]To be fair, this could also be conceived of as grammatical parallelism with the בְּעָלָיו being parallel to the קֹנֵהוּ in the first colon.

[4] I am well aware of the interpretation that says that “God Most High” was actually a title for a pagan deity. As a Christian, I would obviously disagree with this understanding of the passage. However, I am also certain that Mr. Perkins would as well, so there is no reason to address it here.

[5]This also refutes the common Jehovah’s Witness argument that Jesus is God, but he is not God in the same sense that Jehovah is God. Aside from the fact that this is a departure from monotheism, it also has the added disadvantage of handing the argument to Isaiah’s opponents. Why could not a pagan respond, “Well, Baal is God, just not in the same sense that the Lord is God?” Thus, it would totally destroy Isaiah’s argument about the uniqueness of God among the nations.

Advertisements

18 Responses to “Roger Perkins and the Hebrew Bible”

  1. Roger Perkins Says:

    Hello,

    This is Roger Perkins. Inasmuch as I am exceedingly busy presently (we’re preparing to relocate) I am planning a more lengthy response to you at a later date. TRUST ME, there is MUCH to offer in the way of a counter-response point by point.

    Actually, you sir, have offered very little to refute my ‘horrendous’ handling of the text & your arguments are easily handled….but am presently too busy to hardly even come up for air! But, MAN will I have much to say about this later as my schedule allows.

  2. Shawn Mathis Says:

    “This argument hinges upon the use of the article “the” by Perkins. The problem is that the definite article is not found in the Hebrew at all.”

    Well, there you have it. Another supposed “expert” who does not even know enough of the original language to avoid such an elementary error. Imagine what he’d do with the greek article!

    • Roger Perkins Says:

      The Construction of Is. 9:6 is definitive enough without the Article, which is the very reason the KJV, NKJV, & The Jerusalem Bible include the article. The construction of the context implies definitiveness. Looks like maybe YOU’RE the one who needs to watch for ‘elementary’ errors Shawn!

  3. otrmin Says:

    Mr. Perkins,

    No, it posted. I just have to approve comments before they appear. It stops people from posting comments with profanity or slander. I will look forward to your response.

    Shawn,

    Ya, the Greek article is one of the most complex things I have ever seen in language. There is almost a certain skill in its usage.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  4. Shawn Mathis Says:

    The greek article is my mentor’s favorite test to examine new pastors–that and the aorist.

  5. Jonny Galindo Says:

    It looks as if Mr. Shawn has tried weak attempts to prove Rev. Perkins wrong, simply by maybe looking at James White’s erroneous theology by trying to prove the blasphemy of a triune God. Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father, (Father Forever, Father of Eternity) he is El Shaddai, Elohim. There is absolutely no evidence in the text of a false “trinity”, as trinitarians have a hard time describing God. I ask then to whom do you pray to? The father? Son? Holy Spirit? God? which God? If they are “separate” entities you cannot say you pray to one and you pray to all. James White has made a absolutely false interpretation of John 17:3, John 1:1 and Philippians 2-6:8 as i was listening to his position. He simply is distinguishing the two natures that Christ had. Once all these trinitarians can make a distinction between the natures that Christ had, rather than “separate persons”. They will understand the nature of God. I am in complete agreement with the position held by Rev. Roger Perkins. I am glad to dialog with anyone on this subject.

  6. otrmin Says:

    Jonny,

    Actually, this text contains one of the crucial elements of the Trinity, namely, that Jesus is God. The Trinity is made up of the following assertions:

    There is only one God.
    The Father is God.
    The Son is God.
    The Holy Spirit is God.
    The Father Son and Holy Spirit are Distinct.

    Also, I never used this passage to prove all of these assertions in the first place, nor would any Trinitarian I know of. However, it does contain the crucial identification of God as the Son which is one of the elements of Trinitarian theology.

    Also, we do not believe that there are three gods. The each of these persons are called God because they partake of the divine being. However, there is *one* divine being who is God. Also, we have never said that they are distinct entities, but that they are distinct persons. All of the categories you are using are categories of being, when the Trinity is dealing with the personhood of God. Yes, we believe that God is one with regards to his being. That says absolutely nothing about whether he is uni-personal or tri-personal. You are confusing categories.

    Also, as far as the two separate natures of Christ argument that Perkins likes to use, I agree with James White that the logical conclusion of that is that Jesus is two persons. In other words, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you are left with Nestorianism. You now have two persons in Christ, rather than one person. The human nature talks with and has fellowship with the divine nature; therefore, you have two persons making up Christ. Of course, if that is the case, then you have no true incarnation, because there is no union between his divinity and humanity. Put another way, if Christ did not take on human flesh, then he did not redeem human flesh.

    Finally, you said that “James White has made a absolutely false interpretation of John 17:3, John 1:1 and Philippians 2-6:8 as i was listening to his position.” Of course, the next logical interpretation is for you to defend your assertion that Dr. White’s interpretation of these passages is “false.”

    God Bless,
    Adam

  7. Jonny Galindo Says:

    From my understanding triniarians will vicariously deny the belief in three Gods but they will always, and i mean always, fail to prove that based on the theological concepts that are used to describe God. As i read a definition of the trinity “One God, who is revealed as three separate persons, all three are co-equal, co-eternal, and all are God” The problem with this is Trinitarians always see the father as the main person in the trinity, which is clearly subordinationism. If each member of the Godhead is co equal we run into problems very quickly when Jesus is praying in the Garden of gethsemane when asking the father for help. Also he said “my father is greater than I”. So this means the son isnt equal with the father.

    According to Bruce Reeves, a Church of Christ member, in a debate with Rev. Perkins he stated that there are “three beings” of God. Now if trinitarians believe in three “beings” of God then that is outright tritheism and clearly goes agaisnt scripture. Also, Dr.William Lane Craig, a prominent Trinitarian theolgian once said that the doctrine of the trinity is not mentioned in the old testament when he was debating an orthodox rabbi. It is because of this doctrine that the jews completely refute Christianity as a whole, and they maintain their belief in a singular, personal God.

    The bible does not use the term “person” in reference to the Godhead, and no i do not believe in Nestorianism. The bible is clear on the two natures of Christ. He had a human and divine nature as i am sure you also believe. But the problem is that you do not believe that Jesus is the son “according to the flesh”. For example. When he said “I thirst” God by definition is never thirsty, but in his sonship role of humanity he was able to be thirsty. And in his deity he was able to cleanse lepers and raise the dead and forgive sins. That is all i am saying. It isnt that i am being ignorant of a trinity by any means, nor i am adhering to oneness theology out of blind nature, I challenged my beliefs by listening to other theologians but the Bible is clear and emphatic on the subject of ONE God. And i say this with love

    -God bless

  8. otrmin Says:

    The problem with this is Trinitarians always see the father as the main person in the trinity, which is clearly subordinationism.

    No, that is not subordinationism. We are dealing with the economic Trinity in such a statement, and not the essential Trinity. It is in the essential Trinity that it is impossible to have a “main” person, but not in terms of their roles in the economic Trinity. Just like we must make distinctions between being and person, we must make distinctions between essence and economy.

    If each member of the Godhead is co equal we run into problems very quickly when Jesus is praying in the Garden of gethsemane when asking the father for help. Also he said “my father is greater than I”. So this means the son isnt equal with the father.

    Again, “equal” in what sense? In his economy or in his essence? Consider the context of this passage:

    John 14:28-29 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.

    Notice how the context of this text is the returning of Jesus to the father after the incarnation. Of course, given his role as the incarnate son of God, he was in a lower economic position than then father. However, that deals with economy, again, not essence.

    According to Bruce Reeves, a Church of Christ member, in a debate with Rev. Perkins he stated that there are “three beings” of God. Now if trinitarians believe in three “beings” of God then that is outright tritheism and clearly goes agaisnt scripture.

    I would be interested in seeing where exactly Reeves said that. We are not dealing with beings when we deal with the Triune nature of God; we are dealing with persons.

    Also, Dr.William Lane Craig, a prominent Trinitarian theolgian once said that the doctrine of the trinity is not mentioned in the old testament when he was debating an orthodox rabbi. It is because of this doctrine that the jews completely refute Christianity as a whole, and they maintain their belief in a singular, personal God.

    It depends on what you mean by “not mentioned.” There are very clearly texts in the Hebrew Bible that I would say only make sense in a Trinitarian framework. All one needs to do is prove the following:

    There is only one God.
    The Father is God.
    The Son is God.
    The Holy Spirit is God.
    The Father Son and Holy Spirit are Distinct.

    If you can prove these things from one text or three texts or five texts or any number of texts, then Trinitarianism is true. I think there are passages [for example, Exodus 33:20 says God cannot be seen, and yet, you have passages like Isaiah 6:5 where God is seen] that only make sense if you assume the above premises.

    Also, I saw that discussion you are talking about. The Rabbi Craig was dealing with made the absurd statement that the Jews only follow the Hebrew Bible. That is utter nonsense. If a Jew were to say that to me, then I would challenge him to open up the Hebrew Bible and show me where it specifically says to not light a fire on the Sabbath.

    The reality is much more complex than this. The Hebrew Bible is a notoriously incomplete book. It has expectations that are built and shattered, and simply never fully realized. That is why you need either the New Testament or the Jewish Traditions in order to fully realize how these expectations are fulfilled. In fact, that is the central issue when you are dealing with Judaism is whether or not the NT or the Jewish Traditions can rightly complete the meaning of the Hebrew Bible.

    The bible does not use the term “person” in reference to the Godhead, and no i do not believe in Nestorianism. The bible is clear on the two natures of Christ. He had a human and divine nature as i am sure you also believe.

    The Bible also doesn’t use the term “theology” in reference to the study of God. So what? It is an accurate description of what we mean by an individual instances of consciousness, such as when to people are conversing with one another. We don’t say that two globs of flesh are conversing with one another, we say that two persons are conversing with one another.

    Also, I don’t think you are understanding where the logic of your position leads. If you say that the prayers of Jesus were simply the human nature conversing with the divine nature, then you have, by definition, two different persons, because you have two different individual instances of consciousness. If that is the case, then there is no way to say that there is one person in Christ, and yes, you have Nestorianism.

    But the problem is that you do not believe that Jesus is the son “according to the flesh”. For example. When he said “I thirst” God by definition is never thirsty, but in his sonship role of humanity he was able to be thirsty. And in his deity he was able to cleanse lepers and raise the dead and forgive sins. That is all i am saying. It isnt that i am being ignorant of a trinity by any means, nor i am adhering to oneness theology out of blind nature, I challenged my beliefs by listening to other theologians but the Bible is clear and emphatic on the subject of ONE God. And i say this with love

    I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying. Yes, I recognize that there are two natures in Christ. However, I don’t believe the two natures can communicate with one another, so as to have a conversation with one another because natures cannot communicate. Only persons can communicate.

    For example, the nature of the floor in my room is wood. The nature of the driveway outside my home is concrete. Now, it would be foolish to speak of wood talking to concrete or vice versa. That is even true with things that are alive. When I talk to someone else it is not our flesh that is talking back and forth, but our persons that are talking back and forth. Our nature [our flesh] is distinct from our person, namely, who we are. Flesh cannot communicate, nor can wood, and nor can a rock. These are examples of natures. If it can communicate, then we are getting into the category of person. Thus, if you have communication between the two natures of Christ, they now become two separate persons, which is the definition of Nestorianism.

    Also, as I said in my response to Perkins above, when we discuss what the Bible means by God being “one,” we have to define what we mean by that. I have one blind over my window, and yet, it is made up of several different fibers. I have one fan in my room, and yet, that one fan is made up of several different moving parts. In other words, we have to ask the question of what the Bible means when it says that God is “one,” and in what sense that is meant.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  9. Jonny Galindo Says:

    No, that is not subordinationism. We are dealing with the economic Trinity in such a statement, and not the essential Trinity. It is in the essential Trinity that it is impossible to have a “main” person, but not in terms of their roles in the economic Trinity. Just like we must make distinctions between being and person, we must make distinctions between essence and economy.

    —According to Reformed Baptist Trinitarian Gene Cook, in a dialog with Dr. David K Bernard (Champion Oneness theologian), he was asked in the Q&A session if he sees the Father as the “Head” or “King” of the trinity. His answer was YES. So obviously the son and Holy Spirit are demigods or play junior roles in the so called “trinity”. That is blasphemy. God is absolutely numerically One. There is One Spirit. No division of persons or deities or beings in the Godhead.

    Again, “equal” in what sense? In his economy or in his essence? Consider the context of this passage:
    John 14:28-29 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.
    Notice how the context of this text is the returning of Jesus to the father after the incarnation. Of course, given his role as the incarnate son of God, he was in a lower economic position than then father. However, that deals with economy, again, not essence.

    —-God in his essence is ONE. You cannot say he is One is essence but three in person. There is no scripture to prove that. You are ultimately seeing two different beings that are completely separate from each other. The fact is that Jesus Christ in his humanity was the son. But the eternal spirit of God that was resident in Jesus Christ is the father. I urge you to study the passages and follow simple Biblical hermeneutics. because you and I are not using the same language when we say that there is ONE GOD.

    I would be interested in seeing where exactly Reeves said that. We are not dealing with beings when we deal with the Triune nature of God; we are dealing with persons.

    —-He emphatically stated that there are three “BEINGS” I believe the debate is posted on his online Church website. Listen to it for yourself.

    It depends on what you mean by “not mentioned.” There are very clearly texts in the Hebrew Bible that I would say only make sense in a Trinitarian framework. All one needs to do is prove the following:

    There is only one God.
    The Father is God.
    The Son is God.
    The Holy Spirit is God.
    The Father Son and Holy Spirit are Distinct.

    —-There is not one passage in the Hebrew Bible that states that the Father , son and Holy Ghost are distinct persons. Throughout Judaism, and you can go to any Ultra Orthodox Rabbi, or the leading Synagogues in the World, tradition after tradition, century after century, The Jewish people have maintained from the very beginning, in the belief that God is ONE. Not two persons, not three persons. There is no identification in the Old Testament, or the Bible itself, that describes God is three persons that are equal and that exist side by side and can simultaneously talk to each other. It simply destroys and obliterates the concept of ONE GOD. The Hebrew Bible is clear on this in many passages.

    If you can prove these things from one text or three texts or five texts or any number of texts, then Trinitarianism is true. I think there are passages [for example, Exodus 33:20 says God cannot be seen, and yet, you have passages like Isaiah 6:5 where God is seen] that only make sense if you assume the above premises.

    —Since these texts do not prove a trinity, it is false

    —God is a Spirit (John 4:24) No man hath seen God at any time. The fact that the Bible states that some have “seen” the Lord, such as Isaiah and Moses, does not mean that they saw God in his full orbed deity. That is impossible and would be contradictory to scripture itself. The way those passages would be explained is that God allowed them to see him to a certain extent. Being mere humans, the presence of God would have killed them instantly if they would of seen the Lord in all of his glory.

    Also, I saw that discussion you are talking about. The Rabbi Craig was dealing with made the absurd statement that the Jews only follow the Hebrew Bible. That is utter nonsense. If a Jew were to say that to me, then I would challenge him to open up the Hebrew Bible and show me where it specifically says to not light a fire on the Sabbath.
    The reality is much more complex than this. The Hebrew Bible is a notoriously incomplete book. It has expectations that are built and shattered, and simply never fully realized. That is why you need either the New Testament or the Jewish Traditions in order to fully realize how these expectations are fulfilled. In fact, that is the central issue when you are dealing with Judaism is whether or not the NT or the Jewish Traditions can rightly complete the meaning of the Hebrew Bible.

    —-This is a big part of where you are erring. The Bible is given in progressive revelation. The problem is that Trinitarians always start with the New Testament. Big Mistake. The Old Testament is the foundation, the New testament is the fulfillment. The Word of God is Complete. God revealed to his People Israel, that he alone is God, that he is by himself, none other, none like him. (Isaiah 44:8, 24 43:10) The apostles and prophets were built on this solid foundation which is still alive today but you automatically discredit.

    The Bible also doesn’t use the term “theology” in reference to the study of God. So what? It is an accurate description of what we mean by an individual instances of consciousness, such as when to people are conversing with one another. We don’t say that two globs of flesh are conversing with one another, we say that two persons are conversing with one another.

    –Again, so Within God you have 3 conscious persons who can speak to each other? And There is still one God? You have fallen greatly and profoundly in Polytheism, no matter how bad you try to deny it. God is One, he is God alone, and by himself. Again, “two globs of flesh” are not conversing with each other. God was in Christ, 2 cor 5 19, and As Jesus said the father that “dwelleth in me”. You seem to be having a problem understanding when Christ spoke. He was 100% human just as we were, so whatever we can say to God, he was able to do the same. Humanity speaks to divinity. Clear. Case closed.

    I don’t think you are understanding what I am saying. Yes, I recognize that there are two natures in Christ. However, I don’t believe the two natures can communicate with one another, so as to have a conversation with one another because natures cannot communicate. Only persons can communicate.
    For example, the nature of the floor in my room is wood. The nature of the driveway outside my home is concrete. Now, it would be foolish to speak of wood talking to concrete or vice versa. That is even true with things that are alive. When I talk to someone else it is not our flesh that is talking back and forth, but our persons that are talking back and forth. Our nature [our flesh] is distinct from our person, namely, who we are. Flesh cannot communicate, nor can wood, and nor can a rock. These are examples of natures. If it can communicate, then we are getting into the category of person. Thus, if you have communication between the two natures of Christ, they now become two separate persons, which is the definition of Nestorianism.

    —Again, you need to understand when Jesus is speaking. And of course we are not talking about driveways or floors, we are talking about Jesus Christ in his flesh. If you can understand Jesus in his role as the son speaking to the eternal spirit of God which is the Father, it will simplify things for you greatly.

    Also, as I said in my response to Perkins above, when we discuss what the Bible means by God being “one,” we have to define what we mean by that. I have one blind over my window, and yet, it is made up of several different fibers. I have one fan in my room, and yet, that one fan is made up of several different moving parts. In other words, we have to ask the question of what the Bible means when it says that God is “one,” and in what sense that is meant.

    —Again, Trinitarians always want to distort the meaning of One. Look up any lexicon, dictionary, commentary, ask you local professor, and ask him how much, or how many is “ONE” “1”. You cannot say God is one, but it doesn’t really mean one. Or that it is speaking of three persons or Gods being. GOD IS ONE. UNO. UM. SINGLE. ALONE. BY HIMSELF. NONE OTHER. NONE LIKE HIM. SINGULAR GOD. NOT A PLURAL GOD.

    God Bless

  10. Mark Says:

    Adam:

    Thanks for such a well written and insightful article, though Roger Perkins will probably choose to believe I’m saying this because you are correcting some errors in understanding. That is not the case at all, I simply appreciate such an interesting and easy to understand article filled with great information. Glad I found your blog.

    Blessings,
    Mark
    a.k.a. TheLayman

  11. otrmin Says:

    Thanks Mark!

  12. Steven Anderson Says:

    Jonny, I understand your argument and know where you are coming from, but there is much more to be said. There was a quote from an ex- trinitarian years ago and it was this “upon further study of the bible, the Trinity deserted me”. Though some passages may look “trinitarian” from the outset, it takes a closer look and proper exegesis of the text to find what it actually means. I pray we can all find truth!

  13. otrmin Says:

    Steven,

    The problem is that hermeneutics are logically prior to exegesis. The main problem with the Oneness perspective is hermeneutical. As James White said, it is based upon a category error which I believe comes from an overly simplistic view of language, and does not recognize the multifaceted nature of language due to its relationship to reality. That is why I focused on the oversimplifications in language found in Perkins’ presentation. Unless that is addressed, you will never really be able to get to the root of the issue.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  14. Manuel Culwell Says:

    “This argument hinges upon the use of the article “the” by Perkins. The problem is that the definite article is not found in the Hebrew at all. I suppose it could be assumed, because we are dealing with a name, but, again, as Perkins notes here, the point is to give the attributes of this person. A much better translation could be achieved by capitalizing the beginning of each of these titles, and to leaving off the definite article as the NASB has done. That gets across the fact that we are talking about a name, but also shows the attributive nature of these titles.”

    The above is why trinitarains are polytheists and are not monotheists.

    Malachi 2:10 have we not all ONE father has not one God created us? If Jesus is God and indeed he is then he would have to be the father of Malachi 2:10 You are basically admitting your polytheism by saying Jesus is a father. Nonsense!

    Oh By the way, If Jesus were God and indeed he is then why was not the word/Logos with him in John 1:1? because the word/Logos was not the son like you falsely claim.

    I will not be hanging my head in shame because of anything Roger Perkins said against the Church of Christ Preacher, or to James White in their debate who makes a ridiculous charge of “Category error. ” Keep telling yourself that Dr. White. White also admitted his polytheism when said God has three centers of consciousness which is three gods. what is the difference in your “three persons,” and the Hindu “three persons”? Answer. Nothing!

  15. otrmin Says:

    Manuel Culwell,

    The above is why trinitarains are polytheists and are not monotheists.

    Malachi 2:10 have we not all ONE father has not one God created us? If Jesus is God and indeed he is then he would have to be the father of Malachi 2:10 You are basically admitting your polytheism by saying Jesus is a father. Nonsense!

    Simple, the problem is that the word “father” is polysemous. It can, indeed, refer to the begetting of the Son, but it can also simply mean “originator.” Such survives in English as well. I can say “J.L. Austin is the father of Speech Act Theory.” That doesn’t mean that he is the Father God. In that case, “Father” means something along the lines of “originator.”

    I would say that this is the meaning in Malachi 2:10. “Father” is speaking of God as the one who is the origin of all creation, not as a particular member of the Trinity. That fits very well with the second colon, “Is there not one God who created us?” That would also make sense with what follows: “Why do we, each man, deal treacherously with his brother, to defile the covenant of our fathers?” The point would then be: if we all have one Father [i.e., originator], God, then why are we dealing so treacherously with one another? Obviously, such has nothing whatsoever to do with how many persons there are in the Godhead.

    Oh By the way, If Jesus were God and indeed he is then why was not the word/Logos with him in John 1:1? because the word/Logos was not the son like you falsely claim.

    Simple, the two phrases are not parallel in Greek:

    και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον-the word was with God
    και θεος ην ο λογος-The word was God

    Notice how there is an article τον in front of God [θεον] in the first phrase, but no article ο in front of God [θεος] in the following phrase. The second phrase stresses the nature of the λογος, while the first phrase is probably dealing with the Father. Hence, Jesus can be both with the father, and be, as to his very nature, Deity. John 1:1 teaches the Triune nature of God with great clarity. Jesus was both, as to his nature Deity, and yet, was with God the father, and thus, separate and distinct from the father.

    I will not be hanging my head in shame because of anything Roger Perkins said against the Church of Christ Preacher, or to James White in their debate who makes a ridiculous charge of “Category error. ” Keep telling yourself that Dr. White. White also admitted his polytheism when said God has three centers of consciousness which is three gods. what is the difference in your “three persons,” and the Hindu “three persons”? Answer. Nothing!

    Simple, the three persons of Hindu gods do not exist in one being! Not only that, but there are different versions of Hinduism where the gods are simply manifestations of the one Brahman. Sounds a lot like your view of the incarnation, where the Son is a mere manifestation of the one God. All of these things are grossly unhelpful.

  16. Manuel Culwell Says:

    [QUOTE=Manuel;4166368]Manuel Culwell,

    The above is why trinitarains are polytheists and are not monotheists.

    Malachi 2:10 have we not all ONE father has not one God created us? If Jesus is God and indeed he is then he would have to be the father of Malachi 2:10 You are basically admitting your polytheism by saying Jesus is a father. Nonsense![/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]Simple, the problem is that the word “father” is polysemous. It can, indeed, refer to the begetting of the Son,[/QUOTE]

    Adam,If you do not understand my argument and post then just say so. I see you are fighting windmills and did not deal with the point I was making whatsoever.

    Malachi 2:10 says The One God is Father, and creator. If Jesus is God then He is Father and creator. We are not debating Isa.9:6

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]but it can also simply mean “originator.” Such survives in English as well. I can say “J.L. Austin is the father of Speech Act Theory.” That doesn’t mean that he is the Father God. In that case, “Father” means something along the lines of “originator.”[/QUOTE]

    How many Gods and fathers do you have? Malachi is talking about the One God who is father. Not talking about your son father of everlasting age versus God the father. Neither am I.

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]I would say that this is the meaning in Malachi 2:10. “Father” is speaking of God as the one who is the origin of all creation, not as a particular member of the Trinity.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, Now you are getting it, and that is what I am saying! It is definitely not talking about a trinity because none exist in scripture. I am saying that God is Jesus as his divinity that incarnated him beginning at the virgin birth.

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]That fits very well with the second colon, “Is there not one God who created us?” That would also make sense with what follows: “Why do we, each man, deal treacherously with his brother, to defile the covenant of our fathers?” The point would then be: if we all have one Father [i.e., originator], God, then why are we dealing so treacherously with one another? Obviously, such has nothing whatsoever to do with how many persons there are in the Godhead.[/QUOTE]

    The One God is the father this passage says. yet you claim God is a trinity. You are wiley.

    [QUOTE=Manuel;4166368]Oh By the way, If Jesus were God and indeed he is then why was not the word/Logos with him in John 1:1? because the word/Logos was not the son like you falsely claim.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]Simple, the two phrases are not parallel in Greek:[/QUOTE]

    Fighting windmills again I never said they were and it does not help your cause it shows me you are a polytheist. The One God is One and cannot be divided up like you are doing.

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον-the word was with God
    και θεος ην ο λογος-The word was God

    Notice how there is an article τον in front of God [θεον] in the first phrase, but no article ο in front of God [θεος] in the following phrase. The second phrase stresses the nature of the λογος, while the first phrase is probably dealing with the Father. Hence, Jesus can be both with the father, and be, as to his very nature, Deity.[/QUOTE]

    I do not believe the word In John 1:1 was Jesus as the son! I am not saying the word/Logos is interchangeable with God so do not start that nonsesne! the word/Logos came from the breath of Gods mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Grk Septuagint)

    Jesus then wields it as the sword of the word/Logos, as God in the judgment. The Logos was not a person. The Logos was God’s power. Here are some passages to help you not including the one in Psalm 33:6.

    And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

    At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

    The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368] John 1:1 teaches the Triune nature of God with great clarity. [/QUOTE]

    It teaches no such polytheism!

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]Jesus was both, as to his nature Deity, and yet, was with God the father, and thus, separate and distinct from the father.[/QUOTE]

    Jesus was not with God the father! The word was not Jesus ! Yes he was called the word or the power of God unto salvation and he was called a lot of things

    [QUOTE=Manuel;4166368]I will not be hanging my head in shame because of anything Roger Perkins said against the Church of Christ Preacher, or to James White in their debate who makes a ridiculous charge of “Category error. ” Keep telling yourself that Dr. White. White also admitted his polytheism when said God has three centers of consciousness which is three gods. what is the difference in your “three persons,” and the Hindu “three persons”? Answer. Nothing![/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Adam;4166368]Simple, the three persons of Hindu gods do not exist in one being! Not only that, but there are different versions of Hinduism where the gods are simply manifestations of the one Brahman. Sounds a lot like your view of the incarnation, where the Son is a mere manifestation of the one God. All of these things are grossly unhelpful.[/QUOTE]

    Fighting windmills again I see.That is what is not helpful.Hey, I am over here? Deal with what I say not with what you think I am going to say as that will get you in trouble. You are not focused.

    The fake three persons you have do not exist in one being either that is simply what you claim to get away from the charge of polytheism as fake as the Hindu three persons!

    When did I tell you “my view of the Incarnation”? I do not remember doing that. Just like you assume you knew what I was talking about in John 1:1 and you failed that one also! a word of advice; do not ever assume!

  17. otrmin Says:

    Manuel Culwell,

    Malachi 2:10 says The One God is Father, and creator. If Jesus is God then He is Father and creator. We are not debating Isa.9:6

    Actually, you quoted me exegeting Isaiah 9:6, to which you then responded to with the citation of Malachi 2:10.

    Secondly, again, you completely ignored everything I said. I pointed out that we are not talking about the “father” here in the sense of the persons of the Godhead. “Father” is to be taken in the sense of “originator.” This is an example of what is called paradigmatic parallelism in Hebrew poetry, where the first line says [roughly] the same thing as the following line. Hence, it speaks of God as originator [father] and creator. However, that says nothing whatsoever about the unipersonal or tripersonal nature of that originator [father] and creator.

    How many Gods and fathers do you have? Malachi is talking about the One God who is father. Not talking about your son father of everlasting age versus God the father. Neither am I.

    One God and Father in whom exists three coequal, coeternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    Yes, Now you are getting it, and that is what I am saying! It is definitely not talking about a trinity because none exist in scripture. I am saying that God is Jesus as his divinity that incarnated him beginning at the virgin birth.

    1. You are begging the question. The whole issue we are discussing is *whether* the Trinity is Biblical or not. Please, don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.

    2. You do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the one God. What *I* was raising was the fact that we are not dealing with persons, manifestations, or anything like that in Malachi 2:10. Hence, to cite the passage is to cite a passage that is utterly irrelevant to the issue.

    he One God is the father this passage says. yet you claim God is a trinity. You are wiley.

    No, because the passage has *nothing* to do with manifestations. As I said, the word “father” is polysemous. The context here is not of persons or manifestations [which is what the debate is about], but God as “father” in the sense of “originator.” For all of your accusations that I don’t understand your argument, it sounds like it is *you* who does not understand *my* argument!

    I do not believe the word In John 1:1 was Jesus as the son! I am not saying the word/Logos is interchangeable with God so do not start that nonsesne! the word/Logos came from the breath of Gods mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Grk Septuagint)

    Jesus then wields it as the sword of the word/Logos, as God in the judgment. The Logos was not a person. The Logos was God’s power. Here are some passages to help you not including the one in Psalm 33:6.

    And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

    At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

    The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

    I do not believe the word In John 1:1 was Jesus as the son! I am not saying the word/Logos is interchangeable with God so do not start that nonsesne! the word/Logos came from the breath of Gods mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Grk Septuagint)

    Jesus then wields it as the sword of the word/Logos, as God in the judgment. The Logos was not a person. The Logos was God’s power. Here are some passages to help you not including the one in Psalm 33:6.

    And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

    And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

    At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

    The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

    So, how does that work when John 1:14 says that the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory? Did God become flesh, or did God’s power become flesh? Also, how does that fit with the statement that Jesus “came into his own, and his own did not receive him” [1:11]. What exactly is “his own” if he is a mere power? Can “power” grant power or authority [John 1:12]? The problem is that the logos is spoken of in terms that only make sense if the logos is a person. Having “his own,” granting authority, becoming flesh and pitching his tent among us [John 1:14]. Yes, that is exactly what σκηνοω means; to pitch a tent. Does a force or a person pitch a tent? There is simply no denying that the logos is a person.

    The problem is, although all of the passages use the term “word,” they don’t use it in the same context as John 1. Parallelomania is possible within scripture as well as outside of scripture, and, to demonstrate a parallel between two text, you need to show much more considerable overlap then surface similarities such as the fact that the term “word” is used. For example, if you keep reading in Psalm 33, you find:

    Psalm 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

    Hence, although Psalm 33 speaks of a “word,” and creation, the word is actually spoken in Psalm 33, where it is not in John 1. The word is used with personal terms in John 1, where it is not Psalm 33. Such differences belie any attempt to connect the two passages.

    It teaches no such polytheism!

    Of course, assumes that Trinitarianism is polytheism, which you need to prove, not assume.

    Again, what is ironic is that you are the one making the assumptions here. The very criticisms you made of me, can be thrown right back on you. You may not like Dr. White, but his statement “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument” certainly applies here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: