Pope Prays with Muslim Leader in Turkey

Sign of the end times and rise of a one world government? The Pope met and prayed with a top Muslim cleric in Turkey today. For the whole story please click on to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/pope_turkey

Rick Warren of SaddleBack Allows Pro-Abortion Democratic Senator to Speak at Church

WASHINGTON - Famed pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren on Wednesday defended his invitation to Sen. Barack Obama to speak at his church despite objections from some evangelicals who oppose the Democrat's support for abortion rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061130/ap_on_go_co/democrats_obama

Evolution, a Bag of Doritos and the Existence of God

"On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God."

John Calvin Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 1.

"Without the God of the Bible, the God of authority,the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all."

Dr. Cornelius Van Til"Why I Believe in God"

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."(Romans 1:20)

I grew up in a university town where the the theory of evolution was the religion of the land and where Charles Darwin was the patron Saint of science and human progress. I was always taught that all biological life forms were on a journey and a process in which everything that lives gradually changes into a more complex and better form. I was taught that a change in the genetic composition of a biological species produces a higher and more complex life form though an infinite succession of generations via evolutionary natural selection. I always believed that until I went on this journey.

On the road to Utah, I inevitably had to pass through Vegas. Despite my certain predilection for losing money via the one armed bandit, I was in search for pristine shrimp tails and superior prime rib from Sin Cities multiplicity of all night buffets.

However, to my eternal chagrin, my car conked out square dab in the desert, several miles outside of Barstow near the base of the Soda Mountains.

Then, wiping some frenzied gnats from my face, out of the corner of my left eye I saw a rather decrepit and haggard looking coyote scurrying about and I kicked the dirt in disgruntled disdain as I contemplated making the heat drenched trek to the next semblance of civilization.

However, while standing around languishing in the arid desert, I had a momentary insight on the nature of reality and the existence of Almighty God.

A crumpled and empty bag of Doritos blew past my feet in the swirling desert wind, and beads of perspiration dotted my forehead as I introspectively looked past the cactus laden horizon, towards the formulation of the cosmos.

As I stood in the desert for once, without the creature comforts of the technological media and consumer orientated American digital empire to drown out my cognitive thinking processes, my rationale for believing in the existence of God followed this line of thinking:I believe that the existence of God is self evident to all and not illusions, since the Almighty has affixed via creation the nature of humanity and the Word of God, tangible and objectively verifiable evidences to substantiate the viability of faith in God in counter distinction to other epistemological and ideological options.

"For in him we live and move and have our being."(Acts 17:28)

Take the crumpled bag of Doritos, (a product of the multi- nationalist Frito-Lay corporation by the way) I believe that discarded item of trash can demonstrate the existence of the God of historic Christianity.

If a man finds himself alone in the desert with only the hollowing wilderness to his left and to his right and a crumpled bag of Doritos at his feet, the question must be asked; "How did that bag get here?"

One may postulate the existence of the bag of Doritos on exclusively naturalistic grounds, that the discarded bag of chips (if you call Doritos real food) was once petroleum that was extracted in liquid form the bowels of the earth, then manufactured into a disposable bag, in turn was filled with Doritos, then sealed, gathered and shipped off to a sore by a massive network of machinery.

Then the Doritos were purchased by a person who ate the chips and tossed the bag to the ground.The bag of Doritos in turn, blew in the wind, tumbled on the desert ground and ultimately arrived at his feet.

All these basic facts are true enough, but they do not answer the essential epistemological and metaphysical questions surrounding the ultimate origin of the earth and it's reality that gave birth to the petroleum that was extracted to form the bag of Doritos. that blew in the wind and ultimately landed at his feet. Some Observations Regarding the Bag of Doritos:

"It is the function of the wise man to know order."-Aristotle The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates as well, the existence of an objective reality guided by the universal and transcendent laws of logic.

The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates that reality has a definite form and order since one can identify that there is an actual bag of Doritos at his feet and not something else.The logical law of identity demonstrates Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.The fact that we can identify that there is a bag of Doritos at his feet and not something else demonstrates self evidently that:

We find ourselves in a physical world with an objective reality.The fact that the bag of Doritos exists demonstrates that human beings exist and can differentiate its form from other objects.

The bag of Doritos in turn demonstrates humanities existence, the existence of an external world and the existence of an objective reality that is guided by transcendent laws of logic.There is a causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship or correspondence between the bag of Doritos and the existence of a external and objective world and reality it finds itself in.

1) The bag of Doritos exists.

2) I can recognize the Doritos.

3) Therefore I and the objective world exist.

4) I can distinguish the Doritos from other things.

5) Therefore laws of logic exist.

The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates the epistemological certitude of:

1) My existence

2) The existence of an objective world that is real and not illusions and:

3) The existence of tangible and objective laws of logic from which I can differentiate the bag of Doritos from other things.A skeptic may posit that that the bag of Doritos, the objective world and the laws of logic are illusions but will instantaneously contradict himself when he acknowledges the existence of the Doritos and in turn acknowledges his or her own existence and the existence of the external world wherein the Doritos finds it's existence in. When the person distinguishes the Doritos from other things he will acknowledge a transcendent logical law demonstrating that such a body of laws exists as well.Thus skepticism of the existence of objective reality and logic will only lead to self contradiction.

For one cannot deny his or her own existence and the ability to distinguish themselves from it without at once acknowledging his existence thus leading to an contradictory infinite regress or absurd denials. (Ad Infinitum)The crumpled bag of Doritos leads to the existence of God and the truthfulness of the historic Christian faith in the following manner. The bag of Doritos conclusively demonstrates The existence of the objective world and objective reality governed by three objective laws of logic:

1. The Law of Identity : If any statement is true, then it is true.

2. The Law of Contradiction : No statement can be both true and false.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle : Every statement is either true or false.However, the mere acknowledgment of objective reality and logic does not answer the question of how these things got here.Mere observation of the workings of the universe does not answer the question of origins and why all things grow old and die.

It is obvious to all that everything that lives shall eventually die.The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows us that all things in nature will deteriorate and a natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe.Yet nothing within nature tells us "why" things grow old and die. The question of "why" is a metaphysical philosophical question that I believe can only be really answered by turning our attention to the teachings of the only authority on the matter; the Bible, the Word of Almighty God, the creator of all things.

I will postulate here that without the existence and sustaining power of the God of historic Christianity then we are led to an infinite regress of questioning of our origins. The existence of Almighty God is of an epistemological necessity and can be argued for transcendentally.The transcendental argument for the existence of God , takes the position that it is impossible for any authoritative rationality (including an atheist's) to emerge from matter.

Thus, the existence of God must be assumed in order to deny God's existence, which means that the atheist's position is self-contradictory.The transcendental argument argument for God's existence shows the necessary preconditions for the possibility of rational thought or meaningful discourse, for God is the author of all rational intelligibility. For God is the one who created the world and the reality that governs it.For without the God of historic Christianity humanity would be trapped in an infinite regress of questions regarding the origin and meaning of our existence. But God has spoken from the whirlwind of contradictory opinions and has demonstrated His existence due to the impossibility of the contrary.

For without God we cannot know how we got here, what our purpose is and where we are going. Fortunately God has revealed the knowledge of Himself and the meaning of human existence in His absolutely inerrant, inspired, authoritative, self-attesting and self authenticating Word, the Holy Bible.

God has revealed the knowledge of himself in His Word and differentiated Himself from all the false gods and ideas about truth held by unbelievers by giving evidences of the Bible's truthfulness such as the miracle of fulfilled prophecy and the glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe in the existence of Almighty God because God's inspired and perfect Word declares so.

It is impossible for anything to be contrary to the truth of God's existence and He has differentiated Himself from all other religious and ideological options by raising His Son from the dead, declaring to the world that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Two thousand years ago, a unique man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth emerged from the chaos of human existence with a profound message of hope and human redemption. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, lived a perfect life, performed incredible miracles, proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God and ultimately died on the Cross for the sins of humanity and rose again from the dead to give anyone who would admit that they have transgressed the moral law of God as revealed in the Ten Commandments, sincerely turn from their sins and place their faith in Him eternal life.That is how a crumpled old bag of Doritos declares to me the glory and grandeur of Almighty God."But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

Jesus Christ: The Anomaly of God

"for in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)

Anomaly: Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God and all things that came into being through Him and without Him nothing has come into being that has came into being" (John 1:1-3)."

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:15-18)."

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:1-4).

In the howling, swirling wasteland of spiritually bankrupt Postmodern Americana, Almighty God has spoken with final authority in His inerrant, infallible, inspired, self- authenticating and perfect Word and in the Logos of God: Jesus Christ, who was send by God the Father to die on the cross and rise again from the dead in order to give us eternal life.

From the moment of our conception until the point of our final expiration, we are being incessantly bombarded by secular society with two seemingly idiosyncratic contradictory ideologies or world -views. These beliefs or structural or behavioral characteristics peculiar to an individual or group, the German Philosophers classified by the lexical moniker, Weltanschauung, or the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world and the collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

The twin simultaneously contradictory weltanschauungs or world-views that both govern and permeate secular Western Civilization are Modernity with it's overt reliance on scientific progress and human ingenuity and Postmodernity, which postulates absolute ethical and propositional relativism have one thing in common: They both reject the Historic Christian conception of the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus Christ over all other ideological reference points and socio-religious options.Modernity, with its reliance on the scientific method, postulates the secularist / naturalist view that we live in a closed system of cause and effect and that nothing happens outside of the natural laws of physics. Thus, the miraculous and supernatural Jesus as found in Holy Scripture has no place in the modern mind, since miracles are an impossibility.

In the Postmodern framework, Jesus has been reduced to just another irrelevant teacher amongst many religious leaders, gurus and shaman and His special role as the Son of God who was sent by God the Father to die for the sins of humanity has been rendered obsolete...However, the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture is truly an Anomaly, who transcends the fallen and darkened schema of sinful and depraved men and has been send via the will of God the Father, into actual time-space history to accomplish the divine plan of salvation. Jesus Christ truly transcends and breaks into all our worldly systems, revealing to us the glory of God, culminating the grand divine historical-redemptive event: the Cross of Jesus Christ.The Cross of Jesus Christ is what brings us to God..."But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

"For God made Him, who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

Chalcedonian Creed Circa 451 A.D.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

The Church Needs Reformation Today


The Protestant Reformation was a movement which emerged in the 16th century as a series of attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. The main front of the reformation was started by Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. The reformation ended in division and the establishment of new institutions, most importantly Lutheranism, Reformed churches, and Anabaptists. It also led to the Counter-Reformation within the Roman Catholic Church.

My Journey Back to the Reformed Faith

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Romans 8:29-30

" Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever." (Westminster Confession)

For many years I have been a Calvinist, but have felt out of place in most Reformed Churches. Maybe it is because most Reformed Churches are liturgical and play ancient hymns accompanied by an organ. Maybe it is because I love rock and roll music and love Christian music played with drums and guitars, a music style that you do not see in most Reformed Churches on Sunday Mornings. While I have for many years, believed in the "five points of Calvinism" I have attended a non-Reformed Church. Yet, recently I have had a crisis of conscience about my Church attendance and participation. I am a Reformed Christian believing in the absolute sovereignty of Almighty God over all things, yet I attended a non-Reformed Church because of music preference. I have sold my soul and theological convictions for Rock and Roll. I have not attended a Calvinist and Reformed Church because I am a compromiser and hypocrite at heart. The depravity and wretchedness of my sinful heart has kept me from standing with the Reformed Faith, all the while secretly in the depths of my heart I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Sovereignty of God in salvation and reject out right and in total anything to do with Arminianism, semi-Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

I believe that God is absolutely sovereign. I believe that all men and women are born totally depraved, dead in tresspasses and sin. I believe that our election by God is unconditional and is dependant upon the Sovereign grace of Almighty God alone. I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ is particular in scope and purpose and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and not for the non-elect who are perishing. I believe in the doctrine of double predestination, in that I believe that God elects some to heaven and hell before the foundation of the world.

I believe that God calls an elect people to salvation and that this election and call to salvation in absolutely irresistible. I believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in that I believe that those who are truly called by God before the foundations of the world will endure without exception until the end and cannot lose their eternal salvation. I am absolutely Augustinian and Calvinistic in my view of the sovereign grace of God in salvation. I believe like the Protestant Reformers that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and His glorious cross alone for the glory of God alone based on the authority of the Bible alone Amen.

Today I am coming out as a Reformed Christian. I am a Calvinist without compromise and without fear. I believe the Bible teaches that men and women, boys and girls cannot be saved unless they are chosen by God. I believe that salvation is by God, for God's glory alone and that is not within man to save himself. So here it is folks, I am returning back to the Reformed Faith. As of this week, I am transferring my membership to a Reformed Church. I plan on writing books, conducting Bible studies, debating, living and dying all by the Reformed soteriological perspective. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, I am a Calvinist. Here I stand, God help me. Amen.

Here are some ministry links that I support and affirm.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

http://www.opc.org/lc.html

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/synod_of_dort.html

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm

http://www.ligonier.org/

http://www.desiringgod.org/

http://www.monergism.com/

Salvation is not about us, it's about God's glory.

American Evangelicalism is being destroyed by man centered theology and practice.

American Evangelicals must return to a Christ and Bible centered focus that recovers and rediscovers the central theme of true Christianity: That it is not about us folks. It is about Almighty God.

We need a Reformation in this country and in the American Evangelical Church and it starts with me.

I repent of a man centered focus that takes glory from God.

I stand with the Calvinist and Reformed Faith that says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for God's glory alone based on the Bible alone.

A Faith to Live and Grow By

Defenders of the Free World Unite!

If God is Sovereign Over All Things, is He Then, the Author of Sin?

Should Mark McGwire Make the Hall of Fame?

Today former Oakland A's and St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire appeared on the Hall of Fame Ballot along with retired superstars Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. There is no question that McGwire has the stats to be considered, but his use of steriods has caused many to question his credentials. It is a fact that McGwire used legal steriods, yet should this preclude him from being elected into the Hall of Fame? I say yes. If players like Rafael Palmeiro should be considered "tainted", so should McGwire, who hit many of his home runs after using andro (androstenedione), a performance enhancing steriod...

For the whole store please log on to:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6212422?FSO1&ATT=HCP&GT1=8807

The Doctrine of Total Depravity Demonstrates that We are God's Enemy and Our Own Worst Nightmare

Show Times Glorification of a Serial Killer

"Examine Everything Carefully, hold on to the good"

(1 Thessalonians 5:21)

In recent years, the motion picture and television industry has been emboden in wickedness and has really pushed the envelope and broadcast movies and television shows that have broken the moral glass window on public decency. Every conceivable subject previously considered morally taboo and beyond the ethical bounds is now commonly depicted. But a new television show called "Dexter" has broken the mold and is broadcasting a weekly disturbing show whose central figure is a serial killer.

Michael C. Hall one of the stars of the cult hit "Six Feet Under" now stars as "Dexter", forensic expert by day and twisted serial killer by night.

Dexter in his normal life is a "blood splat" expert who is good at his job, has lots of friends, a girlfriend and a loving sister.

What the world does not know is that Dexter is also a serial killer who grotesquely murders other serial killers who some how beat the legal system to continue their heinous crimes against humanity.

The show frequently depicts "flashback" sequences that show Dexter as an adopted child learning how to systematically channel his serial killer rage undetected by his police officer Father, who realizes early on that Dexter demonstrates psychopathic and homicidal tendencies. Instead of getting the help Dexter needs or institutionalizing the youth, his father uses his knowledge of the law and forensic evidence to cultivate Dexter into an efficient and clever serial killer who channels his rage and propensity to perpetuate twisted murders, to kill only serial killers who fly under the radar of justice.

Many critics of the show Dexter call the show "Disturbing" and so it is, since the show borders on glorifying heinous crimes and blurs the lines of objective morality.

As morally bankrupt Hollywood descents further and further down the black hole of unthinkable immorality and abominable vice, Evangelicals and social conservatives must take their stand and publicly decry such unnecessary smut. The only thing that conscience free Hollywood cares about is money, and to hold it fiscally accountable, we must vote and speak out as a unified bloc, lest more and more decrepit shows that eviscerate the ethical fabric of society, like Dexter further contaminate our national airwaves further hastening our collective plummet into a darkened pit of no return. God have mercy upon America for not at once rejecting shows like "Dexter" which we must reject and speak out against like many of us did the recent O.J. Simpson book and show that almost aired. May this country turn from its grave wickedness towards Jesus Christ and His cross of redemption before it is too too late, and Almighty God arises to judge the earth.

Salvation is Found in Jesus Christ and His Cross Alone

Galatians 2:16

Despite being in the thralls of medieval serfdom and Roman Catholic superstition and repression, the general populace of Western Civilization during the Middle Ages believed in the conception of a "theistic worldview" wherein men and women actually believed in the reality of God, demons, angels, heaven and hell and the basic cosmology detailed in sacred Scripture.Imperial Roman Catholicism which demanded unquestioned fidelity to its doctrines and policies, greatly clouded the truth of Scripture however, and this Catholic suppression of the truth gave impetus for the German theologian Martin Luther to launch the Protestant Reformation.

Two of the most important theological concepts that Martin Luther recovered during his prolonged study of theology that ultimately gave Birth to his stand against the false teachings of the Catholic Church were known in Latin as Theologia Crucis and Extra Nos.

According to William J. Cork, Martin Luther's first referred to a "theology of the cross" (theologia crucis) at the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, in a series of theses on the nature of revelation: Thesis #19: "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened." Thesis #20: "He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."Revelation is necessary for Luther because speculation on the basis of what is visible will not lead one to a knowledge of God. Yet what God reveals of himself is, at the same time, concealed. God shows only his "back side." This revelation of the posteriora Dei takes place in suffering and the cross, not in common human morality or in the design and order of creation. And it demands faith--for only faith recognizes that the One on the cross is, in fact, God.Luther's emphasis on the cross as the primary locus of God's self-disclosure is not unique to him, but goes back at least as far as the renewal of devotion to the humanity of Christ at the time of Francis (about which Ewert Cousins has written much).

What is unique to Luther is his sharp distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory, which he sees as mutually exclusive. As he says in of the Will (1525).Faith has to do with things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that everything which is believed should be hidden. It cannot, however, be more deeply hidden than under an object, perception, or experience which is contrary to it.Thus, on this point, at least, the early Luther and the later Luther are in perfect harmony: "God can be found only in suffering and the cross." And the converse is also true: where there is not pain and the cross, but pride, wealth, and ostentatious display, one must doubt whether God is, in fact, present. Luther's theology of the cross was the basis for his critique of the triumphalism of the medieval Church and the papacy. He "was convinced," says Eric Gritsch, "that the church may have to suffer the loss of its status in order to become a better instrument of the Gospel." Luther called the Church to embrace Christ's humility--he called it to the cross. There the Church sees its true vocation to be that of suffering servant. It is to be called by the world "Afflicted one, as well as storm-tossed, and not comforted, 'Miss Hopeless.''

Luther's theology of the cross demanded that the Church, like its Lord, be hidden under suffering. By this he did not mean the self-chosen discomfort of pious deprivation, but that genuine suffering which inevitably follows the faithful proclamation of the Word of God.The Church, then, like the individual, is justified by faith alone. And, Luther argues, one can be reduced to such a faithful clinging to Christ only through humiliation. It is through a direct, intense encounter with the wrath of God, experienced as suffering and Anfechtungen, that the sinner comes to know "that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, devices, endeavors, will, and works, and depends entirely on the choice, will, and work of another, namely, of God alone."This point receives its greatest elaboration in of the Will (1525), just cited, and Luther's 1521 Commentary on the Magnificat. Humility is said in the latter to be a necessity for justification--not in the sense of a "work," but in the sense of an utter repudiation of trust in works. Thus Luther distinguishes between "true" and "artificial humility." The latter he regards as an affectation which seeks reward through outward appearance. True humility seeks no reward. It is "nothing else than a disregarded, despised, and lowly estate, such as that of men who are poor, sick, hungry, thirsty, in prison, suffering, and dying."Those in such a state know they have nothing.

Therefore they cling in faith to the promise of the Crucified One. The participation of the believer in Christ extra nos (Latin for "outside ourselves")we place ourselves in the hands of God who is outside us.This Reformational conception, which is a recovery and rediscovery of the Pauline New Testament doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer apart from the works of the law, utilizes the extra nos idea in that God demands absolute moral perfection from us, an impossibility due to our inherent sinfulness from the Fall of Adam (lapsus) but can be appropriated through the perfect alien righteousness of Christ, which is not intrinsic to fallen, sinful humanity but is aquired through faith.

Biblical Unitarian Patrick Navas Responds to My Comments on the Holy Spirit

Ed,

Even if the passages you mention unequivocally establish the "personhood" of the Spirit (which they do not), how do they establish, first in reference to Matthew 28:18-19, that the Spirit, Son and Father are all three persons that make up the one God? At what point did Jesus or the apostles teach this?

Although supporters of classical, trinitarian orthodoxy, respected Protestant Bible scholars, McClintock and Strong, acknowledged that this text (Matthew 28:18, 19), “taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” —Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X, p. 552.

Without necessarily abandonding your overall position, should you not be able to acknowledge the same?

You wrote:

"John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other."

This is, of course, an obvious point and one we would accept. The three subjects are clearly delineated and differentiated from one another. But where is it taught that the three collectively constitute the one God? That is the real issue.

The other point you make about Matthew 28 is confusing. Anthony suggests that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (a point you yourslef make) yet it almost seems like you are mistaking his point to mean that the Spirit is the Father, because you argue:

"What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again..."

Anthony is not saying that, in any sense. The Spirit to him is not the Father himself but the Spirit of the Father (and Son), that which proceeds from the Father, and that which serves to santctify, empower and unify the Father's children. I'm not sure that any Bible scholar or student would ever deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Father. And I fail to see how the argument you advance above has any application or relevance to Anthony's point.

Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.

It is entirely appropriate for the writers and participants in the Bible to refer to the Spirit with the personal pronoun "he" whenever the Spirit is spoken of as the "helper" or "advocate." The Greek term, parakletos, is masculine and so the pronoun must agree with the gender of the subject it has reference to. But in reference to John 14:26 specifically, the verse can and has been translated as follows:

But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.”

In this case "which" (ho) agrees with pneuma (spirit) which is neuter.

While most Trinitarian apologists have pointed to the use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) in connection with the Spirit as evidence of “personhood,” Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, although a defender of Trinitarianism, observed: “contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneuma to ekeinos in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneuma is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun…The fact that pneuma and not parakletos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.” Wallace also notes: “The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.” —“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit”, Bulletin for Biblical Research (Wallace-HS), 2003, pp 108, 125.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

To Anthony Buzzard, Dan Mages and the Biblical Unitarians

" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:19-20


19πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος
20διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος.
KΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 28:19-20 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"

ο δε παρακλητος το πνευμα το αγιον ο πεμψει ο πατηρ εν τω ονοματι μου εκεινος υμας διδαξει παντα και υπομνησει υμας παντα α ειπον υμιν εγω


John 14:26, NKJV and Westcott and Hort


Dear Sirs,

It was great to see you folks and debate with you on Mondays these important matters.

I believe my good brother Emilio Ramos was right when he said to you that these matters are of eternal significance, for if we worship the wrong God, we do not possess true salvation in Jesus Christ and will face eternity in hell ( Galatians 1:6-9 and Revelation 20:15).

I want you to know that I have nothing personal against you folks. Everything I am attempting to do in communicating with you has to do with theology and my attempt to defend what I believe in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

One of the glaring problems that I see with your non-Trinitarian thesis pertains to the person and identity of the Holy Spirit, whom you said on Monday night was the "Spirit of the Father" not a distinct and unique person.

This is definitely false. I believe it is clear from passages like Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:26, that there are three distinct persons being mentioned, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To argue from these texts that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from the Father and the Son, appears illogical and to reflect a definite and determined unwarranted theological bias on your part.

In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

If your non-person-hood of the Holy Spirit thesis is correct and all the Holy Spirit is is the "Spirit of the Father" as you said on Monday night it seems like the height of redundancy for Jesus to mention the Father twice.

What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again"

This does not make sense since in your theology the spirit of the Father pertains to His essence and attributes and not a distinct person from the Father.

Why would Jesus mention two distinct persons, the Father and the Son, then resort to mentioning an attribute (spirit) and essence (ontological essence) of the Father.

In it's normal reading, without theological bias being introduced, it makes more sense that Jesus Christ is mentioning three distinct persons and not referring to the essence and spirit of God the Father.

Also John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other. Jesus says, The Helper, The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of Chris, He will teach you all things.


"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"


Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.

Please, please do not resort to the very bad and spurious interpretation that it should be rendered "it" in the English translations.

Gentlemen, I believe your theological presupposition and biases against the concept of the Holy Spirit being God and a distinct person from the Father and the Son is unjustifiably compelling you to force a foreign interpretation unto these texts.

Clear exegesis of these texts will establish that there are three distinct persons being mentioned here and that the Holy Spirit is not just the spiritual ontological essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit is not just an impersonal "it" but a unique and distinct person from the Father and the Son.

Please do not let your bias against the doctrine of the Trinity which seems to be taken from the Arian, Socinian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphian-Unitarian tradition blind you from engaging in clear historical-grammatical interpretation of these relevant texts bearing in on the true identity of the Holy Spirit whom Acts 13 says can speak and call people into the Ministry Himself and gives gifts individually as He wills.

Acts 13:2-4 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 says,

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus

"But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills"


These passages and Matthew 28:19-20 and John 14:26 clearly establish that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son and is not merely referring to the ontological essence of God the Father as you have postulated.


Please pray about these things, Sincerely in Christ,

Your Friend,

Ed Enochs

C. H. Spurgeon on Calvinism

"We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic; but we do not regard these five points as being barbed shafts which we are to thrust between the ribs of our fellow Christians. We look upon them as being five great lamps which help to irradiate the cross; or, rather, five bright emanations springing from the glorious covenant of our

I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God. Triune God, and illustrating the great doctrine of Jesus crucified."

Patrick Navas Asks, "Why Call Yourself a Calvinist?"

Dear Ed,

I am curious, why are many “Evangelicals” so proud of the label “Calvinist”? Regardless of whether or not “Calvinism” authentically reflects true Christian religion, is not the practice of proudly wearing the badge “Calvinist”---in and of itself---a serious and obvious departure from the original Christian spirit? Is it Christ’s will that we tell the world, in effect, “I am a certified 5 point Calvinist and proud of it!.”??? Why not just be a Christian?

“ St. Paul , in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have.” ¾Martin Luther (16th Century)

“The high and mighty of this world have begun to persecute and hate Christ’s teaching under the presence of the name of Luther. They call all of Christ’s teaching ‘Lutheran,’ no matter who on earth proclaims it…This is now my fate. I began to preach the Gospel of Christ in 1516, long before anyone in our region had ever heard of Luther…At any rate, Luther did not teach me anything…The papists none of the less burden me and others maliciously with such names and say, ‘You be a Lutheran, for you preach the way Luther writes.’ I answer them, ‘I preach the way Paul writes. Why do you not also call me a follower of Paul? Indeed, I proclaim the word of Christ. Why do you not call me a Christian?’” ¾Huldrych Zwingli, quoted in De Lamar Jensen, Reformation Europe, Age of Reform and Revolution, p. 102.

“Since you would know by what name I would be distinguished from others, I tell you I would be, and hope I am, a Christian; and choose, if God should count me worthy, to be called a Christian, a believer, or other such name which is approved by the Holy Ghost. And as for those factious (or sect) titles of Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Independent, and the like, I conclude that they came neither from Antioch nor from Jerusalem , but from Hell and Babylon , for they tend to divisions; you may know them by their fruits.” ¾John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress

“Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model¾for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy!...Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice.” ¾J. W. McGarvey’s Commentary on Acts

Sincerely,

Patrick Navas

“If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” —1 Peter 4:15, 16, New International Version

A Review of

The Dark Side of Calvinism: A Biblically-Based Examination, Evaluation, and Refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemption and Reprobation (Paperback)

by George Bryson

I wrote this response to Bryson's book upon hearing that a very large church in Southern California made its entire staff read Bryson's book as a definitive answer to Calvinism.

George Bryson should have not written this book. It is filled with many factual inaccuracies against Calvinism that leaves one with the distinct perception that Mr. Bryson, along with Dave Hunt, his compadre in his illogical crusade against Calvinism, already has an emotional and irrational presuppostional bias against Reformed theology. After Reformed Baptist James White's very thorough public thrashing of Mr. Bryson in a debate at the Vineyard a few years ago, you would have thought that Mr. Bryson would leave the Calvinism issue alone. It is clear, after reading the "Dark Side of Calvinism", that George Bryson is not a scholar and offers poor arguments laden with Ad Hominem attacks against Calvinists, and not serious academic refutation of the Calvinistic soteriological theological system. James White has the following to say about Bryson's book,

The Dark Side of Calvinism Well, it finally arrived. George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism is finally sitting on my desk. Despite only having "seen it from afar," so to speak, I finally had a chance to look over the work today. The sub-titles are great: "A Biblically-based examination, evaluation, and refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemption and Reprobation" appears at the top of the cover, and under the title we have, "The Calvinist Caste System." Very briefly: it is not a well made book. It is an 8.5 x 11 photocopied "Kinkos" style binding, hence, not overly easy to handle. It has no Scripture index, so, to find out what the book says about any single passage can be very difficult to determine. I likewise noted a number of sections repeated material found earlier in the book (something demonstrating the need of those wonderful folks called "editors"). Of course, the big question everyone is waiting for an answer for: when George Bryson told me to "read the book" to find the answers to Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10, and Acts 4:27-28, was it because we just didn't have time for him to go over his in-depth exegesis of these key passages, or was something else involved? Now, WallyBalt, the Australian/Hawaiian Astrophysicist Guy, had already scanned the book and informed me that there was not a single reference to Genesis 50 or Acts 4 in the book. I certainly trusted someone of Balt's scholarly abilities, but I also wanted to see it for myself, and I wanted to look for Isaiah 10 as well (though, obviously, if someone skips the others, they aren't going to tackle that one!). Having now scanned the entirety of the book, I can say without hesitation that Mr. Bryson showed not the first inkling of interest in exegeting, let alone mentioning, the three passages that I presented on the BAM debate. They were never mentioned, cited, quoted, or allowed to wave from the bleachers in the far left field. I will be playing relevant cuts from the BAM debate regarding this on next Tuesday's Dividing Line. Now, I saw a lot of really bad argumentation going by as I was checking each page for citations of those three passages. It is clear that since our debate in 2002 Mr. Bryson has determined it would be best to create some kind of defense regarding John 6. Numerous pages in different sections are devoted to a very passionate, yet utterly muddled and incomprehensibly vain attempt to get around the teaching of the Lord in the synagogue in Capernaum. And though he directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims (p. 126):

Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.

Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.

Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.

I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact). Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the "him" who is drawn in 6:44 is the "him" who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)? One thing is for certain: the words of the Lord Jesus recorded for us in this passage continue to refute every vain effort made by men to mute their testimony to God's utter sovereignty in the matter of salvation. I should, however, note one positive thing: there are so many citations of good, solid Reformed sources in this book that I truly believe Mr. Bryson has unwittingly lent us a hand in "getting the word out." Evidently he feels his replies are compelling, but in fact, most of the time, he simply does not provide a comprehensible, let alone a compelling, reply. Therefore, I truly believe we will see more folks coming to see the importance of rightly handling God's truth in the matter of His sovereignty as a result of this book.

(From the Alpha and Omega Website: ttp://www.aomin.org/BlogArchives0104.html

I would have to agree with James White's assement of this book, it is really not worth commenting on...

Update!

Coming Wednesday Night: The First Instalment of My Critique on George Bryson's the Dark Side of Calvinism.

Steve Scianni on:

Is George Bush the Worst President Ever?

The Answer is undeniably, Yes...hands down, there is no question. Over 650,000 Iraqi's dead, Trillions of dollars in debt, the ineptness during Katrina, the 9/11 attacks, war and 'chase' of Osama Bin Laden, Oil prices, the Patriot Act, the lies of WMD's, the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and the effects on their families, the outrage and disapproval of the rest of the civilized world, Depleted Uranium and it's effects, the criminal profiteering of corporations on the wars, the energy crisis in California, an impediment to Stem cell research, the buffonery with Iran and North Korea...on and on and on and on...and not to mention all of this with the Republicans in Control! This unquestionably makes him the worst president in our history. The real question should be: Is George Bush, Jr. the worst human being that ever lived?


But Ed, I did enjoy the post, nice job...I would however change at least one thing immediately and it is this: Clinton's (indescretions) in the white house does not by any stretch of the imagination take precedence over the evils of George W....Alright, well again, nice blog and glad to see you not allow your evangelical slant to turn a blind eye to the obvious...George Bush is a lying, manipulating, murdering, theiving and very rich, megolomaniac without one clue as to how to serve the people of this country or in fact, how to serve anybody other than his own pocketbooks and those of his cohorts.

Steve Scianni is a friend of Dan Mages, a Frequent Attende of HungerTruth's Meeting and is a Vocal Atheist

The Conscience of a Conservative

I am getting e-mails both for and against my recent post "Is George W. Bush the Worst President Ever?" Some have said I am absolutely right to question a President that led America into a war in Iraq that appears to be unjustifiable. Others say, as a Republican, I have no right to question the President.




For the record, I want to be clear that I am a conservative to the core. I am a lifer. I hate liberalism and will fight against political and theological liberalism for the rest of my life. I have been a conservative my entire life and those who know me, know that I am a hard core Conservative Evangelical and Republican.



With this current President, I am just calling into the question the legitimacy of this War in Iraq that is costing America billions of dollars every day and is making this administration one of biggest spending governments in America since FDR.

Part of my constitutional right as American is to be able to exercise my free speech, and today I am coming out publicly and saying that I believe the War in Iraq is indefensible. There were no WMD's and now American service men and women are dying in a War that makes no sense. Bush now needs a exit plan to get out of there.

Whether or not I support the War in Iraq does not determine if I am a true conservative, no less eminent conservative figure than William F. Buckley has said in the National Review that the War in Iraq is a mistake.



I am a conservative against the war, that's right, I am against this Iraq War and I say let's get out of there now! Yet, let's do it without bringing shame to America. Let's exit Iraq with dignity and honor, but, let's get the heck out of there.

Sincerely in Christ,

Ed Enochs

A Conservative with a Conscience

What the World Needs is More Calvinism

What New Heresy is this?

Answering Dan Mages

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made. "



"And the Word became flesh and dwealt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."


John 1:1-3, 14

Dan, as look over your comments and present activities I see that you place a tremendous emphasis on what you call "Intellectual Honesty" Yet, when I evaluate your theology and endeavors I can't escape the feeling that somehow, your bad experience at the Master's College and unfortunate treatment at some Evangelical churches has not pushed you over the edge towards a postmodern and Arian/Unitarian understanding of Christianity.

You went from being a Conservative Evangelical Bible major at the Master's College to being a person who denies the Trinity, attends a church that supports homosexuality and "gay unions"

Your church website says the following: First Congregational Church, we offer a variety of wedding ceremonies- both for heterosexual couples and same-gender partnerships. There are no membership restrictions for these services. Marriage is more than a celebration of social customs. The guests gather not only to witness the ceremony, but also to provide support to the couple and to give thanks to God and ask Gods blessing upon their covenant relationship. First Congregational Church is eager to make your marriage a beautiful and memorable occasion. The following information will help you plan and enjoy this important event. http://www.fccriverside.org/weddings/brochure.php

So, in a space of just a few years you now adopt Unitarianism, Open Theism, a Emergent Church perspective and now minister at a church with a woman pastor and a church that supports homosexuality?

It appears to me that you are overreacting to some ill treatment at a Fundamentalist institution and have adopted many beliefs and practices that are in direct opposition to the Master's College and Conservative Evangelicalism.

Dan, the reason why I have debated you with kindness and did not use a "shock and awe" type of debate tactic in our last debate, is because this is what you expected. You expected me to come across as an "Angry Fundamentalist" but I did not, because you have already got that treatment and that's not what this is about.

I can't but feel that you are now believing and teaching these doctrines you know are detested in Conservative Evangelicalism because you know they will generate condemnation in the circles you are angry with.

I caution you against absorbing the doctrines of the Emergent Church (EC) just to spite us conservative Evangelicals.

I have witnessed within EC an almost disdain of Luther the Reformers and conservative Evangelical theology in general and this troubles me, since Luther, Calvin and etc, are the foundational theologians of Evangelicalism in general and to not acknowledge their contributions makes me wonder if we should deem EC as a viable expression of true Evangelicalism at all or if we should label EC as a totally different movement from Evangelical Christianity.

The fundamental thesis I am attempting to postulate is that Martin Luther, John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation is what gave birth and impetus to Evangelical Protestantism in the first place, thus to refuse to acknowledge the positive contributions of the founding fathers of our faith is like saying that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the US Constitution has no relevance in socio-political discussions on the future of American Democracy today.

I am afraid what is really at the heart of the Emergent Church controversy within American Evangelical Protestantism today concerns the validity of Post-modernity as a viable ideological foundation for Evangelical theology and polity today.The EC movement is ultimately an attempt to synthesize what is perceived to be the best of both worlds: Evangelicalism and Post-modernity.

However, there is a growing consensus within Conservative American Evangelicalism that the two movements are irreconcilable and are an unwise attempt at ecclesiastical and doctrinal syncreticism: an attempt at mixing two mutually exclusive world-views into a homogeneous spiritual movement.The world renown German Philosopher Hegel saw this approach in terms of "Dialectical synthesis" wherein a thesis and its antithesis is merged forming a synthesis.Post-modernity and traditional Protestantism founded by Luther and Calvin cannot be successfully synthesized since they are at once two mutually exclusive world views that have two radically irreconcilable ideological starting points: foundationalism and propositional and ethical relativism.

EC attempts two have the best of both worlds by maintaining a facade and external shell of adherence to Evangelical tradition and theology while attempting to utilize the entirely antithetical postmodern cultural hermeneutic, that seeks to obliterate doctrinal and ethical absolutes.

EC cannot have the best of both worlds, either its proponents will lapse into non-Christian unbelief like the rest our Postmodern culture that is militantly opposed to traditional Bible based Evangelicalism or EC will return back to the Theo-centric, Christocentric and Bibliocentric centrality focus that differentiates Evangelicalism from all the other ideological and religious options.Historic Evangelical Protestantism is centered around propositional absolutes, that Almighty God exists and has spoken absolutely, objectively and coherently in the Bible which it deems to be the exclusively authoritative, infallible, inerrant and inspired Word of Almighty God and that God has communicated in a final salvific sense in the historical-redemptive forensic soteriological act of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

Evangelicalism teaches that there are non-negotiable and unchanging theological and ethical norms based on the authority of Scripture that cannot be broken irrespective of the passing fancy of contemporary culture.In diametrical counter distinction to the objectivist and absolutist theological and ethical standard of historic Biblical Evangelicalism, the advent and cultural ascendancy of Post-modernity seeks to obliterate traditional ideological and ethical norms within Western Civilization and postulates that there is not such thing as absolute truth and morality.EC attempts to synthesize post-modernity and Evangelicalism, but like attempting to mix oil and water, it will fail to make the engine that is the historic Church run, but will rather spun out on the road of bankrupt ideology like every other non-Bible based world view that has attempted to replace Evangelicalism as the truth.EC and Evangelicalism cannot be successfully synthesized because EC seeks to utilize post-modernity as an ideology and post-modernity is inherently relativistic, the diametrical ideological nemesis of historic Christianity that says God has spoken in an absolute and final matter.

Regarding your views of the Trinity and other doctrines important to the Evangelical Church, to compare believing in the Trinity with believing in the Rapture or Calvinism/Arminianism is like comparing apples with oranges: They are not in the same category.

Belief in the Rapture and belief in the historic Doctrine of the Trinity are two infinitely different things. The Rapture is a debatable doctrine at best, but the nature of God is the essence of what true Christianity is.

If one has a different concept of God than what the Bible teaches, he or she does not have true faith in God, but a false idol of one's own imagination. The Unitarian and Socinian understanding of Jesus and the nature of God cannot be found in the pages of proper Biblical interpretation but is the result of terrible exegesis and preheld and presuppostional bias against the doctrine of the Trinity.

Throughout my two- decade long sojourn in this most precious Christian faith, I have always believed staunchly and unequivocally in the historic Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity simply and finally because the Holy Scriptures teach this and for no other reason.

The Bible clearly teaches that there in one true and living God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60 and John 17:3)

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Matthew 28:19-20, John 6:27 and Romans 1:7).The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God (Matthew 1:23, John 1:1-14, 8:58, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5 and Col. 1:16-17).

The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 5:1-5 and 2 Corinthians 13:14)

Thus, I come to the conclusion that the Historic Christian Faith is correct and that there in God exists the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is the one true God mentioned in the Bible.

Historic and Biblical Christianity has always believed and taught that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead who is co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit of whom Jesus Christ shares the same essence. To believe anything different is to be guilty of the forced exegesis I see you, Anthony Buzzard and all Unitarians are guilty of. I believe your theological views are not the result of sound Biblical interpretation, but are the result of your angry vendetta against Conservative Evangelicalism.

In my debates with you I am greatly perplexed as to what methodology of hermeneutics you were using and seen some major inherent incongruousness in your interpretive grid from which you exegete Scripture. I myself was left scratching my head and wondering from what criterion do you objectively interpret Scripture. Is your hermeneutic taken from the subjectivistic postmodern standard of the Emergent Church Movement, philosophical rationalism, Historical-Grammaticalism or some other interpretive method of understanding Holy Scripture.

Your views appear to reflect anger and bias against Conservative Evangelicalism, thus you force the Scriptures to reflect your Unitarian understanding of Scripture, the careful exegete of Scripture will find that the Bible clearly teaches that within the one true God exists three distinct and co-eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirt.

Dan, the Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches that Jesus Christ is God and that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the truth (Please read: Isaiah 9:6-7, Matthew 1:23, 28:19-20, John 1:1-14, 1:18, 5:23, 8:58, 14:1-10, 20:28, Acts 5:1-8, 20:28, Romans 9:5, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1-11,Colossians 1:15-17, 2:8-9, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:1-8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Revelation 1:8, 17-18 and 22:13).The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is both God and is a person despite the false teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on this matter (Please Read: Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, Acts 5:1-4, Acts 13:2-4, 20:23, 20:28. 1 Corinthians 12:11 and Hebrews 9:14).

"But these have been written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing, you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).