How Biblical is the Trinity? (White vs Sabin)

Good evening. On behalf of Grace Gospel Church, we welcome you to this evening's debate on the

Trinity. My name is Larry Carino, I am senior pastor of Grace Gospel Church, an evangelical free church located here in the village of Patchogue.

I will also be acting this evening as tonight's moderator. Our discussion this evening is of the utmost importance, as it centers on the very nature of God himself.

At the end of the book of Job, God confronts one of Job's friends concerning their representation of his person.

In Job chapter 42, verse 7, God says, And it came about, the Lord had spoken these words to Job, that the

Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant

Job has. God cares about how we speak of him, and how we think of him, and how we conceive of him, because this affects how we worship him and how we relate to him.

This evening we shall hear discussed and debated the issue of the very essence of who

God is. Does the scripture reveal a God who is triune or singular in person?

We invite you to be the judge this evening as you hear our distinguished guests interact on this issue, for it is the responsibility of every person to rightly understand what

God has revealed about himself from his inspired word. Now the proposition set out before us this evening is actually in the form of a question.

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the Bible? Affirming that position is

Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. White is also adjunct professor, teaching New Testament Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and serves as an elder at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona. He serves as a critical consultant for the

New American Standard Bible Update and has written over a dozen books, including The Roman Catholic Controversy, Is the

Mormon My Brother?, The King James Only Controversy, and most recently a book entitled

The Forgotten Trinity. Dr. White can be heard in this area every Thursday evening on 570

AM radio, WMCA, at 10 PM on the Voice of Sovereign Grace broadcast.

Let's welcome Dr. White this evening. Defending against that proposition this evening is

Mr. Robert Sabin. Mr. Sabin is a graduate of the Apostolic Bible Institute of St.

Paul, Minnesota, and Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota. He has pastored churches for the past 44 years in Wisconsin and Minnesota since the age of 22.

He has also taught at Winona State University and was adjunct professor at Kent Christian College in Delaware.

Mr. Sabin has a special interest in Russia, where he works and teaches with many churches of his faith. He retired from pastoring in 1997 and has been teaching overseas missions since that time.

Mr. Sabin is a prolific writer, writing many books and as well as in numerous periodicals.

He participated a number of years ago in a televised debate on the John Ankerberg program, debating

Mr. Cal Beisner and the late Dr. Walter Martin. He is the director of OMNI, a network of ministers engaged in outreach and overseas ministries.

Would you please welcome this evening Mr. Robert Sabin. Our debate format this evening will follow the following format and I ask that you pay careful attention.

Our program this evening consists of three parts. Now, I'm a Trinitarian and that was purely coincidental,

I assure you. The first part of our presentation tonight will begin with Dr.

James White issuing his opening remarks for 40 minutes, followed by Mr.

Robert Sabin, who will issue his opening remarks for 40 minutes. This will be followed by Dr.

White's rebuttal for 12 minutes and then following that for 12 minutes,

Mr. Robert Sabin's rebuttal. This will all take place at the podium here and both speakers have provided a visual presentation for you this evening.

Following that first section, we'll be taking a 10 to 15 minute break at which time you'll be able to visit the literature tables and even more importantly, gain some refreshments at the back of the room.

We will move into our second part of the evening with Mr. Robert Sabin cross -examining

Dr. James White for 12 minutes and then Dr. White cross -examining Pastor Sabin and then once again we will repeat that process for 12 minutes each.

That will take place up here as the two debaters are able to interact with one another on the positions that they have brought forth to you this evening.

Then after that period of cross -examination, Mr. Robert Sabin will be giving a 7 minute closing statement followed by Dr.

James White for 7 minutes as well. At the end of that period, we should have about a half an hour to 45 minutes to move into our third part of the presentation this evening where you will have the opportunity from the audience to ask questions of each of the debaters.

When we move to that point in our presentation, I will be laying out some guidelines as well.

I'm going to ask if we would now take a moment of silent prayer as we lift up this evening before the

Lord. Amen.

At this time I am going to ask Dr. James White to come forward and begin with his opening remarks.

I am reminded of the words of Luke when he records

Abraham saying, and we need to get that a little bit closer, a great gulf is fixed between you and I and there is a great gulf between us as well.

It's called technology. And so we're going to hope that everything is going to work for you this evening and hope that all of this will be useful to you.

Again, I hope those of you who are watching the screen will be able to move toward the center so you'll be able to observe what's going on.

It is a very important issue that brings us together this evening and I truly hope that this debate this evening will focus primarily upon what the scriptures say and not who's standing up here.

I honestly believe that the best debates are those debates where it doesn't really matter who's standing here.

It doesn't really matter what the personalities are. It doesn't really matter what their past history is.

Simply the facts are presented and you are the debate judges this evening. You are the individuals who decide what is presented this evening and I hope that you will listen very carefully.

I hope that you will work as hard this evening as both myself and my opponent this evening have worked in preparing to present this information to you.

It is work. This is not a simple subject. One of the reasons that this subject is probably not being debated very much today in our land, and this is an unusual thing we're doing this evening, is because most people in what calls itself

Christendom don't bother themselves with such minutia as what the doctrine of the

Trinity is. The idea that God has revealed his truth and that we should be conformed to that truth and that we need to hold that truth, well, that's just not something that everyone believes anymore.

And so I congratulate you for being here. I congratulate you for being concerned enough to come this evening and to consider what the

Word of God has to say. I believe in the biblical doctrine of the

Trinity. I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because of philosophy.

I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because of church councils. I don't believe in the doctrine of the

Trinity because some ecclesiastical authority forces me to do so. I believe in the doctrine of the

Trinity because I believe in sola scriptura, that is, that the Scriptures are the sole and fallible rule of faith of the

Church, and I believe in tota scriptura, that you have to believe everything that the

Bible has to say. And one of the reasons I've been looking forward to this evening in a special way is because of the three debates that I have done over the past nine days, this being the third one, this is the first time that I and my opponent have the same ground upon which to argue.

Last Thursday evening when I debated a Roman Catholic on the doctrine of the Mass, in that situation you have the church and the infallible magisterium that overrides any interpretation of the scripture.

And I sort of feel like I'm going in and out here just a little bit. Then Wednesday evening we had a debate with a

Muslim on the subject of does the New Testament teach the deity of Christ. And those of you that were there know that the result of that was any passage that teaches the deity of Christ is obviously a later addition and wasn't a part of the original

New Testament. So we just dismissed that evidence that way. It is my understanding at least that this evening we have the same authority to draw from, that we both believe that the

Bible is the God -breathed revelation and that we are to be conformed to what that truth says.

I believe that is both of our positions in regards to scripture. And so it is good that we will be able to present our whole debate on a sound and firm foundation.

But we need to have some definitions first. So I'd like to begin with a basic definition. Within the one being that is

God there exists eternally three co -equal and co -eternal persons, namely the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Please note the difference between the words being and person.

Being and person. The Doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one being that is

God, not that there is one being that is three beings or one person that is three persons.

One being that is God, three persons that fully and completely share that one divine being.

It is a vital distinction that exists between the words being and person.

They are different things. Being is what makes something what it is.

Person is what makes someone who they are. Being is what makes something what it is and person is what makes someone who they are.

We recognize that distinction every day. We recognize the distinction between being and person when we look out over this audience.

We are all human beings. We have that in common and yet each one of us is a different person.

We recognize that distinction as it exists and we use the same distinction in discussing the nature of God.

Remember that there is one what and three who's.

The what is the being of God, the who is the Father, the

Son, and the Spirit. The most common error that we encounter in dealing with the

Doctrine of the Trinity are category errors. That is, everyone in this debate believes that God is one.

But what does that mean? One in what category? One only in the category of being or one both in the category of being and in the category of person.

We cannot simply assume that since the Scriptures say God is one that that means that he is one in both categories if there is biblical data to indicate otherwise and it is my job this evening to indicate to you what that data is.

So we cannot simply assume that because the Scriptures speak of the oneness of God that those passages of Scripture that speak of the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit as persons are to be dismissed. Now there are three biblical foundations of the

Doctrine of the Trinity. The first foundation is monotheism. The Scriptures teach that there is only one true

God. For the past 30 consecutive general conferences of the Mormon Church I have stood outside the gates of the tabernacled

Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. About the dozen of us, about 30 ,000

Mormons, very good odds. And I have passed out tracts and borne testimony to the truth that there is only one true

God. I am a monotheist. I believe that to the core of my being.

There is no Christian faith without monotheism. The second foundation, the second biblical teaching and this is where we disagree this evening is that there are three divine persons the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit. That is where we will be focusing. The third foundation is the co -equality and co -eternality of those persons and that would primarily deal with what

Jehovah's Witnesses teach for example in denying the deity of Christ they teaching that Jesus is

Michael the Archangel or things like that. These three truths, the foundation, monotheism, the existence of the three divine persons and then the equality of those persons are all biblical teachings.

And that is where I hope the debate centers this evening is in the very text of scripture. In fact

I hope some of you brought some Bibles to look at this evening. Even though we'll be putting a lot of this on the screen not always will we be doing that.

Now I believe that the Bible clearly and consistently differentiates between the person of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Never does the Bible identify the

Father as the Son, the Son as the Spirit or the Spirit as the Father and passages such as Isaiah 9 .6

or John 10 .30 do not identify the Father as the Son or make the Father and Son one person.

The Bible instead I will assert and will prove here in a moment teaches that the Father has eternally existed as a divine person.

I don't think there's anyone here that denies that. That the Son likewise has eternally existed as a divine person.

There's the rub. There's the issue. And that the Spirit has existed eternally as a divine person.

Now let's keep in mind very clearly my assertion that there are two issues upon which this debate must be decided and that is your job as the judges this evening.

First of all, does the Bible teach that there are three distinct persons

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does the Bible teach this truth?

And secondly, does the Bible teach that the Son existed as a divine person in eternity past?

If the Son is taught in Scripture to have existed as a divine person in eternity past distinct from the

Father then I would assert to you that the issue has been joined and in fact the biblical teaching has been plainly presented.

That would mean that it could not be taught that Jesus was the Father and the

Son the Son referring to his human nature the Father to his divine nature that would deny that kind of a teaching.

So let us look to the Scriptures and discover what the Scriptures teach on this vital issue.

I will present three New Testament passages and I just realized that's somewhat of a pun three

New Testament passages that teach the eternal pre -existence personhood and deity of the

Son. I didn't choose three simply because I'm a Trinitarian, you might think that I did but I want to keep the debate at least from my perspective very much focused upon what the

Scriptures teach. If I tried to cover all the passages that you cover on these types of discussions

I would be going way too fast for anyone to really understand what in the world I was saying the sound system that we have in a room like this it's difficult to really talk very quickly anyways.

The three that I will present to you during my opening presentation is the prologue of John John chapter 1 verses 1 through 3 and we'll also be looking at verse 18.

Then we'll be looking at the Lord's High Priestly Prayer John chapter 17 verses 3 through 5 and then the

Carmen Christi the hymn to Christ as to God Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 7.

I believe that these passages lay the foundation for the defense of the

Biblical doctrine of the Trinity in light of the topic this evening and the oneness position.

We begin with John chapter 1. Most of you know the passage very well.

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 apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

This is truly one of the single passages of the entirety of the New Testament and what it teaches about the person of Jesus Christ is extremely important.

Let's take that first verse apart very carefully. In the beginning was the

Word. The Logos the Word that John presents to us.

This first phrase presents to us the fact that the Logos is eternal. The Logos has eternally existed.

How does he say this to us? Well he does so through that little word Ein. Ein in Greek the imperfect form of the verb of existence.

Our language doesn't do a very good job in expressing these things. It's not nearly as expressive as the

Greek language is. But the idea is this. In the beginning, that's the very same phrase used in Genesis 1 .1.

In the beginning the Word was already in existence. This Word does not point to the idea of a point of origination or source.

Instead, John's very careful to differentiate throughout the prologue between the Word who is or was ongoing action in the past and everything else that came into existence.

And so when we look at this first phrase, the point that John is communicating to us is that the

Word has eternally existed. The Word does not come into existence at a point in time.

The second phrase is and the Word was with God. The Word was with God.

The Greek term pros is used to express the concept of face to face with.

Communion with. There is a relationship that exists between the logos, the

Word, and theos, God. We will look at a moment exactly what the nature of that relationship is.

But I want to look at the third clause and then go back to that. And the Word was God. Now many of you, if you've been woken up on a

Saturday morning by those folks that have the book bags and come knocking on your door at the most inopportune times and want to pass out the

Watchtower and Awake magazines to you, may have discussed this particular passage a few times. You know that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the proper translation here is the

Word was A God and they do so because the Word God, the second word in the line of Greek, does not have the definite article in front of it.

But in reality, by placing the Word God before the verb, by not putting an article in front of it, by constructing it the way that the inspired apostle did, what is being communicated to us is that the

Word is, as to His nature, deity. He is not contradicting the apostle

John. He is not contradicting what he said in the previous clause. He's not saying he is the God with whom he is with.

He is describing the nature of the Word, the nature of the

Logos. Now I said I wanted to talk especially about that second phrase, the Word was with God.

The reason this is very important, I think, is that we need to ask the question, who is the

God with whom the Word eternally was? I believe that this is the

Father. As John tells us in John chapter 1, verse 18, the bookend to John 1, 1.

What is a bookend? It is a literary mechanism whereby you place, just as you have maybe a section of books at home, you put a bookend on this side, a bookend on this side.

So you take a statement that you begin a dialogue with and then you have a second bookend where you reiterate the same truth that you spoke at the beginning of your dialogue.

Let me illustrate. John 1 .18 says, No one has ever seen

God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father's heart, who has made

Him known. That's the New Revised Standard Version's rendering, and I think it is probably the best rendering of the

Greek that I have found. Now the God who has not been seen is the

Father. But it is God the only Son, Jesus Christ, who is close to the

Father's heart, who makes known the Father. Indeed, I would suggest to you that John 1 .18

cannot be understood outside the doctrine of the Trinity. For the Old Testament does tell us that men saw

God. Abraham walked with Jehovah by the Oaks of Mamre. In Isaiah chapter 6,

Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting upon his throne, lofty and lifted up. Men have seen

God. Then what is John talking about? Well, he explains.

When he says, No one has ever seen God, he then goes on to explain he's talking about the Father and that the revelation of the

Father, how He is made known, is done through God the only Son, that is,

Jesus Christ. In the same way, in John 1 .1, the God with whom the

Word eternally existed is likewise the Father. That is,

John is proclaiming to us the fact that the Father and the Son have eternally had communion with one another.

Now the reason why this is very important is because Dr. Sabin, responding to John 1 .1

on the Ankerberg show way those many years ago, in 1985, said,

Whatever was back there was with God, not with God the Father, but with God. If it had said that the

Word was with God the Father, then we'd have the two persons in the Trinity. But it said the

Word was with God. But I would submit to you that that is exactly what

John does tell us. For by using the phrase, God the only Son, in John 1 .18,

he clearly indicates that the Son is and was deity, and the Son was with the

Father from eternity, just as we see in John 1 .1.

So here is the first of the three that I present to you, the prologue of John. But as time, unfortunately, waits for no one,

I must move on. The Son has existed eternally as a divine person, and I would suggest to you that this is an exegetical certainty, not a probability, but an exegetical certainty based on John chapter 17, verse 5.

Let's look at the context. Beginning in verse 3, Jesus' high priestly prayer,

This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you have given me to do. Now, Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which

I had with you before the world was. Let's look very closely at these words.

Now, Father, Jesus is addressing someone else.

Father, glorify me, he uses personal pronouns, together with yourself, a personal pronoun used of the

Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

Now, given these personal pronouns, I don't believe there can be any question that in these words we have the words of one person speaking to another person.

If I say I and you and so on and so forth, this is one person addressing another person.

However, as we look at the context, we see that this is one person, that is the

Son, who is speaking of having shared glory with the true

God before the world began, in eternity past itself.

Notice the phrase, together with yourself. This is truly a divine glory.

It is a glory utterly unfitting for any mere creature to demand that in fact, amazingly enough,

Jesus is using here the imperative mode, the mode of command. He is saying to the

Father, glorify me, I have completed your work, glorify me with the glory which you and I shared before time itself began.

Now, Dr. A .T. Robertson, the greatest Greek scholar America has produced, wrote, quote, with thine own self paraseato, by the side of thyself, is the literal rendering,

Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre -incarnate glory and fellowship, compared

John 1 .1, and joy before the incarnation, John 1 .14,

where the word becomes flesh. This is not just ideal pre -existence, but actual and conscious existence at the

Father's side. Here the Lord Jesus very clearly reveals to us that he existed prior to the very foundation of the world.

Indeed, I would submit that all of the prayers of the Lord Jesus demonstrate the distinct personhood of the

Son, yet they likewise prove the deity of the Son as well. These are not examples of the human side, praying to the divine side, but of a divine yet incarnate person, the

Son, communicating with a divine but non -incarnate person, the

Father in Heaven. I would submit to you that I cannot possibly imagine any other way of understanding these words as they were written than to recognize that the

Son existed before the foundation of the earth as a person and shared the very glory of the

Father in that situation. Time continues to go by, so let us go to our third passage, the

Carmen Christi, the hymn to Christ as God, Philippians 2 .5 -11. Actually, if you're taking notes, most scholars believe that this is a fragment of an ancient hymn of the

Church. And this passage I'd like to focus upon says, have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of men.

This is a precious passage of Scripture indeed to all believers. But the key question for our debate this evening is, what is the time frame of these words?

To what time frame are we making reference? Christian exegetes down to the centuries have understood the passage to be referring to the period prior to the

Incarnation, prior to the eternal Word becoming flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, John 1 .14.

When the Son had equality with the Father in Heaven itself.

But oneness advocates say this passage, some anyways, refers to the time of Jesus' human ministry.

Can we find out? Well, if in fact the passage refers to the period before the

Incarnation of Christ, then please realize it is plain that the Son then pre -existed as a person, was active and divine, and hence the debate is concluded for the

Trinitarian position is established in the face of those that would deny the existence of three eternal persons.

Now I would suggest to you that in this situation, the verbs determine the truth.

The verbs determine the truth. Let's look very closely at the verbs here.

Paul says, have this attitude, which was also in Christ Jesus, who although he existed and actually that's a present participle, was existing in the form of God, did not regard or consider that equality that he had with God a thing to be grasped, but in opposition to that he emptied himself or made himself of no repute, taking, and this is an aorist participle, the form of a bond servant and being made another aorist participle in the likeness of men.

Now, a lot of us don't like to do too much work with verbs and participles and things like that but that is sort of the spade work of our language that we have to do to understand what is being said.

And I'd like to try to explain to you that syntactically, and syntax is the relationship that words bear to one another, given their grammatical form and their position in sentences.

Syntactically, Paul presents two verbal clauses separated by the adversative but.

But begins verse 7. He existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but instead of that, he did this.

The actions of existing and consider equality go together in the

Greek language. This is important. Why? Because to consider is the action of a person.

To consider, to think, to ponder, to make decisions, that's something a person does.

Plans don't consider. Plans don't ponder. Plans don't make decisions.

Only persons do that kind of thing. Now the key verb in the passage is emptied or to make of no repute.

The lights do be flashing all over the place, aren't they? The key verb is emptied.

The possession of equality that the son had with the father took place before the emptying that is referred to here in Philippians 2.

Taking the form of a servant describes the means by which

Jesus emptied himself. Please think about it. He emptied himself.

This is a voluntary action. This is something the son does. And how does he empty himself?

He does so by taking the form of a servant and by being made in the likeness of men.

There's the key. Being made in the likeness of men. That, my friends, is the incarnation.

That has to be the incarnation. When else did

Jesus enter into the likeness of men? When else does he take the form of a bondservant?

This is the incarnation. Therefore, since this is the incarnation, then what took place before that?

His having equality with the father and his not considering that equality a thing to be grasped was the action of a person and a person that Paul differentiates from the father.

Therefore, this passage I submit to you teaches the deity of Christ, because he exists in the very form of God, as well as the distinct personhood of the

Son prior to the incarnation. Just as in John 1 .1

and in John 17 .5 the text is inarguable. The Son as the

Son is eternal. So I'd like to summarize. I believe the case is clear.

The Logos, the Word, eternally existed as God and was in fellowship with the

Father, John 1 .1. The Son shared glory with the Father before the world existed,

John 17 .5. And prior to the incarnation, the Son was divine and active,

Philippians 2 verses 5 -7. We see then the meaning of the oneness of God passages in the

Old Testament. When the Scriptures refer to God being one, they refer to a oneness of being, not a oneness of person, since we have now seen conclusively the existence of the

Father and the Son as distinct, yet eternal divine persons, just as the doctrine of the

Trinity teaches. Indeed, every passage that teaches that it was

Christ the Son who created all things proves this point as well. In Colossians chapter 1, verses 15 -17.

In Hebrews chapter 1, verses 2 -3, it is the Son specifically who is said to be the one through whom all things were created.

One must be eternal to be the one through whom creation itself comes into being, not a part of the creation itself.

Now unless the combined testimony of these three inspired scriptural witnesses can be overthrown, the oneness denial of the

Trinity is proven unscriptural and without basis. To overthrow these testimonies, one must do so on the basis of the text itself, not other considerations.

One cannot import one's idea of oneness into these passages. We must avoid eisegesis and engage only in exegesis.

We shall not read into the scriptures, we must read our beliefs out of or from the scriptures.

And neither does it follow that it is an argument against the doctrine of the Trinity that well, there's all these philosophical issues and there's all these terms that have been used over time.

The simple fact of the matter is the reason that Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity is because the word of God forces us to.

We have to end up denying one or more of those biblical foundations that I laid out at the beginning to not believe in the doctrine of the

Trinity. And if we believe all that the scripture has to say, then we will focus upon what the

Bible itself says. Now let's look at a few commonly misunderstood texts. You may notice

I like sticking with the Bible as the foundation of my comments. I hope that we'll all be able to do that this evening.

In John chapter 10, verse 30, we read the words, I and the Father are one.

And certainly all Christians believe in the absolute unity of Father and Son, but in what way?

Some claim that Jesus is here identifying himself as the Father. However, Jesus uses not the singular form of the verb, but the plural form of the verb, we are.

So, in other words, even here, Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father. We could literally translate the

Greek as, I and the Father, we are one. And when you read the context, it is very clear what their oneness is.

In this particular context, and I know there are many Christians who I think misuse this passage, but in the context of John chapter 10, the oneness is in bringing about the eternal life of God's sheep, of God's people.

They are one in making sure that those who are in the hand of the Son are in the hand of the

Father, and no one can snatch them out of that position. They are one in bringing about the salvation of God's people.

Now, the Jews were quite right to then understand that to mean that that was a claim to deity. No mere creature could ever say,

I am perfectly in union with the Father in bringing about the redemption of God's people. They recognized that he had just made a claim to deity.

But he did not claim in this passage to be the Father. In John chapter 14,

Jesus said to him, have I been so long with you and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the

Father. How can you say, show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?

The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works.

But we need to remember that this is the Son who is speaking, the same Son who says just a matter of sentences later, 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. There is a clear differentiation here between the

Son and the Father to whom he is about to return. John 17, back in that glorious place that was his from eternity past in the presence of the

Father. The person who is speaking in John 14, 28 clearly differentiates himself from the

Father and if he is speaking that way in verse 28, he is also speaking that way in verses 9 -10.

So what does he mean? Well, go back to John 1, 18. Who is the one who is exegeted or made known?

The Father. How do we know him? The perfect revealer of the

Father is none other than the Son, Jesus Christ. That is his role. In Isaiah chapter 9, for a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on his shoulders, and his name will be called

Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Many would point to a passage such as this and say, see, he is the

Eternal Father. I would submit to you the doctrine that when the Trinity is revealed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the coming of the

Holy Spirit, that those things were future at the time of Isaiah, and that in point of fact, the word

Father, when used of God in the Old Testament, is primarily used in the sense of creator.

I'll show you that in just a moment, but please note that the phrase Mighty God is

El Gabor, which is used in Isaiah 10, 21, of Jehovah God himself, and the phrase

Eternal Father is Aviyad. Aviyad. I would translate

Aviyad as Father of Eternity, as Kylan Delich does as well in their commentary, and one of the reasons

I would do so is because of passages such as these. In Malachi 2 .10, it is said, Do we not all have one

Father? Has not one God created us? Notice the connection of God and creation with the term

Father in Isaiah 64 .8, but now O Lord, that's Jehovah, you are our

Father, we are the clay, and you are Potter, and all of us are the work of your hand.

Notice the connection of Father and creation again. In light of Colossians 1 .15,

John 1 .3, and Hebrews 1 .2 -3, where Jesus Christ is said to be the creator of all things, as the

Son, then I would submit to you that the phrase Aviad, or Father of Eternity, is referring not to Trinitarian names, but to his role as the creator of all things.

Why is this important this evening? Why has Pastor Sabin traveled so far from actually the place where I was born, by the way, in Minnesota, out here to Long Island?

Why have I stayed here so long? Some of you are getting really tired of me and would like me to go home. I'd like to submit two passages to your consideration.

Lord Jesus, in John 5, where over and over again he differentiates between himself and the

Father, identifies himself as the Son, he's emphasizing the perfect unity that exists between he and the

Father in their accomplishment of redemption itself, says so that all will honor the

Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the

Son does not honor the Father who sent him. We have to have a divine and eternal

Son, not a human Son who is indwelt by God, but a

Son who has eternally existed as God. And I think that is what concerned

John so much that he wrote these words in 1 John chapter 2, verse 23, words that are very straightforward and very strong.

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father. The one who confesses the

Son has the Father also. Who is the

Son of God? Is the Son a human nature that came into existence at his birth in Bethlehem and was indwelt by the one person of God, the

Father, Jesus becoming the Father and the Son? Or is he the eternal

Logos, the Word who has eternally existed, the Son who is in relationship with the

Father before the creation of time itself, the

Son who was equal with the Father, the object of the adoration of angels, but did not consider that equality he had, something to be grasped, but laid it aside in an act of humility to die as a sacrifice for sins?

Was he not that glorious Son who in prayer to his Father said,

Glorify me, Father, together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was?

That is the divine Son. That is why Christians down through the ages have believed in the doctrine of the

Trinity, not because some Roman Council forced us to. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not one for obeying

Roman Catholic Councils. At this time, turn over the cassette to continue the debate.

That's not where the doctrine came from. The very reason that those early

Church Fathers believed what they believed was because the Scriptures, when taken

Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura teach that there is one true

God, that there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and that the

Father and the Son and the Spirit each fully share that one being that is God.

The Scriptures teach it, that's why we believe it, and that's why I am very honored to have the opportunity this evening to stand before you and to defend this central tenet of my faith, because this is the

God that I worship, this is the God that I adore. Thank you very much. God bless you.

Mr. Robert Sabin will now come forward and issue his opening statement for 40 minutes.

I want to greet you all tonight in the name of Jesus. I'm very happy to be here.

I have appreciated the manner and the way that Dr.

White has spoken tonight, and in fact, I would tell you that I read his book several times.

I respect him as a Christian. I do not believe that whatever he may believe about God would in any way keep him from salvation, because none of us really understands nor comprehends totally what

God is really like. A little younger in my ministry, when

I studied this subject, I always would reach a point where I'd say, this is the final understanding.

Now I know, and I had a young man that worked with me and helped me, and he'd say, yeah, but tomorrow you're going to say you found something else, and that turned out to be true.

Every time we reach what we think is a horizon, there's another horizon out there, and I would like to say something here in honesty that I would be willing to lose this discussion totally if I could learn something new about Jesus.

I that much want to really know him as he is, much more than I would want to win this discussion.

I want to say my appreciation to Pastor Carino, who spoke with me on the phone today, very kindly, very courteously, and has treated us very well.

I also want to express my appreciation to Chris Arnson, that I have spoken with several times over the telephone and trying to understand just what was going to happen here and how the thing would become what it's supposed to be.

I also want to thank some of my brethren who traveled all this way from Minnesota at their own expense, as I did, just because we're that much interested in learning more about the

Lord. And I want to say also that I'm grateful to this audience who have gathered here tonight to listen to two speakers talking about something that a lot of people would say is just bookish and technical and not of any importance.

May I say that the plan for this discussion tonight is not the ordinary plan for a discussion such as this.

There is no opportunity for me to present any affirmative arguments on what

I believe. Now, that's all right. I intend to do so to say some things along the way about what

I believe, but I really don't have to. Dr. White is the affirmative speaker. He's affirming the proposition that the

New Testament or the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and he has to affirm that position and prove it beyond all doubt.

And because of that, he has allowed himself to be the first speaker and the last speaker, which those who deal with debates say it's an advantage.

If you can speak first, if you can speak last, you can wrap it all up and the audience will remember what they heard last.

So he must do what he did. He must prove his point beyond all doubt that the

Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. And there can't be any loose ends left over when he's done because he's the affirmative speaker.

Now, I'm not disagreeing or arguing with the form of the debate, but I want you to know that I really don't have to prove what

I believe. I have to disprove what he believes. But I intend to take some time to tell you what

I believe because I think it's that important. The date was

October 31st, 1553.

Ironically, it was All Saints Day. And the skies were heavy and overcast in Geneva, Switzerland.

At the outskirts of the city, there was a raucous mob. And you could hear jeering.

And you could hear shrill voices rising and saying, he's a heretic.

He doesn't believe in the Trinity. Do away with him. Burn him. In the middle of this mob was a disheveled figure.

You could tell that he hadn't washed for over a month. And that he had been eating bread and water.

And he was dirty. And his clothing was dirty. And there was wrapped around his neck a heavy chain.

And along with the crowd was a very wild eyed, prophetic type of man who was screaming out, this is a heretic.

This is what happens to heretics. This is what happens to anybody who denies the doctrine of the

Trinity. The scene was not unlike one that had taken place 15 centuries earlier.

In what is today called the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. Where another pathetic figure was being dragged along, forced to carry a cross, showing the marks of beating upon him.

Who was this pitiful figure? Well, he'd been born to quite a good family in Spain.

His name was Miguel Servito. And he received a good education.

He was taken under the wing of a Roman Catholic Cardinal. And perhaps thereby learned of course his native

Spanish. He learned French. He learned Hebrew. He learned

Latin. He learned Greek. And he studied the classical literature of the day.

It is pretty well known that he had made a trip at least to Rome. So he had become acquainted with some of the hierarchy of the

Roman Catholic Church. But this young man loved to study. And as he studied the

Christian doctrine, he became somewhat disenchanted with the doctrine of the

Trinity. And ultimately, he wrote a book. What was the title of the book?

The title of the book was On the Errors of the Trinity. Now he could have written about many other things.

He could have written about elements of the Protestant Reformation, about justification by faith. He could have written some of the things that later were put in Kelvin's Institutes of the

Christian Religion. And perhaps not been so persecuted. But because he chose to challenge this topic, the errors of the

Trinity, he was immediately greeted with such animosity that he realized it wasn't safe for him to live any place as Michael Servetus.

So he went to France. He changed his name.

He became Dr. Villanueva. And he posed there as a

Spanish physician. He had studied medicine, along with classical literature.

And he was a very intelligent man. And believe it or not, his practice of medicine led him to discover the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

If you read any medical dictionary today, you'll find that Miguel Servetus is credited with the discovery of the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

But he could not forget this passion that was in him. The doctrine of the

Trinity was so abstruse. It was not clearly taught in any single portion of Scripture.

Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Not only was the word not mentioned, which was not of great importance, but the concepts of it were not mentioned.

It wasn't mentioned that something could be in the Godhead. There was no

Scripture that said, God the Son. No Scripture that said, God the Holy Ghost. And while the doctrine had said the persons of the

Trinity love each other, and you could read that the Father loved the Son and the Son loved the Father.

The doctrine of the Trinity said the Father and Son together love the Holy Ghost. But you know, there was no

Scripture that said they love the Holy Ghost. And there was no Scripture that said the Holy Ghost loved them.

So there was this absence of clear testimony as to how three persons could share one divine essence.

You can't find that in the Bible. There was nothing in there about sharing the essence of God. In fact, there was nothing in the

Scripture about what God is like inside of His being.

What is His mode and manner of existence inside of Himself? Those who believed in the doctrine of the

Trinity actually went further than what the Bible had revealed.

They thought they understood things that God hadn't even said. They actually invaded the

Holy of Holies. God's internal manner of existence.

And said, we know how He exists inside. There are three persons inside of Him that share the divine essence.

Well, those ideas ate at Miguel Servito or alias

Dr. Villanueva until he started to write a second book. And the second book he said,

I'm going to send that someplace where it will be appreciated. Where someone will have a heart open to receive it.

Because I know that the first time I presented it, it was not well received. So he sent this book chapter by chapter to Geneva, Switzerland.

One chapter at a time to a man that he felt was a champion of free thought.

John Calvin. The man who had had to leave France himself after making a speech and flee

France and flee to Geneva, Switzerland in order to be saved himself from the inquisitor in France.

So I'll send it to Calvin and then someday if I get out of France and can once again be

Miguel Servito, Michael Servitas, I'll go to where Calvin is and we'll sit down and have some long discussions about who

Jesus really is. What Servitas didn't know was that Calvin was indeed a great reformer.

But nobody nobody dared challenge any idea so sacrosanct as the idea that God has eternally existed in three persons.

In fact, even Calvin was not about to honor

Servitas by approving of this book, even though he only had to gather chapters.

Well, it wasn't just that Calvin wouldn't support him, but Calvin actually did something that's almost unconscionable.

He contacted Matthew Ory, the inquisitor in France and said, you've got somebody there who is a heretic.

He's the worst kind of a heretic. He denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, we want you to know that we

Protestants believe many things that you Catholics call heresy, but we're not about to take sides with somebody who denies the doctrine of the

Trinity. Who is this person? He's posing as Miguel or as Dr.

Villanueva, but he really is Miguel Servito or Michael Servitas.

Calvin informed the inquisitor on Servitas. Well, the outcome was that Servitas had to flee across the rooftops of Paris and escape.

He made his way immediately to the very place where he thought he would be safe.

Away from Roman Catholicism in a country which was espousing the new doctrines of the

Reformation to a man who had to flee the Inquisition himself in order to be able to speak the way he wanted to speak.

So he made his way immediately to the church where John Calvin was speaking on a

Sabbath morning. He was so hungry to hear somebody who could preach the word of God without fear.

And he wanted to be there. But again, unbeknownst to Servitas, the authorities were made known of who he was.

And before he could get out of the place, he was arrested.

And he was placed in the common prison. And he was kept on the bread of affliction.

He was to be allowed no amenities at all.

He was not to have the use of his books or of his pamphlets or of his

Bible. And he was not to be able to take a shower or cleanse himself or put on any clean clothes.

It was several weeks he asked if he could at least have a clean shirt. And he was allowed one clean shirt.

But daily he was brought before the council in Geneva where Calvin was the prior.

And Calvin acting as prosecutor and judge would question Servitas about his views.

Naturally not having access to his books, not eating properly, not being able to be clean.

He was not able to respond in the way that he would have liked to. But daily he was questioned, daily he was sent back to the jail and brought back in again, questioned some more, sent back to the jail again, brought back again, questioned some more, sent back to the jail again.

And ultimately the judges, the council in Geneva found him guilty of heresy and judgment was pronounced.

Now it wasn't unusual for even the Protestants of Geneva to punish heretics.

They had burned about 40. But there was a special reason to pass judgment against this man because he had questioned that doctrine which both

Catholics and Protestants at least since 325 have said is really what God is like.

He is one being, three persons who live internally in that being and share the essence.

Now there are all kinds of questions about are there three minds, are there three centers of consciousness, are there three wills and how is it that we can believe this and not somehow come up with the idea of one

God. What has helped by our just making a verbal affirmation that we believe in one

God and making a disclaimer we do not believe in three gods, we believe in one God. He is one being, we believe in one

God. But there are three persons that share this essence. Well, judgment was pronounced and Servetus was scheduled to be burned.

He had tried to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity did not spring from scripture.

He tried to argue that it was a product of Christian philosophers who had studied the philosophers like Aristotle who gave us the idea of different categories of being, that there are beings and there are persons.

It came from Aristotle. So God is a being and he's like a rock is a being, a tree is a being, but there are persons and Dr.

White in his book, which I'm digressing a little bit, says that you can tell by the use of personal pronouns regarding the

Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit is a person, but I don't know if he's overlooked it or there are maybe somebody has noticed there are 7 ,000 personal pronouns that relate to God.

The being of God, 7 ,000 personal pronouns that says he's not a what, he's a he.

Hank Hanegraaff says there's one what and three whos, but this what is not a what, he's a he, he's almighty

God, he's the I am, he's Jehovah. Servetus had argued that the doctrine was against logic, that it was vague, that it introduced ideas and terms that were unbiblical, such as eternal generation, eternal procession, eternal son, shared essence, one

God, three persons, that it's claim of monotheism was just a verbal claim, a mere disclaimer to avoid polytheism that was protected by a mystery of human creation.

The Bible is really pretty plain in telling us that there is one God, very plain, and the

Bible is also very plain in telling us that this God is personal by calling him he 7 ,000 times, or using other terms that show that he's personal.

Servetus argued that this doctrine really wouldn't have become a doctrine if it hadn't been through the imperial forces of Rome, and Constantine who was trying to make himself sole

Roman emperor, and he needed the Christian church, and he didn't care what they said about God, but he wanted them to heal the dispute that was dividing the church.

He said that an intestine quarrel within the church is worse than a quarrel in an empire, and it's got to be settled.

He called them to settle it in 325 at his summer palace.

Servetus argued that it was the Roman patriarch, really, who sought preeminence, who was behind, really, what the

Christians did at this council of Nicaea. He wanted to mark March 1st in the processions of the church, and so this idea about Servetus, or excuse me, about the

Trinity was as good a reason to argue as anything, and when they did meet at Nicaea, they actually vied for opportunities to speak without really caring what they were saying, because they wanted to put forth their own personal agenda.

Love of preeminence, and if I have time tonight, I'll show you that you cannot have revelation in the midst of the love of preeminence.

I'll try to show you tonight that only Jesus can reveal who the Father really is. A revelation has to come directly from Him, that it doesn't come through consensus.

God does not give consensus to a council that has been called by a Roman emperor, and which is sought by Christian leaders who want to be preeminent.

He is not going to give revelation there, but all of this was to no avail.

And Servetus found himself out on this road leading out of the city, on the way to his execution.

They treated him roughly. When they reached the place, they bound him with chains to a stake, put them around his neck, and then somebody thought it would be a great idea to put wet straw on his head, because this would retard the flames.

It would allow him to suffer a little longer. And then somebody else thought, let's put some sulfur on his head, because that will make it burn hotter.

Now, make no mistake about it, Dr. White did not burn Servetus, and I'm not blaming him for it.

And this church has been very kind to me. I'm the heretic here tonight, but you have treated me well and given me every consideration.

Pharrell, the fire -breathing prophet cohort of John Calvin, looked

Servetus in the eye as everything was prepared, and said, if you'll say one phrase, we'll call this all off.

We'll take off the chains. We'll let you go. You only have to say one phrase.

If you'll say these words, Jesus is the eternal

Son of God. That's all you have to say. Say the second point that Dr.

White brought to you tonight when he said, Jesus is the eternal Son. Servetus, if you'll just say,

Jesus is the eternal Son of God, we'll relieve you from these chains and this obligation to die.

He looked at Pharrell, and he said words that were close, but were yet very different.

He said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of the eternal

God. And with that, they set him on fire. And pretty soon, the only sound that was heard was his shrieks and his screams.

And then, there came silence. Another dissenting voice, dissenting from a doctrine that was drawn from inferences, made into formulations.

The formulations were canonized, made holy, and to be believed, canonized.

Then they were imposed, you must believe it. And then those who didn't believe it were demonized.

That's gone on, folks, for 17 centuries. And Servetus couldn't believe it.

And I can't believe it. And with the sounds of Servetus' shrieks, another dissenting voice of the

Reformation to the doctrine of the Trinity was silenced.

But it really wasn't silenced. You can still read

Servetus' writings on the errors of the Trinity. It never allowed the second book to be translated, so it's very difficult to get.

But I've been able to obtain the first one from Harvard University, and it's an excellent book. Everybody ought to read it.

If Servetus was here tonight, he would win this debate hands down. But as I said,

I'm not really concerned with that. Well, it's May 15, 1999.

And that's where we are tonight. And I've got 15 minutes yet.

May 15, 1999, Oldsville, New York. Here we are. Now, I said I'm the heretic here tonight.

I know I am. But I appreciate the courtesy of this church that has not, you know, said we're not going to let anything be said here that's opposite to what we believe.

Your door has been opened to someone to come and speak his mind. You've allowed me to do that.

There haven't been any constraints put upon me except the constraints of time. I did call and say

I hoped we could have more time to present a positive presentation of what we believe.

And some adjustments were made. And I'm grateful for that. But we'll try to work with what we have here tonight.

In terms of our discussion, I'll go quickly through these. Does the

New Testament teach the Trinity? Dr. James R. White affirms. Robert A. Sabin denies. According to the rules for the public discussion, the burden of proof is placed upon the affirmative speaker.

We don't necessarily have to go by those rules, but I did have the opportunity to teach debate in the college for a short while.

And this is what is said. The advantage is given to the affirmative for the first speech and the last speech, and so he must prove beyond doubt that his proposition is true.

No time has been allowed for an affirmative speech for me, so I'll have to rob a little time from this speech in which

I'm supposed to be denying what Dr. White has said. And I am denying it, but we'll have to hurry through.

I want you to notice this scripture. Very important verse overlooked. Hardly ever does anybody who talks about God, the

Father, ever read this verse. Jesus said, All things are delivered unto me. Translator's Handbook of the

Gospel of Luke says, All knowledge is delivered unto me of my

Father. And no man knoweth who the Father is, but the

Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Will is hulamahi in the Greek, and it means whom the

Son chooses to reveal him to. So all accurate information about the

Father has to come from Jesus. Jesus is still here tonight. He still reveals.

It doesn't say that, you know, a council that's based upon consensus can tell you who the

Father is. It says it must come as a revelation right from Jesus. Two questions are going to dominate this discussion tonight.

The first is, can we really trust the words of Jesus as to the real identity of Jesus and the

Father? And I'm going to show you that Jesus really tells us who the Father is. And he tells us exactly in plain

English. Greek will be mentioned. I've studied some Greek. I am not, as Dr.

White is, a teacher of Greek at a college or university, but I have studied some Greek. But I would suggest to you that in the plain

English of the Bible that we can find the answers to most of our questions. I'm not disparaging

Greek scholarship. I appreciate Greek scholarship. I certainly do pay attention to it.

Is it safer than depending upon the revelation that Jesus gives, or the word of Jesus, to trust the formulations of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 11th, and 12th century speculative theologians?

Now, Dr. White has already made a disclaimer. He has said we do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because it is taught by the theologians or councils.

I accept that, by the way. I accept what he says, and I accept the things that he said in his book, and I won't argue about those things.

For his beliefs about the Father and Jesus, Robert A. Sabin will mainly base his case upon the subtle words of Jesus.

And I was very happy to see that Dr. White also believes that there are subtle words about Jesus in the

Gospel of John. For his beliefs about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Dr. White will look to the scriptural testimony.

That's TFT represents the forgotten Trinity, page 190+. He also says

Nicaea's authority, then, is derived from its faithfulness to the scriptural testimony. It has validity today because what was true about Christ in A .D.

325 is true today, too. So, he without saying that I believe in the

Trinity because of what it is said in, because of what is said in the

Council of Nicaea, he does say that he trusts the results of Nicaea because it's biblically true.

The so -called Athanasian Creed, an expansion of the Nicene Creed, Dr. White says, recognizing the elements of the doctrine that must be kept in balance with one another.

You've got to keep these ideas in balance. The idea of the Father, the idea of the Son, the idea of the

Holy Ghost. But one wonders about all of those one God ideas in the

Old Testament, literally thousands of them, that God is one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one.

How they balance with these ideas that he is really three persons who share the essence of the one

God, when you can't find that, in those words at least, in the Scriptures at all.

But for the belief about the internal mode of God's being, all who believe that, we can know this are dependent upon the formulations of the speculative theologians of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 11th, and 12th centuries.

And I'm going to show you that it's Trinitarians that have said this. It's not me. The one living and true

God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost has revealed himself to man in different capacities and relations for the work of redemption.

That you can believe. Whether revealed as the Father, as God in Christ, or as the Holy Spirit, he is the same unchangeable

Jehovah. Now you're going to find that Dr. White and I have a lot of things that we agree upon. I wish I could have the time to sit down with him and talk privately.

Talking in front of an audience is a little different, but could talk privately with him, we might find that we would have a lot of points in common.

There's no point in contending for those beliefs which we hold in common. Rather, let us try to see the point of view about which we disagree.

Dr. White believes Jesus is God, Jesus is the I Am, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. John 858 presents

Jesus speaking as God before Abraham was, I Am. And I believe that.

Jesus is the I Am, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus does indeed speak as God in John 858.

Now we both there agree with what the Bible has revealed. It isn't a question of he speaks and I speak, but we are both speaking where the

Bible speaks. We agree. Jesus is God's only begotten or God's unique son.

I don't really want to argue whether he's only begotten or unique. He is both only begotten and unique.

We both agree. Jesus is both God and man. Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus is

God's only begotten or God's unique son. Jesus is both God and man. Jesus is Jehovah. We agree.

Truth concerning Jesus must be revealed. Dr. White believes this.

It is Jesus Christ who is the great God and our Savior, Titus 2 and 13. I believe that.

Truth concerning Jesus must be revealed. It is Jesus Christ who is the great God and our

Savior. I believe that too. Both Dr. White and I have argued with Jehovah's Witnesses about this.

We both take the same position. They're wrong. We believe that we're right. Jesus is indeed divine.

He is God. Both Dr. White and I have argued with Mormons. I've written a book about Mormonism.

I've spoken twice at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City, Utah in front of a huge crowd containing many

Mormons. I taught for several weeks at the Hotel Utah to groups of Mormon businessmen.

I have converts from among the Mormons. So we agree. We're both the same kind of guys in a way in that we don't like error and we want to root it out and we want to stand for truth wherever we can.

So we have a lot in common. We agree. Christ is over all, God blessed forever,

Romans 9, 5. Eternal life is the possession of those who know the one true God, John 17, 3.

He mentions it in his book, I Believe It. Christ is over all, God blessed forever. Eternal life is the possession of those who know the one true

God, we believe. We are in agreement. Christ is identified by John in 12, 37 to 41 as the being on the throne in Isaiah 6, 1 and 4.

I believe it. Jesus is the eternal God in human flesh. We both agree on these points.

We're not far apart, Dr. White. These conclusions which we hold in common are based upon solid fact from the words of Jesus.

So where Jesus has spoken solidly about something, he agrees with it, I agree with it.

We both agree that these are facts, not formulations. Now, again, let me say this for emphasis.

What do you do when you are studying a doctrine that is not specifically spelled out in Scripture?

We all do it. I do it. Dr. White does it. The theologians did it. You read what the

Scripture says and then you take an inference from that.

Now, your inference may be true, it may be false. Mormons take inferences from Scripture like John chapter 9 where a blind man was healed who was blind from birth and Jesus disciple said who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind and the

Mormons grab the Scripture and they say this shows you that this man pre -existed in another world before he came into this world.

And in that other world he must have sinned to some degree because he was born blind. Jesus said you're erring you don't know the power of God and you don't know the

Scripture. So the Mormons draw the wrong inference. We have to be careful when we teach something that's drawn from inferences but when an inference is drawn the next step is to make a formulation.

The formulation is to decide what this means and formulate a doctrine from it where the

Scripture has not really spoken. Now I make formulations, Dr. White makes formulations,

Pastor Carino makes formulations, your church makes formulations, your church organization makes formulations, mine did and the problem comes when those formulations are canonized.

What do I mean by canonized? Canonization has to do with people who are canonized and made saints by the

Roman Catholic Churches but doctrines can be canonized and when they are canonized it means they're made official.

This is what is true, this is what is right and then when you go further and say you must believe this in order to be saved which the

Athanasian Creed does it says unless you think like this you cannot be saved unless you think like this you're going to be lost and perish eternally the

Athanasian Creed says that those are the anathema clauses in the creed the creed in part at least is printed in Dr.

White's book. What happens then is you enforce this you use your power to enforce it now

I may not get time to say all that I need to say but right after the

Creed of Nicaea was written there was great uproar Athanasius who took the part of Trinitarians at that council lived for 40 years after the council of Nicaea and he spent half that time in exile because the imperial government exiled anybody that didn't believe in the doctrine of Nicaea and then later on when

Constantine's son became emperor he exiled those who did believe in the Creed of Nicaea so it would certainly tell you that there was not a universal belief in the doctrine of the

Trinity at the time of the council of Nicaea nor afterward and in fact you will learn from history that within 60 years of the

Creed of Nicaea 60 years the church that formulated that creed ascended to the murder the execution of anybody who did not believe in the creed in 385

Priscillian and 6 others including some women had their heads chopped off now the church had been persecuted by pagans prior to 325 prior to 312 for sure but the church now did the persecuting and they caused those people to be named heresies turned them over to the secular arm their heads were chopped off so the doctrine must not have been very easy to believe for the

Christians in the time of the council of Nicaea because it had to be enforced not only by demonizing people but by physical persecution well let's go on a little bit we agree on this much else that we will discuss is not based upon scriptural fact but is based upon inferences formed into formulations canonized formulations doctrines and then imposed upon people at pain of punishment or death the points upon which we will disagree are based solely upon inferences drawn from scripture inference equals the process of deriving from assumed premises either the strict logical conclusion or one that may to some degree be probable all my formulations are not true uh nobody's formulations are all true we have to leave our formulations open if we don't leave them open we'll never know the truth these inferences are developed into formulations formulations may not be taken as fact but scholars often canonize their formulations formulations are interpretations while formulations may be believed and taught they should never be canonized or imposed

I recently had to separate from people I love very much on this one point

I'll tell you about it later thank you Dr.

James White now will issue a 12 minute rebuttal well in case no one noticed he had help back here

I just want everybody to know he had help back there I asked for that that's fine there were a lot of things that were listed on the screen that we agreed on but the important thing that we disagree on hasn't yet been touched upon I did make the assertions regarding why

I believe in the doctrine of the trinity and let me read you what I did say on page 190 of my book do

Christians today believe in the trinity and the deity of Christ just because the council of Nicaea said so some might

I do not I believe in the trinity and the deity of Christ because it is the teaching of the scriptures as we have seen throughout this work

I accept the use of the term homoousian because it accurately reflects the teaching that there is one

God and that both the Father and the Son are described as being fully God, fully deity Nicaea's authority then if we wish to use that term is derived from its faithfulness to the scriptural testimony it has validity today because what was true about Christ in A .D.

325 is true today too he is the same yesterday, today, and forever Hebrews chapter 13 verse 8 now, there are only a few statements that were made that I can rebut, there are only a few statements that were made that interacted with the presentation that I made and I'm certain that Pastor Saban has encountered many a

Trinitarian that argued primarily on the foundation of the authority of the church or councils or creeds however, as he said, he has read my book more than once and so therefore he knows that my presentation is very much a biblical presentation and I believe that is what we need to focus on this evening he did make the statement that there is nothing in the scripture about how the persons can share the divine being that is a true statement there is also nothing in any biblical passage that explains how

God can be eternal and unchanging, nor is there any biblical explanation of the mechanics of how the

Logos the eternal word became Sark's flesh, but just because there is no mechanical description does not in any way, shape, or form lessen the truth of those biblical teachings, and so we cannot allow the idea to be presented this evening that unless we have some sort of mechanical explanation for exactly how everything works that we must reject what the scripture teaches

I can't begin to imagine that God would so love me that he would send his only begotten son so that he would die upon a cross in my place, take my sin upon him impute his righteousness to me so that I might live eternally in his presence

I can't begin to figure that out but thank God that's what the scriptures actually teach, and I accept that at this time put on tape 2 to continue the debate it was said that there are 7 ,000 pronouns that refer to God, and that he is not a what, he's a he well, there is no question that God is personal,

I have not presented to you an impersonal God, the question is, is God unipersonal or is

God tripersonal as we have seen, and I believe without question the scriptures present to us the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit and that is why I spent the vast majority of my presentation presenting to you those concepts from those passages, and we will have to focus upon those particular things now, much was said and I teach church history once in a while and so I was somewhat antsy because I, in fact at one point, went to the

Phoenix Public Library and read every book in the library that made any mention whatsoever to Miguel Cervedes, so the story that you heard,

I am very, very, very familiar with I'd just like to mention briefly a few things that didn't get mentioned for example, the fact that John Calvin risked his life to meet

Cervedes in Paris, many years before the events described to you Cervedes didn't show up also not mentioned was the fact that Calvin tried to reason with Cervedes in the correspondence once he figured out that Villanueva was actually

Cervedes, it was not mentioned that Cervedes sent Calvin's institutes, which Calvin had sent to him back to him with rude insults written in the margins neither was it mentioned that it took

Calvin's friend a long time to coerce him into giving the information to the

Roman Catholic authorities as to who Villanueva actually was it did not mention that Cervedes was condemned by the

Inquisition and escaped only the night before his execution by burning by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, in fact they burned him in effigy the next day neither was it mentioned that Cervedes tried to get

Calvin himself charged with heresy and that Cervedes aligned himself with Calvin's political foes in Geneva, and neither was it mentioned that the ministers, including

Calvin pled that Cervedes be executed in a humane manner and not the way in which it was described and that their pleas were rejected by the council neither was it mentioned that Geneva sent to all the other

Swiss cantons they sent to Luther's successor Melanchthon and they all agreed together that Cervedes had to die, that's the danger of sacralism, that's what happens when you place the sword in the hand of the state and give them religious authority,

I am a Baptist Baptists have the longest martyrology of any Protestant domination in the world

Baptists were killed long after any other group had come to peace with either

Rome or the Magisterial Protestants, there was a Baptist burned in London in 1611 when the

King James Version of the Bible was published, there were Baptists being persecuted well into the 17th century and the 18th century and so I know the danger of the state church but I stand before you presenting to you the doctrine of the

Trinity not on the authority of the state church, I presented to you the doctrine of the

Trinity based upon the exegesis of the text of scripture and that must be where any person who loves

God's truth goes Have there been evil people who believed in the

Trinity? Yes Have there been evil people who denied the Trinity? Yes Are there people who profess

God's truth and yet profane it by their actions? Yes Does any of that, should any of that have the slightest impact upon our examination of biblical passages and the conclusions we derive there from?

No None whatsoever And so I would invite us all to refocus our attention

John chapter 1 John chapter 17 and Philippians chapter 2 all present to us the truth that Jesus Christ as the

Son eternally existed, that he is the creator of all things and that he eternally had a relationship with the

Father the scripture reveals to us that the Father and the Son have a relationship with one another that transcends time, it did not just simply begin in Bethlehem and that the

Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit to indwell his church that is the scriptural teaching and that's why

I believe it and that's why the first frame from my computer was the biblical doctrine of the

Trinity and that is what I hope we will focus upon as we continue on this evening. Thank you very much applause applause

Mr. Robert Sabin will now offer a 12 minute rebuttal You'll have to forgive me, my dad said

I never was any good around machinery so this egg timer might be just about the extent of my ability

I'll try to quickly address the points and Dr. White has pointed out that there were some points that were neglected first of all let me speak to the scripture in John 17 and 5 there are two possible interpretations of this verse, you have

Jesus praying that he could receive the glory that he had with the

Father before the world 12 minutes doesn't give me much time what's he praying for?

Is this man who is here on this earth who is really the son of God or is thought by Trinitarians to be the eternal son of God who lived with the

Father prior to his time here on this earth and had glory with the Father is this man in this great high priestly prayer praying as the divine son of God one divine person praying to another divine person to somehow get out of here

I've had enough of this world I'm tired of it I want to get back there with you dad and I want the glory back again that I had with you before the world was

I've had enough of this walking across Palestine barefoot is that the explanation that's the explanation basically in a nutshell that Dr.

White has given you that the son is praying once again to be back at the Father's side and to have back again that glory which he enjoyed before he experienced this covenant of redemption that was made and was elected he drew the short straw and had to come to earth to live down here and be deprived is that what he's praying for?

No, I don't think so I do believe that everything that God does has a plan

I know that Dr. White believes this also and in fact in 1 Peter 2 20 we are told that Jesus has existed at least in the mind and plan of God from the foundation of the world we did too

Ephesians tells us that he's created us and him before the foundation of the world we were back there too but not actually we were back there envisaged in the mind and plan of God we were envisaged back there,

Jesus was envisaged back there receiving glory now how does he receive this glory only one way he has to go through Calvary that's why the

Bible says if we suffer with him we're going to reign with him don't respond don't respond please thank you though,

I'm glad you do if we do the things that we're supposed to do when we see him we're going to receive a body fashioned like unto his glorious body so he's praying to be glorified how is he glorified?

he's glorified by obedience he's glorified by going through the cross and then after he goes through the cross and he rises from the grave

Paul tells us in Romans he's declared to be the eternal son declared to be the son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, he was never declared to be the eternal son, excuse the

Freudian slip or whatever it was by resurrection from the dead, praise the

Lord that's how he gets glory so what we suggest to you is that Jesus the man here on this earth on the eve of the crucifixion is praying that he will go through this process and die and when he dies he will be glorified and the father receives glory and that's what we're told in Philippians I dealt with John 17 5,

I'll deal also with Philippians the second chapter if you could turn to Philippians the second chapter and we'll look at what's really being said there because the

Trinitarian explanation once again falls short of what's really being said Paul's talking to the people at Philippi and he says therefore any consolation in Christ of any comfort of love of any fellowship of the spirit of any bowels and mercies fulfill you my joy that ye be like minded having the same love being of one accord one mind, he's telling them that they need to love one another and have the same mind together let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, don't be one of these that's striving for personal preeminence, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves look not every man on his own things but every man also on the things of others then he says this, let this mind be in you which was also in not the eternal son of God not that divine person in heaven, how could we ever emulate a divine being what kind of a thing would it be for Paul to tell me to be like the divine being in heaven and think like he thinks, how can

I as a human being understand how a divine being thinks except in the way that he tells me, but Paul could certainly tell us to have the mind that was in Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus was a man he was

God manifest in flesh he lived here where we live he walked where we walk and Paul could say you saw him live before you in the preaching that we have given you and the teaching that we have given you, you understand what he was like and you can be like he was, then he goes on to say being in the form of God, Thayer says that's the visible image of God that which strikes the eye,

Jesus here on this earth is really the image of the invisible God when you see

Jesus you see all of God that you can see God's invisible no man can see

God, no man has seen God at any time but when you see Jesus you see all of God that you can see Jesus is

God manifesting himself here on this earth and living among us, so you see as much of God as you can see, but God is filtered to us through the man, let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus who even though he exists here on this earth in God's form he's not interested in getting divine praise and glory, in fact he hides who he really is and doesn't tell us who he really is when he's praised for the works that he does, he disclaims the glory, he said

I didn't do this the father worketh, hitherto I work, he's the one that does the works in fact he used that when he was accused in the fifth chapter of John of doing a miracle on the

Sabbath day and working, he said I didn't do it the father did it, he did the miracle, I was just here, you're going to blame somebody, blame him so Jesus disclaimed divine glory, now how in the world how in the world could the eternal son of God rob glory from God when he already had it, he shares the divine being we're told he shares the divine essence, he has all glory up there, why would he want to be robbing or grasping after the divine glory why would he want to be doing that since he already has it, but the man here on this earth had every right to claim to be

God he had every right to brag, he had every right to get all of the glory that could come to him by doing the things that God did through him and he didn't think that was what was to be savored he did not want that kind of praise but instead of that he was made or became like a man and not only was he like a man, he was like all of us, he lived in a human way, he had no place to lay his head, he thirsted on the cross, not only did he do that but he also went even lower than that in his humility, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross now wherefore also

God hath highly exalted him that means exalted him above how he was ever exalted before highly exalted him it would be nothing for the eternal son of God to get right back where he was before to the place of the eternal son of God, what would that be?

but here's this man living here on this earth who is really God manifest in the flesh and he is highly exalted

Jesus is highly exalted given a name which is above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord to the glory of God the Father, so everything he did was for God's glory and I would suggest to you that this does not in any way prove as Dr.

White says it proves that this is some picture of the eternal son of God nor does John 17 5 do that,

I'm going to just make a brief comment because time is going by so fast when I come back at some time they have said and I didn't hear this rule until tonight that we couldn't use our overheads for any of the other questioning and of course

I've had very little time and I took some of that time to tell you about Michael Servetus and Miguel Serveto indeed was full of vinegar but he was also a very intelligent man and he had indeed discovered a glorious truth but concerning Colossians Dr.

White knows that can be either taken to show precedence in time or it can be taken to show superiority or position, he is before all things, does not necessarily mean before in time but if you insist that it means before in time

I would tell you that Jesus Christ was the if I may say so the very beginning of the envisaging of God, Jesus Christ did not exist until he was born at Bethlehem or was conceived but God did everything that he did with Christ in view everything that God made was made with Christ in view what did

God think when he made things with Christ in view, he thought I will come and I will save humanity what is it for one being to send one of the persons down here

Nate my son is with me and I'm glad he's here but if somebody was drowning and I said Nate I love that guy out there why don't you go save him what would that be but I'll tell you that God did not send someone else to save the world he came himself it was

God who came in Christ and the Bible tells us that by the way John 1 and the word was

God and he quoted me what I said on the Ankerberg show I still believe it I haven't changed my belief at all that the word the

Logos was God himself revealing acting envisaging and was not somebody other than God we'll get an opportunity we'll tell you a little bit more about the first chapter of John well we've handled we've mentioned the prologue of John we talked about John 17 5 we've talked about the

Christi we talked about Philippians still even though it may be said that it's possible for three beings to share one essence

I don't know any place in Scripture that says that I don't know any place in Scripture that says you can be in the

Godhead in the Godhead find it if you can is there any Scripture that says somebody is in the

Godhead it isn't there so far as I know the concept isn't there and the concept that you can share an essence or you can share a being we don't know anything about that we're trying to talk today at lunch and try to figure out how you know how is it we could understand this and we couldn't really come up with any real idea but thank you very much in our first segment this evening you had the opportunity to hear each of our debaters individually present their case and then deal individually with the case of the other debater in this second section of our presentation this evening we are giving each debater equal time and let me emphasize as well that both debaters regardless of their place in the debate are given equal time we want to be as fair as possible in allowing each side to give an equal presentation of their position in this second section of the debate our participants will be able to interact with one another through cross examination the process again will be as follows

Mr. Robert Sabin will have 12 minutes to ask questions to cross examine Dr.

White on his position followed by 12 minutes and the opportunity for Dr.

White to cross examine Mr. Sabin and then again 12 minutes for Mr. Sabin to cross examine

Dr. White and 12 minutes for Dr. White to cross examine Mr.

Sabin I want you to take a moment and think about the value of this section of the debate you have heard the positions individually now you will have the opportunity to hear the individuals presenting their arguments as they interact with one another so please again sit back and pay careful attention as we begin in having

Mr. Robert Sabin 12 minutes to cross examine Dr. James White Dr.

White in Luke 10, 21 and 22 Jesus tells us that only the

Father knows who the Son is and only the Son knows who the Father is your presentation declares that there are three co -equal persons in this scripture excluded is one co -equal person the

Holy Spirit Jesus said only the Father, only the Father knows who the

Son is and only the Son knows who the Father is how do you explain that the

Holy Spirit is not mentioned as knowing either one of them because in the context let me read it to you

Luke 10, 21 at that very time he rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit and said

I praise you O Father, Lord of heaven and earth that you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants yes

Father for this way was well pleasing in your sight the context of Luke 10, 22 is in the revelation of God's truth to human beings it in no way addresses the issue of the

Holy Spirit and in point of fact I would say that it is the Holy Spirit that the

Apostle Paul teaches is the only way that we are brought to spiritual life and learn anything about God that God applies it to us by His Holy Spirit so I would say that the context does not support the use of the passage to deny that the

Holy Spirit is somehow involved in the knowledge of the Father and the Son how can you say that in 22 it is all inclusive all things or all knowledge according to Translator's Handbook are delivered to me of my

Father and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father and who the Father is the

Son and the fact that he says no man has no bearing upon the type of individual that is being regarded here because he uses the

Father no man knows who the Father is or who the Father is but the Son but obviously the Holy Spirit is excluded by this all inclusive statement that Jesus says no one knows who the

Father is but the Son or who the Son is but the Father well again in the context as I read it this is in the context of the hiding of the knowledge of God from the wise and the intelligent and the revelation of the knowledge of God to infants this obviously the wise and intelligent and the infants are in reference to human beings this has nothing to do with the

Holy Spirit of God the Holy Spirit of God searches all things the Holy Spirit of God is the one who testifies of the truthfulness of God so I think that you're using this passage out of context to make that application certainly the

Holy Spirit knows everything but the Holy Spirit as a separate person which you say he is a separate individual a separate entity one who

I don't know yet if you understand whether he has mind will consciousness or whatever but Jesus mentions two of the persons the

Father and the Son which are a part of your Trinity and says only the Father not the

Holy Spirit but only the Father knows who I am sure the Holy Spirit knows everything I agree because I believe that God is the

Holy Spirit but here he's mentioning two of your persons and saying no one knows who the

Father is but the Son or who the Son is but the Father actually mentions all three because as I said 1021 says at that very time he rejoiced greatly in the

Holy Spirit and said I praise you oh Father Lord of Heaven and Earth that you have hidden these things but again outside of again pointing out to you that the context does not support the application of Luke 10 22 to in a universal sense since the context provides a limited context

I don't have any other response because I just you're using it out of context you're trying to apply it to something the text does not address two divine persons are mentioned in this statement being revealed to people yes you said the third one is mentioned in 21st verse that our

Jesus rejoiced in spirit I'm reading New American Standard this says in the

Holy Spirit that's of course added by the translators that somebody's inference alright the spirit is also missing in so many verses in scripture all of the salutations in all of the epistles of Paul say grace and peace to you from God the

Father and the Lord Jesus Christ but mention nothing whatsoever about grace and peace coming from the spirit in those contexts why not because it's not the

Holy Spirit's role to testify of himself is the Holy Spirit's role to testify of Jesus Christ and to point people to Jesus Christ as he specifically mentions as Jesus specifically taught in John chapter 14 and in John chapter 16 and I would point out however that we don't determine theology on the basis of the number of references

I would point out for example the apostolic greeting or actually apostolic benediction of 2nd

Corinthians 13 14 that says the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the

Holy Spirit be with you all so I don't believe that it is right to say that well on a frequency basis we count up the number of verses and if the

Holy Spirit doesn't occur in enough verses I'm not saying that somehow he's simply not mentioned

I'm not saying we count up the number of verses the scripture you gave in 2nd Corinthians 13 14 where's the father in that verse well the obviously the apostle

Paul normally refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord he refers to the father as God the

God of the Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit but he is that's a non correlative scripture it doesn't show it's non correlative it does not show your three persons it doesn't show father, son, and Holy Ghost it says the love of God God who planned, prepared, determined that Christ would come the grace of the

Lord Jesus Christ the one who came and actually gave his life for us and the communion of the

Holy Ghost which we receive in our heart it is my conclusion in studying the

Pauline Corpus that normally the term theos is used to the father normally the term kurios is used to the son and the spirit is normally simply identified as pneuma or pneumahagia let's think of some of the other places where the spirit is obviously missing in the book of revelation we're told that the new

Jerusalem the temple of the new Jerusalem will be the Lord God almighty and the Lamb why isn't the spirit mentioned there again as I pointed out from John chapter 14 and John chapter 16 it is the

Holy Spirit and by the way it is not that he got the short straw to use the terminology used before but is the

Holy Spirit's personal choice to engage in the role that he engages in in salvation and that is not to testify of himself and not to draw attention to himself but to testify of Jesus Christ and therefore in light of what

Jesus himself taught in John chapter 14 and John chapter 16 where the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and testifies of Jesus Christ that's what he does that's quite a long answer but you still haven't answered the question why is it that the

Lord God almighty and the Lamb are the temple of the new Jerusalem they're also mentioned to be the light of the new

Jerusalem the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned in either case because the scriptures don't mention the

Holy Spirit in those passages I can't tell the Holy Spirit what to include in the writing of the scripture when you get to heaven who are you going to see?

I'm sorry? when you get to heaven who are you going to see? well that's a very good question the book of Revelation reveals to us certain elements but I would hope that we're not going to be so cavalier with the book of Revelation as to say that what we experience in this lifetime at this time in the idea of seeing physical things is somehow the standard of what we're going to experience in heaven.

I'm not saying that I'm just saying. I was trying to respond to the question when you say who are we going to see it sounds like you were talking about who are we physically going to see what about physical bodies things along those lines and again

I just emphasize that I don't believe that heaven is going to be quite as corporeal in the sense of like going to see a basketball player or something like that but the

New Testament does reveal to us in the book of Revelation that there is a vision in Revelation chapter 5 of he who sits upon the throne and the lamb and the lamb is standing as if slain and all of creation bows down and worships he who sits upon the throne and the lamb and in that situation you have clearly two divine objects of worship since all of creation worships the lamb.

The lamb obviously therefore is not a part of creation once again the spirit's missing.

You have an encomium of praise to the God who created us. Let me finish the question before you start shaking your head.

You have an encomium of praise. You made an assertion I was just disagreeing with the assertion that wasn't a question.

When you say the Holy Spirit is missing that's not a question. You have an encomium of praise given to God as the creator which brings the question was

Jesus really the creator? Is this in Revelation 5? Revelation 5, 4 and in Revelation 5 you have an encomium of praise to the lamb because he's redeemed us.

To God because he's created us. To the lamb because he's redeemed us. Third person missing altogether.

Well again if you assume that there has to be some vision in heaven where then the Holy Spirit before his work here on earth is finished is then worshipped by all creation if you want to make that assumption you can but you did make you did mention a question about the father being worshipped as the creator and then you said something about that raises a question about Jesus as the creator?

Is that what you're asking me? Your book states that Jesus is the actual creator. My book states that Jehovah God is the creator and that Jesus is the one through whom all things are created.

Yes. When you say through whom all things are created that could be taken either way. That's Colossians chapter 1.

Okay. Let's explore some other things here. In Psalms the second chapter, in Hebrews the first chapter both scriptures say that God says thou art my son, this day have

I begotten thee. That a sonship is not eternal but that it has a beginning at a point in time.

How is it that he could say this day have I begotten thee? Well that is in reference in the second

Psalm that's a historical reference specifically to the king of Israel. It's applied to Lord Jesus in a messianic sense in the

New Testament. But are you asking me when Jesus was begotten? It seems like it's time related here.

There was a time when the son was begotten. Because again the scriptures very plainly teach in the passages that I've presented that Jesus Christ has eternally existed as the second person of the

Trinity. That he was with God in the beginning and I do not know of any passage of scripture that in speaking of Jesus Christ speaks of his origination.

If you're saying begettal is some sort of a creation concept, I would strongly disagree with that especially in light of the fact that monogamist does not mean created but is in fact an emphasis upon the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

The creeds always say however begotten before all worlds.

Not that he's a unique son before all worlds. That's a relationship term. Yes. Begotten before all worlds. That's a relationship term as they are using it.

Begotten before all worlds. How do you reconcile that with the fact that he is begotten in time?

Again I think that has to do with his messianic role not with his being as a person. Alright at this time

Dr. James White will cross examine Mr. Robert Sabin for 12 minutes. Sir you said that there are two possible interpretations of John 17 5.

You said that one was mine where Jesus saying I've had enough of this walking across Palestine barefoot which

I would never even begin to suggest but then you presented another perspective and the only thing that I heard in your comments that addressed the specific assertion on the part of Jesus the glory which

I shared with you was quote Jesus was envisaged back there and had glory end quote.

Now I couldn't hear you very well but how is it on John 17 5 that Jesus can say

I had glory with the father before the creation of the world? In the same way in that we had things from the father even before the foundation of the world.

We were created in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world according to Ephesians.

Jesus in God's divine plan had glory just like in God's divine plan he was a begotten son.

So when Jesus says the glory which I shared with you in your presence he's referring to when he was a plan?

Referring to what? When Jesus was a plan in God's mind and was glorious is that what

Jesus is referring to? There was glory in God's mind for Jesus before the foundation of the world absolutely.

So would it be proper for me since I believe that I will be glorified in Christ Jesus for me to say to the father glorify me with the glory which

I shared with you before the world was? I don't necessarily think shared with you is the only understanding.

King James Bible says the glory which I had with you before the foundation of the world.

You're inserting the word shared there I'm sure because it fits in with your theory of the trinity.

No actually the Greek is fairly clearly translated. Let's change it to the King James. Would I be able to say father glorify me with the glory which

I had with you before the world was? I think absolutely that you would and I would too because God did create us in him before the foundation of the world.

We're glorified with him. We're actually glorified with him now in the plan of God. It will ultimately take place.

What reference are you making to when you say that we were created in him before the foundation of the world?

Let me read some scriptures for you. Let's read 3 .9

of Ephesians to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world has been hidden God who created all things by Jesus Christ to the intent that now under the principalities and powers and heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our

Lord. In the first chapter of Ephesians and the fourth verse according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Now this he's chosen us in him when? Before the foundation of the world.

I didn't exist then you didn't exist then. But God according to his eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our

Lord has chosen us in him that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Then he goes on to say having predestinated us under the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will.

Is it your assertion that that means that we existed at that time? No. Okay. We didn't exist.

Did we do anything at that time? No we didn't do anything at that time. But Jesus said that he had something before the foundation of the world.

In fact maybe we can go to John 1 1 where the word has fellowship with God before creation itself.

Well if you read John 1 1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God. It doesn't say the word had fellowship there. You're adding that. It says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God. Now what is meant by Logos? Dr.

White has presented an explanation of the Logos that depends on the

Greek word Logos. But what would Logos mean to a Palestinian or Galilean Jew like John?

I suggest to you that the Targums, which Dr. White I'm sure is familiar with, which were a translation of the

Hebrew Bible into the Chaldean language that the Jews spoke when they returned from Babylon, the captivity in Babylon.

Again and again, 600 times actually in the Targums, which was a common use of common use in Palestine at the time of Christ, God is referred to as the word of God.

In fact, they substitute the phrase the word of the Lord for the word, the name

Jehovah or for the word God. So again and again in the Targums where the Bible would say and Jehovah came to him, the

Targums would substitute and the word of the Lord came to him. Over 600 times.

So that the Jews commonly used the word for a presentation of God, a revelation of God, God being sort of personified to them as his word.

Just like God's wisdom, God's understanding were personified in the Old Testament. Now, John...

Sir, it's my opportunity to ask questions, not to get more of your presentation. I'm telling you like you told me.

I'm trying to answer your question. Well, you could go on for 20 minutes and call it an answer to a question.

We're trying to keep the answers short. The word had fellowship with God in John 1 .1.

The word was with God. Who is the word? Is the word an impersonal thing or a personal thing?

I'm trying to tell you that the word was God himself revealing and acting.

So God was with God? It doesn't say God was with God. What does it mean? If I say wisdom was with God and God is wisdom, does that mean

God is with God? If you want to say God is with God, you can say So Logos becomes like an attribute of God?

No, not an attribute. It's God acting, revealing according to the Targums again and again. So God acting and revealing was with God.

Where does it say here that the Logos is the son of God? If you'd like to ask me that question,

I'll be glad to answer it during your time of asking those questions. The word was with God. So God acting and revealing was with himself?

He certainly was with himself. I'm with myself too. And so the word was as to his nature, deity.

So God acting and revealing was as to his nature, God. Is that what you're saying? Let me answer it this way.

John, in the Gospel of John, you'll see it in several places, repeats the same thought over and over again to get a thought across.

He doesn't speak like Paul, like a man highly educated in the

Greek language. He says in John 1, in the beginning, the word was. It was already there. And the word was with God.

And in fact, God was the word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him.

So once again, it's God. All things were made by him. The word was with God in the beginning.

Without him was not anything made that was made. He speaks of John the Baptist. He said this and confessed and denied not, but confessed, saying it three times, twice positively, once negatively.

He says the same thing about Jesus. Okay, thank you. In Philippians chapter 2, please explain to me what it means when it says that he was made in the likeness of men.

When did that happen? Well, same thing. Gennimahi can be made or became in the likeness of men.

He assumed the same persona that men have. He did not try to strut as being something other than just a human being.

He's a normal human being. Now, was he made? Was he made as Psalms 8 tells us?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels. When was he made?

If you want to ask me that question during your question time, feel free to do so. So when was it that he was made in the likeness of men?

You're saying this is during his earthly ministry. During his earthly ministry, when he was here on this earth. He could be became also in the likeness of men.

So you think it's the simple meaning of this passage is that anyone reading this, when

Paul wrote it would be that when it says he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in obedience to the man he became, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, that they would have understood that that had something to do with something that happened during his earthly ministry, and they never would have considered this to have been something that actually is in reference to the incarnation?

You are totally omitting two words in the fifth verse when you talk about this.

The fifth verse says, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Paul could have said, let this mind be in you, which was also in the eternal

Son of God in heaven, but he didn't say that. He said, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, Thayer says, the visible image of the invisible

God, give no thought to a seizure. The devil tried to seize

God's glory. Well, let me ask you something, sir. If you're going to use Thayer's definition of morphe there, then it must follow that who existing in the form of God means

God has a visible form, and likewise, taking the form of a servant in verse seven, that means that's an outward visible form, and that destroys your argument that this happened during his ministry, because he had a physical form from the time he was born, did he not?

Absolutely, and he took the form of a servant at many occasions in his life, but a notable one was at the last supper, when he girded himself with a towel and washed the disciples' feet.

This was the most humiliating act a Jew could do. No Jew would wash your feet.

They would give you water, but you had to wash your feet. Today in Palestine, if they turn the bottom of their feet to you, that's the greatest insult among not only the

Jews, but the Palestinians, but when Jesus girded himself with a towel and washed the disciples' feet, he was taking the visible appearance of a servant, not only just the visible appearance, but actually acting as a servant.

In Colossians chapter one, when Jesus described as creating all things, I understood you to say something along the lines of, this was the beginning of the envisaging of God.

That's what I heard, maybe I'm misquoting you, I'm not sure. Could you explain how it is that all things not only exist for him, but also exist through him and unto him, and that all things were made by him?

The words that you're using certainly have the potential to be made by him, because of him, on account of him, with him in view, in reference to him,

Liddell and Scott give those meanings for those words, that it does not necessarily mean that he was the creator.

If it does mean that he's the creator, how do you reconcile that with everything that's said in the Old Testament that presents

God alone as the creator? Isaiah 44, 24, who alone stretched forth the heavens, brought about the earth by himself.

Our time has expired. We're going to go on at this point to have Mr. Robert Sabin cross -examine

Dr. James White for 12 minutes. Mr. Sabin? Are you starting my timer or do

I start it? I'll start it. Alright, what is the scriptural basis that you can give us today for the covenant of redemption?

John chapter 6, Jesus says that it is the Father's will that of all that has been given to him he lose none, but raise them up at the last day.

And it is clearly a covenant of redemption that exists between the Father and the Son and that the

Father has entrusted to the Son the people of God. He dies in their behalf, the

Spirit of God, and dwells in them and sanctifies them and so this has always been the foundation, biblically speaking, for this concept throughout the history of the

Church. Concept for who? Christians. What is there there that says there was some kind of a covenant that was made?

Your explanation of the covenant of redemption in your book and in the notes at the end of your book say that there was actually some form of meeting of the three persons of the

Trinity are coming together or at least agreeing in thought who it would be that would come to the earth and save mankind, but where in the

Bible do you find this? Please turn over the cassette now to continue the cross -examination.

Come to the earth and save mankind but where in the Bible do you find this? Christians have always recognized that the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit take different roles in redemption. The very fact that the Gospel of John clearly presents to us the

Father who sends the Son, the Son who is obedient to the Father, and the Father and the

Son who send the Spirit, again John 14 -16 clearly brings all of this out, has been the foundation that Christian theologians have followed throughout the centuries in simply allowing the

New Testament to speak for itself on that issue. Throughout the centuries? Yes. What about the first three centuries?

What about the first three centuries? Was it the opinion of Christians in the first three centuries that there was a covenant of redemption?

I don't know if the term was used, no. Oh, you can't really say that throughout the centuries. You mean throughout the centuries since the covenant of redemption?

Well, I take that back. I mean, Ignatius very clearly has Trinitarian passages in his own writings where he talks about the engine of salvation and he likens the

Father and I don't have this in front of me, but the Father to one part of the engine. As I recall, the Holy Spirit was the rope, Jesus was the cross.

No, they may not have used that specific term, but again, you ask for the Biblical foundation, and the Biblical foundation that theologians use is the fact that the

New Testament clearly differentiates between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the roles that they take in redemption. It is not the

Father who died in my place. It is the Son who died in my place. What do you do with the statement of Jesus in the 21st chapter of Revelation which your book says is

Jesus? You quote from Revelation 22, 13 Jesus is the

Alpha and the Omega. In the seventh verse of the 21st chapter of Revelation, Jesus says,

I will be your God and you will be my Son. Isn't Jesus telling us there that he is our

Father? Are you quoting from Revelation 21 or 22?

I couldn't tell which one. 21st chapter of Revelation. He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his

God, and he shall be my Son. No, and he who sits on the throne, beginning in verse 5, said,

Behold, and clearly, again, if we allow the book of Revelation to interpret itself, he who sits on the throne is the

Father, the Son is the Lamb. And he who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new. And he said,

Right, for these words are faithful and true. Then he said to me, It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.

He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my Son. I think consistently there that would be the

Father. But your book states that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. Father, Son, and Spirit, yes.

There are three talking here? No. No, it's like as my book explains, sir, the name

Jehovah is used of the Father, the name Jehovah is used of the Son, the name Jehovah is used of the

Holy Spirit. He is the Spirit of Jehovah. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, first and last, any title of deity will apply to any one of the persons in that way.

Okay, we can say in the same way, Jehovah is the Father, Jehovah is the Son, Jehovah is the Holy Ghost.

You don't have three persons. What scriptures do you find? That only assumes that that was a statement, and I disagree with the statement because it assumes what you've yet to prove, and that is unipersonality.

And you have assumed that the scriptures you gave us prove that there are three persons in the

Godhead when you have not given us any scripture that says there is anything in the

Godhead. Well, first of all, the term Godhead doesn't even appear in my translations. I'm not sure what term you'd like me to use.

Secondly, the passages that I've presented to you clearly present the activity of the

Son as a divine person prior to his incarnation in a distinction from the Father, and that's very clear.

You presented to us the three foundations of the Trinity, monotheism, three divine persons, co -equality, and co -eternality.

Of course, monotheism, we have no argument. We agree of all the thousands of scriptures in the

Bible that there is one God. We agree. We agree in essence in regards to monotheism, but I do not believe that monotheism is unitarianism.

One being that does not indicate one person. That's the assumption that is not biblical in light of John 17,

John 1, and many others. It does indicate one God, and of course now I'm answering your questions, but it does indicate that there's only one

God. You haven't shown us that there's a difference between a being and a person.

God is regarded with personal pronouns. You said personal pronouns indicate it's a person.

God is a person. God is personal. Yes, God is personal, sir, but again, you jumped to the conclusion that he is unipersonal.

A tripersonal God would use personal pronouns as well. A tripersonal God could use singular pronouns when he is acting in unity with himself.

There is no question to any of this. Again, you cannot force the assumption of what oneness means in monotheism against the clear testimony of Scripture that differentiates between the

Father and the Son and teaches that the Son is a divine person who has eternally existed, not merely a man who came into existence in Bethlehem.

How could we force anything more than to force upon 7 ,000

Old Testament verses our definition of what monotheism is if we believe that the one being of God is shared by three persons?

Talk about forcing. Give you an example. You quote Isaiah 44 24, where Jehovah says that he alone spreads out the heavens and by himself establishes the earth.

The New Testament clearly tells us that the Father is identified as Jehovah, yet the Son, likewise, is identified as Jehovah.

He is the one, and I can allow the Greek pronouns to have their natural meaning and their natural context by whom, for whom, and through whom all things were created.

So I can allow Colossians chapter 1, Hebrews chapter 1, and John's words in John 1 3 when he says, apart from him, that is the logos, was not anything made which has been made.

I can allow all three of those to stand in light of Isaiah 44 24. I don't have to sacrifice the one for the expense of the other.

You can do that, but there's one thing you haven't done tonight. I hope you'll do it before we're done here, and that is show us a single verse that says one thing about sharing an essence or sharing a being.

Show us one scripture that says that there are three persons that share a being, which is your major point.

When you argue that, you know, God is Jehovah, Jesus is

Jehovah, the Holy Ghost is Jehovah, that can reverse the same way. Jehovah is God, Jehovah is Jesus, Jehovah is the

Holy Ghost, but you haven't given a single verse, not one single verse that shows that three persons share eternally.

Actually, I've given you a number of verses if you'd simply allow them to speak for themselves because when the scriptures say that we're baptized in the name, and I know what you believe about this, the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, when the Father is identified as Jehovah and the Son is identified as Jehovah and the

Spirit is identified as Jehovah and yet the Bible clearly differentiates between them.

When the Son says the glory which I had with you before the world was, I don't have to explain that away as if he was a plan or a thought in God's mind.

I can allow it to say what it says. When you allow all those scriptures, sir, to stand together, then you see very clearly that that one name

Jehovah is being used of the being of God, shared by three persons, the Father who is the fountain head of salvation, the

Son who is sent as the Redeemer, and the Spirit who comes into his church to empower, to enliven, and to direct.

And that is absolutely not scriptural, what you're saying. You're simply telling us what you believe, but you are not showing us a scripture that shows that these three persons shared that one being, and you haven't done it tonight, and you won't do it.

Well, each one is identified as God, and they are distinguished from one another very clearly. If you're looking for the

Nicene Creed in the New Testament, sir, I've never claimed that it's there. But the worst thing, the worst possible definition that you can put upon God is to create a definition that absolutely negates what he said about himself for 4 ,000 years.

Then all of a sudden, he tells us he's one, then all of a sudden, no, he's one, but there are three persons that share the same name.

Again, that's your assumption, sir. You are assuming that the statement that he is one means he is unipersonal rather than one being, and that again has been clearly refuted from scripture.

It's rather strange that he would say so many times that he is one. So many, many times.

And make it the difference between the Hebrew religion and all the religions of the world, that they believe in one

God, and then all of a sudden, all this time we've been pulling the wool over your eyes. There are really three of us.

That is a gross misrepresentation. It's not a gross misrepresentation. As I said in my presentation, we are monotheists.

No one is pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. The assumption is that if you believe in one being that is

God, that is shared by three eternal persons, that that makes you a polytheist. And I deny that very clearly in the book.

I deny that very clearly in the presentation. It does not follow, since each of the divine persons shares fully the one divine being.

Monotheism, as you recall, sir, was the bottom -in -all -caps foundation of my definition.

I granted you that you believe in one God, so there's no reason you have to restate that. You believe in one God. You're not a polytheist.

I acknowledge that. But you just said that what I was saying was undoing what he had said for 4 ,000 years, and I firmly disagree.

It's contradicting it. Not at all. Well, yes, not according to the way you think, but according to what the

Scripture says. The Scripture actually says that God is one. Have we not one Father?

Hath not one God created us? Have we all not one Father? Hath not one God created us?

What did that mean to the people that heard it? Why do you suppose they had to kill so many Jews in Spain because they would not acknowledge the doctrine of the

Trinity? Why do you suppose this great war is going on with Mohammedans because they will not acknowledge the doctrine of the

Trinity because to them it does negate oneness, truth from the

Bible? I'm sorry, I don't accept either the Jews or Muslims as interpreters of the word of God for me. Well, that's an answer.

I'd have to say that. And I don't accept them as interpreters for me either. I interpret the word of God to say that God says he is absolutely unequivocally one.

One. Have we not one Father? Hath not one God created us? And what you're saying is, yeah, he's one in a sense.

One what? Three who's? At this point time has expired and Dr. White will cross -examine

Mr. Robert Sabin for 12 minutes. Sir, since you've been asking me for one verse, could you show me a verse that uses the term unipersonal in the

Bible? Use what? Unipersonal. The God is unipersonal. I didn't say unipersonal.

Well, you're saying that oneness means that he is one person. Could you show us a passage that says one person?

He's one God. Deuteronomy 6 -4. Sir, could you show me a passage that says one person? To you, he is personal.

You've acknowledged that. I'll answer it the way you answer it. Sir, I withdraw the question. I'm just simply demonstrating the way you've been demanding of me and you cannot provide.

I'll answer it the way that you answer it. Is God a person by Dr. White's definition? Yes, he is.

Because personal pronouns are used for him. Dr. White says that the spirit is a person because personal pronouns are used in regard to the spirit.

So, any of the scriptures that use the word he in relation to God show that God is personal.

And he is one. He is one person. It would follow if I use the same kind of logic that he has used.

In Colossians 1, again, we didn't get a chance to finish this up, Jesus Christ, and in fact he's called the son of his love, verse 13, is described as the image of the invisible

God, the firstborn of all creation. What does firstborn of all creation mean to you?

It could mean several different things. Firstborn in the mind and plan of God, begotten before all worlds, according to the way the creed reads.

But to us it does not mean begotten before all worlds, but begotten in the plan of God. He was to be a born son.

That's one thing, the firstborn. He is also the prototokos, or the primary envisaging of God.

What God saw in his plan and purpose before the foundation of the world, which centered on Jesus Christ.

It does not necessarily mean that Jesus Christ existed before all time.

Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem. Jesus Christ was made of woman, Galatians 4 .4, made of a woman, made under the law.

What do you think it means, firstborn? Feel free to ask me that question. In verse 16, all things were created by him.

This includes the heavens and the earth. If you're familiar with the book of Colossians, you know that there is an anti -Gnostic polemic here.

In light of the anti -Gnostic polemic, when you began listing all these possible meanings for N and DIA and ICE and so on and so forth, could you please just very clearly say what you mean, or how you understand

Colossians 1 .16, because by him or in him were all things made, and in the end of the verse as well, all things were made through him and for him.

Over 25... Even in the English language, by him could mean many things.

In the Greek language, those verbs have many, many meanings. 25, 30 meanings.

Which verbs are you referring to, sir? In the 16th verse, for by him and... That's not a verb, that's a preposition.

Yes, I know that. And for by him were all things created that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created because of him, with reference to him, with him in view.

How about through him? Is that not the normal meaning of DIA with the genitive, sir? Pardon? DIA with the genitive, through him, is not the normal, everyday

Greek meaning through. Yes, it means through. Yes. Would it be wrong for a person...

That's not the only meaning. Liddell and Scott give 35 meanings for DIA. Do they give 35 meanings for its use here?

In one case, in the accusative case, they give 35 meanings alone. It has many, many meanings.

It means through. That's fine, but we're talking about this passage right here. In this passage right here, does Liddell and Scott, Bauer and Gingrich and Donker or anyone else give any other meanings for DIA with the genitive in this passage that would dismiss

Jesus Christ as being the one through whom creation itself took place? What I would tell you is that what you're saying, a

Greek preposition is not going to negate 4 ,000 verses of the

Old Testament of 4 ,000 years and many, many verses, thousands of verses that tell us that there is only one

God and that he was alone in creation. Now, alone means alone in English. I don't have to understand

Greek to know that alone means alone. Myself, I was brought about the earth by myself. Have we not all one father?

Hath not one God created us? And then in the New Testament, the same thing is said in the book of Revelation when the encomium of praise is given to God in 411 and says, because thou hast created us.

Thou. There the passage is directed directly to God. Thou has created us.

And then when they do give encomiums of praise to Jesus, they don't say to him, because you have created us.

He is not presented as the creator. He is presented as the one through whom, because of whom, in reference to him all things were made by God.

God made all things and he was alone. There were not eternal persons with him. So, in other words, your assumption, your foundational assumption that A, your understanding of those 4 ,000 verses is the only understanding and that is sufficient for you to use the most unnatural possible meanings for the prepositions to avoid the understanding that Colossians chapter 1, and I hope everyone just reads it for themselves, is saying that by him, by the firstborn of all creations, all things are made, whether in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible, principalities, powers, dominions or authorities, all things are created by him and for him and he is before all things and in him all things hold together.

That none of that actually indicates the son is the creator of all things. He is at the same time both

God and man. Dr. White tells us that he is God, certainly.

Dr. White tells us he is Jehovah. Dr. White tells us he is the creator. So, whether you're thinking of his human identity or whether you're thinking of his divine identity.

If you're thinking of his divine identity, you can say all things are created by him, that he was the actual creator. But I'm also saying that this has the potential meaning that it was created in reference to him.

But the worst interpretation that can be made is to say that the God who declared he was one is really not one.

He is one being but three persons. No scripture, no reference has been given that shows that God is one being but three persons.

In John chapter 17, verse 5, when the Lord Jesus says, and now you glorify me.

Who is speaking with the word me? Who is speaking?

Yes. Jesus is speaking. Is that the son or the father speaking? Glorify thou me?

Yes. Jesus is speaking. Is that the son or the father speaking? It's Jesus speaking. Is that the son or the father speaking, sir?

It's Jesus. He's the son of God. And now glorify me, father. That's the next word.

So he has just said father. Is this the father speaking? The father's not speaking.

This isn't the father speaking. The father isn't speaking. There is no voice of the father there.

Okay. So in John 17, 5, when Jesus says glorify me father.

Yes. Who is he addressing? He's addressing God who was his father. Okay. So the act of paternity.

Is Jesus the son of God? Jesus is the son of God. So this is the son addressing the father.

This is the son addressing the father. Okay. Now he asked to be glorified. How do you understand parasealto?

Along with yourself. I don't know if you're pronouncing it the way I would pronounce it. Did you spell it? Well, that would be pi alpha rho alpha sigma epsilon alpha epsilon tau omega.

I put it up on the screen. What word are you saying?

Together with yourself. Literally by your side. By yourself.

How is it that the son can be glorified by the side of the father? In other words, you're acknowledging that Jesus living here on this earth is praying to get back to heaven again, to get out of this world.

I didn't say that. I've never made that statement. That's not in my book. That's not in my statement.

You can never find that. What's he saying then? When he says, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. What's he saying?

Exactly. And I'm asking you, who is this that says glorify me with you?

If I said, would you like to go with me over to Applebee's and have dinner, that's two folks. There's going to be two checks.

They're going to charge us twice. They're not going to give us just one check. This is because of your concept of three persons and one

God. When Jesus is glorified, the Father is glorified. The Bible tells us so.

He receives his glory to the glory of God the Father. So, the human man who only came into existence in Bethlehem is glorified with the divine glory.

Absolutely. Because, as you say, even though he only came into existence at Bethlehem, he was

God manifest in flesh. He wasn't just a human man. Okay, so then, even though he's speaking, and you've now acknowledged it, is the

Son speaking? The human is speaking. The human says the glory which I had before the world was.

And you answered it yourself when you said, could we pray that God would glorify us with the glory?

And I said, yes, I can certainly pray. Lord, I want you to help me to receive what

I received in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be in him forever. I can do that.

I can pray that way. But you've not shown us a scripture passage where we could say that we had glory in the presence of the

Father. Are you saying that we had glory in the presence of the Father the same way as the human

Son who is not truly God in the presence of the Father? Is that what you're saying? What is glory? Isn't this glorious?

This is divine glory. We already admitted that. According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him.

But you admitted we weren't doing anything there, sir. The adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the

Beloved. Sir, I believe in predestination. Believe me, I'm a good Calvinist. But the point is, in this passage,

Jesus said, I had glory. I don't look back at my choosing in Jesus Christ and say,

I did that. Jesus uses the first person. I had this glory. How could

I say that I had something before time was? I could never say that. Well, I think you could.

I think you certainly could. What did you have before the foundation of the world? You had that you could stand holy before him in love.

You had, read your great passage in Romans, and it is a great passage, Romans 8, that what is in the plan of God, you do have glory here.

Time has expired. At this time. It's the last word in God's predestination scripture.

Mr. Sabin, you will have seven more minutes to issue a closing statement at this time.

I realize that we have only had one idea in mind for all of our experience, and that is to believe that there are three persons existing eternally in God.

Let me give you a little different point of view here tonight. I knew when I came here that I would be among mostly

Trinitarians. In the Bible, Luke 10, 21 and 22,

Jesus said only he could tell us who the Father really is. Dr.

White has acknowledged that in the Gospel of John, it is where the

Trinity is really presented. If we believe the Gospel of John, we'll believe that the Trinity is really presented there.

I will tell you that in the Gospel of John, you will find out who

Jesus really is. In the 16th chapter of the Gospel of John, verses 25 and 26,

Jesus gives us a clue as to the way he speaks. The disciples had asked him in the 14th chapter would he please show them who the

Father is. In the 16th chapter, Jesus says, these things have I spoken unto you in Proverbs.

These things have I spoken unto you in Proverbs. The word Proverbs there occurs only in the Gospel of John, and then in only one other place.

What does it mean? Paramiah in the Greek. It means words that are used to conceal something.

Words that do not reveal something. Jesus says, I'm speaking to you in Paramiah, in words that are intended to conceal something.

What is it that he is speaking in Paramiah about? He is speaking in Paramiah, or a cryptic language, or enigmatic language about the

Father. He said, I can't really show you now plainly about the Father.

But he said, there's a time that is coming when I will show you plainly of the

Father. The word plainly, paresia, in the Greek means flowing out like a stream.

Alright, when is this? The Apostle Paul in 1st Timothy, 6th chapter, 16th verse says, which in his times, he

Jesus, will show who is the blessed and only potentate, the

King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, who dwelleth in the light, that no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen, nor can see.

What does that mean? Who is it that's invisible, whom no man has seen? Well, that's God Almighty. In his times,

Jesus is going to show who that is. In the book of Revelation, when Jesus sits upon the throne, heaven and earth have passed away, there's no more sea,

Jesus makes all things new, he is the Alpha and the Omega, he is the beginning and the end, he is the first and the last, and he says to those, to him that overcometh will

I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame and sat down with my father in his throne. And he says,

I will be your God and you will be my son.

If you remember the story of Joseph, after his brothers came down there, and he was convinced that he'd done all that he could do for them as their grand vizier of Egypt, he said,

I want to tell you who I really am. I am Joseph. In other words, this one that you think is ruling over you in Egypt is really your brother.

So Jesus, at the end of all of this, tells us he is our

God and we are his sons. That's where we learn that he who was our brother, who came and died for us, is also really our father.

And it doesn't do any good to keep coding over the verses of the

Old Testament with our theory about three persons being in one God, when you can't show a single scripture that says this.

You can't show a scripture of shared essence. You can't show a scripture that shows that God has always eternally been one being with three persons in him.

It's not there. It's from the philosophers that brought it into Christianity, the

Council of Nicaea. It has nothing to do with us today. God is one and Jesus is

God manifest in the flesh. He is the great I am. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and the ending.

He is the one who lived and died for us and shed his blood for us and who will bring us forth from the grave with his spirit, praise the

Lord, and we'll live with him forever. I don't have... You have two and a half minutes left. Well, that's glorious.

Praise the Lord, I've never been without words and I'm not without words right now. Once again,

Padre Mia, think about it, Dr. White. Think about it. You've picked up a doctrine that was imposed by threat of death that you didn't dare disagree with it or they'd burn you to death.

Cut your head off in 385, burn you at the stake in 1553. It can only be sustained by punishment of death.

Why would you have to punish people with death if your doctrine is easy to believe, if it's something you can accept?

Why would anyone want to take an issue with a doctrine when you're going to be punished by death if you do?

But you see, the doctrine is wrong in its origin, it's wrong in the way that it's been presented, it does not come from divine revelation, it does not come from Jesus Christ, it comes from the consensus of church fathers who were seeking preeminent patriarchs of the churches who wanted to be first in line and decided that we'll settle on this and we'll keep people in line by punishment, punishment, even the punishment of death.

Why would you have to kill people in order to sustain a doctrine? Why would you want to believe a doctrine that had to be sustained by that?

So I'm telling you that if you can believe that Jesus is God, which the

Bible says, if you can believe that Jesus is the Father, which the Bible says,

Jesus said, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. How sayest thou and show us the Father? It's stated in the

Bible. Jesus says, I will be your God and you will be my son. The Bible clearly says that, it's not from inferences, it's not from formulations, but it's things that the

Bible clearly says. The doctrine that you've heard presented here tonight is from formulations.

Better to believe what the Bible actually says. 21 more seconds if you want them.

Praise God. I believe that Jesus, Jesus is the great

God. He's the Alpha, the Omega. He's the beginning and the end. He's the Child and Son that was born. Praise God.

And He is God Almighty. Dr. White will issue his closing statement for seven minutes.

When Paul wrote to the Colossians, there was a heresy entering the church called Gnosticism.

And the Gnostics wanted to have a Jesus that was sort of in between being truly

God and something else because they didn't believe that the true God could have anything to do with creation.

They taught the idea that there was a spiritual God up here and since everything physical was evil and everything spiritual was good, then that meant that there had to be this group of beings descended down from God until you finally got far enough away that you had a

God -like being that could create matter but he could be evil. This was called dualism. When Paul wrote to the

Colossians, he specifically included in his letter a refutation of Gnostic thinking.

Part and parcel of that refutation was the assertion that Jesus Christ created all things.

To remove that from the book of Colossians is to make a mockery of his argument and to completely ignore the context and the purpose for which the letter was written.

I started my presentation by warning us that we need to stick to exegesis of the

Scripture. Allow the Scriptures to say what the Scriptures say and not to import our meanings into it.

I think it has been very clearly demonstrated that my opponent takes his understanding of what oneness means and as a result is willing to rip

Colossians 1 .15 through 17 out of the book of Colossians and turn it into, well, these are things that were made in reference to Christ, which would not refute a single

Gnostic and would make Paul's entire argument utterly vacuous. Simply to maintain that assertion that is being made, that assertion that he is presenting.

I would invite all of you to sit down with Colossians chapter 1. I'd invite all of you to sit down with Philippians chapter 2.

And to lay aside your prejudices and let the Word of God speak for itself. I believe you will find in every passage that yes,

Jesus Christ, the Son, is the creator of all things. And that's why this debate is so important.

Because if you don't honor the Son, you don't honor the Father. And it was said, well,

Jesus was just a human being. He didn't exist before Bethlehem. If that's not the

Jesus of Scripture, then you're not honoring the Son as He needs to be honored. And if you don't confess the

Son, you don't have the Father either. It's very important and we can preach and we can get excited and we can repeat what we believe over and over again, but the fact of the matter is all of us at some time in our experience have to get to that point in time where we examine our traditions and we look to Scripture and go, you know,

I need to really consider whether what I believe is founded on the Bible. Now, I'm sorry, there were some misrepresentations this evening.

The idea that Jesus was praying to the Father, saying, quote, I've had enough of this walking across Palestine barefoot is not something

I would ever say, I have ever said, I have ever written, and it is a gross misrepresentation of my position. That's not what

Jesus was doing. The high priestly prayer is one of the most holy things in all of Scripture. A gift of grace given to us where we undeserving creatures have an opportunity to hear the intimate conversation between the

Father and the Son. I would never make a statement like that.

I would never say that it was the Son who got the short straw in the covenant of redemption. No, you see,

Jesus voluntarily made himself of no repute for me. That's what the

Son did. Not just some man from Galilee, but the eternal Son who was eternally glorious.

And you see, friends, that's what the whole example of humility is in Philippians chapter 2. My opponent didn't seem to understand how that could be an example of humility.

He who eternally was equal with the Father was the object of the worship of creation itself.

Did not consider that position he had something to be grasped at all costs. But he laid aside to serve you and to serve me.

That is the greatest example of humility that could ever be given to anyone. And it is a beautiful truth.

I've been here for coming up on three weeks now. And I would like to thank a number of you sitting here.

Some of you, true gluttons for punishment, have been to three debates and almost everything that I've done in ten different churches over the past almost three weeks.

And I want to thank you for being here. Thank you for putting up with me. For supporting what we've done in dealing with the

Muslims and the Roman Catholics and then here this evening. I want to thank Pastor Carino and Pastor Tony or 2NewYork as we lovingly call him.

All of you who have done so much to give us the opportunity of defending God's truth because I want you to know something.

It is an honor to stand before you and to speak God's truth. And if I didn't do it, it wouldn't matter.

I'm not important. If I die on the LIE on the way to JFK after the weekend's over, the kingdom of God's not going to suffer.

I'm not important. But God's truth is. And if I've communicated anything to you,

I hope that's what I've communicated to you. So I want to thank all of you for coming out. And I also would be very, very remiss if I did not point out to you that if you have benefited over these three weeks this evening with the debate against Mr.

Syngenis, the debate against Mr. Malik, the ten different churches that I've been to from Mattatuck to Merrick and every place in between,

I don't do all that work. The man who does all that work, I consider one of my best friends in all the world.

I love him like a brother. And he's also one of the greatest Christian comedians on the face of the planet, Chris Arnzen.

So please thank him for what he has done. I have 41 seconds.

We are to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And those divine persons send us out into the world to preach the gospel.

May everyone within the sound of my voice know him truly. May he be gracious to us this evening to give us all a true knowledge of who he really is.

That is my prayer. Amen. It is 20 minutes to the hour.

We are going to provide a little grace time. That is a concept that I know we all believe in here.

It is 20 minutes to the hour and we are going to provide time for questions now until 10 minutes past the hour.

That will provide us 30 minutes. There is a microphone that is being set up, as I speak, in the back of the room.

And Pastor Tony Balsamo of our church is standing in the back. If you would just hold up that microphone,

Pastor Tony. If you have a question for one of our speakers this evening, we are going to ask that you make a line behind Pastor Balsamo to his right.

Our first question is addressed to Mr. Sabin, who did

Isaiah see in Isaiah 6 -1 when it says, In the year that King Isaiah died,

I saw the Lord sitting on the throne, high lifted up on the chain of his robe filled within the temple.

And who is John? Please, one question at a time. Okay. Alright.

What Isaiah saw was Jehovah sitting upon the throne, high and lifted up.

John, who understands that Jesus is Jehovah, that Jesus is

God, says, implies this verse to Jesus, that Jesus, who is the man, who is

God manifest in flesh, is also Jehovah, who sat upon the throne in the

Old Testament. One being, one individual, who has lived in two capacities, who has manifest himself as creator and manifest himself as redeemer.

Okay, Dr. White has 30 seconds to respond. I would simply point out that John chapter 1, verse 18 says that no one has seen

God, that is the Father, at any time. It is God, the only Son, the monogamous

Theos, who is in the bosom of the Father, at the Father's side. He is the one who has made him known.

This passage does, again, demonstrate to us that the scriptures teach the person of the

Father and the person of the Son, but the Son is the one who was indeed seen by Isaiah in Isaiah 6.

Okay, our next question is addressed to Mr. Sabin. I'd like to read a short passage in Isaiah 48, if you could turn there.

I'm going to start at verse 9. For my name's sake, I will defer my anger, and for my praise,

I will restrain it from you, so that I do not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver.

I don't know where you're reading. 48 what? Isaiah 48, chapter 9. What? Isaiah chapter 48, verse 9.

Okay, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not say that clearly? Are you there?

Isaiah 48, 9. For my name's sake,

I will defer my anger, and for my praise, I will restrain it from you, so that I do not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver.

I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I will do it.

For how should my name be profaned? And I will not give my glory to another. Listen to me,

O Jacob. In Israel, my called, I am he. I am the first. I am also the last. Indeed, my hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand has stretched out the heavens.

When I call them, they stand up together. All of you assemble yourselves in here. Who among them has declared these things?

The Lord loves him. He shall do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the

Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken. Yes, I have called him. I have brought him, and his way will prosper.

Come near to me. Hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From the time that it was,

I was there, and now the Lord God and his Spirit have sent me.

Who is the me? This is often used by Trinitarians to show that Jesus was sent to this earth by the

Lord God and his Spirit. However, one of the principles of the doctrine of the

Trinity is that each person has certain properties, certain relations, certain missions, certain things he can do, certain things he can't do.

The Father, according to the Trinity, can generate. He generates the

Son. The Father can send. He sends the Spirit, according to the Trinity. The Son can send, but he doesn't generate.

He's generated. One thing the Spirit can't do is send. Now this scripture says the

Lord and his Spirit have sent me. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Spirit can't send, so this could not be speaking of the doctrine of the

Trinity. Dr. White, 30 seconds to respond. There is nothing in the doctrine of the

Trinity that says the Spirit cannot send the Messiah or send anyone else. There is no statement whatsoever that would even begin to substantiate that assertion.

That's what the doctrine of the Trinity says. I think it's an excellent passage. Our next question is for...

Who is the me, Mr. White? The question has been asked and answered. We're going to be moving on to our next questioner.

And the question is for... Dr. White. Doctor, you said and appealed to the principle of solo scriptura, and if I hold myself to that,

I find myself unable to use the word person as a descriptive for divinity, that the word is a human term that you've imported and imposed on divinity when the scripture itself never uses that term.

Would you address that specifically? Why is it that we can do that? As much as I heard, the question is frequently asked, why use any type of non -biblical language if you believe in solo scriptura?

There is nothing in solo scriptura that says that I cannot summarize the teaching of scripture in non -biblical language.

Person is used in scripture, and in fact I would argue that you have a hard time avoiding dealing with it in Hebrews chapter 1, when it refers to the

Son as the express image of His person. There are a number of Greek terms that can be translated that way and translated accurately that way.

But again, I would just simply point out that I don't think it's an argument against the doctrine of the Trinity to bring in philosophy.

I didn't bring in philosophy. My presentation was purely biblical. There are many people who try to make an argument against the

Trinity by saying, well, it causes philosophical problems. Evil causes philosophical problems, and I'm not going to deny that it exists.

So I don't think there's any problem in a person who believes in solo scriptura utilizing language like oneness, which is not in itself a strictly biblical term.

Okay, Mr. Sabin has 30 seconds to respond. The term person does not offend me as far as God is concerned.

I accept Dr. White's definition that anyone addressed with personal pronouns is a person, or he has certainly personal qualities.

It's no problem to me. What I don't understand is how

God is a being, but the so -called persons of the

Trinity are persons, and that there's somehow a distinction in that. Okay, our next question is addressed to Thanks.

Question for Robert Sabin. Speaking from the first three verses of the book of Hebrews.

The book of what, sir? Hebrews. Hebrews. Yes, first chapter of Hebrews. Just skipping a few words, but highlighting the points

I'd like to emphasize. God, who at sundry times diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these days spoken thus by His Son.

And then several comments in verse 3, who being the brightness of His glory, and the expression image of His person.

I'm just going to conclude there, and indicate that singular possessive pronoun, and ask you how many persons

God has. Well, I'm not sure I understand your question, but God is one being, and Jesus is a human manifestation of God.

God manifests in flesh. He is the human manifestation of God, and as a human being,

He's a person, but He's not one of three persons in the Godhead. He is God, manifest in flesh.

As a human being, He has two capacities. The divine capacity, human capacity. As a human being,

He has two identities. He can be identified as Jesus Christ, born at Bethlehem, and He can be identified as God, who created the worlds.

Dr. White, 30 seconds to respond. I think it's an excellent passage because it specifically differentiates between the

Father and the Son, and it refers to the Son as being the perfect expression of the Father's person.

This is perfectly in line with John chapter 1, verse 18, with the fact that it is the

Son who reveals the Father, and you have to be a divine and infinite person to express perfectly and reveal perfectly another divine and infinite person.

So again, you have a clear differentiation here. The Son is described as creator of the whole nine yards.

Very excellent passage. Our next question is for Mr. Sabin.

From Matthew chapter 3, verse 16 through 17. Quote, as soon as Jesus was baptized,

He went up out of the water. At that moment, heaven was opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on Him.

And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, whom I love.

With Him I am well pleased. Is this not a clear example of a contemporaneous exchange between persons of the

Trinity? We've never argued that God cannot manifest Himself in different ways.

In the second chapter of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter said about Jesus, A man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which

God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. Jesus Himself said that all the works, all the wondrous works that accompanied

His ministry were performed by the Father who was in Him. So whether it was a voice from heaven, whether it was an apparition like a dove that settled upon Him, Jesus certainly didn't receive the

Holy Ghost at Bethlehem. He was full of the Holy Ghost from the time of His birth, because all the fullness of the

God had dwelt in Him bodily. But these manifestations were showing that He was a man approved of God, and yet He was

God. The Father was in Him. All the fullness of the Father dwelt in Him bodily. A 30 -second response from Dr.

White. Very clearly, Matthew chapter 3 has been used by the Church throughout the ages in demonstration of the fact of the three persons.

The Father speaks from heaven. He speaks to the Son. He uses personal pronouns. The Son is my beloved

Son in whom I am well pleased. The Spirit of God specifically descends the form of a dove.

You clearly have a distinction between the three persons. One of the things that I said at the beginning of the debate, two issues, that Jesus eternally existed as a person,

Father, Son, Spirit as distinct persons. Very clear passage that demonstrates that. Okay.

Our next question is for James White. Thank you both for an excellent debate.

James, the Deuteronomy 6 .4 and affirmed in Mark 12 .29 says,

Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad, Hero of Israel, Yahweh our Elohim.

Yahweh is one. Now, in your understanding, you have talked about three, only one being, and yet three persons.

You have skirted around the word consciousnesses. The Shema clearly is referring to one consciousness, in my estimation.

I have heard you state in people of your companionship that there were actually three consciousnesses in the

Godhead, which would be three eternal consciousnesses, a community of consciousnesses.

I would like to know how you could postulate an eternity of three consciousnesses, and yet claim that these three persons with three distinct consciousnesses are in some sense one being.

I would question whether this has anything to do with what we would consider to be normal logic.

Thank you for your time. Well, I did not use the term consciousness tonight.

I am not trying to present that concept. I have used the term person because the Father speaks to the

Son, the Son speaks to the Father, the Father and the Son send the Spirit. There is love that exists between the

Father and the Son, so on and so forth. So, I don't like to use the term consciousness, but when you ask how these three could be one being, again, there is only one being of God, yet each of these three is described as God, given the names of God and the functions of God.

That is why Christians believe in this. Now, you say, how can you describe that as logical? I am not sure what you mean by logical.

I am not saying there is one being who is three beings, or one person who is three persons. I am simply following the scriptural data and allowing the scriptural data to speak for itself.

I do not simply take one concept of oneness and then dismiss the inarguable statements of Scripture from the passages we have looked at that indicate the separation of the

Father, the Son and the Spirit on the level of person, but not on the level of being. A thirty second response from Mr.

Sabin. It is inconceivable to me that such an important doctrine which you must believe properly in order to be saved, according to the way it is stated, would not be stated in one

Scripture. Why on earth didn't Paul just simply tell us there are three persons that share the same being, and not leave us here to be trying to define

Greek pronouns and try to make somebody appear stupid because he does not know the

Greek pronouns. Why in the world isn't it said in one place? Not one. Alright, our next question is for Dr.

White. Sir, in your summary you said if the Son volunteered himself and came humbled himself and died for us.

Sir, does it mean you're saying that the Father was slow in moving to volunteer himself or was not as humble as the

Son or that the Holy Spirit was less humbler than the Son and when the decision to die for us was to be made, the

Son jumped ahead of the Father and the Holy Ghost and he came? In no way, shape, or form, anyone who is familiar with the historical proclamation of the

Church knows that Philippians chapter 2, if you just look at the very meaning of the verbs, it is the

Son who voluntarily empties himself. He is being put forward as the example of humility by the

Apostle Paul. It would never follow to anyone who is allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves that that means the

Father is any less loving than the Son or the Spirit for that matter. The simple fact of the matter is it was the

Son who became flesh and therefore is the Son who becomes the example of humility. That's all there is to say.

A 30 second response from Mr. Sabin. Again, it's inconceivable to me that people could even think that there would be persons in the

Trinity, one of whom would volunteer himself to come and save the world.

That doesn't seem to be the way God is. God became a man in order to save us and gave his life for us.

Okay, our next question is for? My question is for Dr. White. You said in your opening, in the description of the

Trinity that you use John 17, 3 and 5 and you said that this is the example of one person communing with another person.

My question then is to you is that you also said that the

Father sent his Son. Are you saying then that the

Father, the Son is a agent of the Lord? You inferred to it. Wait, what of the

Lord? You inferred to it in the beginning when you spoke of Colossians.

You inferred that the Son was an agent in creation. Okay. And then we see here also that you said that John 17, 5 is the example of the

Son communicating with the Father. And my question is to you is are you insinuating that Jesus is a demiurge?

Is he a lesser God than God the Father? It appears as though you're saying that in John 17, 5 that now

Father that I've done this thing restore me now because I've completed my task.

So are you saying, in essence are you saying that Jesus is a demiurge and that below Jesus is the

Holy Ghost? Could you help us out with that, Claire? In no way, shape, or form would I have ever indicated in anything that I've ever said or written that Jesus is a demiurge.

I have been very, very clear in demonstrating that the eternal Son has all power, that he is the creator of all things, and that he came into human flesh as the person of Jesus Christ.

That he was the one who voluntarily did so and no one has been able to refute that clear assertion the passage says, that he voluntarily did so.

He emptied himself. And there is no way around that simple fact of the Greek grammar. But I have never said that he is in any way, shape, or form a demiurge.

I never said that he's asking to be quote, unquote I'm not sure what term, I don't remember what term was that you were using now.

But I did say that he humbled himself. He humbled himself and entered into human flesh.

And that yes, he has now been exalted to the right hand of the Father. Again, clear distinction between the

Father and the Son. It is the Son who's entered into the presence of the Father in our behalf in Hebrews chapter 9.

That's not the Father standing before himself. Alright, a 30 second response from Mr. Sabin. Once again,

Dr. White ignores the simple words of the text in English.

The text that he quotes from Philippians. It was Jesus Christ the name that was given to him at his birth.

Jesus Christ who gave up his opportunity to claim divine glory.

And Bible says, though he was rich, yet he became poor. He was rich on this earth in moral purity.

Gave it up for us. Alright, our next question is addressed to Dr. White.

In light of Galatians 4 .4, the scripture says, God sent forth his Son made of a woman made under the law.

And I heard you state from the front row that there was a time in which the

Son was not made or he was not made. Something to that extent.

Now, as a oneness believer, I believe that Jesus is fully man. That he was a man and is a man.

And I don't believe that has been addressed tonight. That Jesus Christ was a man when he prayed.

Not that we're denying the prayers of Jesus. But in light of the scripture in Revelation where it says that I am

Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. The first and the last. How can the

Trinitarian dogma be stated as scriptural when

Jesus said he's the first and the last. The beginning and the end. How come the Trinitarian dogma says that he is the second?

Of course, in light of his humanity I can say he's the second. But in light to his deity, how can we say he's the second or subordinate him in some way in light of his deity without becoming like the

Jehovah's Witnesses and undeifying him. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly proclaims that each of the divine persons fully shares in the divine nature.

There is no idea of one -thirdness of God or one -halfness of God or anything else.

It is firmly asserted in any discussion of the doctrine that the Father, the Son, the Spirit fully share the entirety of the being of God.

So there is no diminishment of the deity of Christ.

There is no giving in to the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I would assert to you that it is oneness theology that is most of the aid to the

Jehovah's Witnesses. It is oneness theology and the misrepresentations of the Trinity that oneness theology presents the

Jehovah's Witnesses like to use all the time. And in point of fact, they like to point out to people, how can

Jesus be two persons? How can Jesus' prayer life be his human side talking to his divine side?

That misrepresentation of the clear text of Scripture I think has been used by Jehovah's Witnesses to greatly confuse people about who

Jesus Christ really is. Once again, it's the doctrine of the Trinity that has confused the

Jehovah's Witnesses. They, like us, would like to see once something in Scripture that talks about this sharing of the divine essence, sharing of the divine being, which is mentioned very often and glibly and where in the world does it occur in Scripture?

Okay, our next question is addressed to? To Dr. Dwight, you said earlier that you believe that there is one

God or one being and three different persons. And it confused me because I was wondering, are you saying that a being and a person are different or are you saying that God was one being and there were three different persons or roles or somebody that played three different roles or manifestations of one being?

Person is not a role or a manifestation. And I started the presentation with a definition.

Being and person are different things. You are a human being and so am I. But we are different persons.

We recognize that something is something. I am a human being but I am also a person.

I am James White. We differentiate on that. Whether Aristotle came up with that or not is irrelevant.

All of us use those categories, whether we borrow them from somebody else or not. And the

Scriptures use them as well. The Scriptures differentiate between what something is and who someone is.

And so no, a person, as I tried to point out in the presentation, in this context, the

Son existed prior to the Incarnation. He is the one who created all things.

He is the one who says to the Father, glorify me with the glory which we shared together, which

I had in your presence before the world was. That's a person speaking to another person.

That's what the Scriptures present. Mr. Sabin? Once again, the

Scripture simply doesn't say that they shared the same essence, that they shared the same being.

No wonder people get confused. We're all human beings. We're a part of collective humanity.

We are persons and we all are free moral agents and we act individually. We may share the concept of humanity but we're different from each other.

We're different people and the persons of the Godhead, in what way are they different? In what way are they the same?

Our next question is addressed to Dr. White. With your initial comments, you said that you're here to represent the

Scripture rather than try to defend the creeds. In that light, can you give us one

Scripture that declares, if you do not believe in the Trinity, that you would be lost?

If we're saved by faith through grace, or through grace by faith, aren't you adding a law to salvation by demanding that a person believe in the

Trinity? I never said that the word Trinity appears in the Bible so I won't try to offer you a passage like that, but I have given you two passages and I've asked you to think about them.

And those are Jesus' words in John 5, 23 that you are to honor the Son even as you honor the

Father. If you believe that the Son is but a mere human creature, then I question whether you're able to honor the

Son as you honor the Father, first of all. And secondly, the Apostle John was very concerned that we know the truth about who

Jesus Christ was in 1 John 2, 23 when he said, if you do not confess the Son, you don't have the

Father either. If you deny the Son, you deny the Father as well. Those passages,

I would think would be very, very important to our topic tonight, because there is only one

Jesus Christ who saves, and we all admit that salvation is only in Him. But the

Bible tells us there will be many who will come and preach a false Jesus. And that's why this debate tonight is so important, and that's why we cannot have a position that says, well, whether Jesus is truly eternally

God or not is irrelevant. And I would suggest to you that Dr. White has finally hit upon something here.

You can't honor the Son without honoring the Father. If you honor the Son, you honor the

Father. If you deny the Son, you deny the Father. The Bible says this over and over again, that when you honor one, the other is honored because they are the same individual.

Okay, we have time for one more question, which is addressed to Dr. White.

The scripture in St. Luke chapter 1 verses 33 and 34.

Could you explain that for us? I'm sorry?

St. Luke chapter 1, 33 and 34. Could you explain that for us?

Will this be a what? Could you explain it? He will reign over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end.

Mary said to the angel, How can this be, since I am a virgin? Verse 34

Mary said to the angel, How can this be, since I am a virgin? I'm sorry, is it not

Luke 1? St. Luke 1 Could it be verse 35 you're referring to? 33 through 35.

And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end. Mary said to the angel,

How can this be, since I am a virgin? And then in verse 35.

The angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the

Holy Child shall be called the Son of God. The question was, could you explain those three verses? Well, I'm really not sure what the question is, but the passage is simply referring to the fact that the birth of Jesus Christ was a supernatural event, that the

Holy Spirit of God is the one who brought about the incarnation as far as the physical activity of the bringing about of the physical body of Jesus Christ.

His kingdom will have no end. He is called the Son of God. I don't know what you're attempting to communicate, but I don't see anything there that even begins to have any relevance to the doctrine of Trinity, other than the

Spirit, power of the Most High, and the Son of God would be references to those three persons.

May I further ask, if Galatians 4 .4

said when the fullness of time was come, God sent for the son born of a woman. Now, what time did the

Holy Spirit overshadow? Okay, that is a completely different question. We only have time for one more, and we're going to provide

Mr. Sabin the opportunity to answer the question once again from Luke 1, 33 through 35.

Well, I think Trinitarians see a Trinity under every couch, and the good brother was offended because I said

Jesus wasn't saying I'm tired of walking on sand, and he didn't say that, and I didn't accuse him of that, but he made himself a martyr on that account several times.

But the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. Who was the Father of Jesus? This says the

Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. Power of the High shall overshadow thee. That Holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the

Son of God, and I don't think it's speaking of a Trinity. Okay, we certainly wish we could get to everyone's questions tonight.

It is ten after the hour, and we are, want to be sensitive to the custodial staff here who has a lot to clean up tonight.

But before we leave, I just want to once again ask if we would just express our appreciation for Mr.