Oneness Pentecostalism with Simon Escobedo and Eddie Dalcour Pt.3

And good afternoon, this is not James White. This is Simon Escobedo filling in once again for James White.

We have Given him the afternoon off now. I don't know that he would look at it about it that way but basically he has been gracious once again and has given up the big chair so that I as your guest host can sit in and Do another program on oneness theology.

So this afternoon we're going to tackle that subject again And we've had an opportunity already of dealing with some specific issues

We with reference to that and we want to kind of close the book on that so that we can put together some things that I think would be very helpful for our resource category for those who are interested in the issue and Can access and so that's what we want to touch on this afternoon

But before we get into a oneness theology, of course We're switching gears going in that direction because all week long our minds have been focused on Mormonism and of course here in the

Valley of the Sun we have the annual Easter pageant that the Mormons put on over in Mesa and our ministry team has been out there for a little over a week now and several thousand

Mormon folk who have passed through the Temple passageway there have had the fun experience of meeting those guys that just will not go away

And of course, I am referring to the Alpha and Omega team, of course, not just the guys We've had many many ladies out there as well.

In fact, it was encouraging. I think it was midweek We had something like 15 to 17 young people who were out there and they were passing out tracks

And of course, we've had the wonderful opportunity of getting into several discussions with some of the Mormon folk out there

And that's always a blessing of course setting up again I guess next week will have our team go out to the general conference in Salt Lake, Utah and again take up the task of talking with the

Mormons, but let me let Rich come on and Tell us a little bit about what's been going on down in Mesa.

Of course today, I believe is the last of the The pageantry if you will that's right and our team will again be out there this evening

So once we're through with this program, of course We're gonna pick up our Book of Mormon and all the other materials that we need and attracts and rich We're back out to Mesa.

Yeah, we're we've been out there all week. We were We started

Tuesday night and tonight is gonna be the last night for this year's Easter pageant This year we started off a little bit rough.

I had some interesting Altercations with the police and some of the other groups out there.

Fortunately, we haven't received any Thing you might call harassment or anything like that. Yeah, they kind of left us alone

I think it's been a smooth a smooth week for us and I've been in the print shop the last few weeks buried under a printing press

Trying to get as many tracks printed up for this occasion as possible as well as next week and it's it's been quite an endeavor and a lot of a lot of work goes into to making these things happen and you know,

I I think about the the work out there and the importance that it it has for reaching out to folks who have been trapped in this false system and I think of a gentleman who came up to me last night and He will remain nameless, but he is there in an official capacity and He came up to me last night and kind of out of the blue.

He says, you know, I'd like to talk to you I I you've been the friendliest to me out of anybody out here

And I just have a question and he began to share how he's had serious doubts about the

LDS Church for a long time really, but that Ultimately when it comes down to it

He's holding tight to the Book of Mormon wanted to know why I reject the

Book of Mormon and During the conversation it came out why he holds tight to the Book of Mormon and it really has nothing to do with theology

It's a very emotional reason and it's a very understandable reason and that is that his entire family's in the

LDS Church, right? and he has a deep strong desire for his family to be together in eternity and With the daughter that they lost two years ago.

Mm -hmm and in his mind all Hope of being if you will reunited with her in any way shape or form

If they leave the LDS Church all hope is lost, right? So we had an excellent conversation went on for about half an hour 45 minutes

And I just I shared with him about the importance of truth and understanding truth I shared with him about I found it fascinating at the end of the conversation

I shared with him about the one true God of Scripture and Who Jesus Christ really is and he looked at me and he said

I believe that Mm -hmm, and he knew I we had talked about he knew that he was what he was saying

He knew he was saying I don't believe that God is a big man in heaven, right? I don't believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer.

He was telling me he believes in the Orthodox Scriptural God that that we know and love and I'm going to talk to him some more tonight.

I'm going to talk to him about that That daughter that he lost and and see if I can't reach out to him a little bit more and share with him the goodness and the mercy and the grace of Of the

God that he doesn't know yet. Hmm How many tracks do you think rich that we have passed out over the course of a little over a week?

I would say this year has been a really big Week of tracks, I would say we've probably put out a good

Eight to ten thousand that is absolutely amazing especially when you consider the size of our ministry that we're having by God's grace that kind of an impact if you will and Certainly is something to be extremely thankful for and something that we have to look forward to here in a couple hours yeah, absolutely, so we we're going to be back out at tonight and Just ask the folks pray for us that God will will bring

Appointments to us. Yes, and That he will bless our efforts. Absolutely. Absolutely And of course, we are in deeply indebted to those who have prayed for us as a ministry

It is hard work as I was coming home last evening. I was talking to my children They were expressing how much they use the term fun

But I try to put a spiritual emphasis on the joy aspect of it And that is that it is hard work to be out there

And of course we've been out there Every evening and some of them have not missed some of our team have not missed a single night

And when you're standing out there for a good old three and a half to maybe four hours Passing out tracks dealing with rejection all evening being ridiculed mocked and so on and so forth

That is a lot of hard work And so we're just grateful that God has given us the opportunity of being used in this way

And we look forward to concluding that this evening But switching gears and getting into our topic for this afternoon here

We are have been having been thinking about Mormonism all week now we switch gears and once again delve into the issue of Oneness theology and I have a special guest with me this afternoon to address this topic and I think

Everyone in the chat room and perhaps dr. White listening across the way is going to be absolutely surprised

To hear the special guests that I have that wants to talk oneness theology I have

Harold camping with me this afternoon and Harold Why don't you go ahead and say a few words to our listening audience?

Thank you very much Simon for let me speak here Is that is that great or what?

I mean we have a great opportunity Here of listening to one of the great champions of the faith.

Mr Camping with us here at Alpha and Omega, of course, I'm being extremely ridiculous.

That is not Harold camping that is Eddie Dalkour and Eddie Has joined us here this week in Phoenix to help out at the

Easter pageant. And of course Those of you have had an opportunity of listening to the programs that we've already done on oneness

Know that Eddie has joined me on this issue and Eddie is quite Experienced with this topic and since he was here.

We kind of lassoed him into being on the program So he's here with me in the office and we're gonna have a little more fun

Than in the past because we can actually look at one another make faces and those kinds of things But Eddie, why don't you go ahead and say a few words to our audience remind us again of the ministry that you present and Some things that you're doing.

Well, though Simon. I am a Thoroughly delighted to be here particularly because we're face to face before I was on a telephone

Calling a from my room during the interview, but I'm delighted to be here face to face and it's just a joy to be here

My ministry is Department of Christian Defense Www.

Christian defense org it is an apologetic ministry with the concentration on Mormonism Jehovah's Witnesses International Church of Christ and particularly on oneness theology

Unitarian theology the folks that deny Everything about the Trinity and that is why

I'm so passionate about my ministry. I'm so passionate about giving apologetics and arguments to defend and To communicate the doctrine of the

Trinity because Simon when we're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity We are talking about the essence the heart we are talking about the nature of God himself and someone who

Will attack that is attacking. God is attacking the Christ that saved you and I And of course that is why we find this such an issue of importance and you know we were talking about this even last night

Eddie when we were at the pageant and You know Mormonism the Jehovah's Witnesses these groups.

They're clearly Identifiable and distinct from Christianity the problem that we have with oneness theology

Is that it is not an issue that at least right now is something that people want to face in fact there were some

Young apologist if you will representing another ministry that was out there talking with us And they were absolutely

Dismayed the fact that when they went into a bookstore to get some books on this issue They could find nothing and of course the last time you were on the program and even the first time that you were here you said one of the reasons that you

Got into this issue is that you were just grieved over the fact that nobody wanted to address oneness theology

I see this over and over and over in my travel Simon I talked to pastors and just layman

Christian folks and one thing is clear what I found they do not by and large what

I found do not understand the differences between oneness theology a unitarian construct of God and Trinitarian theology and when you approach the subject

You will get a response of well. You know it's really semantics and God's grace is big enough I hear this over and over around the globe, and it's disheartening because it's not an issue of words

It is not an issue of semantics either. God is unitarian, and he's one person that pretends.

He's manifestations or he's Tripersonal a cannot be none a this is not a difference between my version of words and your versions of words this is a difference between exegesis and a blatant

Eisegetical way of forcing modalism into the text hmm well now let me ask you a question you had said that There are those that say

God's grace is big enough. What do you mean by that? Well, they'll assume as long as you use the

Christian vocabulary and you say Christian terms Jesus is Lord He died for my sins.

I put my trust in him you're saved Which is what the Mormons were saying all week to us and no witness to say that too, but um

Clearly that is not the case right Jesus said this is eternal life being the authority on eternal life.

He says this is eternal life To have ongoing present -tense knowledge of the true

God and Jesus Christ. That's eternal life It is not just a heart feeling it's not a burning in your bosom

If that's the case you would find people in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and transcendental meditation

Say because they have peace they have feeling they have solace They will tell you their void is filled so we are talking about the difference between knowledge of the true

God and Knowledge of a God that cannot save as with non -christian constructs now

Let me ask you this Eddie there. There's quite the effort by those who want to perhaps minimize this distinction between a unipersonal deity and the tripersonal

God They basically would say well. What are you actually suggesting?

Are you saying that for me to truly be saved I must have? exhaustive comprehensive knowledge of the

Trinity Otherwise I have no chance I'm sure you've heard that yeah, that's a good question

I get that that frequently as well, and I would say I would point out the words of Christ since as Jesus Christ it defines

Salvation he said in John 8 24 Unless you believe and some you know the the meaning the strict

Greek meaning of that participle pastille own Has the meaning not just of a heart feeling but a scent and knowledge as well as trust demons have knowledge of who

Christ is But to have knowledge ascent and trust it includes your apprehension of the

God that you're worshiping and Yes, we cannot fully Fully comprehend intellectually the doctrine of Trinity, but we can apprehend that there's one

God and The Father is God in scripture the

Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet There's a clear differentiation between the Father Son and Holy Spirit Hence this is the doctrine of the

Trinity now we can apprehend this we can apprehend that there's one God and Jesus is called God And the Holy Spirit is called

God and the Father is called God and we can apprehend the clear as we'll demonstrate In a moment the clear distinctions laid out in Scripture right and of course as we go through that we never abandon

What is our foundation upon which we build and that is the strictness of?

biblical Christian Monotheism that is that there is only one God we're not saying within the one God there are three gods or within the one being

There are three beings And I also think it's very important And I try to point this out to a one this individual that I was a dialoguing with all week basically

And he never really got this but when he kept using that argument about well Do you need do you mean to tell me that I have to comprehend all of this you know one being three?

Persons and all this kind of thing and basically what I was telling him is I think he was confusing

The mechanics of the Trinity with the revealed truth of the Trinity We're not here to argue that any person can understand the mechanics of the

Trinity that is the metaphysical Idea of a Tripersonal God okay, but that's not what we're talking about any more than we can understand the mechanics of the

Incarnation or the eternality of God or any of these other things yet We don't reject those truths because we acknowledge them to be revealed truth in Scripture So we need to clearly differentiate between the mechanics of a truth

Such as the Trinity and the revealed data concerning the Trinity that is that there is one and only one

God there are three distinct Persons and yet they are co -equal and co -eternal they share the one nation.

Yeah Absolutely, I have had people come up to me after I spoke on the

Trinity, and they say well. You know what do you have to? Believe in the Trinity and then my question is what are the other options if you assert if you believe that Jesus Christ is

God What are your options well option number one is if you believe Jesus is

God well was he a separate God? From God the father okay, that's tritheism.

That's Mormon theology separate gods Well the other option is if you really believe Jesus was the fullness of God the only other options that Jesus himself

Was the very father which is modalism so your only other option is trinitarian theology

And that's what we find if we draw out the meanings clearly stated in Scripture Right and you and I have gone around the horn on this and of course dr.

White presents this in a really nice Diagram in his book the Forgotten Trinity which by the way let me take this note

I don't mean to get into any kind of commercial type thing here But we do have some excellent reference resources here at Alpha Omega ministries and of course dr.

White's book the Forgotten Trinity while it is not specifically an apologetic towards modalism in particular it does define the very truths that we embrace as Christians and defines for us what we

Know from Scripture concerning the Trinity and so it does deal with some of these issues and one of the things that I found

Fascinating is his diagram in the book where if any of the three? Elements of truth that we just discussed that is that there is only one true

God there are three distinct persons and they are co -equal and co -eternal if any of those are jettisoned or Abandoned it results in some kind of heresy and of course if you abandon

Strict monotheism you end up with the Mormon theology if you abandon the fact that there are three distinct persons you end up with Oneness theology or more modalism, and if you abandon the fact that they are co -equal and co -eternal

Then you wind up with subordination ism or arianism as is the case with the Watchtower and isn't a wonderful Eddie That as Christian people we don't have to abandon any of those truths

But we can take them together as they have been revealed in Scripture Well, let's give you an opportunity then to provide for us a review of some things that we have already looked at in the last

Two programs, but before we do Let me play this segment that we did play the last time, but I think it might help to kind of channel our thinking

Let's see if the folks remember who this is Both of our questions will be doctrinal just are we understand if you basically deal with social issues, but one that could be doctrinal statements

My first question would be the Trinity would be defined as one God has revealed himself in three distinct persons each

Co -equal and co -eternal how important is it for the believing Christian to have to hold to this belief?

I think it's very very significant that we that we first of all study the Trinity apart from Salvation and the first of all that we embrace

Christ and come to him and come to know who he is Having come to know who he is then we begin to deal with the

Trinity which I believe is a very complex issue The Trinity the term Trinity is not a biblical term to begin with it's a theological description for something that is so beyond human comprehension

That I'm not sure that we can totally hold God to a numerical system The Lord said behold

Israel the Lord that God is one and beside him There is no other when God got ready to make a man that looked like him.

He didn't make three He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body soul and spirit

We have one God, but he is father in creation son and redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration

It's very important that we understand that but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach

God by faith and Then having approached him by faith then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand

Who the God is that they have believed upon? And of course Eddie we know well who that individual is that is none other than TD Jake's and of course

We spent quite a bit of time The last time we met which was on the 16th of this month playing some excerpts of TD Jake's one of the more high -profile personalities concerning the oneness position and You have some experience with that gentleman.

Now, what would you have to say about some of the comments that he just made? I think when I hear that that statement

First it saddens me because I know Thousands upon thousands of men and women that sit up under this man and they absorb his teachings and He denies the very essence of Christ and as we'll see modalism denies the pre -existence of the

Sun you cannot deny Jesus's eternality and Look in the face of Scripture and say

I'm a Christian. I hold to Christian beliefs Jesus said unless you believe that I am

Jehovah God you will die in your sins. It is a prerequisite Believing in his eternality because there is no other

Jesus that exists and TD Jake's clearly denies That God exists as three distinct co -equal

Co -existent Co -eternal persons and he has demonstrated this in his interviews

On videotape and in his teachings and I've talked to staff members

Who will argue? for his position his anti -distinction position you cannot deny

Christ and claim Christianity and And It's it's a tragedy.

How many people are up under him now now that we have played what Jake's has asserted?

Basically that of course as he indicates the Trinity is really not something essential that needs to be believed in for salvation

Give us in its place. Obviously, he's positing something and that being his Unitarian deity or unipersonal deity of oneness give us the basic construct of what?

Oneness theology is define that for us again Well the basic I'll call the basic syllogism of oneness theology simply this there is one

God According to oneness theology. There is one God But this one God is the father

Malachi 2 10 this one God is only the father that must be stressed

Jesus however It's called God in the New Testament Conclusion is

Jesus is both the father and the son as well as the

Holy Spirit Jesus Christ is the name of this Unipersonal God a one -person

God, but this one person comes behind the stage Father Sometimes he comes as son and other times he comes as a

Holy Spirit So as David Bernard a prolific oneness writer says, you know what when you have when you look at Scripture you have to decide

When Jesus is speaking is he speaking as the father? Or is he speaking as the son and that's our arduous task, or we will never know which manifestation or role is speaking the

God of oneness theology and This has to be made very clear It's not distinct in terms of personhood the father son and Holy Spirit are merely names or offices or modes of the unipersonal

God so neither of those three can be truly said to be his real identity

No, that's another weak point of oneness theology This is not true as to his essential nature these manifestations because before Bethlehem there was just a solitary

Monad a one -person God darkness all alone

But because of his redemption plan he manifested into offices or roles father son

Holy Spirit So but these roles or these manifestations are not as his true nature will never know this true

God of oneness theology because he does not reveal himself as in as to his true nature and if I remember correctly when we played the excerpt of last week from Jake's and he went into his spiel there with the whole narrative with Moses and Defining himself as I am that I am he referred to God as a multiplicity of manifestations

And then he provided some illustrations how God Became the manna how God became the tree and and as I kind of joked the last time kind of a

Pocahontas theology Would you say that this is pretty much part and parcel of what most oneness or is that just?

TD Jake's in his own little hut there doing that kind of thing well get out appeal to David Bernard who is Recognized as one of the more scholarly oneness writers

He makes the statement in essence Does God have to be limited to three manifestations and of course as David Bernard points out in his book?

No, you know you Trinitarians only have God in in three well Why can't he be four or five you know he he's asserting some blatant contradiction in Trinitarian theology right however scripture clearly

Reveals that father son and Holy Spirit are the three distinct persons now I guess we can narrow this down, then if we were going to differentiate between us as Christian people and those who hold the oneness position that unlike the

Categories that they wish to present that is monotheism is what they're claiming Versus tritheism which is what they think we believe this is really an issue between tri -personality and Unipersonality and that is the clear differentiation between the two of us.

Yeah, their assumption their assumption monotheism equals unipersonal is

Their their main premise that they argue there from now Eddie last time we dealt with the common misrepresentations of the

Trinity And I would just remind our listeners particularly if you're in dialogue with those who constantly like to use all the various arguments that both the

Jehovah's Witnesses The oneness folk and perhaps even some of the Mormons as we heard out this week

You know the constant well the Trinity began at Nicaea We heard that last night Eddie and both you and I about tossed up our

Arby's sandwich You know all these common misrepresentations. We dealt with those last week and or the on the 16th program

So I hope that our listeners can access that and use that for your information but there were a couple of things that we weren't able to to get to because of time and One in particular that I kind of want to to deal with before the break and that is

Luke 10 20 through 21 and Of course, this was this has been a favorite of them.

I know I've been asked this several times Dr. White was also asked this question by Robert Sabin in their debate and again

I would encourage those who are interested in this discussion to pick up the dr. White Versus Robert Sabin debate on one is theology, but in that passage

We have this statement at verse 21 at that very time. He that is

Christ rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit and Said I praise you

Oh 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 for this way was well pleasing in your sight All things have been handed over to me by my father and no one knows who the son is

Except the father and who the father is except the son and anyone to whom the son

Wills to reveal him now Eddie allow me to play the devil's advocate here for a moment I am a oneness person for the sake of argument.

I read this passage and I say, okay Only the son knows the father that is the clearest of statements there and only the father

Knows the son so if we're talking about three co eternal co equal persons and here we have seemingly a

Reference to this all knowledge of one or the other this reciprocal knowledge between the father and the son

Then why is the Holy Spirit? Excluded from this element of knowledge of either knowing the father or the son

Well, of course we can determine doctrine by the number of places that the Holy Spirit is Mentioned or is not mentioned and we have to understand to that the

Trinity teaches an ontological Relationship meaning that all three persons are equal as God, but it also teaches an economic relationship

Though the three persons are equal The three persons have different functions.

It was the son that died on the cross not the father It was a son that assumed flesh and so on and so forth

But in this passage, we you know, we can cross -reference I think with John 6 we find it's the father who gives the son all that he desires and the son raises them up and The son always does the will of the father.

So we see a a functional subordination ism functional father and son so clearly in this passage

It's dealing with the ones that the father Gives to the son and the revealing of the father

There is no necessity for the Holy Spirit in terms of functionality, but I was assert at the same time in verse 21

Pagio pneuma is mentioned pneumatic is mentioned. You have the Holy Spirit Jesus rejoiced in The Holy Spirit, so I would assert this is more of a

Trinitarian passage for all three members Are mentioned of than a

Unitarian or a modalistic passage in fact If I may draw your attention

I know you listen to the Saban white debate and if I'm not mistaken in the cross examination period when

Dr. White and Saban were going over this passage. I Remember Saban of who of course appear to be using the

King James Version Basically stated that the word holy that is the

Holy Spirit was merely supplied by the translators kind of like When we read through our

Nasby or whatever it is We're reading and we see those little words in italics that remind us Okay this is a word that was not in the original text been provided by the

Translators and he kind of loosely stated that so that those listening would think that the word holy has been inserted by Trinitarians and I would just point out the fact that anybody who has a

Greek text can take a look at that and See very clearly that we do have a textual variant here and that is that hagio

That which is cited by the majority text and obviously that would give reason to why it's in the King James Version and hence

Robert Saban was using it does have manuscript evidence and of course in the

New American Standard Of course, it does use the term Holy Spirit. I don't have the NIV in front of me

I would assume the same and you do have that there and of course looking at the na 27 clearly you have several references to its validation for in the text and so I would just merely say that obviously

Saban was Incorrect. This is not something that was offered by the translators, but clearly it's a word that belongs in the text because it's theirs

So we're not going to let him get away with that now. I have been told That we need to break

Eddie So we will go ahead and take a quick break and be back here on the dividing line discuss one is theology a little bit

More And we're back on the dividing line, this is

Simon Escobedo Filling in for dr James White here with Eddie d 'Alcour in the office and we have been discussing one this theology and I was told before we went to the break there that we have a

Friendly caller on the line now I've heard much about this Individual course

James and I talking frequently and many of the trips that James has taken to Long Island and he comes back with all kinds of fun stories about Chris Arnzen or as he is affectionately known

Java man in the chat room and Mr. Arnzen, I know that you and I have shared a couple of words in the chat room

But we've never had the opportunity of actually being formally introduced since I've not made it out to Long Island But it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak with you, sir.

Well, thank you very much I'm looking forward to having the opportunity to meet you sometime. Well, I look forward to it. Of course

I've always Kidded James about tagging along in his luggage the next time he makes it out to a

Long Island I'm hoping to make my way out to the Florida area when he debates John Sanders Yeah, I would love that and I think anybody that has had the opportunity of listening to James talk about you and You know basically telling us that as far as comedians are concerned

You're the best and of course not only a great comedian, but a dear Christian friend and brother and We certainly appreciate what you've done for him and with him and I look forward to that opportunity.

I appreciate that Well, sir, what did you have in mind this afternoon? Well, I was wondering if you folks ever heard of a a

Church of Christ author named Lonzo Pribble That's P as in Peter RI B as in boy

B as in boy Ellie He has written a book I don't know how much you're you're knowledgeable about the

Church of Christ, but they have a minority of of people within that camp that are non -trinitarian

Largely, I think because of the fact that the Church of Christ has never been very fond of using non -biblical words

So therefore there is a certain Leniency towards that issue and there have been heretics that have cropped up that have that have been an anti -trinitarian over the

Last hundred years or so since they've been on the scene. But anyway, this book by Lonzo Pribble's got a unusual bent to Attacking the

Trinity and I was wondering if you had ever heard of any other group espousing it Basically, they would deny being either trinitarian or or should

I say Lonzo Pribble would deny being either trinitarian or unitarian He believes that God is purely the father only the father and always the father and never never anything else and that Christ is his

Son in divine nature in that he was literally born in eternity past Without the aid of a mother and then physically born when he during after the incarnation

So he was actually Christ was actually born twice He was born once in eternity past that is it actually a separate being not

God or not a God But just a a divine being so that would be similar to watchtower theology then

Yeah, it seems to be I'm not sure The watchtower actually say Christ was was literally born of God in the eternity past I'm not sure yes

But he was uh, his identity was not Jesus. It was Michael the Archangel and I can barely hear you guys Oh, his identity was

Michael the Archangel. However Michael the Archangel is not eternal Michael the Archangel did emerge

But the watchtower does not indicate when Michael the Archangel as Christ emerged in eternity past Well, I know that I myself have not heard of that work

But Eddie being more read on the oneness issue and in particular I would imagine with the

Church of Christ folk Eddie have you heard of that book? Um, let me ask you. Do you know if it's the International Church of Christ?

No, it's definitely not because I'm pretty sure that they're Trinitarian, right? They are they are. That's what I why

I asked What you'll find sometimes in some of the Camelot Church of Christ and other

Church of Christ that are not International Church of Christ you'll find a just a convertible

Way of believing on God by and large they don't speak too much on the

Trinity But you'll I would imagine that you'll find some offshoots that have bizarre views This is a first that I've heard of this author and that particular view coming out of a

Church of Christ He sounds like he's representing himself Right. Yeah, I believe he probably is but the thing that's amazing to me is that the

Church of Christ Who will you know this fellowship with someone over having a piano in the church or some other

Relatively minor things will will tolerate somebody like him I mean, I found out about him through an ad and a very conservative

Church of Christ newspaper called the Christian Chronicle and You know,

I think that they just wink at that kind of thing They don't even really care as long as you're dunking someone For the remission of sins and as long as you're not playing a piano in your church

You know and have all these External similarities with their group something like the denial of the one of the very pillars of Christianity is almost not important Yeah, unfortunately a lot of other denominations and other churches do not see the

Trinity as a highlight of theology that's why it's not taught and that's why you're dealing with a a

Mass amount of people who do not apprehend anything about the Trinity Unfortunately, let me just add one more thing before I go a question on your thoughts on this

Because of the fact that one this Pentecostals will often use the ignorance of People we would typically consider bona fide

Christian, right? They would say for instance, well, I've heard I've heard Trinitarian people give

Non -trinitarian definitions for the Trinity. They've given basically modalist definitions, even though they call themselves

Trinitarian and you call them Brothers, why don't you think I'm saved etc. That's a good.

That's a good question Chris in fact, we we dealt with that specific issue because one thing that has grieved me in the past is that many of my

Dear brothers from a ministry that I once attended and I have no reason to doubt their Their commitment to Christ and so on but because there has been such a lack of biblical teaching in the church on These kinds of issues

I mean you can go into a Sunday school and find out how to be a good dad How to be a good husband and some of those kinds of things but talking about justification by faith alone or the doctrines of Trinity forget it and so hence you get the

The egg illustration and you know, the even TD Jake's is illustration has been used by Christians Yeah water steaming ice, but Eddie, what are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, unfortunately, you'll find that with Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons They'll still appeal to other

Christians They so -called Christians they have talked to and say well other Christians don't believe that way and so on and so forth

However, I would just point out that is what it's known as an irrelevant conclusion because it doesn't

Really matter or make a bit of difference how they view or how they don't view In terms of communicating what they think the

Trinity is, of course The question is what does Scripture say and the historical definition as well?

However, I think that perhaps What you were trying to ask Chris was not so much

How we would respond to somebody who was using that that is from a non -trinitarian perspective

But what would our thoughts be on? Christians so -called Christians who use those kinds of definitions and hence pretty much give us an idea

That they're not really solid in their understanding of the Trinity and hence could that preclude them from truly being a

Christian was that? You know, the question is where do we draw the line? In other words, how far off can you be?

And it inexorably it you know, it's amazing. You'll find the amount of Christians you'll find

That will have no problem with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as long as they love

Christ Taking the mere linguistic symbol of Jesus, however

Scripture does not Give an excuse for ignorance Part of being saved or the just to being saved is having knowledge as Jesus Christ pointed out

This is eternal life to have knowledge He did not say to have an emotional feeling but this eternal life to have knowledge

So there is a line to be drawn and with that kind of reasoning, you know

Christians just well doesn't really matter You know again, where do you draw the line? How far off can you be?

And I think really that is the issue. Of course only God knows the heart but as you dialogue with people like that it is our task

I guess to Continue to go back and to go back to scripture. What has God revealed about himself in his word?

What must I do to be saved involves? obviously a Content that has to be embraced for true salvation to exist.

No question about it but in the bottom line of would you folks agree with me that there is a vast difference between a

Christian who might be a Understanding of God and somebody who is actually an apologist for oneness teaching.

I think that's a very good point in fact, I think that kind of really puts the line in the sand because if you're talking with somebody who has trusted

Christ and this is their claim and you know, they love Christ or following him, but they have a they have an infinitesimal amount of knowledge and of course, we're to grow in grace and knowledge so that doesn't excuse them from furthering that understanding as opposed to Somebody that you're dialoguing with who is not a part of that group

But is a part of a group that does understand the position that he is maintaining For instance the folk that we get in email correspondence or the folk that Eddie talks to they full

Well know some of the differences between us and yet even being exposed to the passages that clearly

Destroy those particular positions yet. They continue to maintain them I think that's a clear indication that that's a person that is outside of Christian truth and Christian faith.

Absolutely similar to I guess that the situation in Corinth if If somebody were out of just ignorance living in a sexually immoral

Lifestyle and then was was biblically proven that they must repent of that And they didn't

Then that would that would identify them as a as an unbeliever. Yes It's always the question of what is your response once the truth is presented, right?

I like what Spurgeon said the sheep will always hear the shepherds voice and of course just basically paraphrasing the

Lord's own words that my sheep will hear my voice and once the voice has been uttered and If a person is truly a sheep

He will follow Well, thanks Chris It's a great opportunity to have you on the program for a little bit and earlier you asked the question

Would I agree with you given what I have been told about you? I don't know how I could disagree with you, sir

So I appreciate you coming on the program and again look forward to meeting you in the near future. Amen.

Thank you, sir bye, and of course that was Chris Chris Arnton calling from the

New York area and With his leaving that leaves an open line for anyone that would like to call and ask mr

Dow core question on this particular topic. That is one is theology. Our number is eight six six eight five four six seven six three

I know the last two shows that we had we really didn't get any callers and one particular show

We didn't even have time for it And as I look at the clock Eddie, we haven't even gotten into the meat of our time together and so we better get on into that and I think one of the the things that we really were just screaming to deal with last time and we ran out of time and and We had asked rich if he could please grant to us another 30 minutes

And of course that was not possible But here we are and the item that we want to deal with is the pre -existence of Christ as a distinct person from the

Father now when we talk to Jehovah's Witnesses one of the key areas of argumentation that I know that you would agree with in demonstrating the deity of Christ is

Demonstrating to a witness from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is

Jehovah that is it that is that's the major hammer if you will that comes down upon their theology and just just crumbles it

With the oneness position I would assume now you're more red in this area than I am But I would assume similar to that is this issue and that is demonstrating to a oneness that Jesus Christ as the eternal logos or son whichever term you used it to There that he eternally

Existed as a distinct person from the father would you agree with that absolutely because when you say well

You do not believe that Jesus is God and of course their response is of course

We do that in fact they pride themselves on that teaching as if they were the only group That's teaching the deity of Christ, but we have to understand in Modalism or in oneness theology when they say

Jesus is Eternal Jesus is God in a oneness mind.

They are saying Jesus as the father is Eternal Jesus as the father is

God, but Jesus as the son is Not God there is no

God the son. There's only God the father so when they say Jesus is eternal They mean Jesus as the father so our task is to demonstrate by scripture that Jesus is eternal distinct

From the father and when you do that You can demonstrate that one is theology falls

Well Eddie one of the clearest passages that you and I have enjoyed for a number of years and of course this is

One of my favorite passages who knows how many times that I've had opportunity in presenting this passage both from a preaching aspect when we go out to a rehab ministry and trying to instruct some of the people there on The person of Christ and even in my my

Greek class when we start getting into Predicate nominatives and all those kinds of fun things we go to John 1 1 but John 1 the passage the the great prologue if you will that clearly demonstrates not only the full deity of Christ as a

Tremendous apologetic against the the Aryans But also a clear differentiation in this passage between the

Logos and the father And I know that's one of your favorite passages as well, but before we take a look at that text

Let's see what a oneness would do with it and we'll give mr. Jake's a chance to come in and tell us some things about John 1

And the word was with God and the word was with God and the word was God and the word

Absolutely. What was the word absolutely was? God Not God Junior.

It was God Come on second verse the same was in the beginning

Which God the same was with God from the very beginning? Come on Oh Things were made

By him and without him was not anything made that was made this word

John 1 to say if all things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made

The word okay read on In him was life and the life was the life of men in him was life and the life

Was the life of me? In him was life and the life was the light of me

Jesus is the light Wait a minute.

I'm confused. Come on. We talk about Jesus When we talk about God Let me see

All things were made that sound like God All things were made by him without him was not anything made that was made that sounds like God In him was life and the life of the light of man.

That's how I Jesus I'm confused.

This is God of Jesus and the darkness

Comprehended it's not the light and in darkness and the darkness Comprehended it not out of the gross darkness.

God said let there be light There was lightning was good Or could it be that the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ was shined in our hearts?

It's spiritual light In the

Old Testament spoke out of gross darkness and said let there be light and there was light and the darkness couldn't comprehend it

And yet in the New Testament Jesus who is the light of the world came into the darkness of sin

We don't see Whose name was

John the same pain for a witness to bear witness of the life

That all men through him might believe To be a forerunner this has got to be

Jesus But he said in the game was when the word was with God the word was done But now there was a man simple

God his name was John he was not there like he was sent to bear witness of their life He's Jesus We know

It was not that life But was sent to bear witness of that life saying that John the

Baptist was not that light But he was sent to bear witness of that life saying That was the true life which lighted every man that cometh into the world

And the world was made by him and the world knew him not wait wait wait wait, oh my goodness

He was in the world And the world was made by him

Could it be that the Creator visited the creation

He was in the world

Because the Creator stepped into the creation No wonder

Paul said he had to humble himself He came into what he made

How strange that would be and it appeared

Jesus made flesh the abstract made concrete the invisible made visible the intangible made tangible

Christ is literally I didn't like this the Bible says he was the word

Well Eddie we just had the opportunity of hearing what

I guess a TD Jake's would call his exegesis and again I say that tongue -in -cheek of John chapter 1 the prologue that we have become so familiar with and have such a passion for and I think you would agree with me that Basically, he read a passage of scripture.

That's at least not in my Bible because he tortured it to the very letter and I'm just amazed that that kind of obviously

God jr. The whole business either he is Jesus Christ or You know, the whole thing is is obviously a setup for his a modalistic beliefs.

Absolutely. I think this It's amazing Well, the music has come on in there We're going to take a little break and then actually get into a positive response to what

Jake's has presented So let's take a break and we'll be back on the dividing line And welcome back to the dividing line.

This is Simon Escovedo filling in for dr James White joined here this afternoon in the

Valley of the Sun with mr. Eddie Dalkour we've been discussing the topic of oneness theology and before we went to the break we were

Basically tortured I know dr White came in as TD Jake's was preaching and the pandemonium could be heard in the background and his question to you

Eddie and to Me was do you feel the spirit? I mean the aura of Jake's preaching leaves much to be desired.

I think we would agree on that What would you have to say then with the reference to John chapter 1? Well, I think this is a clear case of 2nd

Peter 3 16 where Peter says, you know Paul writes some things that are hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable twist as They do other scriptures and of course

Simon, you know that the word ignorant is on my face there It literally means the unstudied. It is not the study that twists scripture to their own destruction, right?

But the ignorant and unstable well, let's look at John chapter 1 verse 1 I think this is a fantastic passage

And while I don't want to labor our listening audience with some of the gram the Greek grammatical nuances of the passage

It's pretty straightforward in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God now We would maintain that of course the second clause that is

John 1 1 B and the word Was with God prost on the on That clearly we have a distinction here between the halaga's the word and Tom say on who

John will define later as the father in John 1 18 and then we have that very

Fascinating little preposition there pros You've done some work on this. I know there are other passages that speak of prost on the on Prost on Patera that is the with the father in other places this is certainly a significant passage and Why don't you help us here?

How in the world? Would a modalist get out of this Eddie? Not that he can but provide for us some of the reasoning that they would use

Normally the the reasoning on John 1 1 is that the word was with God in other words God the

Father Always had a concept with him God the Father always had the plan and the plan was the

Son so someday he was gonna Jesus the Unitarian Deity was gonna assume flesh

Not become but assume flesh and become the plan or put the plan into action as David Bernard points out so that's how typically they would point point

John 1 1 pros Tom They own out as your mind is with you the plan or concept of prophecy the father

Here the word was with the father however Not being too familiar with languages.

I assume based on his writing Dave Bernard makes long arguments on this point we know a couple things from the passage particularly of this preposition

Prost as Many grammarians have pointed out particularly a T. Robinson when process used to denote persons

Here we have the father in the logos it always denotes clear Relationship not only relationship not just a a spatial juxtaposition but a personal

Intimate relationship therefore in Romans 1 or Romans 5 1 we therefore since we've been justified we have peace

Prost Tom they own with the God in 2nd Corinthians 5 8

Paul says we are confident I say I'd be prefer To be away from the body and at home

With or pro stone carry on with the Lord and we find this this clause

Clearly denoting a personal intimate relationship so hence in John 1 1 we find that the word

Was pro stone they own in an intimate loving relationship with his father precluding

The idea that Jesus is himself the father because Jesus was or the word pro stone they own

Yeah, and I think that we need to give John a little bit of credit here in that The obvious Contradiction that would be evident if John was saying ha logos hame prost on fail and that is the word

Was with God and in the very next clause in the word was God that doesn't make any sense

And now TD Jake's in his little spill there on John 1 of course Basically said with reference to John 1 14 the abstract

Became flesh and hence he is depersonalizing very clearly The logos and I think it's important to remember that The Greek term logos here used by John has a dual audience in mind

And that is that from the Jewish perspective the Word of God meant power it meant authority

By the Word of God the worlds were created, and I think a closer look at that term Also underscores that in many cases the

Jews didn't simply view it as an impersonal thing and then for the Greek mind of course The logos had specific meaning as well

And that is the that which was all knowledge and so on and so forth And I think that his use of the term here is obviously deliberate because he's communicating to both of those

Audiences and he is not merely communicating an abstract concept But he will go on to develop the personal nature of the logos and Eddie you've done some work on that Why don't you fill us in on some of the personal attributes that the passage maintains absolutely

John introduces? new dynamics to the Greek meaning of logos now

John Personalizes the logos first he was with God. He was pro stone.

They own an intimate fellowship, but notice in verse 3 through him The logos all things were made so now the logos is said to be the agent of Creation not the mere

Means or an instrument, but the agent we have DIA here followed by the generative All things he created he's created and in verse 4 in him was life

Now how can a concept or a plan have life in him right? It's just a concept or a plan, but in him was life and this life was the light of men and in verse 7 he speaking of Johnny came as a witness to testify, how does he testify to a

Non -personal concept is John testifying to a plan the father's plan mm -hmm, and then we have in verse

In verse 9 he's he's the true light verse 10 he was he was in the world and The world was made through him again the agency of creation

And of course in 14 this this word who is now personal who John is

Communicating and teaching the personality of the word who is the light of all men and who was creator the agent of creation now the word steps out of eternity and He becomes he does not wrap himself verse 14

But whole logos sarks eganito he becomes the flesh In which oneness theology categorically denies

Because in oneness theology the unipersonal Deity does not become he just puts a flesh outfit called son, so I think in lieu of John's personal

Language and the personal attributes he attaches to the word it completely refutes the oneness abstract idea and of course verse 12 and as many as received him and of course again the logos is clearly the

Referent he is the personal object Eddie of belief of faith of trust

Now one of the things that I have problem many problems with the one is position in their Understanding of this passage or shall

I say in their attempts to get out of the passage is no matter how you look at it prostant they on that little

Prepositional phrase if you will hollow us hain prostante on the word was with God even if you wish to depersonalize the logos

Let's assume for the sake of argument that we do that You still have a distinction between the logos and tan fe on the word

Whatever you want to say about it Even if you were to use the impersonal argument and the problem I have with that is how is it that?

Given their understanding that it is the father that becomes flesh and yet You have a distinction between the word and the father and then all of a sudden in verse 14 without any textual qualification

Suddenly the word is the father I Think that's a tremendous problem.

In fact. I've not had it responded to by some of the one is people that I have Dialogued with how all of a sudden with just arbitrarily

They insert that this depersonal logos is now the very personal father himself

Have you dialogue with much folk on that issue? Not to it's hard to really have exegetical interaction.

I agree with you. It's the most difficult task Yes, well, of course you had pointed to The statement there in verse 3 that all things were made through him and that is that he is the actual agent of creation and There's no question that you cannot read that statement without also thinking of Colossians 1 15 through 17

We will go back to John 17 5 here in a minute but I want to make the direct connection because you had made a reference to the fact that the logos is the

The agent of creation he is the one through whom all things were made and of course in Colossians 1 15 through 17 if you'll read that We have

Paul's Anti -gnostic polemic and I think that's a very key thing to point out because if the oneness or the

Arian Jehovah Witness argument Is is put forward it completely throws

The anti -gnostic polemic of Paul on its head. It makes no sense So, why don't you get into a bit of that Eddie and discuss for us some of the issues regarding Colossians 1 15 through 17

Many times when I speak with Jehovah Witnesses I always ask them if they know when dealing with Colossians and their assertion of the term other four times

I always ask them if they know the historical setting the book of Colossians Of course, the answer is normally no and unless we're cognizant

The Colossians was written to refute the Gnostic idea. It's much difficult I think right you

I get a clear understanding the text verse 15 First of all verse 14 in in him or in whom we have the redemption the forgiveness of sins

And of course, this is speaking of the son not the father, but the son Dealing with his work on the cross verse 15 who is the image of To fail to a orator the the invisible one the invisible

God He is the image of the invisible God the firstborn of all creation verse 16 because in him

We have in him we have in followed by the date of in him all things were created Things in heaven and earth whether visible or invisible thrones lordships rulers authorities.

All things are through him and for him and He is before all things and all things consist in him now

My point in verse 16 is a very strong point Against the oneness view who will say that Jesus Christ the

Son was not distinct from the father before Bethlehem verse 16 it says in him all things were created and Then he says all things were through him

Now it's interesting Grammatically, we find that Paul switches cases first It's in him followed by the data then through him with generative and then all things are for him

He created all things for him with accusative now We have through him followed by the generative as you know,

Simon and followed by the generative means one thing He was the agency. This is pointing to the agency.

What is theology? Typically will define this as well. The father creates all things

With the Son in view Now if we just have the accusative there perhaps

We wouldn't have much of a problem, but he uses DFO by the generative case clearly pointing

To Christ as the agent of creation. We have the also DFO by the generative. We have that in John 1 3

We have in 1st Corinthians 8 6 and in Hebrews 1 2 all pointing that Christ was the agent of creation.

My question is if Christ distinct from the father. This is dealing with the Son here in Colossians if he was the agent of creation

Therefore he himself is not the father How could he be and pre -existed as a distinct person from the father and of course pointing to Colossians 1 16?

You were mentioning the preposition the other If it had the accusative and I guess for those some of our listeners who perhaps don't know

Greek What would be indicated then is that all things were created because of him is is how that would read

But that is not what we have. And of course here is a great text not only in demonstrating the

Distinctness between the father and son and the son is a pre -existent one who who created all things

But a passage that quite honestly Is ignored in fact in the debate between Robert Sabin and dr.

White when this text was brought up particularly DL to the the The little prepositional clause there through him

Sabin ignored it. There was no way that he could respond to it It was obvious what was being stated here and the only argument

Eddie I know you've listened to that debate that he could offer was I'm not going to overthrow

Several thousand uses of God being one over a little preposition.

Do you remember him saying that yes again? Assuming his conclusion. He's trying to reach that monotheism means unipersonal and My question is this if this does not teach that Jesus was the agent of creation

All things are in him and through him and by him He used Paul switches of the the the dative to the generative to the accusative if this

Passage these passages are not teaching that Jesus was the agent the son the agent of creation

Well, what would a passage look like that did teach it? Yes, that's a great point.

Well, of course that deals with Christ as eternally pre -existent distinct from the father and his creative work

Now, let's talk about the fellowship the relationship the intimacy Between the father and the son, of course prostant.

They on in John 1 Specifically mentions that and the connection to that would be John 17 5 another passage that was basically tortured in the debate between dr.

White and and Sabin and Why don't you read that and provide some comments Eddie?

Well, we have Jesus in his in his priestly prayer to the father He says and now father glorify me in the presence

With the glory I had or I shared with you before the world began Justine Simon That Jesus had something he shared something with the father before creation

Now, of course, we cannot say that and I say that because the oneness Explanation to this passage is that in Ephesians?

It says that God foreknew us He chose us before creation and they will somehow

Awkwardly connect that and try to import that passage to this

However, we did not have anything we did not Do anything before creation?

Here's is a very intimate passage where Jesus is saying he had something We had the imperfect icon

Jesus had this glory and When he says I had this glory with the father or with thyselves when he said sharing the glory with him uses para with followed by a date of indicating a

Side -by -side or in association in the company with relationship

Clearly. Mm -hmm. And of course as I've told you before the program, well, of course the verb there is active

It's not passive. He was not passive in this glory In fact, if I remember again, I don't mean to continue to reference the debate

But I do hope that some of our listeners might get that debate and and listen to it Is that Sabin's response to this was that any

Christian today? Who believes in Christ could make this statement, which of course is absurd

We're dealing with divine glory here. The imperative is used that is the Sun is specifically addressing the father in the imperative and saying glorify me and There is no

Christian that obviously could make that kind of a prayer But further with the same glory or the glory, which

I had again We have an active verb. They're not passive Christ is not passive here

And of course the eternal aspect is brought in That I had with you before the foundations of the world and as you were noting that little phrase there parasail toe alongside yourself

The most intimate of terms being used here in denoting the divine glory.

And of course, this is not just a passage that Crushes the oneness position, but I think you would agree.

This is a difficult passage if not impossible for the witnesses to deal with because again how could a mere creature be he the human son in oneness thinking or The Michael the

Archangel of Arianism or I should say the witnesses Make this kind of a prayer and certainly the

Lord Jesus Christ does so here and also in verse 3 This is eternal life and notice again

Eddie Two objects Presented and if you only believe in one and not the other you do not have eternal life

And that is the true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent Well, that's a tremendous passage. And of course our time is running away from us

I wish we could stay a little longer in that but let's go to Philippians to the Carmen Christi Him to Christ is

God. This is a this is a favorite passage that we have enjoyed I think some of our listeners perhaps have written or I'm sorry.

I have read dr. White's article that he did on this a number of Months ago that he submitted to the

CR journal It's in there and I think we even have it on our web page, but a fantastic passage

Why don't you open up some of the things there Eddie for us as it relates to the oneness issue?

well starting with verse 5 and If you read the context clearly speaking of the

Son your attitude should be the same that of Christ Jesus Who being in the very nature? God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

But made himself nothing taking the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness and being found the appearance of a man

He humbled himself became obedient to death even death on a cross therefore God exalted him to the highest place gave him the name above every name that the name of Jesus Every knee should bow and heaven and earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord to the glory of God the Father So, you know Simon historically the church has used this passage to demonstrate the full deity and the work of Christ in one

Estiology, it's interesting. There is no set Interpretation in one esteology.

It really runs the gummit. You have different views by different writers Some writers will espouse that this is the father speaking

Throughout and he did not consider his becoming flesh something to Or his glorification something to maintain at all costs and and so on and so forth and others

Would have the view that at one point in time the Son humbled himself and became obedient to death and that's when he

He emptied himself at that point so you have different interpretations, but reading in the text clearly this is the

Son who emptied himself now normally Simon, you know when you when you empty yourself of Something when something's being emptying it's being subtracted of something

But it's interesting because in verse in verse 6 says he emptied himself

Becoming the nature or taking the nature or likeness of Men now that small participle there

Laban small participle we'd say a part of simple of means in other words It is telling us the means of How the

Son emptied himself The means of his emptying was taking the very nature of a servant not the father

But the Son as when he became became flesh, and he humbled himself

Became obedient to death even death on a cross wherefore God The God highly exalted him and gave him the name above every name

Now who being the very nature of God is striking Jesus Christ was always the nature of the

God again. We're dealing with the Son here Mm -hmm there was never a time when he was not subsisting strong participle there

How parking on there was never a time when he was not subsisting as a nature of God, but he humbled himself He did not subtract of deity, but of glory therefore

God the Father exalted him gave him the name Above every name now the name there is not dealing with the linguistic symbols

Jes us right there was a hundred Thousands of people in first century had the name of Jesus, but it was the name

Jesus that he possessed or more correctly Yezu we have a generative there a generative of possession it was the name that Jesus owned or possessed

The name belonging to the name belonging to him that every knee shall bend That Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ is

Lord to the glory of God the Father This is a beautiful passage and it clearly indicates the distinction of the

Son becoming flesh in lieu of the grammar and Context itself and of course the very the very context the text that Paul uses to introduce this

Great I don't want to use the term illustration, but he uses this to demonstrate the greatest example of humility

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. What is this?

That what is this humility that you are calling us to well. Let me give you the greatest example of Humility that could ever be seen and that is that the eternal

God God the Son the distinct person from the Father set aside certain divine privileges and prerogatives and Became flesh and he did this so that he might become obedient to death even the death of the cross and I remember some time ago dr.

White illustrating for for some of us that were in a class of his that what kind of a what kind of an illustration would it be for the janitor

Who works at the White House? to refrain from sitting behind the the oval desk there and you know barking out executive orders and so on so forth and And and what kind of a what kind of an example of humility would it be for that janitor to say you know what?

I'm going to lay that aside I'm not going to assert myself in that capacity.

Well. That's not that's not an example of humility That's a that's absurd that's common sense however, if you were to reverse that and let's say that it's the president of the

United States and he lays aside certain prerogatives and Privileges and does something that is so beneath him.

Well, that's a great example of humility And of course, this is a great example of of God the

Son Humbling himself by taking the form of a servant now If is it my understanding that there are those in the oneness circle that would say that this is not a reference to the incarnation

But a reference to his ministry on earth. I believe Robert Sabin offers that explanation which is

At least it's a little more plausible. It doesn't work, but it's a little more plausible than Bernard and others who would assert that this passage is dealing exclusively with the father, but the question is at what point

Did the son do this was did he not come into the world as a servant? Did he not come into the world in human likeness?

right, so his Explanation surely is flawed. Well, let's go to probably the last passage

We'll be able to look at this afternoon as our time is racing. We have only a few minutes and Unfortunately, it appears that we didn't get any callers but the

Java man, but that's okay They gave us a few more minutes to deal with some of these things. And again, I would encourage our listeners

We're hoping to package together the three studies that we've done on this issue

And hopefully we can make that available and kind of a packet kit But one passage that I I get excited about, you know, when you think of the book of Revelation, there's all this

Apocalyptic information that is there and and laying aside for a moment all of the eschatological

Discussions that are always a fun thing to talk about especially here at the at the white HQ if you will

All the various millennial views but when you look at this book the very first Opportunity that we have to take a peek if you will with the curtain

Being drawn aside and taking a look at what heaven is going to be like You have not the streets of gold and all these other kinds of things or even necessarily the

The wiping away the tears and all this kind of thing. It'll come later but you have the very first thing we see is the the corporate worship of the redeemed

Before the one who sits upon the throne and the lamb tremendous passage I get excited talking about it, but I need to let you provide some comments before we get away.

Yeah, this is a tremendous passage Verse 13 of chapter 5 then I heard every creature in heaven and on the earth.

Now, this is every creature every creature on heaven In heaven and on the earth and under the earth and in the sea

All that is in them singing to him who sits on the throne and to the

Lamb Be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever The four living creatures said amen with the elders and fell down in worship

Clearly we have a differentiation starting from verse 11 the lamb the one in the throne and Grammatically they are differentiated because before God and the lamb we have the article

Before the one who sits on the throne the one who sits on the throne Mm -hmm and the lamb there is the lamb and the one who sits on the throne.

We have a repetition of an article clearly distinguishing the one who sits on the throne and The lamb and we find this repetition of the article and also in a

Matthew 28 19 the name of the Father the Son the

Holy Spirit and also in 2nd Corinthians 13 14 the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and The love of God the

Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all Clearly Differentiating both the lamb and the

God or the one who sits on the throne and again it should be noticed It should be noted that both To him and the one

I'm sorry to the one sitting on the throne and the lamb are receiving the same or blessing honor and glory and Dominion forever and ever that's a tremendous passage

Well ID our time is gone last time as we closed our program you and I were oh just give us 30 minutes

But unfortunately, we don't have 30 more minutes and we're gonna have to conclude now and I will do so repeating that passage that I have

Repeated so frequently this week out at the pageant. That is John 8 24 and that is

Christ speaking unless you believe that I am You will perish in your sins and again

The obvious meaning is that if you believe me to be someone other than what I am what

I have revealed myself to be You will perish in your sins. You will be eternally lost

And of course, there's another passage Eddie you're familiar with that the one that does not honor the