Three Debates

Program Introduction and Travel Schedule

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Well ignore those silly numbers. Here we go with another jumbo DL 90 minutes of biblical theological apologetics and we press forward we are going to be hopefully on a I Forgot to look at this, but I'm pretty certain next Thursday ain't gonna happen.

Because I will be flying back to Ohio for the psalm 119 conference. Phil and Ohio oh great. We have a Buckeyes fan in the in the audience. Aren't those the guys where they you know, the corrupt football program and Coaches getting fired and all that kind of stuff.

Oh, we've got it. So we got Michigan and Ohio in the same. No, not Michigan Miami, oh that well, that's the other corrupt one. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, all right, whatever. Thought we were gonna have a fistfight in the other room just because of football that anyway, I'm heading to The psalm 119 cause I was talking about someone 18 over who cares cares about Ohio where it is doesn't matter good grief Phil Johnson will be there and So looking forward to that and so I leave on Thursday because Ohio's a little distance from here and So I guess we'll probably have to do a Monday Wednesday thing as far as the program goes next week guys I'm sorry.

I'm sorry Tuesday Wednesday thing as far as program goes. So if we're gonna sneak him in we'll figure out something along those lines. But and that's the only travel I have for this month, but boy come October.

Hmm not gonna get much dividing line done in October it's gonna be we you know, we tried last time I was in Australia and it just 17 hour differences just don't work. It just I don't think we got a single one in.

You know, we might try but we'll we'll figure it out one way or the other. So anyways jumbo DL today 90 minutes and so let's let's get started Jump right back into things here. See if maybe we can make a serious dent in finishing up our review of the dr. Fernandez Mr. Comus debate we are By the waveform a whole lot farther into this one than the others.

So that means we're getting close to the end if you may recall last time we were into the audience questions. So, let's see and make sure that this Computers all queued up and ready to go and let's see where we were.

Divine Hardening, Truth, and the Need for Theology

I think Van Til put it pretty succinctly when he said that our inability is Correlative with our unwillingness to believe so.

By the way, I don't remember if we played that. I certainly agree but when you're in a debate and It's clear that the majority of the audience isn't is not they are not attending Reformed Theological Seminary or Westminster or something like that.

They even know who Van Til is and Well, I don't have anything against quoting Van Til. I Am very firmly of the opinion that if you want to make an impact on an audience That is non reformed and you want to introduce them to the doctrines of grace you do so from the Bible you do so by demonstrating the consistency of the biblical exegesis that underlies the reformed position, that's how you do it and You don't do it by quoting some of the great fathers of the reformed faith or something like that.

Who they don't even know who why should they care what Van Til said? They don't know who Van Til is. They haven't read Van Til and That's just just a some practical advice to those seeking to promote the reformed message in those context.

Yeah, and I would just say that I Would agree that if Satan has goes through the trouble of blinding.

Non believers, okay, this is back to the second Corinthians 4 for we discussed this right then the last program as to who the God of This world is and what the text actually says. Which was misrepresented in the question in their case.

The guy this world has blinded the minds of the un Believers, why is there something wrong with that? Remember Paul's teaching if you do not love the truth God will cause you to love a lie. There is a moral imperative For those who are created in the image of God to love what God loves.

There is a moral imperative on the part of those every human being to love God's truth and that is just as much true and even more so for the believer. That's why I am concerned when I encounter people who call themselves believers, but they they say well, you know, I I just love Jesus.

I'm just not into all this doctrine stuff. What is doctrine? What is theology? How can you say you love Jesus when you you have no interest in growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.

Can you even explain what those three words mean in regards to Jesus if you're not growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh I just love the Lord Jesus Christ. What does Lord mean?

Oh That's just that theology stuff. I've never understood that. I will never understand that attitude. It makes no sense. It's like saying oh, I'm constantly growing in love for my wife. Really when was last time you talked to her?

I haven't talked to her in 20 years. It just it does not make a lick of sense in in any way shape or form.

But that's that's what people Are saying all the time and they're they're way out base. It's because he's trying. He's at war with God. He's trying to prevent them from believing. And it doesn't seem to make much sense that Satan would blind people who are already blind and are going to be eternally blind anyway.

Unless there is a judgment from God that is clearly pronounced for example in Isaiah. Why why why did God tell Isaiah? To go deliver this message and then tell Isaiah I am going to make sure that nobody listens to that message.

Well, not nobody because see if you just understand the concept of the remnant that is the elect. Then you would see what's going on Isaiah and you'd see what's going on here. But there is a judicial hardening that comes to people who do not love the truth they're caused to love a lie.

Do we not see that around us all the time right now? What's one of the primary reasons why we see such a massive paradigm shift in the morals and ethics of our nation right now? It is because we have had the light we have squinted our eyes against the light.

We have had the truth we have rejected the truth and now we're being caused to love a lie. You wonder why you see people who are willing to give their lives and give money for the promotion of godlessness.

Well judicial hardening there it is.

Divine Foreknowledge, Molinism, and Human Freedom

Yes, this one's directed toward dr. Fernandez and towards his position in some sense. If God chooses those he foreknew. If God chooses those he knew who would believe so he those he foreknew that would believe.

It seems that human acts inform God which seems to deny his omniscience in some sense and bases election in a man first in somewhat of a logical order could you. Could you explain omniscience? In regards to kind of a seemingly a seemingly problem.

Yeah, excellent question because this is the question has to be asked of all those who fundamentally deny that God's knowledge of Events. So you have his natural knowledge in his free knowledge natural knowledge the natural the knowledge that he has of himself.

His free knowledge is his knowledge of that which flows from his decree his creation and everything in creation. And of course middle knowledge is that theoretical type of knowledge that has no reason for existence.

Which would go between the two which posits some capacity of knowing what non-decreed Individuals would do in any given circumstance. Which I think is just it just not it has no biblical basis. It's just it's incoherent, but be that as it may.

How does God know the future. Is it a passive taking in of. Is it an observational thing he creates time sees what's gonna happen, but since he exists outside of time, then that's how he knows. If the decree does not form the very essence and substance of what takes place in time then what does.

And how could God know it and open theists would argue. This is the fundamental flaw of Arminianism that actually pretends that God can actually know the future because you cannot know the acts of free beings and If you do they are no longer free beings.

Yeah, if God in his sovereignty Freely chose to create a world in which creatures would have genuine free will. Then if he's omniscient if he's all-knowing he would foreknow. Whatever choices they would make given whatever circumstances they would be and how.

That's just an assertion. That's not answer.

That's just an assertion. Well, if God chose to do it this way, then he would know the question is how would he know and Does that not make his actions dependent upon what he sees the creatures doing.

If there is no decree that determines the very essence of the the actions in time and Those actions are set now become self-caused they are caused by acting creatures in time Then the question is how can God have knowledge of that if their actions are autonomous?

How can God have knowledge if he does have knowledge of that? If if you know right now, there's two guys sitting in the control room Okay. Now if God knows that the one with the weird-looking shirt with the tarantula on it is going to punch the other guy in the shoulder.

Okay, see he did now God knew that was gonna happen. Is there any opportunity whatsoever? That he could not have done that. Because if if he could not have done that Then that would mean God's foreknowledge could be in error.

It could be falsified. Right. So how does God know and if he does know? Then can there be the possibility of doing the opposite? That's yeah Pavlov's dog. I I knew as soon as I said that that you were doomed because yeah.

Well, because I have middle knowledge of him. So I just it was it was it was easy, I mean even I can have middle knowledge of Barry but.

The question is Some other form of fiddle know how they would respond for instance to his prevenient grace. And so if God God eternally knew I was going to choose to be here tonight, and I was going to be here tonight if I Chose not to be here tonight God would have eternally foreknown that and I don't think that.

See the questioner was asking doesn't that make God's foreknowledge dependent upon human actions and therefore his actions in time Depend upon human actions because if the autonomous chooser of whether Phil Fernandez was or was not going to be there is not God.

It's Phil. Then God could not make a plan whereby Phil was there and Because if he foreknows that Phil is going to choose not to be there Then there can be no plan that would include his being there now.

Let's say That because of this series that we have done And this is this is I think is a perfectly good example, let's say because this series we've done in reviewing this debate. Someone is convinced That the doctrines of grace are true.

They are so taken with The beauty of God's sovereignty and power That they go into ministry. I have talked to many a Seminary student where this was the case not because this debate because of others.

I know a seminar I know of pastors in the pastorate today Who are where they are because of the the debate I did with George Bryson. Well the BAM program with George Bryson. That's what started them on the road to reform theology their pastoring day.

They have led people to Christ Therefore God could not Have a plan whereby someone ends up in ministry because of the review of this debate because of Phil Fernandes's Autonomous choice not to attend the debate that night, right?

So all of God's plans have to be depend upon what he foresees human beings doing so who's in charge? That's the question that's being asked and it's not the question that is being answered.

It doesn't lessen God and make him any less infinite. To put him in a box and say he really can't create a world of he can only foreknow Future choices because they're not really free choices. It has nothing to do with boxes.

We're everybody is is putting everybody's putting God in a box and We believe the box we're putting God in is determined by his own self-revelation. Okay, if you say this is true about God and this is false about God you're quote-unquote putting God in a box that that's that's a That's an inappropriate objection if you believe that God has revealed true things about himself and therefore there are false things about God then quote-unquote you're making delimitations and putting him in a box so leave leave that to the side.

The question is who has the right to determine what takes place in time and You can say well God in his sovereignty chooses to create a world where he doesn't exercise his sovereignty. If you want to say that Then don't say that God is sovereign in this world.

Just say God has sovereignly abandoned his sovereignty if that's what you're saying. But as a Molanist Dr. Fernandez isn't saying that in fact he is saying that he Practices a level of sovereignty on the nth degree.

The nth degree he works everything out to where he knows Phil will make the decision to be there because that's what he wants Phil to do and So he will since he knows what Phil will do based on middle knowledge.

Then he creates the circumstances to get Phil to do what he wants him to do. But the question is how does that make Phil free at all? It doesn't. It's it's the Molanistic Shell game. Where you're so desperate to have an autonomous creature.

That you will actually come up with this kind of logic. And it just doesn't work it. It promises and does not deliver.

To me a God who is able to foreknow genuinely free choices Has a greater knowledge than a God who could only foreknow choices because those choices aren't really free.

Now to foreknow again. It would be this is B. This is this terminology is purely philosophical here. It is not biblical. Because you cannot show me any place in the Bible where God foreknows human actions.

He only foreknows people persons and. And. So this is this is the philosophical question here and it's fine to ask philosophical questions. Here's the philosophical question. How can God know? What mankind is going to do freely?

Is it a passive taking in of knowledge? Or does it have any active element at all if it's merely passive then I question how you can say That God should be glorified for what takes place in time. Because the only thing you should be able to glorify God for is the stuff He's in control of that is outside the realm of the autonomous decisions of man.

That's all that's the only thing that you would be able to praise God for and hence the outcome of history itself and of nations That have been. God has nothing to do with that if he only passively takes in knowledge.

It's just these are these are the questions that we should be asking and.

Very frequently are not one of the. The key point if I might just throw this in you can both touch this. Does the fact of God foreknowing a man's free choice. I think is what the question was inform God.

Do we by our free choices inform God even though he sees it for knowing inform God. Very good question.

That is Rick Walston asking the question and it's a good question. Do we inform God. Does God learn? Whether instantaneously and Simultaneously with the decree of creation. Or subsequently there to logically and.

And leaving Molanism for aside logically the standard Arminian Would have to say that when God gives the decree to create there is at best a simultaneous taking in of knowledge of what the result of that decree is going to be and then if you want to pause it some kind of temporal Experience of God there could be a learning process.

But either one would be passive and the determination of the actions in time or does not come from God now. The Molanist says oh that the determination does come from God because he chose to actuate that particular world but In the process you sacrifice any meaningful autonomy apart on the part of the creatures.

Because they could not do any other the the the actions in time are fixed in Molanism by the actualization of that particular world. In my understanding God foreknows.

God has infinite knowledge of every possible world and what free beings would do in every possible world now. That's a standard.

Molanistic response. At that point this possible world stuff and God has knowledge of what any free creed that's middle knowledge. That's God runs the numbers and comes up with the best possible world the best possible mixture of of saved and non saved.

Etc. Etc. Etc. And then he freely chooses to actualize which of the possible worlds it is that he wants to actualize and so basically it's. You know my way of looking at it is if God did not want that free choice to come about he could have just actualized a different possible world.

Now now think about that if God did not want that particular choice to come about then he actualizes a different world. But once he's actualized as world he's stuck. From the time of the decree to create he's stuck with whatever he chose at that time, right and.

So my question and and I've I've sent a couple emails now. I'm not gonna hear you and replies. Unfortunately, I feel badly about that. I think I have been very fair. I Have bent over backwards to be fair and to be biblical and to be brotherly.

Even in saying that dr. Fernandez's presentation does not represent Meaningful reform theology. It's not a criticism of meaningful reform theology. I think I've been very fair in how I've handled this but what I would ask dr. Fernandez.

Does he agree or disagree with William Lane Craig's answering of the question? Well basically. If you're gonna say that that God Chooses to actualize a possible world. What are his parameters? What what?

Motivates God to choose this world. What motivated God to choose a world with Genghis Khan? What motivated God to choose a world with Adolf Hitler? What were the motivations? You see the reformed person says God chose to create in such a way as to glorify himself.

Through the demonstration of his attributes through the salvation of a particular people in union with Christ Jesus and. So it is the way that he has chosen to glorify himself. That's not what I get from William Lane Craig.

What I get from William Lane Craig is a very utilitarian looking for the best mixture of saved to non saved or even more so. In the Molinistic perspective you have people who could never be saved in any other situation there.

There there are people I understand them to believe there are people who could net that God could never save in any possible world and so evidently. The idea is to actualize the world in which the maximum you've got the maximum number of them.

But the minimum number of the other kind. But you see all of this is not determined by the good pleasure of God's will. There's this other force out there and it seems to be impersonal. But it's what gives rise to middle knowledge and it's and it's what determines what?

Non-decreed beings will do in any given circumstance and that ultimately is. What constrains? God's choices and I would say to you if there is a power that can constrain God's choices that power is God.

So we've got a God above God evidently. That's not what they're saying. But I what I can't get anybody to answer the question. Who determines if God knows What a creature is going to do via middle knowledge and that creature has not yet been decreed to be what the decree makes that creature then those choices are outside of God's realm and if it's outside of God's realm and that's what that's what constrains and limits.

The big calculator in the sky who's running all the possible worlds. Okay, the big divine blue. How's that? Remember? I had big blue now. You've got the big divine blue. And but all I can do is Is constrained and determined by middle knowledge.

He can't do anything out of that. What's what are what are the what's the basis upon which? Dr. Fernandez believes God makes these choices. I think that's absolutely fair.

Question. Meaningful question. Important question. Okay, so God isn't isn't informed by man's free choice in your opinion.

Well, I yeah, I think exact. That's exactly what happens if we believe in God's Exhaustive foreknowledge and he foreknows what men will freely choose. But he doesn't determine what they will freely choose.

That's basically classical Arminianism. Then. Yeah, our free choice ends up determining God's choice. God looks down the corridor of time watches the movie ahead of time or whatever you want to say. Sees what we're gonna do freely do and then chooses based on that choice.

So I don't think it just informs God's choices. I think it actually determines God's choice. And that's why I think Arminianism is a slippery slope to humanism polytheistic humanism. All right, next question.

All right. I.

I'm not sure where that slope comes from either. To be perfectly honest with you, but at least at least I would agree That he sees that in the Arminian perspective Man is controlling God. I Don't know too many Arminians that reason that out to a polytheistic humanism, but anyway two questions.

2 Corinthians 4, Judicial Hardening, and the Problem of Blame

Didn't contemplate this first one, but I'll throw it out there based on the question on second Corinthians for it was just raised verse four. So if the point of this passage is that ultimately the God of this world has the ability to blind me such that I can't believe.

Then how do I not end up thinking myself for having the strength to resist God or resist the God of this world? Or how do I end up not thinking Satan for not blinding me for my salvation ultimately instead of thinking God?

Hard to follow that one wasn't asked. Well, but it's a good question. Because in light of prevenient grace and again, we've had no defense of it. We've had no questioning of it. That was one of the major failures of mr. Comus is when your opponent has based everything on this constantly repeated reference to prevenient grace and If you're reformed, you know.

There there sometimes we'll use that terminology of of the first movements of grace to bring about salvation. But that's not how he's using it. He's using it in a peanut butter sense where God. But this prevenient grace brings everybody to this moral neutral point blah blah blah blah since he's not challenged it.

Then you know that that's that's one of the major failures of of the debate but what the guy is asking is if there is this prevenient grace God's trying to save everybody equally and I get saved. Then why can I not thank myself for being strong enough?

To have I've resisted the blinding of the God of this world. I've resisted the powers that it came against my soul. God did his best the devil had did his best. I mean, it's the it's the old, you know, it's.

How do we understand election? Well God's voted for you and the devil vote against you and you've got the tie-breaking vote. Well, if I'm the tie-breaking vote, why can't I pat myself on the back for the tie-breaking vote?

That's basically what is being is being asked.

Not Thanking Satan for blind unity not thanking God. Okay.

So if if the point of this passage is to teach that there is this group of people who are able to believe Yet the God of this world in this case interpreting that as Satan is able to blind them from not believing Then wouldn't seem logical that for me to read this and then still feel secure my own salvation I'd either have to thank myself for resisting the God of this world in which case Yeah, I get to pat myself on the back or that I would be in the very weird position of thanking Satan for not happening Upon me and so as to blind me if that is what this passage means.

It just seems to me.

Like many Calvinists do there's the the attempts to distance themselves from hyper Calvinism where a man has no free will at all and Then anytime an Arminian or non Calvinist talks about freedom. The Calvinist who said he wasn't a hyper Calvinist Who said he believes in some free choices.

Christ foul and the Arminian says that that was a free choice because now all of a sudden Wow, so that made God know that event with me. I believe God had the final say even of our free choices because he could have Chosen to prevent those free choices from being actualized by creating a completely different world.

Okay, that's that's your Molinistic Two-step doesn't answer the question, but it sounds real good. And most people don't challenge us, but that's not answer the question. And it's not even based upon a meaningful Discussion of quote-unquote hyper Calvinism, which it has really nothing to do with the will at that point the the issue of autonomous will.

We use the term free will anybody read read Jonathan Edwards recently, but we have a completely different understanding of what that means. Those things haven't even been been brought up or discussed that point.

But the the question just isn't isn't getting an answer here because for any synergistic person. Fundamentally, if God has been trying to save everybody equally and I get saved the only answer to why me and not somebody else is in me and.

That's what they desperately want to avoid admitting, but that's the reality Chris.

Well, yeah. Getting back to I. You're referring back to 2nd Corinthians 4 4 right? Yeah, it doesn't appear to me. Who's my. When it Paul says whose minds got at this age is blind who do not believe he's making one or the other based On the other.

It's not like one logically has to precede the other one has to temporally Precede the other. It just seems like Paul's kind of throwing them both in the mix. They're saying look those have been blinded do not believe.

Well, okay.

No, it's saying he's blinded the the minds of unbelievers. They they are unbelievers. They have refused to believe the revelations in front of me. And so there is a judicial hardening and blinding of them that goes even beyond their unbelief so much so that they are caused to love a lie as As Paul puts it elsewhere in 2nd Thessalonians.

Seems rather straightforward. All right. Question two. All right. I was wondering if you both could.

Do your comment interpretation of just a short little section of scripture. Just because we've talked about a lot, but I haven't heard any exegetic. So just be good to hear you both comment on Romans 9.

Versus. Now, let me let me skip this because the guy read all of Romans 9. Basically, it's just sort of like Okay, that's nice. But that's a little long, you know for a question. Maybe you could just focus upon a couple phrases or something like that.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna try to skip ahead a little bit here and see where we can get to the end of it.

God is there may it never be for he says to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion. Yeah. Molded say to the molder Why did you make me like this? Or does not the Potter have the power over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use Another for common use.

What if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy.

Which he prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he called not from the Jews only but also from on the Gentiles.

All right there. From now on there'll be no more long passage reading.

Romans 9 and God's Sovereign Mercy

Chrissy let's begin with you. I just say amen. Paul the Calvinist.

That was great. And I'd say that I Okay.

That again if you're gonna try to do Doug Wilson Then then you've got it. You've got to do it better or at least as well as Doug Wilson. There is and I I made this mistake once you there there was. Some question.

I think it was in a Pat Madrid debate once. It was asked of me and I gave a very pithy Response and You can't do that if you if you're being given a certain amount of time the pithy response may sound great.

But now you're leaving the door open for the other guy to just twist Everything in that text and you're gonna have no opportunity of correcting it at all. So just on a practical level. Here's this wonderful opportunity to spend a minute or two make application expand on points.

Use it to respond to previous questions because it's addressed specific things that came up in period. Awesome opportunities completely passed over. All you end up with is just the reading of the text and then no counter response.

To any type of Misapplication of the text that will come after you. I had a feeling he was gonna stop at verse 24. And that's why I gave an overview of the whole passage. I gave the context of the passage.

I remember and we criticized dr. Fernandez's Interpretation because he jumps to the end of the chapter comes to an unwarranted conclusion there and then reads it backwards. And we mentioned that this is a common failing of our Arminian brethren.

We pointed out, you know, Norman Geisler going to John 645 to interpret John 637 Reading things backwards and Things like that and we already addressed that over the preceding number of weeks.

Of Romans 9 and the context is he's trying to answer the question about the Jews Who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, how do they be God's chosen nation yet? They're turning from Jesus. How could the gospel salvation through faith in Jesus be true?

And so Paul answers the questions using several several things and he says first of all not all physical Israel is saved. He documents that from the Old Testament. Then he says, you know, God's the potter with the clay.

We have no right to talk back to me. Just saying God is sovereign. He's the one who makes the choice. He says that God is righteous. God is just any good Jew would agree with that. But then. And he said the Jews shouldn't be surprised.

Verses 25 to 29. That's so many of the brethren are lost that the Old Testament predicted that.

But then it comes to verses 30 to 33 now notice we've already skipped over. Where the objections are raised is there any unfairness with God may it never be and then he talks about God's sovereignty over the same lump of clay to make vessels of honor and dishonor and so we just are just Skipped all over that and now we try to run to the end to find a way around that and we will have to pick up with that Next time because well, because we are already at 1106 and we only have 52 minutes left in the program so we have two other debates to get to and So I will continue on and switch on over to our friends down under where I'll be heading in a little over a month down to Sydney and Brisbane and Nope.

No, we're not taking a break today and Let's get back to the kunda green debate. This is the one with the not-so-excellent Quality of sound but I've been repeating the points that are being made. So at least hopefully the commentary is is understandable.

I. So there's Abdullah's assertion that the tranny comes from ignoring the explicit and believing the metaphorical and so we would have to view Abdullah kunda as an expert basically in identification of metaphor metaphorical language in in the Bible, so Metaphorically Thomas says my Lord and my God and metaphorically Jesus does not rebuke him for identifying him as God, but instead metaphorically identifies it as a statement of faith and Metaphorically the Apostle Paul refers to Jesus as God in Titus 2 13 and Peter does so in second Peter 1 1.

These are all just metaphors and what they are metaphors for we don't know. But they're just metaphors and the literal which is Abdullah's reading of Jesus allegedly being ignorant of power going out from him.

He doesn't really know who touched him and he's standing going Jay who touched me rather than the obvious reading of the text being that Jesus turns around specifically to bring forth the confession of faith from the woman and To minister to her and the men come which of Jairus's house and you have the whole story there in Mark and all that kind of stuff.

Really that that's not really I think a good way of. Okay, so there's a there's a literal verse a Literal verse John 14 28 and so I I Will want Abdullah to be consistent. Do you agree with everything else in John 14?

If John 14 28 has been passed down to us without corruption, how about the rest of the Gospel of John it has the same textual history to it and. And What does John 14 28 say you heard me say to you I am going away and I will come to you if You loved me.

You would have rejoiced because I'm going to the father for the father is greater than I. So what does that prove now in in mr. Kunda's mind? That proves a difference between the father and the son which the doctrine the Trinity is based upon.

We don't believe that the father became incarnate. We're gonna be dealing with a oneness Perspective on that very thing where they say it was the father became current if you want to go debate them on that subject.

You go ahead and do so, but you would have to realize that The vast majority of Christians do not see oneness theology as an expression of Christian theology. In fact, Sabelianism and modalism was condemned in the early church before Arianism was.