Colossians 2:9 and King James Only Modalism!

Today's video is called One Who and Not Three Whos and this is a video exposing

Dr. James White, the famous author of the Forgotten Trinity and the

King James Only Debate. I am going to give a few scriptures here refuting this belief by James White that God is three whos.

I'll give you his quote in just a minute. Let's start off with Colossians 2 verses 9 and 10 and that will give us a good scripture to work from here.

Colossians 2 verse 9 says, speaking of Jesus Christ, For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the

Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him.

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him.

Now if this scripture is looked at carefully you will notice that all the fullness of God, whoever

God is, whatever God is, however many persons he is according to Trinitarians, all that fullness dwells in the body of Jesus Christ.

He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So if the Godhead is the Father, he is the fullness of the

Father in every respect, especially in bodily form.

It says ye are complete in him. Well Trinitarians would have us believe that we are not complete in Jesus Christ, that we need two other persons or we have rejected

God because we rejected a three person, three and sometimes three bodied

Trinity by some Trinitarians, but they will have us believe that by rejecting the Trinity we are rejecting

Jesus Christ and nothing could be further from the truth. The scripture says that we are complete in him, complete in Jesus Christ and if we are complete in him then we have no need for two other persons, we have all we need in Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2 .9 is a text that is used by many modalists as substantiation for their idea that in fact

Jesus is the Father or there is some confusion of Father, Son and Spirit depending on the specific group you are talking to there are variances as to exactly how they understand the relationship of the

Father and the Son and so on and so forth. But it is a favorite text of classical modalists.

However the text really is not supportive of that idea at all when you simply look at it because it says for in him all the fullness of deity, that is theatetos.

This gentleman is King James only so he uses the King James translation but Godhead is not an overly useful translation especially since the

King James confuses the issue by using the same English term Godhead to translate two different Greek words that are not synonymous with one another or are not being used in a synonymous fashion in the places they appear in the

New Testament over in Romans 1 and here in Colossians 2 .9. And so the term

Godhead is liable to be misused as this gentleman misused it. He said well if the

Godhead is the Father, theatetos refers to the being of God, the essence of God.

That which makes God, God dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form. Now it is true this is present tense, this is after the resurrection so obviously this is an affirmation of the continued deity of Christ and the fact that he is truly the

Godman even after his resurrection, a very important thing to keep in mind. But it is affirming, the deity of Christ, there is no question about that, but it is not in any way supportive of Unitarianism.

Look at the use that he made, even after saying all the fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form, then the next verse which was not fully read, and in him you have been made complete and he is the head over all rule and authority.

And so Paul's purpose is to respond to Proto -Gnosticism.

He is refuting that teaching which is coming into Colossae which in essence made Jesus one of the lesser, part of the

Pleroma, one of the lesser eons in the Gnostic pantheon of beings descending down from the good

God to the demiurge who is the creator of all things. And so he is refuting that, our speaker here does not make any reference to that which is unfortunate because it really leaves the text without its context.

The fact that it says in him you have been made complete would again be an anti -Gnostic polemic because you were not made complete in just one of the lesser eons, you had to go through all these mystical ceremonies and obtain this special kind of secret knowledge, that's why elsewhere

Paul says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, gnosis, are hidden in Jesus Christ.

But not only that, it's very clear if you just allow Colossians to speak for Colossians, that there is a distinction made between the

Father and the Son, very clearly in Colossians 1 .3, we give thanks to God, the

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you. We give thanks to God, the

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not one person being referred to here, clearly there are two persons being referred to here, and in Colossians 1 .12

-15 we read, giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

Now you wouldn't confuse the Father with the saints here, would you? Well of course not. For he rescued us from the domain of darkness, who did?

The Father. And transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son. Who is his beloved

Son? Was the Father's beloved Son. So the Father's beloved Son has a kingdom.

Now that again would refer to the deity of Christ, that's very important, but it clearly differentiates between the

Father and the Son. It says that in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, he is the image of the invisible

God, the firstborn of all creation. Clearly distinguishing, once again, between the Father and the

Son. So when we look at Colossians 2 .9, we need to recognize that it's not teaching Unitarianism in any way, shape, or form.

It is simply asserting the fact that all the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form.

Not that he's just one of the eons in a Pleroma, all the Pleroma, all the fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form.

There is no denial of the existence of the Father as a divine person. No denial of the existence of the

Holy Spirit as a divine person to be found anywhere in Colossians 2 .9 as it's understood in the context in which it was originally written.

I would love to debate you on this issue and just go ahead and look at a few of my videos and you might just see that you have a challenge here that you're just, that you just might want to take up because you're not going to be able to, you're not going to be able to mock my

Pentecostal UPC oneness, baptisms, tongue speaking, and all this other stuff that you like to attack.

No, I'm not involved in any of that. I've just been revealed simply who

Jesus Christ is because flesh and blood didn't reveal it unto me. Just like he revealed it to Paul, the

Lord is Jesus Christ and if you think that you're not complete unless you believe in three persons, then

I challenge you to debate me on this issue. Amen? All right, well I'll be looking forward to hearing from you

Dr. White and my YouTube audience I'm sure will. The problem in debating this particular gentleman on the subject of modalism is the fact that he's a

King James onlyist and that changes the foundation of the conversation.

You have two primary errors that you have to be dealing with. One is that you don't have a meaningful foundation for discussion as to what the final authority is and then you have to deal with the

Trinitarian errors that the man is presenting and as you just saw here, there's really a third and that is in essence he claims some sort of form of revelation that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but it was revealed to him by God and so if that's the case then the final answer you can give to anything is well,

God told me. So I don't see how that would be overly useful. I did respond to a number of other errors this gentleman made on my

Dividing Line webcast on May 8th of 2008 if you want to look in the archives for that.

I went through some other texts, 1 John 3 .16, a text from Hebrews chapter 9 as I recall as well but the problem really here is that you have someone who in essence is claiming some form of divine revelation utilizing a 17th century

Anglican translation which is not based upon the best Greek manuscripts and then combining that with a very bad misrepresentation of the