Gino Jennings Debate

You've just been brought up to date mentally and spiritually with the knowledge of the past that has already been given out because there's nothing new under the sun.

I did that in an article posted at the Bible Thumping Wingnut in 2018.

I believe it was spring 2018. And just this October on the 18th, I received a correspondence from their media department saying that they would like for me to come and appear at their end of the year services on December the 28th.

My name is Jeff Clewer. I'm the author of that article that appeared on Bible Thumping Wingnut.

I responded saying I would be happy to in principle, but it will need to be a public moderated debate.

There was a little back and forth in terms of emails after the 22nd of October.

And by November 18th, I had written saying that I would be happy to come, but I would require a 10 minute introduction.

Gino also would be given 10 minutes and then I would be able to respond without people talking over one another.

The reason this is important to me is because I watched the debate with Vegas and with this other guy from New York.

And just the level of discourse was not worth coming at that point. There needs to be structure to the conversation so that a person is allowed to speak.

Otherwise, the quote unquote conversation becomes counterproductive. So anyway,

I haven't heard back since November 18th. And so here we are December 10th. I'm assuming that because they fell silent that they don't want to do an actual debate.

The only thing that Mr. Jennings proposes is an opening statement for me to be given 10 minutes and then quote unquote open dialogue, which just seems counterproductive to me.

So I'm going to do this video where I'll allow Gino to speak and then

I will have time to actually respond to the points that are being made. I think he's talking about me in this video.

About halfway through, he'll mention an article that was written. And I think mine is the only one that would fit that bill, although I'm not a reporter.

So we'll get to Gino here. But before that, we've set the context. The idea is

I would like to do a debate where it's just me and a Bible and Gino and a Bible. Now, if he wants

Williams to be a reader for whatever reason, I think I would also want someone else to come with me.

I was talking to a guy just yesterday, the Bible thumping wingnut guy, actually said it would be awesome if we could get

Vodie Bauckham to come. Because there is, it seems in Gino's teaching, a bit of a racial undercurrent.

And you'll hear it in this video, kind of a disdain for all things European. So I don't know if it's like a social justicy kind of deal or what it is.

But in any case, there might not be as much respect by the listeners given to someone based on the color of their skin.

But I don't really buy that anyway. I would love it if Vodie would come. In fact, the Bible thumping wingnut said that he would pay $5 ,000 to fly

Vodie Bauckham from Zambia back to the United States to stand on the same stage with Gino Jennings.

And the audience could see the difference in knowledge of God's Word, in the authority that comes with the

Holy Spirit present. So that would be awesome. Vodie Bauckham, you'd be welcome to come.

We'd fly you in if you'd like to debate Gino. But I'll do the best I can.

Who am I? I'm nobody. But you know what? The truth doesn't need personality. The truth is the truth.

The Word of God stands on its own. And so, well, you know, Gino here talks about there's nothing new under the sun.

And that's really true to a sense. Well, there has to be an origination of some ideas at some point, but they tend to be recycled.

So Sabellianism, this idea of modalism, that God exists as a oneness, but He just appears in different modes of Father, Son, and Spirit, but really there are not distinct personalities.

That idea has been recycled throughout the ages. In fact, what I've noticed is there tends to be an anti -Trinitarian spirit that comes upon individuals.

So Muhammad in the 600s is visited by some kind of angel in a cave and begins really what is a non -Christian cult.

It's a non -Christian cult because Muhammad will write in one of the surahs, not by the inspiration of God, but by whatever the spirit is that's controlling him ever since his visitations.

He'll write, say not Trinity, desist, it will go better for you. Surah 4, 171.

He's visited by some kind of vision or some kind of angel and then becomes rabidly and aggressively anti -Trinitarian.

To the point where Muhammad, of course, shed the blood of Christians and Jews and anyone who disagreed with him, demonstrating by the fruit of his life that he was a false prophet.

Well, you see a similar spirit come on Joseph Smith in the 1800s.

And Joseph Smith, kind of taking a different course, but also rabidly anti -Trinitarian, sees some kind of vision of the

Father having a body and the Son having a body. We know Jesus is in the flesh and so he has a body, but the

Father is spirit. He sees this vision and creates a new cult called

Mormonism. Well, they've dropped that label now, but they're still Mormons. And Joseph Smith saw a vision and then became rabidly anti -Trinitarian.

There's La Luz Mundo in Mexico. Nason Garcia, actually he just got locked up for some kind of child pedophilia thing that was going on.

But he saw some kind of vision. He rallied millions of people behind him in a rabidly anti -Trinitarian,

Oneness Pentecostalism. And you see the same thing with Iglesia Ni Cristo in the

Philippines. I forget the name. Oh yeah, Eduardo Manalo. Oneness Pentecostalism sees a vision in that Pentecostal mania becomes rabidly anti -Trinitarian.

These movements pop up from time to time and that's the case with with Gino. He says he has seen

Jesus and he is restoring us, the church.

Well, he wouldn't include us as being in the church. We would be some kind of false apostasy. He is the

Restorationist. And so these Restorationist doctrines claim to be what the original

New Testament was all about. Only it was lost by human tradition. When in fact, these are human traditions.

These are human traditions that pop up for a period of time until they fail. Whereas with Christ, His truth continues to march on and can never be opposed.

So, there will be pretenders, false Christs, false prophets who preach another

Jesus, have another spirit and a different gospel. In my article, I basically made three allegations.

One is that this is a man -centered cult. It's built around the prophet, the apostle, the general overseer, whatever other language or title was given to Gino.

But it's built around one uber entertaining man. Just a man.

It's man -centered on the personality of its founder, one. Number two, it's anti -Trinitarian.

So, it has a different God. And then number three, it has a different gospel. So, you'll see things like you must be baptized by a certain mode,

Jesus name only, and speak in tongues in order to demonstrate that a person is truly born again.

So, these works creep in and there's a Judaizing of the gospel and a legalism that attaches to it.

So, these were the charges that I brought in my article and those are the things I would defend. We're going to let

Gino go here for a minute. But again, before I do that, just establishing what the

Trinity is. The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible.

Neither does the word Bible appear in the Bible. So, when I was watching the Vegas debate, that's where Gino debated

Vegas, he kept just hounding him saying, I want Bible! I want

Bible! I want Bible! But the word Bible does not appear in the

Bible. Similarly, the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept does.

The Bible as a concept appears in the Bible, but the word is not there. Similarly, the Bible clearly teaches the

Trinity. How so? Well, really just two points. There is only one God.

There's only one God. Mark 12, 29, Deuteronomy 6, 4, Deuteronomy 32, the trial of false gods in Isaiah 40 to 48, over and over again, there is only one

God. Okay, it's James chapter 2, it's all over the scriptures, Old and New Testament.

But secondly, there are three who are fully God. So, there's a distinction between persons, kind of the who of God, whereas the what of God, the essence of God, the being of God is oneness,

He's one, one God. There are three persons who are

God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. And these are distinct persons who address one another with personal pronouns.

Mark chapter 1, you are my Son. So, the

Father distinguishing between Himself and the Son, there is some distinction.

So, if you lose either that diversity or the unity of God, so the

Mormons would lose the unity of God and say that there's actually three gods, or a one as Pentecostal will lose the diversity and collapse all distinctions so that there are no longer three persons in the

Trinity. In either case, you've denied the Trinity. Are both assertions biblical?

Well, we've already established, you know, the oneness of God, that He's one being.

Mark 12, 29, Jesus said is the most important thing. You can't deny that. But are there differences, are there distinctions between the persons of the

Trinity? In the Old Testament, you see that God does refer to Him in a singular pronoun, but He also uses the name

Elohim, which is a plural. You see in the Old Testament where God says, let us make man in our image.

Now, we don't have time to debate each individual point. That's what I'm challenging Gino Jennings and I to do so that we're not just, you know, proof texting verses here and there.

But to harmonize that truth, you must take that truth seriously, that there is distinction.

You can't say, let us make man in our image refers to God talking to angels because angels are not made in the image of God, nor are they creators.

It's God speaking within Himself, Father to Son or Holy Spirit to both.

Let us make man in our image. Harmonize that with the truth of His oneness.

So in the Old Testament, you have that. You have passages that distinguish between God and God in Genesis 18 and 22 and Psalm 110.

Not that there are more than one God, but God the Son is referred to with one word and God the

Father with another. For example, Psalm 110, the Lord said to my Lord, let me sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool under your feet.

And then you see that it's the Melchizedekian priesthood in verse 4 and following. So the language of Elohim and Yahweh.

One saying that to the other. In the Old Testament, there is a distinction between persons.

The Lord said to my Lord. The 3 -4 liturgical formula of Isaiah 6.

Holy, holy, holy. You see that as a hint towards the gospel. The remarkable phenomenon of the appearance of the angel of Jehovah.

Daniel 3, verse 25. Isaiah 53. You see the suffering servant presented as someone who the

Father is punishing in the stead of sinners. Well, in the

New Testament, we learn that this person actually is God. So without that New Testament light, we would only know that there's a distinction between the

Father and the Son. But by the New Testament, we learn that there's also oneness.

But Isaiah 53 only makes sense from a Trinitarian perspective. So that's in the Old Testament, but B .B.

Warfield describes it as being like a room that's fully furnished, but dimly lit. And every once in a while, things almost come into view, but you can't quite make out what's there.

So in the Old Testament, you can't see the fullness of the Trinity, but it's there in the references that we just showed you.

However, once the New Testament light comes, and let's say the baptism of Jesus where the Father speaks from heaven, the

Son is being baptized in the water, the Spirit descends like a dove, and the three persons of the

Trinity are distinguished by personal pronouns. And in John 14 to 16, you learn that there's been love between the different persons of the

Trinity for all eternity. When you see these distinctions come from the New Testament, it shines light back upon the

Old Testament, and we can see clearly that God has been Trinity all along. Mark 12, 29 stresses monotheism.

Deuteronomy 6, 4. Deuteronomy 32. We'll see all of these things, but the distinctions are made clear as well.

So in John 17, verse 5, Jesus prays, Glorify me with the glory

I had with you. To take seriously the language of the Bible. If the

Bible is meaningful at all, the personal pronouns need to have meaning, and with, as a preposition, needs to have meaning.

Otherwise, you have trashed the Bible. John 1, 1. In the beginning was the

Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He's with God.

What does that mean in human language? God speaks in human language, and if you're just going to trash that with some artificial,

I don't know, language that doesn't account for that clear distinction between persons, then you're just not treating the text with respect.

You're disrespecting God's Word. Mark 1, 11. First -person pronouns. 1

John 4, 8. God is love. How is it that God is love without a creation, before the creation of the world?

God is love. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in a perfect unity, in perfect love, one for another.

The love of God is shown in who He is, without needing a creation. He doesn't need to create something in order to love.

The love that He has, being centered on the other. Father, to Son, to Spirit.

Distinction between persons. And we could go on and on. Maybe I'll address some of them as we go along. But the teaching from the

New Testament is absolutely clear, and to deny it is to deny the God of the Bible. No new knowledge, because all revelations must be written in order to prove it.

Because Jesus said, His abilities are on me, as the Scripture has said.

See, the Scripture never said that Jesus is the second person in the Godhead. So when someone comes and says,

I've got a revelation, Jesus is the second person in the Godhead. Jesus said to believe on Him, as the

Scripture has said. So you're going to have to run to the Scripture, where Jesus said, He's the second person.

Or where any other apostle said, He's the second person. Or where the prophet said, He's the second person.

And if you can't find it in Him, I don't pay no mind out there. It's the same argument that Muslims make when they say,

Show me in the Bible where Jesus says these exact words, I am God. You can't show me, therefore

He doesn't claim to be God. Well, that is a ridiculous argument. You can't put certain words and demand that Jesus say those words in order for you to believe

Him. He can say things, and see, God has a right of self -disclosure. He can disclose

Himself as He decides to disclose Himself. He has the right to do things as He desires.

And the way He desired to do things is to speak some things dimly lit in the

Old Testament between the Testaments to reveal the Trinity in the coming of the person of Jesus Christ.

God in flesh dwelling among us. Who then says that He would return to the right hand of the

Father and send another Counselor. The Holy Spirit. So in Pentecost, the

Trinity is fully revealed. Let's say that's 33 AD, maybe 30 AD. Scholars differ on that.

At whatever point Pentecost has happened, the Son has been revealed and the Spirit has been given.

The believers are functional Trinitarians. It's been revealed to them in the very bottom.

They have touched His hands. They have seen Him. So they're Trinitarian in seeing the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They're there at the Transfiguration, at the Baptism. So then when the New Testament is written, beginning in the 40s and then all the way through 95

AD, it assumes Trinitarianism at every point. So you see the Trinity referenced again and again.

2 Corinthians 13, 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus Christ.

And the love of God. Theos, referring to the Father. And the fellowship, the koinonia, of the

Holy Spirit. There's a Trinitarian formula assumed and it's done casually throughout the

New Testament because they're functional Trinitarians. So the Bible has disclosed these things.

God has a right to do it that way. You can't come along, Gino, and demand that God say it a certain way that you want it to be said.

No, God has the right. You can't put Him in a box and make Him do things the way you want

Him to do it or else you won't believe it. No, He has the right of self -disclosure.

No, it's not right. Williams, it's not right. You fool.

We don't serve a schizophrenic God. What Gino is doing here is anthropomorphizing

God. Acting as if God must be like man. So man becomes the standard.

If a man were to have multiple personality disorder, he would be schizophrenic. Granted, God is something entirely bigger and different from us.

You can't take your category and your understanding of multi -personality disorder, schizophrenia, whatever, and press that upon God.

God is who He is and reveals Himself as He is. He doesn't need to clear that with you,

Gino Jennings. So you can't... See, here's the thing. God is not like anything in creation.

He's greater. You would expect a depth and an intensity and a mystery of who

He is because He's God. You wouldn't expect to see it reflected in creation in an analogy that would explain

Him because He's bigger than the analogy. So humanity, being made in the image of God, can, to a degree, reflect like the moon to the sun, reflecting that light back to us and help us understand aspects of God's personality.

But He's bigger than man. So this analogy is man -centered, again, man -centered.

Son, Williams, it's not right. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come from Rome.

In fact, Athanasius, who was fighting the non -Trinitarian Arius, who was coming from the north,

Athanasius is from Alexandria, Egypt. And his leader, the bishop before him, the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander happened to be his name, fought for the

Trinity in the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD. This word was used to explain a truth that was already in the

Bible because you had false teachers coming denying the Trinity. And it was the

Europeans to the north, the emperors, who eventually sided with the Arians for almost 100 years.

So, Athanasius is exiled in Africa, whereas the

Europeans are becoming Arian. Many of the emperors exiled

Athanasius until finally his true doctrine of the Trinity, which didn't originate with him, by the way, it was there with Tertullian, and it goes all the way back.

The doctrine, the concept, goes all the way back, Matthew 28, 19, and all through the New Testament. It's the assumed theology until challenged by false teachers, it had to be refuted.

But this idea that it came from Rome, from Europe, the opposite, the opposite is true.

It was the Africans and Athanasius, his bishop, Alexander before him, that were defending the doctrine against impositions from the north.

Well, yeah. Yeah. It's the

Shema of Israel, Deuteronomy 6, 4. That's right.

Yeah, that's man -made religion. That is not the meaning of the author who wrote that text, inspired by the

Holy Spirit, that is man -made eisegesis of the text. Eisegesis means to read into a text something that was not there and intended by the original author.

It's just obvious. First of all, it wasn't just one stone that David gathered, so that can't be the point that the author is trying to make.

Yeah, and the smoothness of the stone represents unity. No, it has nothing to do with that.

It's a stone. It doesn't say that in the text. It doesn't mean that. It's just eisegesis. It's reading into the text, and it's that kind of mishandling of Scripture that results in Sebellianism.

Amen. Trinity is of the devil. That's right. Listen to that passage.

There's a reporter. I don't know who the reporter is. Wrote an article up on me and put it up there. Will it be some

Christian? They said, Pastor Jennings, and that first church of our Lord Jesus Christ is a cult because he believe in one

God, and he don't believe in the fundamentals of Trinity. Let me say to every

Bible scholar, every preacher, black, white, yellow, and red, you come on here with your three gods, and I take my one.

Let's have a showdown and see if I don't beat all your three back to hell. That's right. You're going to beat our three gods back to hell.

Okay, we believe in one God. So, what are we debating here?

If you're just going to create a straw man and burn it, then who are you debating? Deuteronomy 6 -4, the

Shema. Yeah, we believe the Lord our God is one. That's our doctrine. But your people thought that that was a good point.

The three God teaching, yeah, Joseph Smith's doctrine is of the devil. Joseph Smith's Mormon doctrine of three gods is of the devil.

Correct. We are not Mormons. Hold it!

Why are they speaking in tongues in the assembly? Look at the word record.

Record means something is recorded. So, there's something recorded in heaven about three.

Not three gods, but three titles. That's right. Listen, for there are three that they record in heaven.

What is it? The Father. Who is the Father? God. Who is the

Father? God. What else? The Word. Who is the Word? God.

John 1 -1. John 1 -1. What else? And the

Holy Ghost. Who is the Holy Ghost? It is not God. The Holy Ghost is the

Holy Spirit. The Bible says there's one Spirit, and the Bible tells you who that Spirit is. And John 4 -24 says God is the

Spirit. When you're filled with the Holy Ghost, you're filled with God. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God. When you're filled with the

Spirit of God, you're filled with the Holy Ghost. That's right. So, Father, Word, Holy Ghost.

These three. And these three are one. Those are the titles. That's right. He's Father. Why? He's the creator of everything.

He's the Word because He sends His Word through men to preach and to lead you to Him.

He's the Holy Ghost because He comes to fill you and put you in His church, in the body of Christ.

But that's not all. All right. So, he's building an argument off of 1

John 5 -7, the Kama Yohanan, not realizing that he's relying on the

King James Version of the Bible, which relies on five Greek manuscripts, none of them earlier than,

I think, the 1100s. And all the early manuscripts of the

New Testament, the Greek manuscripts from the textual tradition, are absent 1

John 5 -7. So, he's arguing from a book, a translated version of the

Bible, which admittedly is a great translation, however not perfect, not inerrant in the translation.

The original autographs are inerrant. Translated by Englishmen, Europeans, Trinitarians, and relying on 1

John 5 -7, he's refuting their doctrine as if it's mere tradition, not knowing that he's writing the

King James Tradition to his conclusion. So, he probably doesn't even know that 1

John 5 -7 is not part of the Scripture. That's just what we're dealing with.

But he will say that the book of Jasher and Enoch, which are clear late forgeries, which are not the

Jasher and Enoch referred to in the Scriptures, that those are to be part of the canon.

And he will rely on the Apocrypha, which the

Roman Catholic Church brought into the Bible in 1546 at the

Council of Trent. And so he's more of a Romanist in terms of his bibliology.

It's unbelievable. You can get more than three.

So, the point is, in Matthew 28 -19, it's not just that God exists in three persons, but because name is the singular, there's a oneness, which we agree with, by the way, he collapses the distinctions as if those are only titles,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And he could have just kept going on. There could have been a quadratic equation, or what is 5 or 6 or 7, 8, 9.

He could have listed 10 titles there. There's nothing significant to the fact that the three are listed in Matthew 28 -19.

Those are just titles. He could have gone on with Savior or all these others. It's as if Geno has never read the

New Testament cover to cover to see the repetition of the Trinitarian formula that you see in the baptism of Matthew 28 -19 all throughout the

Scripture. 2 Corinthians 13 -14, Ephesians 4, 1

Corinthians 12, verses 4 -6. In Ephesians chapter 1, where it's the

Father who predestines. It's the Son who accomplishes redemption. It's the

Spirit who then applies redemption. Chapter 1, verse 3 -14. It's as if Geno doesn't read the

Trinitarian conception of God in the New Testament. It could have just been any number, 4, 5, 6, 7, but the

Trinitarian formula is from cover to cover. Then why have you not accepted the debate?

Why does it have to be 10 minutes and then quote -unquote open dialogue? I challenge you to a public, moderated debate.

I think the doctrine of Trinitarianism versus your doctrine of Unitarianism deserves that kind of respect.

A 10 -minute opening, a 10 -minute rebuttal given to each, 20 -minute cross -examination alternating, where I'll control the floor for 20 minutes and then you control the questioning for 20 minutes, and then closing statements.

Does it not deserve that? Proverbs 18 -17, one man seems right until another comes and examines him.

I appreciate Geno's humor. Okay, we believe that there is only one

God. The trial of false gods in Isaiah 40 -48, that's the point, there is only one

God. The idols of the nations are lies. The question is, are you, Geno, able to deal with the distinction of persons in the personal pronouns in Mark 1, in Genesis 1, 26 -28, are you able to deal with the actual language of the text, the word with.

The Son is with God. We serve one

God. One God. There is definitely a racial undercurrent with Geno's teaching.

It's those Europeans who stepped in. This is funny.

And you say that's the Trinity. No, that's artwork. And bad artwork.

Acts 7, verse 55. But he being full of the

Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus, Oh, my goodness.

He's standing on the right hand of God. Right business. And you see, that is true.

It's true. It's true. Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

Well, that would make two of them up there. According to men. Well, first, let's see who

Jesus was. Give me Titus. Chapter 2, and verse 13.

And then we'll go back to Acts. I want you all to follow me now. I want to take you to school.

This is Saturday. Amen. What many say, this is Saturday. And we're going to rest in the

Scriptures here. That's right. Listen. Titus, chapter 2, and verse 13. All right. Looking for that blessed hope.

I preach Jesus Christ as God, and there is no God but he. And not the flesh. The flesh was not

God. The flesh never was God. The flesh can't be God. Because flesh, God don't have a mother.

The flesh was a body that God worked in to redeem you and I. God was in that body.

That's why Paul said, God was in Christ. He's the righteous son of the world. And so on down. If you don't have one person.

If Jesus in taking on human flesh is not one person. God and man.

In one. Then his death on the cross. Does not stand in the gap between God and man.

It's a gospel issue. If the son of God does not take on human flesh.

And the crucifixion of his flesh. Pays the penalty for man.

If he's not fully God in the flesh. The word became flesh.

Then no substitute for sin has been made. The wrath of God has not been propitiated in this doctrine.

The great God. And the glorious appearing of who? And the glorious appearing of our

Savior. What's his name? Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the great

God? And the glorious appearing of the great God. And he's our Savior? And our

Savior. Who is it? Jesus Christ. Now go back to the book of Acts. He's fully God. That's why you need a Dawson preacher to come to these scriptures.

That makes them harmonized. That's right. Back in Acts 7 in verse 55. By me being full of the

Holy Ghost. He being full of the Holy Ghost. Looked up steadfastly into heaven. And seeing what? And saw the glory of God.

And? And Jesus standing on the right hand of God. If the Bible says Jesus Christ is God. How can

Jesus stand on the right hand of God?

When you see Jesus, you see the fullness of God. With him.

That's the language of the Bible. Contradict.

You got to make it harmonized. Harmonize. That's right.

It's in? Deuteronomy chapter 32 and verse 39. He is God. Let us see now. I want you to see it when?

Now. When? Now. 742. What is it?

Now. It's 742 right now. Now. Say what? See now that I. I. Even I.

Stop talking. I, even I. And he. And them. He. They. He. We. He. Us. He.

So when God says in John 10 30, Jesus speaking,

I and my Father are one. Are you able to go to the

Greek and read the plurality in the Greek? I and my father.

We are one because the verb is plural. We are one.

So if the Bible uses that language and you oppose that language, then who are we to believe?

And he. What? But he before the

Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly into heaven. What did he say? And saw the glory of God. And? And Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

But what did God say? And there is no God with me. And what did the book of Acts say? And Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

And what did the book of Deuteronomy say? And there is no God with me. So you got to have a preacher to come between both those scriptures and make it harmonized.

That's right. Systematic theology is harmonizing scripture.

But we don't need this systematic theologian. This is philosophy. This is tradition.

This philosopher is coming in and interpreting contra the word of God. Because John 1 .1

says, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was

God. The word was with God. So if Jesus is the word, he is with God as well as being

God. There is a distinction as well as a unity.

A .T. Robertson said this, And the word was God. Kytheos in halagos.

That's the expression in the Greek. By exact and careful language, John denied

Sabellianism by not saying, Hatheos in halagos.

That would mean that all of God was expressed in halagos. And the terms would be interchangeable.

Each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article, halagos.

In other words, the article ha, the definite article, identifies the subject.

Even though theos comes first and halagos comes second, the article is affixed to halagos.

That means the word is the subject of the sentence. And the predicate without it, theos, just as in John 4 .24,

pneuma ha theos can only mean God is spirit, not spirit is

God. Sabellianism would identify the two as being the same thing.

Now when you see Jesus, you see the fullness of God. But you cannot say that Jesus is the

Father. By the very language of this text. Another example, 1 John 4 .16,

Hatheos agape esten can only mean God is love. Okay, so if you go to 1

John 4 .16, look in the Greek, you'll find hatheos agape esten.

What's the subject? The article is affixed to theos. So hatheos, God is love.

But you cannot say love is God. That's what like some

Christian scientists would say. That love is God. No, the article is affixed to the subject.

It identifies that God is the subject and God is love. John 1 .14,

halagas sarx eganeto, the word became flesh. You can't say the flesh became word.

The language of the Greek prohibits that, okay? Luther will argue that here

John also disposes of Arianism because the halagas was eternally God.

So it really comes down to does the Bible have the right to teach us or do we need

Geno Jennings to come as an interpreter for us and stand in the gap and harmonize for us?

See, the scripture teaches the Trinity. Little God, big

God. The doctrine of the Trinity is that each member of the Trinity is co -eternal, equal.

There's not little and big. That would be subordinationism. Stephen saw

Jesus standing in the power of the night or in the power of the spirit.

That's right. He saw him standing in the power of the spirit.

That's right. In the glory of God. That's right. But does that prove that there's not a distinction between persons?

No. Look at Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days, and one, like a son of man, comes and presents himself before the

Ancient of Days. I like Williams.

So Jesus taught us to pray, Father. We pray to the Father, through the Son, by the

Spirit. That's Catholic stuff. You owe that to the

Reformers. He was just that.

That's it. That's heresy. That's all He was, just an example. And He became the

Son at some point. No, He is the Eternal Son. 1 John 2 .13, 1 John 4 .2 explain that if you deny that the

Son of God has come in the flesh, meaning He's the Son of God before He comes, Philippians 2, the kenosis of God, He doesn't regard equality something to be grasped, equality with God, the

Father, with Theos, something to be held onto, but makes Himself nothing. So, before making

Himself nothing, He has equality with the Father, He makes Himself nothing, empties

Himself, becomes in the form of a servant, taking the very nature of a servant, is crucified in weakness.

An example. He's more than an example.

He's the representative new Adam, who's the substitute for our sins.

He makes propitiation for us because He became man. He didn't become an angel to die for angels.

He became a man to reconcile men to God, a particular people, if you go on to Titus 2 .14.

We don't believe in two gods. Which I heard, as it were,

I was trumpet talking with you, which said, come up here, and I will show you things which must be hereafter.

And immediately, I was in the Spirit. Straw man.

That's a good point. We shouldn't have pictures of Jesus. If you go to the

Mormon church, he's always that lily white with the long flowing hair, looks very effeminate. He reminds me of that substitute teacher skit a long time ago.

Timothy, present. Mispronouncing words.

Yeah, get him off there. I agree.

You're right. Go ahead, brother. So, that's

Geno Jennings. Challenged him to a debate, waiting for him to accept.

Until that time, this will have to just stand as the best we can do. We can't get him to sit down and talk.

The Bible clearly teaches the Trinity. Matthew 28, verse 19 says,

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name, one

God, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. To deny those distinctions of personhood, and the eternal distinction.

In Micah 5, chapter 5, verse 2, The eternal coming one, the one who will be born in Bethlehem.

But you, Bethlehem, though you are small among the tribes of Israel, yet out of you will come forth the one to be ruler of Israel, whose goings forth are from everlasting to everlasting.

That's the Son, the one to be born. The Son is given in Isaiah 9, 6.

The Son is given, the child is born. Meaning, he takes on flesh in birth.

As he's conceived by the Holy Spirit, born into the world, a body you have prepared for me. But the

Sonship of Jesus is eternal. To deny that, that's

Sabellianism. To deny that is heresy. It denies the

Son, 1 John 2, 13, 1 John 4, 2. That is to deny the

Son of God. It's another Jesus, 2 Corinthians 11, verse 3 and 4.

So, it's serious. It is a denial of the Trinity. Now, you'll find that a person's

Christology informs their Soteriology. The two are connected.

So, the Christology that's presented here is resulting in a oneness Pentecostalism that demands, because it's no longer by grace, sola gratia, it's by work, a man -centered work.

Because of that, what you will find is a very man -centered gospel. You'll find that Geno Jennings demands that a person speak in tongues in order to demonstrate that they have been baptized by the

Spirit. And as a proof of salvation. That's legalism. He's Judaizing the gospel.

It's another gospel. It's another gospel. Not the gospel by grace through faith alone.

So, adding these works and these things that they must do. And so, you'll see a real heavy -handed legalism attached with this kind of Christology.

So, it's false in terms of its gospel. It's false in terms of the Christ that it offers.

It's operating and animated by another Spirit. 2 Corinthians 11, 3 and 4.

Another Spirit. So, I pray that Geno Jennings will repent of oneness

Pentecostalism. Will believe in the one true God who has come in the flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ.

A distinct person from the Father. And the Spirit coming at Pentecost.

The one true God, three in one. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. I pray Geno believes it.

And I pray for those who have been listening to this teacher, this harmonizer of Scripture, who doesn't harmonize all of God's Word.

I pray that you also, dear listener, will repent of this and believe in the one true

God. And that God is Trinity. The Word is not in the Bible, but the concept is clearly taught.

Let us make man in our image. Philippians chapter 2, verses 5 to 11.

He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. And I'll just mention this for just a minute.

He had equality with God. It wasn't something to be grasped. But Jehovah's Witness will say, well, it wasn't something to be obtained.

As if he didn't just lurch forward and try to grab from God something that didn't belong to him.

That would not be a demonstration of humility. But the context of Philippians 2 is the humility of Christ that we should then try to imitate.

Well, it wouldn't be humble to not try to take something that didn't belong to him. But if he already had that in glory and he didn't hang on to it, but humbled himself to be made a man, that is a demonstration of humility.

He didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, becoming a man, taking on human flesh and dying the death that we deserve.

I pray that you'll believe in the true Jesus. I am available if anybody wants to reach out to Cornerstone Church here in Mount Laurel.

I would love to talk with you and lead you to that one true Christ. But you can come to him now through the