Gino Jennings Debate

The Debate Over a Public Moderated Format

There's nothing new under the sun. This is Geno Jennings and a little context to why he's sitting here next to me on the screen rather than in person. A little context. I have challenged him to a public moderated debate.

I did that in an article posted at the Bible Thumping Wingnut in 2018. I believe it was spring 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.

Geno 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 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 Geno 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 Geno 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 Geno 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 Vody Bokom to come because there is it seems in Geno'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 Vody would come. In fact the Bible thumping wingnut said that he would pay $5 ,000 to fly Vody Bokom from Zambia back to the United States to stand on the same stage with Geno 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. Vody Bokom you'd be welcome to come. We'd fly you in if you'd like to debate Geno. 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 Geno 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.

Recycled Anti-Trinitarian Movements in History

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 Laloos 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 Geno. 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, the whatever other language or title was given to Geno.

But it's 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 gonna let Geno go here for a minute. But again before I do that, just establishing what the Trinity is.

The Trinity in Scripture: One God, Three Persons

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 Geno 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, and 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 the essence of God, the being of God is oneness, is 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 is 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 Geno 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, you know, 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. There is, 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 chapter 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. Okay? So, in the Old Testament, you can't see the fullness of the Trinity but it's there in the references that we just 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 gonna trash that with some artificial, I don't know, language that doesn't 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. First 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. It's the same.

The Trinity Revealed in the New Testament

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 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. 2nd 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, 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. 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.

The Trinity Is Not a Roman Invention

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. 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 a hundred 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, it's the Shema of Israel, Deuteronomy 6 .4. 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 in to a text something that was not there and intended by the original author.

It's just obvious. First of all, there weren't even, 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 Sabellianism. You're gonna.

Beat our three gods back to hell. Okay, we believe in one God, so what are we debating here? If you're just gonna 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. Why are they speaking in tongues in the assembly? John 1 .1. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God. That's right. You're filled with the Spirit of God to fill us with the Holy Ghost. That's right.

Alright, 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.

So the point is, in Matthew 28 19, it's not just that 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 ten 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, in 2nd Corinthians 13 14, in Ephesians 4, and in 1st Corinthians 12 verses 4 to 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 through 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.

The Gospel and Christology Behind the Trinity Debate

One God. The trial of false gods in Isaiah 40 through 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 chapter 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. Yeah, 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 bad artwork.

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. He's fully God. When you see Jesus, you see the fullness of God with Him. That's the language of the Bible. Harmonize. 742. 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? 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's 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, halagos 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 logos 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.

The Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eternal Sonship of Christ

Trinity. It's not 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. But does that prove that there's not a distinction.

Between persons? No. Look at Daniel chapter 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 chapter 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 on to, 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. It'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. Straw man. It'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. Yeah, he reminds me of that substitute teacher skit a long time ago. Timothy, present. Mispronouncing words. Yeah, get him off there. I agree.

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, okay?

Matthew chapter 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 Sabalianism. To deny that is heresy. It denies the Son. 1st John 2 13, 1st John 4 2. That is to deny the Son of God. It's another Jesus. 2nd 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 Gino 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 of 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. 1st 2nd Corinthians 11 3 and 4. Another spirit. So, I pray that Gino Jennings will repent of oneness Pentecostalism.