Marcus Rodgers Video Reviewed, Jacob Prasch Attacks Again, ISIS Attacks the Cross

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday afternoon. I think on Thursday I may have some pre-debate commentary to offer. We have debate Friday evening in SoCal, Southern California, on the subject of Calvinism and once again, well, it's, I'm sorry, the subject of Romans chapter 9.

I would really, really like it to be on Romans chapter 9. But I, I harbor doubts that it will stay focused upon the text. Not only have I done debates on Romans chapter 9 before that didn't stay on the text and almost never got to the text, actually, when you think about it.

But this morning I was listening, I, back when this debate was originally scheduled for June, I had put together a number of clips from Steve Tassi, the gentleman that I'm going to be engaging with there in Southern California, about an hour and a half's worth of videos.

Now my hope is, my honest hope is, that since these videos, I think were from around 2009, my, my, my hope is that things have sort of changed since 2009 because there was just a truckloads, truckloads of this guy just on fire everywhere.

And so my, my hope is that that has changed and that we won't be inundated with lengthy discussions of Calvinism is fatalism, the Calvinistic God is Satan, some strange constant repetition of some objection to limited atonement that I never heard fully explained.

But just a tremendous amount of redefinition of Reformed Theology. Hopefully that will, that's been cleared up and is no longer a part of the conversation. I've only heard a small amount of discussion of Romans 9 and, and basically it was nations and dispensationalism.

If that's still the perspective, great. Hey, as long as we're in the text, as long as we're just looking at the word, then hopefully something very positive can, can come out of that. But that's what we're going to be doing on Friday evening.

And so I may play some of those and again, in the hopes of helping the conversation along, shall we say on, on Friday evening. Speaking of conversations, I have two videos to cover today. Very thankful that and, and the only thing he asked for his time was a shout out to Drew Kohler.

Okay, Drew. Drew is the one that had responded to, well, a couple people, you know, Paula Guia did too, but I think they only did audio. But we just couldn't find Marcus Rogers' video. I had seen it. Oh, I had seen part of it anyways.

We had people turning Facebook upside down and going to archive sites and everything else. He had pulled video and I guess I heard someone say that somewhere he had made a comment that he didn't want to debate.

Anyway, we did track down Marcus Rogers' video where he addresses me. And so we're going to take a look at that first. Some of you may recall that a number of months ago evidently, I don't know a lot about the gentleman, but evidently he's been promoting a form of oneness modalism.

And we had responded to him then and this is his response. And so we'll take a look at the at the arguments. Are these the best arguments out there? Not even, no. But in our day it's actually there's even more incumbent upon us today than there has been in the past.

You need to know the best arguments and be able to respond to them recognizing that you will rarely run into them. But if all you know are the bad arguments, when you encounter somebody with the good arguments, then you're not going to be prepared.

And if you know the good arguments, then you can allow that to sort of prioritize and improve your arguments even against the bad arguments. So in other words, there are bad responses to bad arguments.

I know, you know, going way back, you'd hear bad Mormon arguments. And then I'd hear bad Christian responses to bad Mormon arguments. And if you if you are prepared for the best, then hopefully the responses you give to lesser arguments will still be consistent.

So if you're, you know, one of the things that would happen to us a lot up in Salt Lake City or out in Mesa or something like that during the Easter conference, Easter pageant, would be you'd have a whole group around you.

And one of the things we learned early on was you never really knew who was out on the fringes, you know, just just listening in. And some of the best conversations we had were with people who had been impressed by the answers we had given to others.

And they themselves were more advanced in their understanding of Mormonism. And they could tell that we were accurately representing Mormonism even in giving our responses to lesser Mormon arguments. And so they were impressed by that and that gave us opportunity.

So I think it's always important. You know, I think especially internet warriors and I I know there's, I know given the age we live in, we have to interact with people in that context. We have to you know, I get it.

But the reality is that those those conversations can sometimes be extremely taxing on the spirit and when that personal aspect is not there. Sometimes that's where the the nastiness comes from, the lack of love and everything else.

But I'm not going to get into that right now. I don't have time for it. Anyway, point is that Marcus Rogers' arguments for modalism are extremely poor. Extremely shallow, simplistic. It's very plain. This is not meant to be offensive.

It's a simple observation. It's very plain. He has never listened to the other side. Has never done any serious study of these issues. Has never, even sounds like, even listened to a meaningful debate on any of these, you know, read books.

Nothing like that. It's, you know, the spirit told me this and God told me that and and just a general misunderstanding of scripture as a whole. But that's the kind of stuff you run into a lot. Now, it's good to know how leading oneness advocates argue their case so that you can be consistent in your responses, but most of the time you're not going to be taking on the leading representatives of the particular movement that you're dealing with.

You're going to be dealing with more with someone in Marcus Rogers' position. So let's take a listen to what he had to say and give a brief response and then after that Jacob Prosh is back and I don't enjoy dealing with Jacob Prosh, but, you know, I've decided that at least once again, what we're doing is we're illustrating how synergists like Prosh can be completely controlled by their tradition.

But with Prosh, what you get is and this is really common in sort of the Dave Hunt, Prosh spectrum of stuff, you get this well, Prosh always sounds like he's screaming. You know, it just maybe it's just him maybe this is how, you know, he talks to young children too and they go running and screaming to their parents in terror, but he just he abuses language.

He can be very abusive. Someone sent me a graphic where they had strung together a bunch of stuff and if I wanted to invest the time, didn't want to, I could have put together a bunch of, you know, ad hominems, vituperative language just from this one video, just way over the top stuff.

But that just seems to be, you know, his followers seem to want to have that kind of, to be honest with you, he's a little bit like a certain political guy right now in national politics in the United States.

Just always over the top, always saying things that really aren't overly defensible. So anyway, what he does is he accuses me of doing the very things he himself is doing. And so it is illustrative that after all these videos now, he still refuses to get into 1 Timothy 2 and recognize the issue of the intercessory work of Christ.

Doesn't touch it. It's just like it's not even there. It's just like anything I say about it just just goes right by. There's a filter in the way. But then there's some other stuff and really the abuse of church history.

And did you all know that my ministry is called Radio Free Geneva? Did you know that? I didn't know that. I figured most people recognize that Radio Free Geneva is a feature on our webcast. The webcast is called The Dividing Line, has been since about 19...

Uh, yeah, okay, 87-ish. You know, 30 years or so. And that the name of the ministry is called Alpha Omega Ministries. I thought that was sort of clear, but there's a whole lengthy section about how foolish and irrational I am to name my ministry after a city where I would have been killed.

Which is certainly... Okay. All right. But we'll get to that one a little bit later. Let's, if I can find the cursor here. Wee! And you have four monitors and it's on the farthest one out. You gotta do the...

And the hand's working again. Isn't that great? The body is a wonderful thing. And though, I didn't tell you this. I started thinking about it yesterday. And I got up at 1 30 this morning. I was gone by 2 10, just under 101 miles.

And that's a ride, especially with how warm and humid it is. That was getting toward the end. It was ugh. But I was getting a little nervous about running into another one of these stinging insects things out there.

Well, no, because I had a pharmacist tell me that basically say, have you been getting more and more severe reactions each time? And I'm like, uh, yeah. Well, then that's just going to keep happening and it's going to get bad.

So, um uh, guess, guess who now has an EpiPen with him? When he, uh, when he rides. Yep. Yep. I hate to have to drag that thing along, but uh, you know, when you're going down a hill at sunrise at 25 miles an hour, you just don't even see them.

You know, they're, they're in your glasses before you even know it, you know, it's just nothing you can do about it. So, um, I did see again some interesting stuff. There are a lot of coyotes, um, in the city, in the city, uh, and, and a lot of them are not afraid of a guy on a bike.

Um,.

They, they, they don't. I have seen a coyote walk down the middle of my street and just look at people in their yards as if, yeah, no big deal. I'm just going my way. Yeah, nothing, no fear whatsoever.

Yep. Yep, definitely. I mean, I've not seen any of them in, uh, in, in my neighborhood, thankfully, or my cats would, would be munchie toys, but, um,.

I do recall one time when I was your next door neighbor seeing a roadrunner, a, oh yeah, sure, a two foot tall roadrunner. Oh, yeah, going down the middle of the street. That was the only time I ever saw that.

My mom loved roadrunners. Anyway, I don't know if it had anything to do with Wile E. Coyote or not, but, uh, she loved roadrunners. All right, is this what you were looking for? Um, someone just posted a picture of the apostolic father's lightfoot harmer Holmes.

I'm, not sure what you mean looking for it, but I, I have that. That's what I use in class. But anyway, all right, let's get to, um, Marcus Rogers here, uh, because the, the hour goeth byeth.

He said, Hey Marcus, when are you going to respond to a Dr. James White in the videos that he's made about you being a false teacher? I didn't really feel the need to because the Bible says he who has an ear let him hear, and I feel that, you know, he's so much older that he wouldn't really hear anything that I would have to say.

Well, Sonny,.

Well, Sonny, I, it's just cause you talk so fast. I can't under, no. Um, hey, I get that, you know, uh, I suppose what he's, you know, referring to is there is a tendency, you know, if he's a young guy, uh, what does he know, right?

Well, but it goes both directions, Marcus. Um, the fact of the matter is if you would, if you're really serious about what you believe, you might want to think about the fact that, um, there have been people who have been teaching this before you, and there has been interaction before you, and have you taken the time to consider, uh, the responses that have been provided to individuals such as yourself?

Um, this is not a new, uh, teaching, and from what I can hear from your presentations, you don't know what the answers to your arguments are. You really have not given them meaningful, uh, consideration whatsoever.

It's always easy to go, well, you know, he who has ears to hear. Well, you know, I can say, say the same thing about you, and then there would be no conversation whatsoever, but...

You hear the word of God, all right? I believe that he loves God according to what he knows, and maybe he has good intentions, but just like this Buddhist temple right here, they have good intentions too.

They come here every week, and they worship, and they pray to their God, you know, when they're faithful and they're dedicated, but the thing is their God is not real.

Well, um, okay. Uh, I could utilize all sorts of examples. I could walk by a mosque, and so on and so forth. Um, the difference between us being, I've actually debated in those mosques, uh, in various places, and, uh, in the case of your teaching, I know exactly where you're coming from, and I think the majority, and the majority never determines truth, but I think the majority of fair-minded people who would listen to the debates that we've done on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity versus a oneness, Pentecostal oneness, Jesus-only movement, would generally say that the other side has not fared well.

Now, you might say, well, it's just the people you were debating. Well, okay, um, but they presented the perspective. Have you taken the time to listen to those things? Have you taken the time to interact with those things?

Only one God, there's only one way, there's only one truth, and that is Jesus Christ. Now, the Bible says in Revelations chapter 22, I'm going to...

Now, Marcus, let me just, just mention it really, really quick to you. Um, it's, it's Revelation. It's, uh, it's this one Revelation. Um, read, read the first couple verses, and you'll see there's one Revelation.

It's not Revelations. Um, and, uh, we, we, we do know about this text, and I'm going to have to correct your misuse of it.

Keep this video short. It says no one can add to the Word of God, no one can take away from the Word of God, and anyone who tries to add to, and anyone who tries to take away from the Scripture, they will have no part in eternal life.

That's what...

Uh, okay, but there's a context to that, and I think any meaningful exegesis of that text has to first admit that it's speaking about the book of Revelation specifically. Now, I know a lot of folks say, well, but God knew it was going to be the last book in the canon.

Well, of course, God knows everything, but there's a leap from saying God knew it was going to be the last book in the canon in the order that was adopted, and saying that, that it was God's intention that it be interpreted as the last book.

We don't know it was the last book written. It may have been, uh, it, it, but we don't know. And the order of the books, um, I can't affirm that that's a, some type of a, of a divine revelation in and of itself, because, for example, uh, P46, Papyri P46, which contains Paul's epistles, has a different order.

Hebrews is right after Romans. Uh, so the, the early Christians didn't think that there was a, a mandated order, uh, that was part of divine revelation or something. If you're gonna, if you come up with that idea, then you've got divine revelation after scripture, after the apostles themselves, uh, contained in the very order of the canon of scripture or something like that.

So the first utilization of the text is in regards to the book of Revelation and altering the prophecies and the content and the, uh, of what's in that book, the book of Revelation. Um, if you want to try to make a larger application, you need a little larger text.

The Bible says, if you look at the Bible and you read it from the front and you read it to the back and you look at the middle, all right, you will not see the word Trinity anywhere in the Bible.

Now, this is without a doubt, one of the most simplistic, um, objections. You'll, you'll encounter it over and over again. And the problem is once you've encountered it for about the 5 ,000th time, it's difficult to remain patient with someone when you have recognized just how bad an objection this is.

But remember, you can't, you can't know, and I would imagine with Mr. Rogers, he has in fact heard answers to this over and over again. But with many of the people you're talking to, you can't know where they've actually heard a meaningful response to this.

Many people pointed out as soon as they saw this, it was one of the first responses I saw was, um, the word Bible's not in the Bible either. And you've been using the word Bible. Um, in fact, none of the words you're using right now are in the Bible because you're speaking English and English didn't exist when the Bible was written.

So if you really want to go there, the issue of course, is the accuracy of the words description of biblical teaching, not where the word itself appears there. And none of that would be relevant to the text in the book of Revelation, which is talking about the denial or removal of material from the prophecy of the book of Revelation.

None of that would have anything to do with whether you're using accurate words to teach the substance of scripture, whether those words are found in scripture or not, that this is a rather blatant, simplistic, uh, error of thought.

It's a, it's a category distinction error, basically, where you're conflating things together that shouldn't be, um, conflated.

I promise you, you will not find it. So right there, anyone who's teaching Trinity, all right, and they're putting that word, all right, into their sermons, they are adding something that is not in the word of God.

Um, none of us are saying that the words in the Bible, so we're not adding anything to the Bible. We are saying that if you allow the Bible as a whole to teach, it teaches that there is one true God. It identifies three divine persons, does not confuse them ever, Marcus.

It distinguishes between them without question, and then teaches their equality, not with an equal sign as in the same person, but their equality is in their participation in the divine being. So, we believe all of what scripture says, you just reject a portion of it, specifically the clear distinction between father, son, and spirit.

So, using a word that describes the whole essence and teaching of the Bible concerning the nature of God is not trying to add something to the scripture. In fact, it's safeguarding against people like yourself, who deny elements of biblical teaching, and then hide that under this type of argumentation.

What does that say? I think it's pretty clear.

Revelations is pretty clear on that. Revelations 22, it says they will have no part in eternal life. That's not Marcus. That's not Marcus Rogers type of thinking. That's Bible. You cannot add to the word of God.

Now, why did they come up with the word Trinity? The reason they came up with the word Trinity is because people are trying to understand God, but we can never understand God in our feeble minds. All right?

God exists out of time. God exists out of space. Time and space cannot contain God. All right?

Now, by the way, do I really need to point out that what you're saying there is your attempt to describe biblical teaching, which is exactly what the word Trinity is? Those specific phrases are not found in scripture.

So, are you contradicting yourself? Or have you just not thought through whether your objections are actually valid? Because you're contradicting them. I agree that God is outside of space and time, but that is a conclusion drawn from biblical texts just as the Trinity is.

And I disagree with you that we cannot understand God. If what you mean by that is human beings as creatures can never fully comprehend the infinite God, that's one thing, but we can understand what God has revealed about himself.

That's so plain and obvious. I mean, the very fact that we are not to worship false gods means that we must be able to have some level of understanding of who God is, or we couldn't be able to tell him from the false gods.

We have to be able to tell the true God from the false gods so we do have to understand God. Right? So, there is a divine revelation. It is understandable. And the doctrine of the Trinity does come about from the fact that we are simply trying to be honest with all that the New Testament reveals, not just parts.

We can't get rid of the parts that we don't like, all of what the New Testament is saying.

I'm going to let this ambulance come through. It's probably coming for some of the people who believe in the Trinitarians right now. They just passed out just now. God bless you. I love you. God bless you right now.

But I've said this many times before, all right? John chapter 1, it's very clear. It says that God became flesh, all right? It says in the beginning was the Word. If you look at Genesis chapter 1. No, no, back up.

Yes, in the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. So, you have the logos, eternally existing. Then the logos in eternal personal relationship with Theos. And then the logos being as to his nature, deity.

So, you have a distinction between the logos and Theos, which then becomes absolutely clear in John 1, 18. When it says no one has seen God any time, the monogamous Theos, the one, the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father.

So, distinguished from the Father. He has made him known. So, the one who became flesh, the logos, has made the Father known. There's a clear distinction between them, Marcus. You can't conflate them together or you can't say the logos is just an idea in God's mind.

Again, totally extra biblical concept there. Um, you have to recognize that the Gospel of John plainly distinguishes between the Father and the Son. Two divine persons who have eternally existed as divine persons.

That's clearly what you have in John chapter 17. When the Son speaks to the Father while identifying himself, the Son, as eternal and as glorious in the presence of the Father before the world began. John chapter 17, verse 5.

There's no way around. There just is not any way around the distinction that is drawn there. You have two divine persons right there.

No escaping it. That's how God created the heavens and earth with his word. And then later, all right, in John chapter 1, it says that word became flesh. That word became Jesus. When we go and we stand before the throne in the end, we're not going to see three people up there.

There's only going to be one.

Okay. So, um, in that book of Revelation, um, what do you have in chapter 5, Marcus? What, what do, what did John see? What did the 24 elders see? What do the living creatures see? They see him who sits upon the throne.

What's the other one? And the Lamb standing as if slain. At the end of chapter 5, all creation, every created thing, worships he who sits upon the throne and the Lamb. That's the same book you were just quoting from.

Have you ever considered the distinction that it draws between the Father and the Lamb? And the Son?

Question. God is Jesus Christ and his spirit is a part of God living in us. That's God's DNA living inside of us. That's, that's God's DNA. And you're objecting to the term Trinity.

You're objecting to the term Trinity. And you just described the spirit of God as God's DNA. You don't find that to be just like really majorly inconsistent?

So it's not by his, our power, our strength, it's by his power and strength. That's what the Holy Spirit is. Jesus said, I will send you a comforter.

I know. Yeah, but who is the comforter and who is Jesus? See, I'm not sure, I'm not sure what brand of modalism you're, you're promoting. If, if you're promoting sort of the UPCI version, where Jesus is two persons, the Father and the Son, and where you actually deny that the Son has eternally existed, or whether a more classical modalistic, monarchianistic perspective from antiquity is sort of a Sabellian perspective.

I, I can't necessarily tell because you're talking very quickly. You're not going very in depth and you're sort of doing the, I will impress folks with the speed with which I do this type, type of thing.

But which, which perspective are we, are we going with here? Do you believe that the Son has eternally existed as a divine person? The Bible teaches that. How would you explain? What is, what is the, what is Jesus's role today?

Is he just the Spirit? Then when the Bible says that Jesus is interceding before the Father, and that Jesus and the Father send the Spirit, how do you deal with all these things? You see, Christians don't, don't have the luxury of just putting those things aside.

We've, we've got to, we've got to deal with them. Who is the Son appearing before? In Hebrews 7, Hebrews 9, places like that. What, what is the Son's role? And if the Son has not eternally existed, then what is, what is his role going to be in, in, what is his role now and what is his role going to be in the future?

Is he, is he a creature? What, these are questions that I think need to be answered.

I want to debate, you know, and, and, and I just want people to have the truth, man. And I am confident people can call me a false teacher. They could call me a false prophet. But all I'm, all I'm going to preach to you is the Word of God in the Bible.

And I, I know that you think that that's what you're doing, but you need to understand you're, you're not preaching the Word of God in the Bible. You're preaching your, what you've been taught is the formulation of those things.

And the only way for you to really teach the Word of God in the Bible is to handle it in such a way that your own traditions do not become the filter by which you read the Bible. If, if all you see in Scripture is what the lenses of your tradition will allow through, then the Scriptures can only ever teach what you think they should teach.

You can never be challenged. Your traditions can never be examined. Do you realize you have traditions? The most dangerous position to be in is to be a person who is convinced the Bible's Word of God, and yet don't realize that you have your own traditions and hence you don't examine them.

You know, the, the infamous exchange between myself and Dave Hunt, lo those many years ago now, where when talking about John chapter six, he dismisses what Jesus is saying in John chapter six. And I said, Dave, that's, that's just your tradition speaking.

What was his response? James, I have no traditions. And anybody who says they have no traditions is the absolute slave of their traditions. They have no way of examining them. They have no way of changing.

They have no way of verifying. They have no way of being able to honestly say their traditions are true. Certain traditions are true traditions. But the only way to be able to verify that is if you're able to actually look at things and look at things in a meaningful fashion.

I know anyone, you know, who they say, hey, he's not of God. I know what I have with God. I know the relationship that I have with God. I know the time that I spend with God. You know, I feel like Elijah with the prophets of Baal.

Well, that's nice, Marcus. But you know, what if, what if you're, while you're walking along in front of the Buddhist temple there, some more missionaries come along and with tears in their eyes, they testify to you the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and how often they pray and visions they've had and all sorts of stuff like that.

What are you going to do now? Or what if the Jehovah's Witnesses come along and they do the same thing and they've been going door to door for longer than you've been, been breathing air. All your emotions, all your feelings, all your, your dedication means nothing.

Either you're going to actually ground yourself on the Word of God, which you're not doing, or your emotions and your feelings and your experiences and things like that. You put them, put the two of them together the way you are and it's, it's difficult to deal with.

Come to your church and you know, I will preach and I will show you that the Spirit of God is living inside of me because I have no doubts. I spend time in my relationship with God. I spend time in the Word of God and I just want people to have the truth.

And see anybody, any Christian who thinks that sincerity is the measure of truth is going to be impressed by this. I mean, the man can speak quickly and fervently and he's got the cadence going and stuff like that.

And if you've only been in a church where that is the essence of what is communicated, it's the, it's the mechanism rather than the substance. Well, this can be extremely, extremely impressive. But you need to realize every religion on the planet has people like this.

And if sincerity equals truth, then there is no way of knowing objective truth at all. None whatsoever.

None. People to be on fire for God. I just want people to be unashamed. I am unashamed for Jesus. I will stand on this street and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to this whole world. I'm going out to Chicago.

I'm going out all across the states and I'm about to tell people Jesus is coming soon and it's time to repent.

Well, I do wonder what your gospel is. I would like to know what that gospel is because my gut feeling is it's probably going to differ a little bit from the New Testament, unfortunately. At least that's been my experience.

And talking to most of us Pentecostals, I'd be interested in how you define it. I've never heard you define it. But again, it sounds great. Sounds wonderful. But what Jesus are you preaching? Where is that Jesus today?

What's he doing? What's his role? Since the gospel is Trinitarian, there's going to be a problem someplace because you deny the Trinity.

I'm telling you, I'm fired up. I'm unashamed. And people wanted to know, hey, aren't you worried about all these people who are accusing you of being a false prophet? I'm not.

Why do you use the term accusation? If you're going to put out there, you know that you deny the central doctrine of what unites Christians down through history, which is the definitional doctrine of the Christian faith.

Aren't you accusing us of misrepresenting the truth? It's really easy to start using terms of accusation and things like that. Look, you put it out there, and we have the right and, in fact, the responsibility to respond.

We need to respond truthfully. And with a true desire that you would repent and believe. But it's not like there's something wrong. You're accusing me of things. Well, you know, that story goes both ways.

Because I know what I have with God. And the Bible says, you know, if they don't want to hear you, shake the dust off their feet. And how can they not? How can they come to the truth if God doesn't draw them?

Amen. You guys be blessed in Jesus' name. I'm out here in Chicago. Friday, I'm going to go street preaching, and it's going to be amazing. Keep me in your prayers. Keep me lifted up. If you've got any more questions, you know, about the, uh, I'll leave you with this one little piece, even though I've said it in many videos before.

All right, the Bible says to be baptized in the name, that's singular, not names, name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, all right? Marcus Rogers. I'm a father, I'm a son, and I'm a soldier, all right?

But if I went to a bank, and they asked me to sign a check in my name.

Okay, now, you may remember, this was part of the video that we, this presentation was part of the video, we responded to, I don't even remember when we did this, this was months ago. That's why I was really surprised when I found out that he had done this, was it had been long time ago that we had reviewed his, his thing.

And he uses this, this modalistic concept. My name is Marcus Rogers, not da-da-da-da, and he, he takes Father, Son, and Spirit, makes them roles. Except, how many times did Jesus address the Father?

For example, Abba Father, that is an intimate relationship name. It's not Abba Bob, it's Abba Father. And the Son, Jesus uses that, not just of his function, but the very fact, the Jews said, we have a, have a law, by that law he had to die, because he means about to be the Son of God.

Not just a function, something much more than that. So, the implicit idea that, well, these are just, these are just roles, and then there's the name, and the name is Jesus. Well, the name of Jesus is highly exalted.

There's no, no question about that. But you've, you've missed what it means to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You say, well, according to the Book of Acts, that's just the name of Jesus.

You're missing the, the nature of Christian baptism. Yes, Jesus' name is extremely important. That's the name that people suffered for and everything else. But to be baptized into a name, and it is singular, there's no question about that, to be baptized into the name in that culture at that time has much more significance.

We don't attach significance to names the way that significance is attached to names in scriptural context at all. Most people pick that up just reading through the Old Testament. But it is taking on, it's being baptized into and taking on.

It's very similar to the covenant, entering into covenant in, in the Old Testament, the various covenant forms that were, that were found there. But this is why some oneness people try to attack Matthew 28.