Heresy - Tumblr Posts

Easy Believism Versus Lordship Salvation

El Kittim

Essentially, the teaching of “easy-believism” (which proponents prefer to call “free grace,” or some similar term), asserts that the faith which saves is mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, accompanied by an appeal to Christ for salvation. According to proponents of the “free grace” movement (i.e. “easy-believism”), it is not required of the one appealing for salvation that he be willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ or to stop sinning.

This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

Question:

Can a person receive Jesus as his/her Savior without receiving Him as his/her Lord?

Easy believism says, yes.

Lordship salvation says, no.

What do you say?

The Heresy of Modalistic Monarchianism is Alive and Well

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Modalistic Monarchianism?

Modalistic Monarchianism (aka *Oneness Theology* or Modalism) is a late 2nd and 3rd century theological doctrine that maintains the deity of Christ while emphasising the *oneness* of God. In contrast to Trinitarianism, which depicts the Godhead as three distinct persons coexisting in one being, modalistic monarchianism defines God as a single person. This theological position is related to “patripassianism” and “Sabellianism,” which hold similar views. It has been considered a doctrinal heresy since the early period of the Christian Church.

The term “Modalistic Monarchianism” means that God is not three but *one* person who operates under various “manifestations” or “modes,” such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to this theological position, the complete Godhead dwells in Jesus insofar as his incarnation is concerned. This view therefore ascribes the actions of the *Father* and the *Son* to various *modes*, such as the differences that exist between God’s “transcendence” (which is completely independent of the material universe, beyond being and nonbeing) and God’s incarnation or immanence (i.e. his manifestation in the physical world). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is not viewed as a distinct entity but rather as a mode of operation of the spirit of God.

It seems as if the Modalistic Monarchians were trying to reconcile the trinitarian concept of the New Testament (NT) with the monotheistic Shema creed in the Torah, which states that “God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). Modalistic Monarchians accept the inspiration of the Old Testament and therefore believe that Jesus is the manifestation of Yahweh on earth. But they do not worship the Father or the Holy Spirit; only Jesus Christ.

Three modern adherents of this view are Oneness Pentecostalism (aka Jesus Only movement or Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism), the World Mission Society Church of God (the relatively new South Korean religious movement), and T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House Church (a non-denominational American megachurch).

——-

Is Jesus really God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?

Given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be titles of the one God, not depictions of distinct persons, *Oneness Pentecostals*, for example, maintain that they fulfil Christ’s commandment in Mt. 28.19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by doing so *only* in the name of Jesus. In their defence, they cite Acts 4.12 in which Jesus is the *only* name given in the NT “by which we must be saved.” Acts 4.11-12 reads:

This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by

you, the builders; it has become the

cornerstone. There is salvation in no one

else, for there is no other name under

heaven given among mortals by which we

must be saved.’

However, just because “there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved” does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not exist! That directly contradicts the grammatical “point of view” of the first person, second person, and third person *personal pronouns* in the NT text.

For example, Jesus is NOT the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit not in the first person but in the *3rd person*. He calls the Holy Spirit ἐκεῖνος——meaning “He” (Jn. 16.13-14)——as another person that is totally DISTINCT from himself. Jesus says:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he

will guide you into all the truth” (John

16.13).

Obviously Jesus is not talking about himself but about a separate entity that is called the “Holy Spirit.”

Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father in the *3rd person* as a separate and distinct person from himself. Jesus says:

For I did not speak on my own, but the

Father who sent me commanded me to say

all that I have spoken (John 12.49).

Obviously Jesus is NOT the Father, otherwise this modalistic theology would have us believe that Jesus sent himself, commands himself, prays to himself, and talks to himself, while baldly lying to his disciples about an imaginary father (whom he calls “Abba” [Mark 14.36]) who doesn’t really exist. According to this view, Jesus is psychotic or worse. In other words, Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar. So, Modalistic Monarchianism directly contradicts and distorts the NT authors' original language and intended meanings. Therefore, Oneness Theology is completely bogus and misinformed!

1 Jn. 2.22 condemns modalism as an aberration:

This is the antichrist, the one who denies

the Father and the Son.

The Quran’s Alternative Christianity

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Christianity’s Influence on the Quran

Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.

——-

A Christian Revolt

Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.

——-

The Apocryphal Reformation

After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!

Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!

——-

The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion

No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.

——-

The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran

As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.

However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!

——-

Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions

To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.

——-

Should Our Prayers Be Offered to Jesus or to the Saints?

By Author Eli Kittim

The Communion of Saints

Intercession of the saints plays a crucial role in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. This practice is derived from the Catholic creed of the Communion of saints. The said doctrine holds that dead saints pass instantly into the divine presence and therefore have a sort of fiduciary power in helping others to procure favors and blessings. This is not unlike Shinto, a Japanese religion that incorporates the worship of ancestors. In fact, the Christian patron saints that act as intermediaries between God and humans, interceding for trade, agriculture, health, and so on, are reminiscent of the Greek pantheon of demigods (The Twelve Olympians) in which each deity was responsible for a particular aspect of life. In this sense, the church adopted a form of pagan polytheism. The specific dedications and remembrances of saints in the Catholic, and especially in the Orthodox, churches have been highly developed to such an extent that the entire liturgical year is devoted to and structured around the so-called calendar of saints, in which each day pays homage to a particular saint(s) (i.e. feast day). Not to mention the ancient preoccupation with saints' relics and the lucrative pilgrimages that have been designed for such worship.

Do the Saints in Heaven Pray for the People on Earth?

Much to our dismay, saints in heaven don’t pray on behalf of earthlings. Rather, these martyrs pray for God to avenge their blood (Rev. 6.9-10 NRSV):

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under

the altar the souls of those who had been

slaughtered for the word of God and for the

testimony they had given; they cried out

with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign

Lord, holy and true, how long will it be

before you judge and avenge our blood on

the inhabitants of the earth?’

Similarly, “the prayers of the saints” in Rev. 5.8-10 are solely directed to Jesus, praising him for his extraordinary feats. They’re not about helping John Doe, back on earth, with his financial woes, or Jane Doe with her marital breakdown. Rev. 5.8-10 reads:

When he had taken the scroll, the four living

creatures and the twenty-four elders fell

before the Lamb, each holding a harp and

golden bowls full of incense, which are the

prayers of the saints. They sing a new song:

‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to

open its seals, for you were slaughtered and

by your blood you ransomed for God saints

from every tribe and language and people

and nation; you have made them to be a

kingdom and priests serving our God, and

they will reign on earth.’

Incidentally, the so-called “saints” in Rev. 5.8 are not an elite, hierarchical class of people worthy of worship. That’s a misnomer. On the contrary, all who are *born-again* in Christ are called “saints” (cf. Rom. 1.7). Remember, not even angels are allowed to be worshipped in God’s kingdom (see Rev. 19.10), let alone departed spirits.

Is Praying to Saints Biblical?

Over against the intercessory prayer of saints is Deut. 18.11 which explicitly forbids those who consult the dead (cf. Isa. 8.19). That’s precisely why, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), the rich man’s intercessory-prayer request is denied!

Sometimes Catholic and Orthodox writers will point to Old Testament accounts in which patriarchs or prophets enlisted the help of an angel (e.g. Gen. 48.16; Zech. 1.8-11). But they fail to mention that the said angel is typically associated with the angel of the Lord, which is traditionally viewed by Christian commentators as the Pre-Incarnate Son (cf. Gen. 16.7; Exod. 33.14; Jer. 1.4). Furthermore, conversing with an angel is not the same as praying to an angel. Yet in defense of intercessory prayer of heavenly beings, Catholic writers often point to the Annunciation as a case in point. But again, Mary’s conversation with Gabriel does not involve an intercessory prayer request, nor an act of prostration or worship.

The Catholic commentariat has also presented several examples from the New Testament to make their point. For instance, they cite Rev. 8.3, namely, the prayers of the saints that rise up before God. However, the context of this eschatological verse is God’s wrath that is poured out upon the earth, not an answer to our prayers (Rev. 8.3-5):

Another angel with a golden censer came

and stood at the altar; he was given a great

quantity of incense to offer with the prayers

of all the saints on the golden altar that is

before the throne. And the smoke of the

incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose

before God from the hand of the angel.

Then the angel took the censer and filled it

with fire from the altar and threw it on the

earth; and there were peals of thunder,

rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an

earthquake.

Human Intercession versus Intercession of saints

The fact that there is a body of Christ (“a cloud of witnesses” Heb. 12.1) is not an invitation or a request to worship them. Catholic scholars have confused the issue even further. They cite various instances in the New Testament in which Paul commands Christians to pray for him (e.g. 2 Cor. 1.11). Or they’ll cite the example of Timothy who commands Christians to pray for one another (1 Tim. 2.1). However, praying “FOR” someone and praying “TO” someone are two completely different things. To pray “for” (or on behalf of) a living person is one thing. To pray “to” a dead person is quite another. In the first case, you’re simply praying *for* the living (human intercession) and asking God to help them in their time of need. However, praying *to* a deceased saint for help is a different matter altogether. Now, you are praying not to God but *to* a dead saint (Intercession of Saints) to help a living human being. As a result, the saints have gained so much power that they have become intercessors between heaven and earth. It’s true that Paul and Timothy instructed Christians to pray for the betterment of others. But that’s not the same as praying to dead saints for help, grace, and blessings.

Although Protestant denominations accept human intercessory prayer for the living (cf. Rom. 15.30), they deny the intercession of the dead on behalf of the living. Similarly, Reformed theologians acknowledge that the “communion of saints" comprise all who are in Christ, including the departed. Nevertheless, in their view, invocations of the departed spirits of saints constitute a transgression of the First Commandment (see Deut. 5.7): “You shall have no other gods before me.”

On the Importance of Developing a Personal Relationship with Christ

The Catholic and Orthodox mindset is that God is not in competition with his creation (Robert Barron), and that although Christ is humanity’s mediator via the cross (1 Tim. 2.5), he’s not necessarily accessible as our 24-7 prayer advocate on a minute-by-minute basis. He has partners and associates that work under him, much like a high-end law firm in New York. But the so-called “managing partner” (i.e. Law firm CEO) at the top is usually inaccessible. Hence the need for the intercessory prayers. They argue that turning to the saints for help is not in competition with Jesus Christ since God has many partners and friends and is the ultimate source of all living things.

But this represents a distortion of Biblical revelation. The multiple attestations of the New Testament are all about Jesus. They feature Jesus as the leading figure, who is the hero of the story, and without whom we cannot be saved. It is the story of the creator who enters creation. He is the one “through whom he [God] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.2). John’s gospel attests of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1.1). Paul declares: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2.9). And without the shedding of his blood there can be no New Testament, much less a church (cf. Heb. 9.17, 22). Phil. 2.10-11 concludes:

so that at the name of Jesus every knee

should bend, in heaven and on earth and

under the earth, and every tongue should

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the

glory of God the Father.

In Mt. 28.18, the Matthean Jesus exclaims:

All authority in heaven and on

earth has been given to me.

In Rev 1.8, Jesus is equated with God Almighty:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’

says the Lord God, who is and

who was and who is to come,

the Almighty.

In Isaiah chapter 42 verse 8, God says:

I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

With Jesus’ extraordinary credentials and qualifications, why should we consult the spirits of dead men? The point is that Jesus is everything to regenerated Christians. He’s constantly on their mind. Born-again Christians are madly in love because of what Jesus has done for them, namely, he has made them *fully alive,* while their cup is running over with love, peace of mind, and perpetual bliss! Hence, there’s a fire of love for Jesus that burns inside every born-again-Christian’s heart. So, your focus should not be diluted on secondary figures and causes. Rather, your attention must be concentrated on Christ alone, if you are to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2). That’s because there is only *one* mediator (not two or three) between God and humanity——“the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2.5). Therefore, when religion tries to seduce you into chasing after idols, you must run the other way.

Is the Intercession of the Saints Blasphemy?

Dr. Edward Sri——theologian, author, and prominent Catholic speaker who appears regularly on EWTN——wrote a paper entitled, “What Does the Bible Say about Praying to Saints?” The article concludes as follows:

How to Grow in Fellowship with the Saints 

1. Pick a few saints that you want to get to know. 

2. Read their writings and learn about their lives. Fill your mind with their stories and their example. 

3. Talk to those saints, every day. Share your weaknesses with them and ask them to walk with you in your difficult times. Don’t just ask them to pray for you…invite them to be with you in every part of your life.

This borders on blasphemy. The point of Sri’s exhortation is that instead of developing a personal relationship with Jesus, we are encouraged to develop an intimate relationship with a beloved saint of our choosing. In other words, the aforesaid article is strongly urging people to devote themselves to someone other than Christ (in fact, a departed spirit) and to focus all their energies on the said saint. It is a clever, if not demonic, deception to remove our focus away from Christ under cloak of religion (2 Cor. 11.14):

And no wonder! Even Satan disguises

himself as an angel of light.

——-

Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?

By Award-Winning Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,

he is none of his.

(Romans 8.9 KJV)

——-

Sola fide

Sola fide (meaning “faith alone”) is a theological doctrine which holds that believers are justified by faith alone. Originally, the purpose of this doctrine was to distinguish the Protestants from the Catholic & Orthodox Churches that relied on sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Penance, aka Confession) and “works” for salvation. By contrast, Sola fide maintained that it is on the basis of faith alone that believers are justified (pardoned) and saved.

However, the original doctrine of Sola fide (faith alone) didn’t mean to imply that nothing happened to the believer existentially, psychologically, or supernaturally *after* they were saved. On the contrary, many reformers emphatically stressed that *regeneration* should produce verifiable evidence of the spiritual life. As 2 Pet. 1.10 warns (cf. 2 Cor. 13.5), make sure your faith is real:

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give

diligence to make your calling and election

sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never

fall.

The evidence of conversion is a believer’s *new self* in Christ (his new identity cf. Gal. 2.20; Eph. 4.24), with proof of ongoing fruit in their life. Many people mistakenly think they are converted or born again but they show no evidence of a personality change (a recreation) nor any fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace). Alas, despite what they say publicly, they have not been converted; they have not been reborn! Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sudden Conversions Are Very Often False.”

The reformers knew the importance of John 3.7: “Ye must be born again.” This Biblical concept doesn’t refer to the time when, during a crusade, you decided to make a spiritual commitment to Christ, or to the time when you made a sincere profession of faith during an altar call at a Jimmy Swaggart rally, or when you decided to give your life to Jesus, in your living room one night, while watching Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. This “decision” is characterized under the category of “works” (since you decided the outcome by yourself), and it has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical regeneration or with God. Why? Because God had nothing to do with it, nor is there any evidence of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in your life. That’s why 2 Corinthians 5.17 declares:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a

new creature: old things are passed away;

behold, all things are become new.

Unfortunately, the sinner’s prayer doesn’t save anyone. It doesn’t change your carnal nature into a new creature. Your sin nature remains the same and dominates your mind and heart. So how, then, are you saved? A saved person is dominated by God, not by his passions.

That’s why the reformers spoke of irresistible grace (monergism). Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the point is that this soteriological doctrine teaches that God’s grace is effectually applied to the believer in order to save them, and that God overcomes their resistance and *changes* them from *within.* In other words, a transformation takes place on the inside. It’s not just faith alone. If they cannot deny it or resist it, then that means that God’s grace has a direct cause-effect influence in their lives. That’s why scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3.11): “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16.16)!

——-

Free Grace Theology

Free Grace (aka Easy-believism) is a Christian soteriological position which holds that anyone can be saved and receive eternal life simply by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). The only condition for receiving the grace of eternal life is *faith.* Nothing else is required. In fact, one is not even required to stop sinning. They have completely removed Sola fide (faith alone) from its original Biblical and soteriological context, thereby isolating and distorting it to mean something entirely different.

By contrast, *Lordship Salvation* requires obedience to Christ. And this is the actual teaching of Scripture! The free Grace movement apparently forgot Jesus’ teaching which states: “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Grace is free, but it’s not cheap. Christ says in Mt 16.24:

If any man will come after me, let him deny

himself, and take up his cross, and follow

me.

Here are Jesus’ own words in John 14.15:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Besides, how can *mere belief* ALONE be sufficient for *salvation* if the demons believe just as much? (James 2.19):

Thou believest that there is one God; thou

doest well: the devils also believe, and

tremble.

In fact, 1 John 2.3-4 would call proponents of Free Grace “liars”:

And hereby we do know that we know him

[Christ], if we keep his commandments. He

that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his

commandments, is a liar, and the truth is

not in him.

And yet, *free grace theology* is constantly mocking Lordship Salvation, calling it evil and unbiblical. Therefore, we should take heed of Isaiah’s (5.20) stern warning:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good

evil; that put darkness for light, and light for

darkness.

In this paper, I’m only talking about the *regenerated* or *born-again believer,* and what their salvation consists of. I’m trying to demonstrate that a rebirth entails a new identity, a new creation, and a constant outflow of the fruit of the spirit. Just to be clear, Christian salvation is not based on the *works* of the law. Obeying the commandments of Moses doesn’t save anyone. We are not saved because we obey; we obey because we are saved! Nor is salvation an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity (see Wayne Grudem’s “Free Grace” Theology). You don’t simply look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and conclude that Jesus must be the Messiah. Salvation is NOT an intellectual exercise. Rather, it’s an experience! In Paul’s “Participationist” model of salvation, we don’t merely stand afar off and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No! Rather, we *participate* “in Christ.” We share in his baptism (Rom. 6.3), death (Gal. 2.20), and resurrection (Rom. 6.8). Psalm 34.8 says:

O taste and see that the LORD is good.

—

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—

Jewels of Truth Statement #2,236: "The Celebration of God's Infinity As Varied Forms of Worship"

Hello All, Today's entry for the "Jewels of Truth" series #2,236 will be controversial for some, if not most. No this one isn't about gays and our multi-dimensional genderless souls in God's Image. Our topic for today is regarding Heresy in light of God's Infinity it's impossible for there to be one pure religion or spiritual tradition. This is by design in order to celebrate the majestic diversity of all the unique expressions how God becomes beloved. Be this across numerous historical civilizations, other worlds in our cosmos, and in any meta Creation(s) touched by the Heavens. Our human nature abhors diversity at least when it comes to religious doctrine as theology and dogma. As we are representative each of the diversity of life be it within our own species or out into the natural kingdom of endless life. God, adores the Infinite variety of his holy children across all species of created life forms. This doesn't stop at only one faith tradition as a religion. God is totality! This is an inclusive metaphysical reality not one entity is divorced from its own divine grandeur with God(dess). God, adores equally a Christian as he does a Muslim or a Jew. God, is experienced by Hindu's as he is interpreted as a philosophical faith by the Buddhists, and so on... It is all sacred and it wasn't meant to ever be homogeneous in worship. It is only because of the human egocentric narcissistic viewpoint seeking primitive domination over others that diversity in faith is violently abhorred. Our species as primate mammals isn't the apex sentient life form in our cosmos and I thank God for that truth. Otherwise our lack of evolutionary spiritual growth with maturity could nearly spell the death knell and enslavement of any other sentient life we'll encounter in the centuries to come in deep space. On that somber note here is my angelically channeled statement #2,236 on Heresy via clairvoyant automatic writing. May it challenge your faith filled preconceived notions and expand your spiritual horizons even for a moment. Amen. Heresy: 2236) There is never a pure religion on this Earth or upon any other world in our greater Creation. For misdeeds and erroneous flawed assumptions by means of theology makes heretics of us all. From the saint down through the common worshipper as devout as any angel in the heavens. All have misinterpreted the logos as the eternal, constant, and Infinite Word of God. To live is diversified heresy here on Earth which isn't so to practice heresy mindfully. For variety demands justice and not by means of violence to subdue the other, but to celebrate the Infinite omnipresence of God. In sheer omnipotence it is all good as benevolence is upheld in thought, word, and practice as righteousness. The dominion of patriarchal men by means of self-imposed secular doctrine is lacking as it invades many facets of the spiritual adherent. However this is neither good nor evil as a causation it merely is by happenstance by means of a benign nature. Not all faiths are created equal and in the diversity of life this is a good and just grace by the Will of God(dess). For the Infinity of God glorifies the beauty in each faith tradition as the sublime is invoked by means of the first cause. The universal flavor of Infinite diversity appears inclusively everywhere in an orchestrated dynamic in thanksgiving to the Glory of God the Majestic One alone! No matter if a religion is created in one civilization that defies itself from another epoch of time. In sheer contrast to that of another age of humanity on this primitive Earth. The Eternal One as the constant witness sees all as him / her / and itself in spiritual essence united in a harmonious splendor as a perfect grace. However the fearful children incarnated in humanistic animal primate form cause chaos due to immaturity of spiritual stature. Not until humanity nearly annihilates itself will it heed the ancient inclusive ways of self and communal respect for all life forms as equal children of God's mercy. Homogeneous tendencies is a primitive vestige of a power struggle for endless dominance that only produces hell on Earth rather than heaven itself. That to divert from one prescribed course of theological constructs as practiced dogma. Is considered blasphemy enslaves its worshippers as chattel from the immense spiritual diversity of God's union. With all other macro faiths and philosophical benevolent movements over the course of eternity upon Creation. Only in moderation can the sublime nature of God's grace be experienced without the need for zealotry. Anyone that defies the name of God and commits violence is not worshipping God in heaven but the devil's in hell. For every entity soul has the presence or essence of God in them as distilled pure perfection. To strike it down by vulgar language and violent touch disrespects one's own spiritual nature and leaves the Holiest One in dismay for his or her own incarnated child. Thus one becomes divorced from grace entering into an accursed union by animalistic tendencies of the world. As God is One and all created entities as soulful beings in his / her / its identical Immaculate Image and Likeness, can experience God by means of faith alone. Whether such a religious, spiritual tradition, or benevolent philosophical movement is practiced it is all holy and beautiful to God's Infinity. To exclude your neighbor in the Holy Spirit is to practice not faith, but animalistic dominance for power on the Earth. This is oxymoronic not just to the celestial Angels in Heaven, but anathema to the divine holies in every regard for Heaven on Earth is possible without desecration. A pure faith is impossible for all are heretics by design due to the Infinite diversity of God in all macro total Creation(s). Amen.                                                                                                             ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo. Ivan "Atrayo" Pozo-Illas, has devoted 21 years of his life to the pursuit of clairvoyant automatic writing channeling the Angelic host. Ivan, is the author to the spiritual wisdom series of "Jewels of Truth" consisting of 3 volumes published to date. He also channels conceptual designs that are multi-faceted for the next society to come that are solutions based as a form of dharmic service. Numerous examples of his work is available at "Atrayo's Oracle" blog site of 10 years plus online. Your welcome to visit his website "Jewelsoftruth.us" for further information or to contact "Atrayo" directly.

The Error of Subordinationism

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Ontological Subordinationism

The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:

Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and

was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings

of the divine persons. It was also opposed

by Augustine. Subordinationism was

condemned in the 6th century along with

other doctrines taught by Origen.

Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked

his views of subordinationism. — wiki

Calvin also opposed subordinationism:

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in

the Reformation family who while they

confess ‘that there are three [divine]

persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the

essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and

properly the sole God’. This he says,

‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his

rank.’ This is because it implies that the

Father is God in a way the Son is not.

Modern scholars are agreed that this was a

sixteenth century form of what today is

called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller

says Calvin recognised that what his

opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a

radical subordination of the second and

third persons, with the result that the Father

alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this

teaching also implied tritheism, three

separate Gods. — wiki

The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:

According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the

Son is derived from the Father who alone is

without cause or origin. — wiki

The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:

Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that

subordinationism ‘denies that the second

and third persons are consubstantial with

the Father. Therefore it denies their true

divinity.’ — wiki

In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:

While contemporary Evangelicals believe

the historically agreed fundamentals of the

Christian faith, including the Trinity, among

the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one

God in three equal persons, among whom

there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for

example, when the Son obeys the Father).

— wiki

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:

Subordinationism means to consider Christ,

as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.

This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and

3rd-century theology. It is evident in

theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,

Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,

for example, commenting on Christ's

statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’

(John 14:28), has no difficulty in

considering Christ as inferior to the Father.

… When Origen enlarged the conception of

the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he

explained the Son as inferior to the Father

and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.

Subordination is based on statements

which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the

Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)

that, with respect to when the day of

Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no

one knows, not even the angels in heaven,

nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark

13:32), and that He spoke of God as

somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki

However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:

Arius, therefore, held that the Son was

divine by grace and not by nature, and that

He was created by the Father, though in a

creation outside time. In response, the

Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the

second ecumenical council in

Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-

equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,

condemned subordinationism. — wiki

According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:

Subordinationism. The term is a common

retrospective concept used to denote

theologians of the early church who

affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of

God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser

form of divinity than that of the Father.

— wiki

Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).

But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:

All things came into being through him

[Jesus], and without him not one thing

came into being.

Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:

there is salvation in no one else; for

there is no other name under heaven that

has been given among mankind by which

we must be saved.

In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!

The Eternal Subordination of the Son

The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the word.

We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt

among us.

Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:

in him the whole fullness of the godhead

[θεότητος] dwells bodily.

Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and

the exact imprint of his being.

Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath

committed all judgment unto the Son.

It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?

I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I

will not yield my glory to another.

— Isaiah 42.8

How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:

All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to me.

The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the

Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is

to come, the Almighty.’

In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:

Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to

receive power and wealth and wisdom and

might and honor and glory and blessing!

Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:

he who is the blessed and only Sovereign

[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and

Lord of lords. It is he alone who has

immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in

unapproachable light, whom no one has

ever seen or can see.

Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the

truth, and the life.’

Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,

before Abraham was born, I am.’

— John 8.58

In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️

Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship

In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:

Literal translation philosophy versus

interpretive translation philosophy plays a

role here too. I submit that rendering

monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal

rendering. In translating the Updated

American Standard Version (UASV), our

primary purpose is to give the Bible readers

what God said by way of his human

authors, not what a translator thinks God

meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our

primary goal is to be accurate and faithful

to the original text. The meaning of a word

is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,

reader), not the translator.

Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!

In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.

MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.

The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.

Monogenēs

Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!

Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to

describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However, Isaac was not the only-begotten

son of Abraham, but was the chosen,

having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the

only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,

Isaac was the only son of Abraham that

God acknowledged as the legitimate son of

the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac

was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for

he indeed was, but that he alone was

acknowledged as the son that God had

promised. — wiki

Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:

Only-born

Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was

the only-born (monogenes) of their first

king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki

Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent

to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as

noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki

Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o

monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki

Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s

daughter, she was also an only-born

(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that

he gave his only-begotten Son (o

monogenes uios). — wiki

Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’

Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of

Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one

[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki

Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:

Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said

he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou

ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego

semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will

be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a

Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,

Heb. 5:5) —wiki

Filioque

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!

The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that

the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for

existence or being (manner of existence)

from the Father alone as ‘One God, One

Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a

double procession of the Holy Spirit from

both the Father and the Son was

incompatible with Eastern Orthodox

theology. — wiki

The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):

‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the

Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from

both.’ — wiki

This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:

The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),

in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts

and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;

one in essence, three in persons;

unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the

Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the

Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone

proceeds at once from the Father and the

Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he

has from the Father together with the Son.’

— wiki

This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology

starts with the Father hypostasis, not the

essence of God, since the Father is the God

of the Old Testament. The Father is the

origin of all things and this is the basis and

starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian

teaching of one God in Father, one God, of

the essence of the Father (as the uncreated

comes from the Father as this is what the

Father is). — wiki

Conclusion

It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!

It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”

Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!

Is the Authority of Scripture Biblical?

Eli Kittim

I have a high view of Scripture. But my authority is a Person, not a Book. My authority is God himself, as he reveals to me his will and purpose through spiritual communications. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is “authoritative,” in the sense that it’s reliable and truthful. But it’s quite another thing to say that it’s our highest authority. I think people mistakenly conflate the authority of Scripture with Cessationism, the Calvinist doctrine that spiritual gifts and prophecy ceased with the Apostolic Age. They often cite Jude 1:3 for support. But all that verse says is that “the faith” was revealed to us at some point in human history. It doesn’t say that the Godhead went out of business, took a Sabbatical, or died and left a will. The phrase—“the faith delivered once for all to God's people”—can be disambiguated by examining the context. The other passage cessationists love to quote is 1 Cor. 13:9-10. But all it says is that “we know in part and prophesy in part” because “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with.” But not before the complete comes. That’s the key! It doesn’t say that prophecy has ceased. That would be a misinterpretation. Besides, Acts 2:17 says that people in the end times will prophesy and see visions.

Many people are confusing Scripture’s inspiration, revelation, truthfulness, and inerrancy with the concept of “authority,” which the Oxford languages dictionary defines as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” In short, our highest authority is not the Church, tradition, councils, committees, or even the Bible itself. Our highest authority is Jesus Christ! In Matt. 28:18 (NASB), Christ says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to Me”

Where does 2 Tim. 3:14–16 mention the authority of Scripture? It says that “the sacred writings … are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In other words, Scripture gives us wisdom and leads us to salvation which can only be found in Christ Jesus. The fact that Scripture is “inspired” doesn’t mean it represents the final authority. 2 Tim. 3:14–16 reads:

“continue in the things you have learned

and become convinced of, knowing from

whom you have learned them, and that

from childhood you have known the sacred

writings which are able to give you the

wisdom that leads to salvation through faith

which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is

inspired by God and beneficial for teaching,

for rebuke, for correction, for training in

righteousness.”

The fact that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) doesn’t mean that the Bible has the final say in all matters. The Spirit that inspired the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters, not the Bible. Scripture itself does not claim to have all authority. Jesus does.

Moreover, the concept of the Sufficiency of Scripture implies that Scripture itself is all we need to interpret Scripture. But Scripture can be interpreted in 30,000 different ways. Just look at all the Protestant denominations that split due to interpretative differences. Thus, Scripture is neither sufficient to interpret itself, nor is it the final authority. Without the Holy Spirit to illuminate us, we will inevitably misinterpret it (Jn 16:13)!

Where does 2 Pet. 1:20–21 mention the authority of Scripture?

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy

of Scripture becomes a matter of

someone’s own interpretation, for no

prophecy was ever made by an act of

human will, but men moved by the Holy

Spirit spoke from God.”

All it says is that prophecy and its interpretation should be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted by human beings. If anything, it demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture!

The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the final authority, or that it’s sufficient in and of itself, so that we don’t need anything else. If the Bible is entirely “sufficient” and adequate for all purposes, we wouldn’t need to be reborn. All we would need to do is read our Bibles. But Scripture cannot save anyone. Jesus does. The Spirit is what we need. We can be saved by the Spirit without the Bible. But we can’t be saved by the Bible without the Spirit.

The Bible does not attest to its own authority. Revelation of the Word does not mean ultimate Authority. The fact that God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17) doesn’t mean that the Bible is the highest authority in our lives. As Christ said, it is the Spirit that perfects us, not the Scriptures (Jn 16:13). Luke 24:49 reads:

“But remain … until you have been clothed

with power from on high”

John 3:5 says categorically and unequivocally:

“unless someone is born of … the

Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Likewise, Romans 8:9 puts it thusly:

“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of

Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

In John 5:39-40, Jesus demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture by saying the following:

“You examine the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; and

it is those very Scriptures that testify about

Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me

so that you may have life.”

When Jesus says that all will be accomplished according to his Word (Matt. 5:18), he’s talking about prophecy, not the authority of Scripture. I’m not suggesting that Scripture errs or is contradictory. Absolutely not! But let’s not confuse the issues. The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s our final authority, or that it’s entirely sufficient. That would be equivalent to Bibliolatry. The Bible is not a paper Pope. Truth and trustworthiness is one thing. Authority is another.

Modern Christianity is a Joke

Eli Kittim

On their podcasts and platforms, Christians are constantly talking about God, Christ, and the Bible, explaining the gospel, debating about theology and prophecy, while assuming to know what scripture teaches, right down to the last detail. And yet none of them know what they’re talking about or what’s really going on (Rom. 3:11). Yet they all have millions of followers flocking to their social media platforms to hear them speak, and they’re deceiving all of them (intentionally or unintentionally) with lies and misinformation. But this has already been prophesied. In fact, Matthew 24 and 1 Timothy 4:1 clearly state that the end-times will be characterized by global deception, as many false prophets and teachers will arise and mislead many. Paul himself knew that after his departure Christianity would eventually decline and become a church of heretics (Acts 20:29). All that has happened. Most teachings today are about the Nephilim, aliens, and ancient civilizations.

All the biblical doctrines that are being taught today——whether at the university, the seminary, or in social media platforms——are false. Why? Because they have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. None of these so-called pundits have received any revelations from God in the manner that Paul describes (see Gal. 1:11-12). To preach things based on personal guesswork or mere speculation is not the same as teaching according to the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 says that “the Holy Spirit … will teach you all things.”

It’s gotten so bad that even the Pope is now teaching that it’s a dangerous heresy to have a personal relationship with Jesus outside the church. A Facebook friend of mine——a Christian apologist by the name of Marcia Montenegro——has gone so far as to condemn any attempt to open your mind and spirit to God through the prayer of stillness (which btw is still used in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches), denouncing it as a so-called satanic practice that opens your spirit to demonic influences, even though that is precisely what the Bible requires in order for rebirth and salvation to take place. How else can God transform your carnal nature unless he recreates your identity? (Eph. 4:22-24). How can God live within you and create a new operating system unless the old one is deleted? How else can you receive the Holy Spirit, who changes your personality, turning a sinner to a saint, as it did with Paul? Romans 8:9 says categorically and unequivocally:

“if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,

they do not belong to Christ.”

Then there are the nominal Christians. These are Christians in name only. They pretend to be Christ-like but act like demons. I know a few well-known Christian writers and bible prophecy teachers who have privately sent me viruses because I criticized their views. People would be surprised to know that Richard H. Perry did such a thing when i criticized his view that George Bush represents the white horseman of Revelation. I obviously had to block him. Another famous lawyer turned author by the name of Mark L. Hitchcock took me by surprise when he reported me to YouTube, which resulted in google permanently shutting down my platform. And he did this just because I complained that his YouTube channel was deleting all my comments and articles. As a result, I ended up losing all my videos and all my content that had been running on the web for the past 12 years. I was aghast that someone of his stature would resort to this. That was so mean. It completely took me by surprise. I didn’t see that one coming. This type of spitefulness is uncharacteristic of Christian believers. Their fruits bear no love. I seriously doubt whether such a person is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, I have lost all respect for him. I obviously blocked him, too. Good riddance!

Christianity has gotten so bad that Christian pastors are preying on crippled children, promising to heal them if they sow a financial seed to the ministry. People like Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and more recently, Kathryn Krick, all falsely claim to heal people suffering of serious disorders. Then you have YouTubers who are openly deceiving people, claiming that God speaks to them. Troy Black is a case in point. He has half a million victims, I mean subscribers, who are being lied to on a daily basis.

Not to mention the multiple scandals involving priests and pastors who are texting pornographic materials to their congregants and have inappropriate relations with them. Some pastors are even teaching that you don’t even need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, while others, like Steven Anderson, are claiming that you don’t need to stop sinning, but only to believe in Jesus. Some Christian writers are teaching that you don’t even need God or Jesus, and you certainly don’t need to hear from them or even experience them personally. All you need is to read the Bible. There are some well-known pastors, like Justin Peters, who teach this doctrine. Not to mention those scholars, like David Bentley Hart, who claim that all people will eventually be saved, whether they believe in Jesus or not. But how exactly are we saved? Does anyone know? A well-known pastor, named Ken Raggio, recently posted on Instagram that “God changes us from sinner to saint … by … divine discipline. As we OBEY the Word.” This is totally and completely wrong! We cannot save our selves by ourselves. That’s why we need a savior. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for washing their hands but not cleansing their heart, showing that their legalism and discipline was totally ineffective in changing them from within. That’s why he said to Nicodemus the Pharisee: you must be “born again” (Jn 3:3). Only God can recreate us (2 Cor. 5:17). We are not saved by works or through personal efforts and behaviors.

And the core doctrines of modern Christianity are all wrong. The modern Christian faith centers on certain core beliefs regarding the historical birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But these events haven’t happened yet. According to the Bible, they will take place in the endtimes (see Isa. 2:19; Dan. 12:1-2; Zeph. 1:7; Lk 17:30; Acts 3:19:21; 1 Cor. 15:22-24; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26b; 1 Pet. 1:10-11; 1:20; Rev 12:5; 19:10d). My chief objection is that the TIMING of these events is totally wrong. This is all based on a misunderstanding of Greek and a misreading of genre.

The internal evidence supports my view. It’s in both the Old and New Testaments! Zephaniah 1:7 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in caves when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. I can prove it with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. The LXX (Dan 12:1) says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” & the Theodotion has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. First Corinthians 15:22-24 also tells us that Christ will be the first to be resurrected in the end-times! Revelation 12:5 tells us that the messiah is born in the end times, and the next verse talks about the great tribulation. Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! First Peter 1:20 says that although Christ was foreknown before the creation of the world, he was initially revealed “at the final point of time.” It’s supported by Hebrews 1:2 which says that Jesus speaks to mankind in the “last days,” not in antiquity. And Hebrews 9:26 says EXPLICITLY that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Revelation 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” Similarly, 1 Peter 1:10-11 says that the New Testament prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10).

This short video will clarify everything I’ve said so far:

A Biblical Greek translation of the New Testament that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus

choosing breeds of Christianity like do you prefer austere and minimalist antisemitism and homophobia or ornate and baroque antisemitism and homophobia, or perhaps Russian antisemitism and homophobia?

A lot of artists like the idea of a nice-good friendly and fashionable* skaven. Such ideas are not always well received.

* Undeniably fashionable by virtue of having a belt that isn't just a rope.

CW: Ratte blood, wee bit of the ole cannibalism.

op when bored

im bored

I have had an incredible(y heretical) idea.

Female Iron hands space marine x male tech-priest who makes their augments. Make the tech-priest flustered and worship the space marine. Make the space marine be completely clueless about their obvious attraction but internally obsessed with the tech-priest.

I don't care how much this fucks up the lore.

Let the seas boil, let the starts fall, even though it takes the last drop of my blood,

I WILL HAVE THIS, GATEKEEPERS BE DAMNED.

Just finished this animation!! Glory to the four armed emperor!

The Signs in Dante's Inferno (Levels of Hell)

Limbo:

Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Pisces

Lust:

Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, Aquarius

Gluttony:

Gemini, Cancer, Sagittarius, Pisces

Greed:

Taurus, Leo, Capricorn, Pisces

Anger:

Aries, Gemini, Libra, Scorpio,

Heresy:

Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Aquarius

Violence:

Aries, Taurus, Libra, Sagittarius

Fraud:

Virgo, Capricorn, Aquarius

Treachery:

Aries, Scorpio, Capricorn