Anti-trinitarian errors, part one

For the backstory on this post, see the preceding one. I'VE FINALLY FINISHED WITH THIS POST. We will continue this discussion with two or three more posts. Also, read Leslie's apt thoughts on hurricanes and eschatology. http://leslie.blogs.com/.

New heresies are always really old heresies under new names, with new spins. The "new spin" in the old heresy of psuedo-Christian groups denying the trinity began in the years following the birth of modern pentecostalism, the "Azusa Street Revival" of 1903. And it basically comes down to this: fervent Christians, desirous of moving "farther with God" and convinced that they were living in the Last Days (and that the Last Days would herald "new revelation," or "the restoration of lost revelation") noticed this:

MATT 28:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

and this:

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and thought they saw a discrepancy. But surely there is no discrepancy? Surely the Bible doesn't contradict itself? So how can these passages be reconciled?

So they went to church leaders with the issue. And here is where we see that it is crucial for Christians to actually KNOW something about the Bible they adore. If enough learned Christians would have answered honestly and truly, "oneness" teaching would never have lifted off the ground. Unfortunately, what happened was, church leaders said, "Uh ... uh ... wow. Hadn't thought of that. Well ... we ought to take Jesus' words over Peter's, I guess."

This didn't sit well. And why should it? Because the words that Peter spoke were recorded in the Bible, the infallible Word of God. And Peter spoke them under the clear anointing of the Holy Spirit, which caused thousands to accept Jesus and sparked the birth of the Church. Would God have let Peter speak a great error in his first sermon, a sermon that the Holy Spirit blessed with His presence, a sermon that Luke recorded in Acts, which became a part of the canon? Of course not.

Obviously there must be an answer. But since church leaders didn't know, the well-meaning, but ignorant, young pentecostals took it upon themselves to find the answer (I don't mean to imply that the majority of pentecostals are anti-trinitarians. Indeed, they are not. It is as they say, "A few bad apples spoils the bunch").

So here is what they came up with: Matt 28:19 is a riddle. Jesus spoke it in such a way that the "foolish virgins," the "false Christians," would be confused and would repeat this verse as a baptismal formula. Thus, people who are baptized this way are baptized falsely -- they are not saved. Now, of course here we have the error that the act of baptism is what saves a person, and that baptism is a kind of incantation -- say the right pattern of words over a sinner, and he'll be saved after the dunking. Otherwise, the poor shmuck is in trouble.

They taught that the answer to the riddle is Acts 2:38. In other words:

Riddle: What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Answer: Jesus Christ.

So figure out the riddle, answer it correctly, and you're saved. Otherwise, you're not.

They cited two reasons for their answer. One, they claimed that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are not names, but titles. For instance, if I write you a check, you can only cash it if I sign my name. If I sign a title, like "Friend," then it isn't worth anything. I may be your friend, but "Friend" is not my proper name. The bank will not honor it. Therefore, God will not honor a baptism that is not done in a "name."

The second reason is that Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rather than the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Get it? They claimed that the grammar of the passage indicates there is only one name that should be recited during a baptism, not three. So the traditional baptismal pronouncement then, is wrong in that it uses a plurality of names when the singular "name" tells us to do otherwise, and that, in fact, the three names are not really names at all, but rather, titles.

This is the teaching that I grew up under. It was always my impression that the "wicked trinitarians" were either ignorant of Acts 2:38, because they never really read the Bible, except for maybe John 3:16, or that they were aware of it but believed it was an uninspired passage that should be cut out of the Bible. It was only through education, personal study, and of course, ultimately, the grace of God that I found my way out of it. And of course, as is the case with many problems, once I was outside of the error I could see it for the illogical straw man it was.

In Koine Greek, the word for "name" is "onoma," which indicates power and authority,and is used for proper names as well as titles, as well as generic designations and metaphors, just as our English word "name" is used. For instance:

"Stop, in the name of the law!"
"Stop! In the name of love, before you break my heart."

Sometimes "onoma" means "reputation," as in Rev. 3:1 "thou hast a name that thou livest ..."

And according to Rev. 19:13, "The Word of God" is a "name."

There were many different baptisms in the first century, including various mikvehs and Greek pagan baptisms. And of course, John's baptism:

Acts 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

Why would Paul, as a response to "we haven't even heard anything about a Holy Spirit" say "then what baptism did you receive?" It's simple. He couldn't fathom how someone could have heard the baptizor say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," yet profess to being unfamiliar with the term "Holy Spirit."

Sticking with Paul:
1 Cor 1:14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

Was he saying that if he'd baptized more people, his enemies would claim he was repeating "I baptize you in the name of Paul" before immersing him? Of course not. It was commonly accepted then, as it is now, that to baptize in someone's name means to baptize under the authority of that person. Baptism "in the name of Jesus" means baptism as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, not something else.

Colossians 3:17 tells us to do EVERYTHING "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This does not mean we are to go around saying, audibly, "I now eat this chicken in the name of the Lord Jesus." "I flush this toilet in the name of the Lord Jesus." "I watch this ballgame in the name of the Lord Jesus."

As to the argument that Jesus said, in 28:19, "name" instead of "names," He was using the correct grammar for someone who was expressing exactly what baptizors ever since have expressed during orthodox baptismal services: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." To say that by saying "name" he was referring to one noun rather than three is neither true in Greek nor in English. From http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com

"Is this sentence correct as written?: 'The mis-hit golf ball sailed wildly ... striking the head of Mike, of Joe, of Charles, and of Bill.' Yes. 'Heads' would be correct ... only if these named worthies had multiple heads.

"The Bible is grammar-compliant in this respect: 'And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods, nor let it be heard from your mouth.' (Exodus 23:13)" The Bible links "name" instead of "names" with the plural "gods." Is the Bible wrong, or is oneness pentecostalism? I know in which camp I'd rather pitch my tent.

END OF PART ONE. STAY TUNED FOR MORE

The trinity

Soon I will begin a two or three part series of posts on modern challenges to the doctrine of the trinity from pseudo-Christian groups.
I was raised in a church that denied the trinity. It taught a variant of what is commonly known as "Oneness theology," and also goes by the tag line "Jesus Only." You find it mostly in various strains of pentecostalism, most prominently in the United Pentecostal Church, which was once a part of the Assemblies of God (and in fact, broke from the Assemblies over the trinity).
This doctrine of the trinity typically comes under the most attack by cults. In fact, it is usually the last thing a cult victim can grasp. They may come to terms with other false doctrines and find the truth, but they will often remain blind to the essential nature of God, and even, upon leaving the cult, will refuse to go to an evangelical church because, "They seem all right in everything else, but they're trinitarians."
It is thus incumbent of every Christian to have a working knowledge of this doctrine. And I think it is helpful to understand how and why the doctrine comes under attack. When you study the issues and the "seed" of oneness theology, you see that the various components go back hundreds and thousands of years, sometimes taking a slightly new form or existing under a new name.
The first post will highlight the essential issue that drives the other issues and causes people to deny the preexistence of the Son before the virgin birth, and the presence of the other Persons of the Godhead. This issue has to do with a supposed conflict between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, the former commanding us to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, while the later commands sinners to "be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." It is this issue that, in the early 20th century, sparked the modern "oneness" heresy and opened the door for a complete denial of the trinity.

What do you make of this?

Interpretation? Thoughts? Opinions based on artistic merit or subject matter? Don't be afraid; I won't hurt ya.

When You are Old
by W. B. Yeats


When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

When the unthinkable happens

I watched a movie the other night that made me think of a childhood friend, Jennifer Weston. Jennifer, when last I saw her, was a gorgeous nineteen-year old who was headed to Texas to live with her cousin and pursue a country music career (she wanted to hit Texas before Nashville -- not sure why).

I still remember the Sunday morning I awoke to hear the news that Jennifer, along with her cousin Sandi, had been murdered in their apartment by a criminal on probation named Bobby Ray Hopkins.

Supposedly, Jen's cousin Sandi had thrown a party a couple weeks' previous, during which Hopkins had wandered in. Sandi's purse had been stolen, and she accused Hopkins. Whether revenge was a motive or not, Hopkins had climbed into their apartment through an open window sometime after 5 am on the morning of July 31, 1993. Jennifer was asleep in her room upstairs, but Sandi was on the couch. Sandi and Hopkins had a confrontation, during which Hopkin's claimed Sandi came at him with a knife. He took it away from her and stabbed her over 40 times (can you imagine claiming self-defense when you broke into someone's house, and then when they tried to get you out with a kitchen knife, you took it away and used it over 40 times?)

My friend Jennifer woke up and came out of her room. When Hopkins saw her, he chased and caught her, and stabbed her over 60 times with the dull knife. No single wound was life-threatening. She died slowly, from loss of blood.

During his struggles with the girls, Hopkins bled a little. Authorities were able to collect his blood samples to aid in their conviction. Also, Jennifer had scratched him hard enough to break off her nails, which contained tiny scraps of his skin, so the police were able to get his DNA from that.

Hopkins was swiftly convicted and given the death penalty, but it still took eleven years for that to happen. He was executed in February of last year, having never admitted wrongdoing or apologized. His last words were "I have no statement, sir."

It's hard to say what something like this does to the surviving family and friends. Jennifer and I were not very close -- we'd grown up in church together but lived in different towns and were separated by two years' difference in ages. We were always friends though, and had some good times together. She had a stunning alto voice -- I can still hear her demo of "She's In Love With The Boy" by Trisha Yearwood like it was recorded yesterday.

This incident taught me, in a way that I'd never known before, that evil exists in this world, that people do terrible things, and that no one is guaranteed tomorrow. It has probably made me overprotective, especially with female acquantances. I don't believe we should live in fear, or allow ourselves to grow paranoid. But it is always good to be cautious and alert, and to follow common-sense guidelines that the police give us -- pay attention when you're walking to your car, consider carrying mace in your purse ... that sort of thing.

Anyway, that wasn't really the point of this column -- I don't actually have a point. I just figured I'd share the story.

Why all the premarital sex?

Christian efforts to pinpoint a cause for the epidemic of premarital sex, especially among teens and 20-somethings, often center on things like dirty movies, song lyrics, magazines, billboards, TV shows, revealing clothing, risque internet sites and the porn industry. But while these things are certainly symptomatic of moral perversion, the biggest danger may be from within, not without.

People are, and always have been, driven to have sex beginning in their teens or early twenties. Until recent decades, this wasn't a problem because most people married in their teens or early twenties.

Now, people are delaying marriages until their late twenties or even well into their 30s because our technogolical economy and, dare I say it, our materialistic desires (which we call "security," "comfort," or our reasonable "right to pursue happiness") require that we stay in school longer and stay single so we will have an easier time paying down our education loans, and the fruits of our desire to sow our oats, see the world, buy cool cars, fancy clothes, and all kinds of gadgets. In short, we think we can't afford to get married -- even that it would be irresponsible to get married until we've acquired a certain amount of "stuff," and possibly even until we've bought our own house and furnished it.

And of course, we can't struggle. Because marriage is enough of a struggle as it is. So we can't get married until we immediately possess everything our parents took 20 to 40 years to possess. Not to mention those Joneses. And of course, even after marriage, the couple (or at least the husband) should bring home a certain amount of bacon to feed our materialism, so he must work longer and longer, investing more of his life into his work and those who share his work with him, and less to his family.

But I digress. The chief topic here, premarital sex, can be examined in the light of this desire for later marriages. Without the special grace of God, and total commitment to His Word, average people, no matter how "good" they are, simply cannot abstain from sex throughout this period when their biological urges are strongest (which also happens to be at a period when they have not yet reached full emotional maturity). They will have sex, as their married ancestors did, in their teens or early twenties.

This is not an excuse. Christian singles, regardless of age, must continue to hold themselves and each other accountable to God's law. But as far as the whole of society, as long as the average age of marriage keeps shooting higher and higher, premarital sex rates are likely to rise.

Blogwatch

I don't have much time to post now, but I just wanted to point you all to an excellent post on Kristin's blog: http://www.kristin.blog-city.com/

One of these days I will add Kristin to my links page. Not sure when, because I always get such a headache when I go into my template. But anyway, her new post provided me with one of those "my thoughts exactly" moments. Check it out!

Birthday Wishes From B-Dog

Today is the birthday of none other than Joel The Metro. There appears to be a bit of a controversy as to his actual age. He maintains he is 33, but his lovely wife Amanda claims he is 32. I find the scenario quite odd. Usually, if a person claims to be a different age than he really is, he says he is younger, not older. Not that I'd know anything about that first-hand, but, you know ....

So how old is he? 33? 32? We may never know. All we can be certain of is that he's crazy, he's a metro, and just over a week ago he was forcing a guy to sing "God Bless The Broken Road" to a crowd at Starbucks on Bardstown Road, while the guy was wearing, outside of his pants, Dale Jr/ Budweiser boxer shorts. And a multi-colored beanie cap with a propeller on top. And big gloves filled with squishy, nasty things.

That's the good thing about Joel the Metro. When he's around, you know anything can happen.

Happy birthday, ol' pal! Nightrider: Long May They Reign.

This B-Dog Has Done Been Tagged

It appears I was "tagged" on Cheryl Rupp's blog. I believe this means I have to name 5 things that I miss. Then I have to "tag" five other bloggers who have not been tagged. Okay.

1. Good ol' All-Day Singin' And Dinner On The Ground church services where you sing, sing, sing those old gospel standards.

2. My thick, long, lustrous locks of hair.

3. Friends who have slipped away.

4. The Fish Hut.

5. Kissing, holding hands, walking arm-in-arm, uh ... let's just say "physical affection."

And now I tag Ramage, Laffin, both Eubanks, and Rabby.

Ain't Love Grand

So Pinhead Stacey and Nature Boy Jason were married outdoors on the grounds of the Howard Steamboat Museum in Jeffersonville last Saturday evening. It seems like only yesterday that they got engaged, and a day or two before that when we Nightriders met Jason (well, actually I'd met him previously, because we worked together). Weird how time flies.

Although it was UNEARTHLY HOT, I must say the wedding was beautiful. Clear blue skies, a magestic Victorian mansion, a sparkling outdoor fountain, a nice-sized dance floor and stage on the grounds ... what more could you ask for?

I must say, Stacey was gorgeous. Obviously, she takes after her big brother .... 8-)

I was the "wedding singer" (take that, Adam Sandler) and I must say, I was so lucky to get to perform with Little Lorie King and Jive Tone Nathan Stites. Those two could make anyone, even me, sound great.

Nathan played keyboard with me during the reception. I had written a funky little blues tune for the occasion, and Nathan came up with a boogie woogie piano part that fleshed the song out and made it dance. I was so pumped after that song that I wanted to tell the DJs to go home and let Nathan and I take it from there. I'd heard Nathan do some classical stuff and modern worship stuff before, but let me tell you -- Nathan is a closet blues man. It's in his blood. Somebody get that guy some dark glasses and a fedora.

Lorie's voice blows me away. It always does. As music director for a gospel radio station, I used to have to judge a lot of talent, and I can honestly say Lorie is one of the best pure vocalists I've ever heard. It's so versatile -- no matter what she's singing, she sounds great. I'm thinking of not writing songs anymore. I'm just going to write out names from a phone book -- enough for about 3 minutes of reading -- come up with a melody, and have Lorie sing the names on my demos. They will sound like masterpiece songs because of her voice.

Harold Best has written several times on the need for more artistic "home town heroes" in the Church. He says the Church has gotten very good at creating "Christian Celebrities": big time worship "stars" who tour all over and sell tons of CD's, but what we need more of are artists who are every bit as talented as these "big names" but who will make themselves useful in a local church body, and who will dedicate their talents to a specific community. It's like he had Lorie and Nathan in mind when he wrote those words, because that is what they are. If you ever get a chance to hear either of them or work with them, you should jump on it.

As to the married couple -- I understand that their planned honeymoon in Myrtle Beach has been changed, do to Hurrican Ophilia. I'm not sure where they're headed now, but I wish them the best. Even though I and my co-conspirators have a key to their house, and some, uh, interesting plans for its use before they come home. When the cats are away, the mice will play ....

Nickel Creek Guitarist Lashes Out At Christian Music Industry "Mafia"

Here's a snippet from the most recent online journal post by Nickel Creek guitarist Sean Watkins. Besides giving a glimpse into what you Switchfoot fans can expect from their new album, Sean had some strong words for the Christian music industry, particularly as regards watered-down lyrics. And he quoted from one of my favorite hymns!

We did a promo show in Dallas with Switchfoot. That was fun. I love those guys. Their new record sounds great. I think it comes out sept 13th. you should get it! It's funny we all live like 5 minutes from each other but the first show we get to do together is 1500 miles away from home. Jon is a great songwriter and singer, he sang harmony on my solo record on a song called run away girl. It's funny how long it can take to actually get together and make music even though you're friends and live so close. Blame it on the logistical rubik's cube. Tonight we surf, if all the colors stay lined up. But back to their new record...great melodies and well thought out parts. And lots of thought provoking lyrics. Honest and raw.

On that subject...I'm so sick of sugar-coated songs from the christian perspective. One of the most comforting and inspiring lines to me is from the last chorus of Come Thou Fount where it says "prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love". Not many unwatered down songs make it through the filter of the Christian music industry mafia these days.

OK well, on that note.... I hope you all are happy and well. more to come soon. -sean

From C.S. Lewis

All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through;
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.

Peace, reassurance,pleasure, are the goals I seek,
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin;
I talk of love -- a scholar's parrot may talk Greek --
But, self-imprisoned, always end where I begin.

Was Lewis being too hard on himself? I don't think so. And if we're honest, do we not all have to say that this poem describes the condition of our hearts as well? I know it does mine. Frustrating, but true. Thank God for grace!