Dr. James White and John 10:30

In a recent video Dr. James White, a Trinitarian apologist, created a video on interpreting John 10:30. Click here to see full video. Click here to go to his apologetics website. Dr. White is an excellent scholar and debater. I would agree with him in certain areas but not in all. John 10:30 is not one of those areas.

After mentioning the plural verb White then suggests that there are non-Trinitarian systems. In other words, the presence of a plural verb here proves more than one divine person for White. This is why he segues into a discussion about non-Trinitarian systems. As I point out in the following post that is not a grammatical reality. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. They do not however say they are different divine persons sharing the same divine nature. It seems that neither Christ's "other" experience with God or His oneness with the Father amount to a difference in person. 

White suggests the Father and Son are a package deal. How would one begin to describe that package? Any conceptual tool or any analogy White or any other Trinitarian can or will appeal to will be counterproductive if not contradictory. After watching the video it seems the Trinitarian interpretation is left up to the "hard work" or exegesis. A result of White's demands here it would seem clear then that the Trinity is taught nowhere explicitly in Scripture. It can only be seen after "hard work".

Does White mean then that the Trinity cannot be adequately understood from the English translations alone? Does this mean that the layman is now unable to speak certainly of the Trinity unless he has a Hebrew or Greek exegete? Prior to the translation of the Scripture into English such an idea may have been interesting or even normal. Not anymore, Dr. White. The meaning of the Scriptures are not beyond the common man.

James White affirms that John 10:30 teaches:

1. Teaches the deity of Christ

2. Is relevant to the relationship of the Father and Son

3. Really need to understand that there are different levels of our interpretation of Scripture. Meaning supernatural. We must do exegesis.

It seems White assumes exegesis leads to correction interpretation. If Christ is saying that He and the Father are two divine persons that are God then this was totally lost upon those who were standing by for this revelation was never repeated. Jesus is not saying that He is God who is with or beside another who is God the Father. The Jews would have probably suggested Jesus was advocating polytheism but that's not what they understood Jesus to be saying. They understood Jesus to be saying "...though only a human being, are making yourself God." (10:33 NRSV) or "being a man, make yourself God." (ESV) or "make yourself to be God!" (LEB) The word "God" in verse 33 is preceded by a definite article giving it personality. Jesus was not making Himself out to be God the Son. He was the God of Israel come in the flesh.

Once you've watched Dr. White's video you are ready to proceed. Click here to read my reply on interpreting John 10:30.

Quotes from On the Passover by Melito of Sardis

Melito lived and was perhaps bishop of Sardis during the latter half of the second century. He was an early Christian writer. Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History) identified him as such and even records that he interacted with Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Eusebius  lists about 20 books by Melito. Fragments of his writings as well as an almost complete text of On the Passover survive to this day. I did not find anything in On the Passover that indicated a separation of hypostasis or person between Father and Son in Melito's apparent and early Christocentric monotheism.

For Melito it seems Jesus can be called Father and Son (On the Passover, 9-10). The Lamb and the Almighty (On the Passover, 4; 45). The high doxological praise of Melito does not know the limits of popular Trinitarianism. In places Melito does distinguish the Word from the Father (105) but early modalists also distinguished the Word from the Father. We also find this in the Scriptures no less so we are not surprised. Melito also speaks of Jesus as the one who is "by nature both God and man."

Here, here, here, and here are links to more information about Melito. Melito's comments about Israel have been mistakenly viewed as anti-Semitic by some. Melito like every prophet before him, however, was unyielding in his rhetoric and crying out for Israel to repent and turn to God.

Oneness scholar David Bernard concludes, "Melito, bishop of Sardis, is quite intriguing. His writings do not display the same kind of philosophical thinking as the other Apologists...Although two statements of his seem to indicate a preexistent Son, it does not appear that Melito followed the concepts of the other Apologists but was much closer in thought to the Post-Apostolic writers. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of his writings to make a definitive judgment." (1)

Text below provided by Kerux from the NWT Journal. Click here to read full text online. Here are some select quotes from On the Passover.

4. The law is old, but the gospel is new; the type was for a time, but grace is forever. The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a lamb, but who was resurrected as God. For although he was led to sacrifice as a sheep, yet he was not a sheep; and although he was as a lamb without voice, yet indeed he was not a lamb. The one was the model; the other was found to be the finished product.

5. For God replaced the lamb, and a man the sheep; but in the man was Christ, who contains all things. 

8. ...the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man.

9. He is everything: in that he judges he is law, in that he teaches he is gospel, in that he saves he is grace, in that he begets he is Father, in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God.

10. Such is Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.

31. O inexpressible mystery! the sacrifice of the sheep was found to be the salvation of the people, and the death of the sheep became the life of the people. For its blood warded off the angel.

32. Tell me, O angel, At what were you turned away? At the sacrifice of the sheep, or the life of the Lord? At the death of the sheep, or the type of the Lord? At the blood of the sheep, or the Spirit of the Lord? Clearly, you were turned away.

35. Beloved, no speech or event takes place without a pattern or design; every event and speech involves a pattern–that which is spoken, a pattern, and that which happens, a prefiguration–in order that as the event is disclosed through the prefiguration, so also the speech may be brought to expression through its outline.

39. Therefore, if it was like this with models of perishable objects, so indeed will it also be with those of imperishable objects. If it was like this with earthly things, so indeed also will it be with heavenly things. For even the Lord's salvation and his truth were prefigured in the people, and the teaching of the gospel was proclaimed in advance by the law.

45. For not in one place alone, nor yet in narrow confines, has the glory of God been established, but his grace has been poured out upon the uttermost parts of the inhabited world, and there the almighty God has taken up his dwelling place through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

57. Indeed, the Lord prearranged his own sufferings in the patriarchs, and in the prophets, and in the whole people of God, giving his sanction to them through the law and the prophets. For that which was to exist in a new and grandiose fashion was pre-planned long in advance, in order that when it should come into existence one might attain to faith, just because it had been predicted long in advance.

66. When this one came from heaven to earth for the sake of the one who suffers, and had clothed himself with that very one through the womb of a virgin, and having come forth as man, he accepted the sufferings of the sufferer through his body which was capable of suffering. And he destroyed those human sufferings by his spirit which was incapable of dying. He killed death which had put man to death.

96. The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.

100. But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried,

104. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

105. This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

Notes:

1. Bernard, David K. (1995) A History of Christian Doctrine,Volume One (56) Word Aflame Press

Call Me A Heretic by Ryan O'Neil

Jesus Is Yahweh's Unique Dwelling Place II

In a prior post I suggested that Jesus is Yahweh's Unique Dwelling Place. I have also been discussing the Authentic Humanity of Jesus Christ. These two topics are inseparably interwoven from my perspective but this one will pick up where the first one left off. While discussing Jesus as the unique dwelling place of Yahweh* we also discussed the name of Jesus. In this post I wanted to expand on what it means for Jesus to be that "unique dwelling place". What does this mean?

In Israel's history Jersusalem, the Temple Mount and the Temple were all considered holy because God's name and presence dwelled there (See 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2 and Isa 18:7). Notice the following renderings of Psalm 26:8:

Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory. LXX

O LORD, I love Your temple abode, the dwelling-place of Your glory. JPS TNK

O LORD, I love the habitation of your house and the place where your glory dwells. ESV

Also notice Isaiah 59:19:

So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives. ESV

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) suggests the Hebrew word for "glory" in these texts refer to a "manifestation of Yahweh"(1).Jesus being the Temple means that He has replaced the Temple where sacrifices were once made. Jesus then is where the glory, name and presence of Yahweh lives and is now manifest permanently. Translator R.G. Bratcher suggests that Yahweh's glory is:

the manifestation of his presence and power, usually described in terms of a dazzling light (see Exo 33:18, 22; 40:34; 1 Kgs 8:10–11). The place where thy glory dwells is sometimes difficult to translate, because glory is normally an attributive of God and not an animate being which can be said to perform the act of dwelling. However, by recasting this expression it is possible to say something like "the place where you are gloriously present,"(2)

In Psalm 26:8 we see that David loved the house of God. Was it because of the instruments? Was it because of the design? I am sure those items were precious to David and impressive on a large scale. However, David loved the house of God because that is where Yahweh was present. J.E. Smith noted, "David loved the house of God, the sanctuary where Yahweh dwelt among his people (Exod 25:8f.). Yahweh’s "glory" is his manifested presence, of which the ark was the outward symbol."(3)

The glory of God by its very nature is pre-existent. It was this glory, the very presence of Yahweh Himself, that revealed Himself in the flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth. What no scribe would say the Apostle John says, the Word was with God and yet is God (John 1:1). The dwelling place of God was no longer Jerusalem, the Temple Mount or even the Temple in all of its splendor. The Gospel of John records that the "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14 ESV) or "Word became flesh and took up residence among us" LEB. T.F. Torrance noted that here "John is clearly thinking of the Old Testament tabernacle, the moving tent of meeting, as it was called, the place where God and man met and God revealed himself to man."(4)  To say that God was in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19) is to say that Yahweh was in Christ. In Christ Yahweh, Himself, tabernacles among us. In Zechariah 12:10 the prophet foretold something that could only be fulfilled in Christ Jesus:

"...when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." ESV

"...they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." NASB

"...they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn." NET

The pronoun "me" is a reference to Yahweh, the speaker. Some have stumbled here and have sought to understand this verse in different ways. Largely because this verse raises the question of how Yahweh could be pierced? How can such a thing ever be true? In some places to reject the prophets was to reject the Lord (2 Chron. 36:15-16) but how can one say it is the Lord Himself who has been pierced? Only in Jesus. Jesus said that to see Him was to see the Father (John 12:45; 14:9-10). To pierce Jesus then was to pierce Yahweh.

But what about "They will lament for him"? It is quite common for the author to shift from first person to third person in Biblical texts. This can be done without change of antecedent. In Zechariah 12:7-9 Yahweh speaks in first person but alternates with third person language also by going from "I" to "the Lord". Jesus is not merely a representative of Yahweh nor is He merely the second of three divine persons. Jesus is the only one who can be Yahweh and Messiah.

In John 2:19 Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ESV Here the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was thinking. They thought he was referring to the Temple of Jerusalem. Jesus however replaces the Temple with Himself since after His death it is He who was raised. Here we can see how John uses double-level thinking. Those standing around Jesus probably missed the true implications of what Jesus had said for in those words are revealed something important about the identity of Jesus. Jesus is now the place where God's name and presence dwells. In Jesus God has made Himself fully known to man. God has literally ptiched his tent and tabernacled (See Psalm 26:8; 135:2) among us (See John 1:1, 14, 18; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16).

NOTES:

1) Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. et al. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament © 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. All rights reserved

2) Bratcher, Robert G. and William David Reyburn. A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Psalms. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991.

3) Smith, James E. The Wisdom Literature and Psalms. Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996.

4) Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (c) 2008 by Thomas F. Torrance and Robert T. Walker. Intervarsity Press Academic publishing. (pg. 59)

*Yahweh here is used the same as one would say God. God in each instance is a reference to Yahweh. The personal name of the God of Israel. Read the conversation of Jesus and the Jewish scribe at Mark 12:29-30.

Principles of the Reformation by Robert Richardson

Robert Richardson was a theologian who lived from 1806 until 1876. He was the personal friend and physician of Alexander Campbell. Richardson was also associate editor and office manager for Campbell's "Millennial Harbinger" for nearly 30 years where he "fairly represented" the views of the early restoration movement. Richardson also wrote a two volume work called the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. Richardson would also attend Campbell's death and even speak at his funeral.

In the chapter "The Basis of Christian Union" Richardson mentions "those who are Unitarian or Sabellian in faith". Here Richardson makes the reader aware that he is familiar with such non-Trinitarian systems. Richardson presses for strict "language of the Bible" and rejects "all that scholastic jargon". He does not seek to establish an elaborate doctrine of the Trinity anywhere. He simply affirms that "whatever character, office, or relation, is assigned to the Father, to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture." (pg. 65) While speaking of the subject of repentance Richardson notes that in Acts 2:38 the preaching of Peter brought pierced hearts and a command to reform or repent. In his chapter about the Holy Spirit Richardson rightly notes, "The possession of the Spirit is indeed the very evidence of sonship, and the proof that the gospel has been truly believed." (pg. 90)

Around 1852 Richardson compiled Principles of Reformation in order to present a clear and yet concise outline of early restoration beliefs in North America. This work is around 100 pages long and evenly edited by Carson A. Reed. The table of contents include an introduction by Reed followed by a letter to the reader. The nine chapters include titles such as "Distinction between Faith and Opinion"; "The Christian Faith"; "The Basis of Christian Union"; "Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Institutions"; "Commencement of the Christian Church"; "The Action and Design of Baptism" and "The Agency of the Holy Spirit in Conversion and Sanctification." as well as others.

Reed notes that in 1856 "a series of conflicts would erupt" causing a segment of the restoration movement to go down a path that Richardson and others did not want to go. He suggests, "Along that path, many of the principles that Campbell, Richardson and other early leaders held highly would no longer be plainly visible on the horizon." (pg. 9) Reed also suggests that Richardson's views were "largely rejected" by southern churches and that "Many of the southern churches took a fork in the river of ideas that fostered a stark rationalism devoid of the Holy Spirit." (pg. 10) Reed also points out that Richardson held Baptism as a sign or seal that does not save. It is a sign that the believer has been pardoned. (pg. 20)

You can also find another review of this work by Douglas Foster here. You can purchase this paperback edition of Principles of the Reformation here. Anyone interested in early North American church history will enjoy the irenic and Christological tenor of Richardson's writings.

Roger Perkins Responds to Jeffrey Krause

Comments by Perkins in orange followed by Krause comments in blue.

While I certainly don't have the time to scurry behind every latest on-line trinitarian "Apologist" who levels charges against me, I came across a recent article of outright erroneous attacks from one "Jeffrey Krause" that I decided to briefly address below. My responses appear beneath his remarks in the ensuing article that I have broken up into pieces in order to dissect his accusations. I would like to thank James Anderson and Manuel Culwell for giving me this venue of response. They are fine gentlemen and I greatly value their friendship.

Firstly, it is immediately clear that perhaps Mr. Krause needs a few lessons in grammatical application. He begins his tirade with, "The DISHONESTLY of Oneness Advocate Roger Perkins". Indeed, it is hard to attend to anything one has to offer regarding ancient languages if they cannot even adequately handle their own native tongue...but we shall try! 

I’m not quite sure how to state this gently, but, Oneness Pentecostal Debater Roger Perkins is either, (1) a very poor student of Scripture and Scriptural aids, or, (2) is completely dishonest.

Ahhh yes....The ol' familiar "dishonesty" charge from the "Reform" camp. Not a few have noted the odd tendency among reform scholars to quickly label anyone who disagrees with them as "dishonest" [in this case "dishonestLy"], which is itself a deceptive and dishonest tactic. Perhaps we should stick to the issues and leave the muddied perceptions out of the loop, since they are entirely irrelevant to the topics under consideration. 

In his recent debate with Dr. James R. White on the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. Perkins repeatedly referred to Col. 1:15 and stated that “Bauer’s” (as he calls it) Lexicon described the word “image” (εἰκών) as “a human figure.” However, this is simply not the case regarding “Bauer’s” and the use of “image” in Col. 1:15. The Lexicon that Perkins is referring to is “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,” more popularly known as the BDAG.

Actually, I wasn't even referring to "BDAG," or I would have stated such! I was referring to the 2nd edition, which is commonly referred to as simply "Bauer's," just as I stated! Perhaps trinitarians would do well to attend to detail before launching into unwarranted attacks. I wasn't even referencing the lexicon Krause charges me with quoting. I was quoting the one I said I was quoting! Concerning my misquote of BAGD, I was going off memory in a fast-paced cross-exam & did not have the actual lexicon in front of me, hence the acknowledged misapplication [albeit not "dishonestLy"]. However, here is the actual quote from BAGD that I was referring to w/ regard to Col. 1:15:

εἰκών, όνος, ἡ (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist. 135; Philo; Jos., Ant. 15, 277; Test. 12 Patr.; Sib. Or. 3, 8; loanw. in rabb.).

1. image, likeness—
a. lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of the emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 27, 4; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau-Festschr. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.--The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).

Note the enlarged/bolded above & the category that BAGD places Col. 1:15 under: "Fig...of a man". They then specifically place Col. 1:15 under the subcategory "of Christ"....a clear reference to the historical Messiah (as opposed to a "2nd of 3 divine individuals") both biblically & definitionally, which was my overriding point. Indeed, the Logos who "was God" became flesh & thus, was and presently is the visible image of the invisible God [See The Amplified Bible]...which was my point all along! The general force of the term denotes that which is tangible or corporeal in contrast to that which is intangible. That is, the physical or visible realm, as opposed to the invisible, is inherent w/in this term. Again, this all points us to the visible Messiah who walked this Earth as God enfleshed & was received up into glory. Vs. 16 then introduces a conjunction, which is a dependent causal clause "hotee," further expounding upon the premise of vs. 15, to which all of the 3rd person pronouns relate [See GGBB, pg.460 for the function of this particular form of conjunction (Hotee)]. Thus, my original point remains. 

If you notice, the BDAG correlates its second definition with Col. 1:15 which reads, “that which has the form of something else…living image” and not with its third usage of “a human figure.” Point-in-fact, the only Biblical uses of the third category of “a human figure” are Rom. 1:23, 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Heb. 10:1 and Col. 3:10. Col. 1:15 is never used under the third definition. This is (I believe) simply a cheap debate trick which speaks volumes about the man, Roger Perkins, if he purposely misrepresented the BDAG, as it seems he did. 

In the first place I wasn't even referring to "BDAG"....I was referencing the lexicon I said I was referencing and not the lexicon Krause says I was referencing. Hence, Krause attacks off of a false premise & then takes it upon himself to question my character altogether...par for the course in the trinitarian world, as is well noted. Would it not be more proper to enquire of me personally before assuming the posture of attack? Concerning the misquote, I have provided the reasons above & demonstrated that my original point remains in-tact...all based upon the same grammar that Krause appeals to! 

Interestingly, in this same cross-ex., White charges me w/ claiming that the first portion of Col. 1:16 contains the preposition dia "in the dative." Problem is, I never made such a claim & the case for dia in the latter section of vs. 16 appears in the genitive...not the "dative" as White charges, and yet we're to "listen and learn" from the trinitarians?? As expected, Krause omits all of this from his audiences consideration. Apparently White just gets a free-pass all the while we Oneness folks are held to the line & charged w/ "dishonestLy" when a few simple misquotes occur {even when not "quoting" the source it's claimed we're quoting!?}. 

On many occasions throughout the debate, Perkins “ducked” Dr. White’s questions, not willing to state his own view on the subject matter. He instead turned to the Lexicon’s to create a false impression that the Greek grammar was supportive of his Modalism, all the while dishonestly using them (the Lexicon’s) to advance his heretical position.

Let's see, I spent almost 3 hrs. delineating my position in contrast to the trinitarian position, dealt w/ virtually every passage White raised, and referenced numerous grammatical points [other than BAGD]...yet, somehow this constitutes "ducking"?? Interestingly, White barely touched the masculine singular heis as applied to God [See Mk. 12:29], started talking about "chickens" when asked about the normative implications of the anthropomorphisms applied to God, & on more than one occasion referred to Australian movie lines in order to elicit laughs from the audience...and I'm the one "ducking"?? Moreover, apparently Mr. Krause wasn't listening closely enough since I explicitly stated that everyone of the lexicographers I quoted were trinitarians [save Thayer], but that it was their based upon their theological preferences and not the actual grammar of the these texts...which was the reason I quoted them in the first place as opposed to attempting to "create a false impression". Hence, another character attack based upon Krause's blatantly bias perceptions. At this point, one has to begin questioning Krause's own motivations & intents. 

It always amazes me how trinitarians label those who find their position explicitly stated on the very pages of Scripture, yet one searches in vain to do the same w/ the stated trinitarian position. That is, we can turn straight to the pages of the Bible & read: "God is one person [Gal. 3:20, Amplified]," "the Lord is the Spirit {2 Cor. 3:17}," "God was manifest in the flesh [I Tim. 3:16]," "He that has seen me has seen the Father...for the Father who dwells in me, he does the works [Jn. 14:9-10]," "For in him [Christ] dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him... [Col. 2:9-10]," "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Cor. 5:19]." Yet, the trinitarians world confesses, & astoundingly claims that one is lost if they deny, "3-separate-divine-co-equal-co-eternal-persons in the Godhead," which we can read in the following book of the Bible:_________? And we're the "heretics"?? Not one Jewish writer in over 1500 yrs. of covenant relationship expressed such an existence...though they knew God on the most personal [note the singular usage!] terms possible for mankind. "Heretical" indeed! 

Please notice usage 2 and 3 in the data below and pay special attention to the red font. After doing so, CLICK HERE and listen to the 2nd Cross Examination between Dr. White and Mr. Perkins (please know, it is painful to listen to). I pray that the Lord grants Mr. Perkins true faith and repentance and I pray that Mr. Perkins represents the Lexicon’s in an honest fashion in future debates.

Krause's reference below is not even from the lexicon I referenced [I have bolded & enlarged his reference at the bottom of his quote], but the one he THOUGHT I was referencing...which I have cleared up above. I can only hope Mr. Krause will represent me "in an honest fashion" in the future, or, at least give me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings before taking it upon himself to write on-line ad hom articles attacking my character {which is quite telling about Mr. Krause himself now isn't it?}.

And while you are listening to this particular cross exam, notice how Mr. White erroneously charges me w/ claiming that dia appears in "the dative" in Col. 1:16. In the beginning of this cross-ex. I thought White was still leading into another question [as is his habit], as well as trying to ascertain where he was going, which is why I do not immediately respond. When I realized that WAS his question, I asked him to restate it. After you listen to this, you can click HERE, at the 16:42 section to hear White unashamedly claim he worships a God who exists as "3-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness." Tell us Mr. Krause, do you worship this same God as stated by White here?

Regarding "true faith," I sincerely hope & pray you repent of your unbiblical "reform" doctrines [trinity, baptism for babies, unconditional eternal security, etc. ad nauseum] prior to your departure from this life...and will be here to help you in whatever way you need. Exchange your seminary ideas for the NT biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated in Acts 2:38 [the way the first sinners entered into the NT church], receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as they did in the Bible by speaking in other tongues, walk in the beauty of holiness & you will be in the same NT church seen in Scripture. Until then, I am sincerely praying for a great revival among trinitarians. May God speed!