Sunday, August 07, 2016

Can Integration of Muslims Prevent Their Radicalization?

Integration reduces radicalization, but nothing can prevent radicalization among any significant Muslim population. 

First, many recent terrorist incidents have involved men putatively "integrated" into mainstream society in the US and Europe.  If we cannot prevent radicalization of people already in a society -- for example, American-born citizens who convert to Islam and then go to fight for ISIS -- how can we prevent the reversal of immigrants' integration?  Moreover, how can we "integrate" the pre-radicalized jihadist "immigrant" who merely feigns integration so he can wage jihad by either converting or killing the "infidels?"

Second, any large population of a given persuasion will contain outliers. Among Democrats, you have Communists (fairly common). Among Democrats and Republicans, you have KKK members (rare, and blamed entirely on Republicans, but not extinct). Among nominal "Christians," you have violent pro-lifers (extremely rare). And among Muslims, you have violent jihadists (fairly common). 

Republicans and Christians can argue that the KKK and violent pro-lifers do not really subscribe to their ideologies. Democrats can claim the same concerning Communists, but an examination of their ideologies shows only a difference of shrinking degree. Violent jihadists, however, adhere strictly to the Koran; rather, it is the liberal Muslim who deviates from core Koranic teachings. 

Third, how do you force the integration of Muslims into Western society without undermining their religion, without crossing a line into deprogramming or brainwashing? That idea is abhorrent to both "liberals" and Muslims. Education is no cure-all. Many of jihadists, and especially Muslim Brotherhood leaders, hold degrees, even from Western universities.  Education aims at the mind, but secular education cannot convert the heart.  In fact, the educational environment can be counterproductive.  The temptations and challenges of secular universities can stress any devout student who aspires to a high moral code.  (As a former Bible-thumper, I can attest to that.)  I have recently seen a trend hinted at in the press, one I had not seen before, that of the Muslim who "integrates" and then sacrifices himself to pay for his Westernized sins.  Therefore, education not only has limited effectiveness but can result in violent reaction.

Before you read the next paragraph I must warn that I believe, based on both historical and theological arguments, that Islam is easily demonstrated to be a false religion that, despite Muslim paranoia about having their prophet and god blasphemed, is itself built upon lies and blasphemies.  

Secular liberals and liberal Muslims fantasize that violent jihadists are not real Muslims.  But that is not the elephant in the room.  Violent jihad is inevitable among those who follow the Koran.  Encouragement of liberal Islam and of integration of Muslims may reduce radicalization in the West, but it cannot prevent it, and it cannot reduce the radicalization already dominating at the source in Islamist countries.  

The only way to prevent Islamic radicalization is by reducing adherence to Islam.  As long as Christians and secularists fail to adequately address the theological problem of Islam, the jihadist problem will continue to fester.  And in its growing hostility toward evangelical Christianity while remaining neutral toward Islam and even accommodating it, the West does itself no favors.

Copyright 2016, Rich Wheeler

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Subtle Distinctions between Interpreting and Twisting the Bible

Commentary on
Charisma Magazine
8:00AM EDT 7/25/2016
David Diga Hernandez, "marked by a distinctive presence of the Holy Spirit, miracles, healing and salvation..., a unique and emerging spiritual leader...."

I assume you've read at least the first section of Evangelist Hernandez' article, linked above. Otherwise, my comments won't make much sense.

Evangelist Hernandez' first point reasons that because a demon desires something, he needs it, and because he needs it, he must have a nature that differs from that of a fallen angel who does not need it. (Cough! Cough!) Drug addicts think they need drugs, but does that mean they are not homo sapiens? (Sounds a lot like the left-wing idea that "identifying" as something turns you into that thing.)

Most of the arguments for the first difference rest on the conclusion the author draws from his first scriptural argument, so let's look at that more closely.

First, Genesis 6:4 simply says giants existed; it does not say that the former giants or the latter giants came from the unions of "sons of God" and "daughters of men." That is something the author reads into it. If giants had already come into being without the mixed unions, then mixed unions were not necessary for the giants to continue existing later.

Second, if giants lived earlier and we assume they reproduced, doesn't it make sense that they would live later? So again, it is not necessary for the giants to have come from the mixed unions. Third, the children of mixed unions are called "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." The text does not call them giants. One has to add preconceptions in order to read the text the way the author does.

The author then equates the "sons of God" who "came in unto the daughters of men" with those in Jude 6 -- the relevant parts of which he conveniently does not quote. Jude 6 refers to "angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling...." It takes an enormous leap to equate leaving the "proper dwelling" (probably heaven) with taking on human form and reproducing with women. Regardless of whether the author is right, it would be wrong to base further doctrine on such weak inferences.

What the author claims could have happened (I doubt it), but it takes a lot of leaps and insertions to force the biblical testimony to support it. The plain sense of the association between giants and mixed unions is that they happened at the same time. When we read, "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah," we do not infer any cause-and-effect relationship between Zechariah's priesthood and Herod's kingship. Neither should we infer such relationships in Genesis 6:4.

I find such sloppy interpretation to be rampant in the church, concerning far more critical topics, especially among the movement that claims superior "leading" and that substitutes such "leading" for reading. Praise God for his mercy and grace when we stray off the hermeneutical trail and ride our hobby horses across the pages of His word.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Did Christ Die "for" Only the Elect?

Reformed / Calvinist / Particular versus Arminian / General

The Reform movement began a Century before Calvin's time, but one of the debates that divide Protestants from Catholics and Reformed Protestants from other Protestants came into clear focus as a result of conflict between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.  For this reason, the Reformed school is often called Calvinist and the non-Reformed school is called Arminian.  Within Baptist history, the Reformed position is held by Particular Baptists and the Arminian position is held by General baptists.

The differences break down into many points.  In general, the Reformed beliefs are far more biblical than the Arminian beliefs.  Here, I'm going to focus on just one point: For whom did Christ die?  The Reformed belief holds that Christ died for the elect; that is, for, and only for, those whom God saves from damnation. The Arminian belief holds that Christ died for the world.

Both sides oversimplify by failing to separate the value of Christ's sacrifice and its application into two issues.

Reformed interprets "Christ died for the elect" too restrictively

The Reformed side errs by interpreting "Christ died for the elect" as meaning that the Sacrifice of Infinite God has finite potential value.  First, this mathematical absurdity is reverse-engineered from the Catholic assumption that God's grace and sacrifice are quantifiable.  Some argue that if all the value of Christ's sacrifice is not applied, then all is somehow wasted.  However, dead is dead, and eternal God is infinite. It is absurd to quantify and limit the infinite.

Second, it is a logical absurdity to assume that having one purpose, dying for the elect, excludes having other purposes. For example, Christ's sacrifice glorifies the Father and Himself, so it would be correct to say that Christ died "for" glorifying God.  By Reformed logic, Christ could not die for the glory of God or for vindication of the Father's plan to allow the Fall because He died (only) for the elect.

Third, Christ's sacrifice not only redeems the elect, but also, after the removal of the lost in the Day of Judgment, redeems the whole of creation.  Yes, Christ died "for" the elect, but His sacrifice has far more value.

Arminian interprets "Christ did for the elect" too loosely

The other side understands that the Sacrifice of the Infinite has unlimited potential value but errs by confusing unlimited value with universal application.  Arminianism holds that God applies the value to all men by freeing them to choose to receive or not receive Christ and His gift of salvation.  This flies in the face of New Testament teachings about how the lost are enslaved by sin and how the carnal mind is at enmity with God.  Paul makes it clear that even faith is a gift from God, and without that gift comes no conversion.  

Many denominations, the Roman Catholic Church among them, carry the error further by falling into forms of Universalism, the belief that all men will be redeemed (or at least purged) and enter heaven.  Pentecostals and Charismatics carry unlimited value to an absurd extreme by applying it to carnal desires for wealth ("it's in the atonement"), health ("by His stripes you were (physically) healed"), and personal pride ("he who speaks in tongues builds up himself").

On this point, both sides err by dragging along Catholic baggage.  The error on the Reformed side does not affect any critical points of the gospel that I know of, but the errors on the Arminian side can be damning.  

That is not to say that all Arminians are unsaved.  One can believe the gospel before being taught Arminian errors, and not everybody who belongs to a given church believes all that their church teaches.  However, I have only discussed one of many points.  Those who have accept Arminian errors before conversion fall short of the grace of God.  Their conversions are false, and those who mislead by preaching false gospels shall have much to answer for.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Another Illustration of the Trinity

Tri-une God, a Scientific Possibility

According to physicists and cosmologist, when the Universe was created, not only were mass and energy created, but so were time and space.  In other words, God has creative power over time. To Him, our past, present, and future are all one.  If He wishes to enter into time and space from three different "directions" and experience our "reality" as three Persons, He can do so; and yet, in that place outside of time, He remains a united God of one Mind and united substance.

The new illustration

Remember, no illustration using the physical can adequately represent the spiritual.  Even I see gaps in this illustration; but perfection is not my aim.

Imagine a Carpenter building a dollhouse with three openings. Then he creates puppets to inhabit the dollhouse. This Carpenter inserts his head through the front opening, his right hand through a side opening, and his left hand through the other side opening. 
Moreover, on his right hand, he dons a puppet costume so that his hand looks just like the occupants. His right hand has not changed its form; rather, it has taken on additional form.

Inside the dollhouse, the Walter puppet says there are three Carpenters. He counts, "One, two, three Carpenters." No connection between them can be seen; the Right Hand has a visibly different nature than the other two; and they have a clear hierarchy.
The Achmed puppet says, "The Head is God, the left hand is his angel, and Right Hand is his prophet. Headahu Akbar! Alalalalalalalalalalalal!"

The Lamb Chop puppet says. "All three are the same Carpenter: Carpenter the Head, Carpenter the Right (who has taken on puppet form), and Carpenter the Left. The three act independently, yet in perfect coordination, all of the same mind."

Obviously, the Carpenter represents God; the dollhouse represents His creation of time, space, mass, and energy; and the puppets represent His human creations. The face, left hand, and right hand represent how we perceive God's entry into and interaction with his creation, and the right hand's donning of the hand puppet represents Christ's incarnation. 

Naturalism makes the mistake of saying that we are only flesh. Some forms of Eastern religions make the mistake of saying that we are only spirit, and flesh is an illusion.  One variation that combines those those says that Jesus changed forms. Jehovah's Witlesses say He was angel, then man, then a god. Mormons say He was spirit child, then a man, and then a god (or will become a god, and so will all the rest of the "good" Mormons). 

The Trinitarian view holds that Christ was God from the beginning, and that never changed. At the incarnation, He added human form, although he refrained from exercising His divine abilities, most of the time. Within the dimension of time, He ever has been God and ever shall remain both God and human; and outside time, he is eternally One with the Father and the Spirit.

(One fine point that I have not seen addressed is whether Jesus consists only of divine spirit and human flesh, or additionally consists of human spirit. TMI?)

My purpose is not to "prove."  Many minds greater than mine have already gone over the evidence in greater depth than I can comprehend.  "Proof" is another subject entirely, but the mind cannot accept the proof of something that seems impossible.  My purpose is merely to stretch the mind, open the minds of non-tri-unitarians, and make them more comfortable with what has been revealed.
Copyright  2015, Richard Wheeler -- Permission granted for personal use; Please give attribution in group settings.

Friday, March 06, 2015

Bad Logic and Errors of Those Who Reject the Trinity

Denial leads to further denial.

One non-Christian belief holds that Christ Jesus is not God the Word come in the flesh (John 1:1, 2, 14). One symptom of this is the denial that their Jesus took part in his resurrection. They hold that their Jesus was entirely passive. Conceding that Christ had a part in raising Himself would imply His deity. Therefore, they must contradict the evidence.
My convention: The human Jesus of the deniers of Christ is he. The Christ Jesus of the Bible is He.

He really did say it.

Christ claimed to have the power to rise from the dead (John 10:17-18). Before the fact, He demonstrated the truth of His claim by raising others from the dead. This is crucial to us because Christ promised that He would raise believers from the dead in the Last Days. 

If Christ lacks such power, then He is a liar. Even worse, He is a blasphemer because He promised to do what only God can do. But if Christ can do what God can do, then He must be God. This is the truth that anti-Trinitarians must deny.

In Mark 8:31, Mark 9:9, John 2:19, Christ used active voice, meaning that he would do the raising -- I will rise or I will raise; and in Luke 18:33, He used middle voice, meaning that He would perform the raising on Himself -- I will raise myself. (1

One cannot deny that Christ Jesus said He would raise Himself without either treating the gospels as unreliable and non inspired or else contradicting Him. And one cannot contradict Christ without implying that He was a false prophet who did not keep his word. 

Non-Trinitarians would not openly call their Jesus a false prophet. They would not openly call the gospels non inspired. But their doctrine requires either one or the other.

If God says I will, does He need to say I did?

They argue that nobody in the New Testament says, after the resurrection, that Christ had an active role in raising Himself. This is false both factually and logically. 

It is true that throughout Acts and the epistles, the authors do not use active voice (He rose). They usually state that God raised Christ from the dead. Grammatically, however, this is not a solid claim. Many occurrences of the verbs are ambiguous; they could be translated as either passive voice (He was raised) or middle voice (He raised Himself).

To a Trinitarian -- or to a Jew -- the statements that God the Father raised Jesus illustrate the Father's seal of approval on the Son. Christ stated that the Holy Spirit bore witness to His identity through the miracles He performed. Similarly, the Father's involvement in Christ's resurrection validated Christ's identity, so a Trinitarian expects many references to the Father's involvement. Congruent actions of Christ and the Father give evidence of Christ's divine nature. Admitting to this would undermine the non-Trinitarian view, so they must deny it.

Factually, Mark wrote that Christ rose (active voice in Mark 16:9), and the resurrected Christ Jesus Himself explained to the disciples that the Old Testament prophesied that the Christ would rise out from the dead (active voice in Luke 24:46; see also John 20:9). If only the Father were involved those sentences would all have used the passive voice (he was raised).

Logically, if Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), then He cannot lie; neither can He prophesy falsely. If He said something before the resurrection, it stands, regardless of whether somebody else later confirmed that He kept His word. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar, to call Jesus a false prophet, or to deny the reliability of Mark, Luke, and John.

Pitiful Logic

Another facet of their contradiction of what Christ said points to the many statements in Acts and the epistles that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. According to their faulty reasoning, if God the Father raised Jesus, then Christ did not. 

Such pitiful logic follows an either-or relation and rejects, without justification, an either-or-and relation. In logic, or does not preclude the possibility of both propositions being true. (If one and only one out of two alternatives can be true, it is call an exclusive or.) Their reasoning is like looking at a quarter and concluding that it either has the face of George Washington or it has the image of an eagle, but it cannot have both. Their logic is faulty because both descriptions are true.

A Trinitarian can reconcile saying both that Christ does something and that God does it because Christ is God the Son. God the Son can raise Jesus' body from the dead, God the Father can, and the two Persons can do it cooperatively. Thus, Trinitarians do not have to attack the character of Christ or the gospels, nor do they have to use faulty logic as the non Trinitarians do.


Christ's involvement in His resurrection has an importance greater than that regarding the future resurrection of believers. According to 1 Corinthians 12:3, one who does not confess, Lord Jesus -- which implies His deity -- does not have the Holy Spirit. Rather, according to 2 John 1:7, the person who denies that Christ Jesus came in the flesh -- which is meaningless if we do not accept His pre-existent deity -- is guided by antichrist. 

Beware Unitarians, liberal mainliners, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other theological cult that denies the deity of Christ. You don't want to follow that spirit.

Copyright 2015, Richard Wheeler

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Saved by Grace but Secured by Self Righteousness

"I believe i am saved from this ungodly world by the grace of God. but to continue in that salvation or saving grace requires effort on my part."

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:3

If the potter makes a pot for honorable use, does the pot need to take action to remain a pot? If God turns a goat into a sheep, does the sheep need to take action to avoid turning back into a goat? 

Doctrines of piecemeal justification (Catholicism) or perishable justification (Arminians) contradict the very definition of grace. They do not recognize that the new birth changes a believer's very nature.

The new birth

  • Changes strangers into members of the household
  • Changes citizens of the kingdom of darkness into citizens of the kingdom of light
  • Emancipates slave, turning them into free persons
  • Changes children of satan into children of God and brethren of Christ
  • Gives sight to spiritually blind
  • Gives life to those who were spiritually dead
  • Gives an inheritance to the disinherited
  • Turns the condemned into the glorified
If God turns a lump of coal into a diamond, a little bit of dirt does not turn it back into coal. Diamonds continue to be diamonds because that's what God has remade them into, and diamonds will shine because that's what diamonds do.

Living in insecurity and in fear of your fleshly nature is not God's will for believers. IFF (if and only if) you are a believer, your spirit is a diamond embedded in a fleshly lump of coal. God promises, indeed predestines, that in the resurrection or rapture, He will transform your old coal into a new diamond, too. You cannot break God's promises or defeat His predestination.

Living in insecurity and fear is wrong for believers, but it is right for those who have not received The Gift, as a gift, from the Giver. God does not take away what He has freely given. Neither does He give the gift to those who insult His generosity.

If you received the "gift" of salvation as though it were something that you would have to pay for on the installment plan (Catholic) or would have to earn through other do's and don'ts (Wesleyan), then you may not have received the gift as a gift. Please make sure you receive the gift God's way.

Monday, March 02, 2015

Can you let go of bad evidence?

I often think of some verse to support a point I want to make, and when I look it up, think, "Oh, shrubbery! That wasn't what it was talking about!" And then I have to look further to see whether what I want to say is really supported. I sometimes have to abandon things I was going to say. 

Nobody expects an ironic exposition!  

In a Facebook discussion, a lady wanted to show an example of a Christian apologizing to others. She gave as an example, (2 Corinthians 12:13)
"For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!"
Nobody expects irony in the Bible. Read it again. During his mission at Corinth, supported himself, working (according to tradition) as a tent maker. In the context, Paul supports his apostolic authority and his sincerity by reminding the Corinthians that he worked with his own hands so he would not have to ask them to "send in your tithes and offerings." Paul was not apologizing. Rather, he was using irony -- more specifically, sarcasm, a form of irony. To support his sincerity (and to break the pride of his audience), he was using mild sarcasm. Yes, sarcasm has its place.
To further show the need for forgiveness, the lady also cited Matthew 6:14-15.
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
The Jews thought they could earn salvation through self-righteous works: the Ten Commandments, plus another 600-plus commandments in the Old Testament.
Jesus often used irony to bring religious Jews to repentance. 
  • "Forgive, or you won't be forgiven;" but nobody is perfect in forgiveness. 
  • "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect;" but nobody can be perfect. 
  • "If your eye offends you (causes you to sin), pluck it out;" but is it really God's will that we should destroy every offending member of our bodies? 
Very quickly, we would run out of hands with which to cut off our other members.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...." But "we love God because He first loved us." We should forgive, but God first forgave us.
See the pattern?
The Law says forgive to be forgiven, but God's mercy says receive forgiveness and then forgive because you have been forgiven.
So the message here is, watch out for irony, especially in teachings that took place prior to the cross. You don't want valid points attacked just because you used the wrong verses to support them.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Person vs. Being vs. Human Being

Person vs. Being vs. Human Being vs. God

What is the difference between a person, a human being and a being?


A being is a conscious entity that has self awareness. A tree does not have consciousness, so it cannot be a being. A fly has consciousness, but it lacks self awareness, so it is not a being. Some higher animals such as apes appear to have self awareness, so they may or may not be beings. Humans and God are beings. Imaginary aliens that drive interplanetary flying ships would be beings, provided they are not programmed drones.

Human Being

A human being is any individual that belongs to the homo sapiens species. A human being that loses consciousness or has not yet achieved consciousness does not cease to be a being because the organ, the brain, that performs the function of consciousness can heal or develop so that consciousness can be achieved or restored. Otherwise, we would cease to be beings every time we fall asleep!


Person has more meanings.

  • It can refer to the whole of the being. A human person has a body, mind, and if you accept it, a spirit.
  • It can refer to the body. If I say "he assaulted my person," I mean that he attacked my body.
  • It can emphasize the individuality of one being among many. "He didn't just attack the group, he singled out one person."
  • It can refer to a collective entity such as a business, union, or political party. This one drives "liberals" nuts. Organizations must have legal rights and obligations, or else they could not sign contracts, own property, or be held accountable for their actions.
  • In Trinitarian teaching, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. They have identical natures (characteristics) and one shared substance (the spirit-stuff that God consists of). Within that substance, three conscious personalities have unique roles, perspectives, and memories.

God and Person -- but avoid Being

God is a being because He has consciousness and self awareness.As Creator of the universe, God exists in more dimensions than we do. There is an eternal dimension like time, but it existed before God created time. There are other spiritual dimensions like space that spirit exists in. Some existed before God created time and space, and some, God created along with time and space. We cannot observe the spiritual dimensions, so we cannot fully imagine who and what God is. However, God has revealed that He exists as three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those three persons share the same nature (spirit) and the same substance (God), yet each has a separate, unique consciousness.

We try to think of God in terms of what we experience, but God transcends even our wildest imagining. Because we impose our perception of being, it is best to avoid using the term to describe God. It is best to stick with the terms God and Person.

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Raymond, a Oneness Pentecostal, challenges the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are One in nature and One in substance, how can we tell them apart? If there's no difference, the Trinity must be pointless and a Unitarian God makes more sense.

Oneness refers to the Unitarian belief that God exists as only one Person. Some Unitarians believe that God is a quick-change artist who switches costumes to appear as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe the Father is God, the Son was just a man, and the Spirit is an impersonal force.

Raymond says no Trinitarian has ever answered his question, How can we distinguish between the Persons or personalities of the Persons of the Trinity? With that claim he implies that the Trinity does not make sense.

Differences in Person

The question has two answers because it has two parts. By Person, we mean all that makes up the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. There is no reason to expect any difference in nature (the characteristics) or substance (whatever spiritual stuff they are made of. If there are differences, no mortal mind could grasp them.

We except from that statement the body of Christ Jesus. God translated the body of Jesus from physical form into spiritual form when Jesus ascended to Heaven. So the Son may have that additional "substance."

I'm sorry, but I have to hedge even on the exception. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:11). Also, after His baptism by John, Jesus "returned from the Jordan [river], full of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 4:1). Therefore, the Father and the Spirit may share the the body of Jesus in Heaven. That brings us back to the Three having identical substance, even during and after the Son inhabited a physical body!

More than one in one

How does one program in a computer differ from another? They share the same hardware. They share access to all the power, interfaces, and data within the computer. Since a computer's existence is limited to the physical universe, the programs have to take turns checking the keyboard buffer, executing instructions in the CPU, storing data to or retrieving data from RAM, displaying information on the monitor, and so forth.

They differ not in substance, but in information. Each contains instructions and data that correspond to their roles. You cannot look at a computer and see the programs. Even if you examined the magnetic states on the hard drive, the logic states in the CPU, or the electrostatic states in the RAM, you would need yet more information to know where to look and to decode it. 

One, but more than One

Since God is spirit in nature, omnipresent, and eternal, it would be unrealistic to think we could "look" with our mind's eye at God or at the three Persons of God, let alone have the ability to recognize differences in what we see. It's not like the Father would have flowing white hair and a bald spot, the Son would wear gold chains and would have his pants hanging down below His butt, or the Holy Spirit would wear a butler's uniform.

The difference until the incarnation would appear to have been strictly informational. The three Persons have self awareness and, although we could not tell them apart, they know each other. Even if there were no differences in nature between the three in their transcendent reality, each would still be able to distinguish the other two because, to the extent that they exercise such knowledge, they know each others' minds (for example, Romans 8:27, "He [the Father] who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit"). 

As a result of accepting different roles and executing the functions of those roles, the three Persons accumulate differentiation in "their" memories. Yet even in that I must again hedge because, since the Trinity shares a common substance, the three Persons can share in each other's experiences.

Differences in Personalities

I would define personality as the aggregate of inward and outward attributes. Inward attributes would stem from one's nature. Having the same nature and shared substance, the three Persons of the Trinity would have identical inward attributes.

Outward attributes would result from the combination of the inward attributes and the Person's role. Whereas inward attributes express the nature, outward attributes put the role into action consistent with the inward attributes.

Listing the personality differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rockets past my pay grade (if I had one). Having just enough knowledge to be a danger to myself, though, I'll attempt to name at least one unique outward attribute for each Person.

Personality of God the Father

  • Christ said that not even He knew the day or hour of the end of the age; only the Father knew, so the Father is the Planner.
  • The Father deploys the Son and the Spirit to execute His plan, so the Father is the Coordinator.
  • The Father receives Change Requests from the Son and Spirit and issues Change Orders, so He presides over the Change Control Board.

These tell me that the Father is the Manager among the Three. Although the Father delegates certain judgments, He takes responsibility for the divine plan and its execution. Would He be better than the other two at those roles? No, His leadership does not indicate a difference in nature; but we perceive a recognizable outward attribute that ensues from a difference in role.

Personality of God the Son

  • Since the Father fulfills a role of Leader, the Son and the Spirit fulfill roles as Followers. 
  • Following requires obedience. While the Spirit obeys, the Spirit does not need to obey sacrificially. For a time, the Son forsook the glory of Deity and the comfort of Heaven. He took on the weakness and vulnerability of a child and a man, took upon Himself the weight of the guilt of the world, and suffered torture and physical death. He "learned obedience," not just as a matter of being obedient by nature, as all three Persons are, but by experience.
  • As a follower of the Father, the Son demonstrates humility by representing and obeying the Father.
  • As one who experienced the discomforts, risks, temptations, and agonies of earthly life and death, the Son understands our experience, so He has empathy.

This tells me that, although the nature of any of the three persons would have led to identical behavior, the Son acts with humility and grace in ways that the other two members do not have opportunity to express. Moreover, all three Persons can sympathize, but only the Son can empathize with us because He shared the human experience. As we consider the Son's sacrifice and see His humanity and brotherhood, which presents God as accessible, relateable, and an object of affection.

Personality of God the Holy Spirit

  • The Spirit enlightens man that he might see and births believers into life.
  • What the Son demonstrated, the Spirit enables. The Spirit imbues and empowers spiritual gifts in accordance with the Father's plan.
  • The Spirit glorifies not Himself, but the Son and the Father by teaching, through the Sword of the Spirit, the written Word of God, all spiritual knowledge that we need.

This tells me that the Spirit enacts the quiet humility of a servant, teaching and equipping the saints for their own role in the spiritual economy that they might enjoy the benefits of God's love and glorify their Father and Brother.

The difference is also intuitive

It should be obvious to anyone that, although the Trinity is one in substance and its members are equal in nature, if we relate to the Father as our Father, to the Son as our Big Brother, and to the Holy Spirit as our Teacher, Quartermaster, and King's Messenger, we innately recognize differences of personality, even if we fail to consciously recognize them.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Pope Francis Blasphemes

Pope Francis Blasphemes

[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her, in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother and the Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord. These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. And also, we look at our little soul that will never be lost, if it continues to be a woman close to these two great women who accompany us in life: Mary and the Church. And just as our fathers left Paradise with a promise, today we can go forward with a hope: the hope that our Mother Mary, steadfast at the Cross, and our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, give us.

-- Pople Francis at the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows in Casa Santa Marta, 15 September 2014

In his message, Francis the Pope commits a number of errors. He limits Christ's earthly mission so that it matches that of the Catholic Mary and the Catholic Church, elevates his church to a status equal to that of God, and positions his church so that it interrupts the relationship between God and man. By mis-defining the gospel, Francis endangers his followers' souls.

[T]he people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', as Paul himself calls her...

Paul called Jesus the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-47), but he never called Mary the Second Eve or the New Eve. You can search for yourself in dozens of translations, including Catholic-approved translations, at or In the context, Paul never even mentioned Mary. Only once does Paul ever mention a Mary in any of his writings; that mention is a greeting to a different woman who lived in Rome. And only twice does he mention Eve, and neither of those mentions honors her. 

The Catholic Church might ask, if Jesus was the Second Adam, who was the Second Eve? The question errs by assuming that there must be a second or new Eve. Before asking the question, you must prove the need for a New Eve, and that proof would have to include the heretical idea that Christ was not enough for our redemption without an Eve.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'... in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

Mary did not need to become mother. She was mother (with a small 'm') by virtue of having given birth to the body of Jesus. However, Francis means more than that. He means that Mary became Mother to all believers. This terminology and notion are totally without Biblical foundation. It's simply not there. I refer you again to the Bible. Search it. it is not there.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

The Catholic Church may ask, If we have a Father, who is our Mother? Let me ask you: If Jesus had a physical mother, who was his physical, genetic father? But He did not have a physical father, you say. He was born of a Virgin! And that would be the right answer.

If Jesus did not need to have a physical father, then why do we need a spiritual mother? We don't.

And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother...

The Bible says our hope is in God our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:1), the return of Christ (Titus 2:13), and everlasting life (1 Peter 1:3). Our hope is not like that of Johnny who has two mothers.

We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother

This statement implies that if we do not have Mother Mary and Mother Rome, we are orphans. I can just see God the Father saying, Ahem! What I AM, chopped liver? 

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 says, “Come out from among them, and be separate... And touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be My sons and daughters," says the Lord Almighty. To usurp the Father's role as divine Parent crosses the line into full blasphemy.

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Does an organization suffer scourging? Does an organization suffer from nails through hands and ankles, tortured, bleeding, starving for air? Does an organization die, and can its death wash away sins? Sure, the Catholic Church has had a few martyrs. However, to the contrary of Jesus, this organization has wrapped itself in silk, and adorned itself with gold and jewels. Indeed, it has afflicted genuine saints with torture and death through exposure to the elements, starvation, whips, gutting, iron maidens, and burning at the stake. That's a really strict mother!

More to the point, did Mary or the Catholic Church shed their blood to wash away our sins? [Y]ou know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your worthless lifestyle received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.... (1 Peter 1:18-19)

These two women – Mary and the Church – carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in us

Oh, where is Mary preaching the gospel tonight? Is she serving food at a soup kitchen? I want to go! Just how does she carry on the work of giving us Christ? No, her role in giving us Jesus ended nearly two millennia ago.

Does the Catholic Church give us Christ? That is debatable, since, by elevating Mary and themselves and by under representing the power of Christ's sacrifice, the Catholic Church gives a lessened Christ. By inserting themselves between God and man, they give us a more distant, less caring Christ. By giving out God's grace bit-by-bit through sacraments, a continuing sacrifice, and chanted blessings, the Catholic Church gives us a Christ who lied when He said, It is finished (John 19:30). Just which Christ do they give? God the Son of the Scriptures, or an imaginary, diminished Christ? And if they give us a diminished Christ, are they not withholding the Christ who is?

But that as a trivial discrepancy compared to that final phrase, they bring forth Christ in us.

First, it is the believer's responsibility to bring forth Christ in himself. Wherefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12) Know God, know His Word, know His will. Then seek holiness. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) There will be no passing of the buck before God's throne.

Second, it is the responsibility and privilege of all believers to bring forth Christ in each other. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works.... (Hebrews 10:24) In that sense, it is the church -- the believers who make up the body of Christ, not some organization -- that encourages growth in Christ. God's relationship is with His children, not some soulless institution.

Third, it is God which works in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. (Philippieans 2:13) God arranges our lives to challenge, stretch, and mature us. The Holy Spirit enlightens us (Ephesians 1:16-18) so we can understand the things of God and then teaches them to us from "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6:16-18).

Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward....

Without Mary, there would have been somebody else. Sorry. This was God's doing, and all the glory goes to God (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11). Mary said, my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Luke 1:47). If she had lived a sinless life, as Mary-worshippers claim, she would not have needed a savior. Mary was special because of the grace given to her, not because she was anything special by her own rights.

When Francis says without the Church, he means, without the Roman Catholic Church, we cannot go forward: God cannot take us forward without Rome. God's Holy Spirit cannot enlighten and teach us through the God's Word, the Bible. God cannot shape our lives or cause us to grow from within. You can't do it on your own or with God. You need Francis and Company because God is too helpless. This is not the teaching of Christ, but of a cult that usurps God's role and separates man from God.

Even the Mother, 'the New Eve'..., in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother....

[T]he Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of the Lord.

Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother. 

Francis implies that Christs path was to learn obedience and suffering. Hebrews 5:8 says that, although Christ was God the Son, he learned obedience by the things which He endured. This verse can easily mislead one to think Christ had to learn some information or behavior that He did not know; but that is not the meaning.

As eternal God the Son in Heaven, Christ followed the will of the Father; yet he could not experience an obedience that cost Him, that challenged a carnal instinct to resist evil in order to preserve one's life. Christ did not learn to obey; He learned the experience of obedience. He learned the experience of humiliation and suffering.

Francis correctly includes suffering and obedience in Christ's path; but he incorrectly implies that they make up the totality, or at least the major purpose of, Christ's path. Francis omits the single reason that required such a path: namely, that this path led to the Cross for the purpose of redeeming a people from the doom brought upon them by sin. Obedience and suffering were instrumental, but they were secondary to the sacrifice.

God did not so love the world that He gave His Son to suffer and learn obedience.

Conveniently, Francis omits the purpose in Christ's path that Mother Mary and Mother Church could never follow. Catholicism's imitation of Biblical places faith in two women -- one historic and the other a corporation -- that cannot redeem. Francis pursues a false hope. The true hope is in God the Son.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.

Revelation 18:4

 Copyright 2014, Richard Wheeler