http://www.TheSwordOfTheSpirit.com/

The Sword of the Spirit, Olympia, WA (2026)

09/09/2026

The Endless “You Don’t Understand Calvinism” Cycle

There is a pattern whenever Calvinism is examined critically:

Critique Calvinism → “Strawman!”

Ask what was misrepresented → “You don’t understand Calvinism.”

State Calvinism’s premises → “You need to study Calvinism.”

Ask which premise is wrong → “There isn’t enough room. Read a book.”

At some point, “You don’t understand Calvinism” stops being a rebuttal and becomes an escape from defending it.

So let’s make this simple.

Here is what I understand historic Reformed Calvinism to teach:

1. TOTAL DEPRAVITY / MORAL INABILITY

Fallen man cannot savingly repent, believe, or come to Christ apart from God’s effectual grace.

2. UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Before creation, God chose particular individuals for salvation, not because of foreseen faith, merit, or their decision to believe.

3. PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

Christ’s redemptive work was intended to effectually secure the salvation of the elect, rather than merely make salvation possible for everyone on identical terms.

4. EFFECTUAL CALLING

God effectually calls those He elected. This calling accomplishes its saving purpose rather than merely presenting a resistible offer.

5. REGENERATION PRECEDES SAVING FAITH

Because fallen man cannot savingly believe, God changes the heart/disposition of the elect so they willingly come to Christ in faith.

6. FAITH RESULTS FROM EFFECTUAL GRACE

Saving faith is not independently supplied by man. The elect believe because God’s saving grace effectually brings them to faith.

7. THE ELECT COME WILLINGLY

Calvinism does not teach that God drags people to Christ while they want to reject Him. God changes their disposition so they willingly come.

8. THE NON-ELECT DO NOT RECEIVE THAT SAME EFFECTUAL SAVING GRACE

They remain in their fallen condition and therefore unable and unwilling to savingly believe.

9. DIVINE DECREE

God sovereignly and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, while Reformed theology denies that God is the author of sin and affirms human responsibility.

10. PERSEVERANCE

Those whom God elects, calls, regenerates, and justifies will ultimately persevere unto salvation.

There.

No “God forces people kicking and screaming into Heaven.”

No “Calvinists don’t believe in human choices.”

No “Calvinists believe evangelism is pointless.”

No “Calvinists think humans are literal corpses.”

Those would be strawmen.

I understand that Calvinism teaches people act voluntarily according to their desires and that effectual grace changes the elect so they willingly believe.

And I still reject the system.

Not because I don’t understand what Calvinists say, but because I do not believe its distinctive premises are established by Scripture.

So here is my standing invitation:

Identify ONE proposition above that historic Reformed Calvinism does not teach.

Quote it. Correct it.

I will acknowledge the correction.

Then we can examine the corrected proposition against Scripture.

But shouting “STRAWMAN!” or “YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND CALVINISM!” while refusing to identify the misrepresentation proves nothing.

And don’t tell me I first need to learn “what Scripture says” and then “what Calvinism teaches about Scripture.”

That distinction makes my point:

Scripture is the authority. Calvinism is an interpretation of Scripture.

Calvinism cannot define its interpretation as simply “what Scripture says” and then treat disagreement as ignorance of Scripture.

If Calvinism is biblical, its foundational premises should withstand examination from the biblical text.

So enough with the cycle.

Which proposition did I get wrong?

If I stated Calvinism correctly, let’s debate the question that matters:

Does Scripture teach it?

09/09/2026

When Theology Starts Sounding Like the Anti-Theist’s Argument Against God

I have been thinking about something increasingly difficult to dismiss as insignificant.

One of the major arguments anti-theists make against God goes something like this:

“If God determines everything, creates people knowing and determining exactly what they will do, gives them no genuine possibility of doing otherwise, and then punishes them for the inevitable outcome, how could that God possibly be just?”

Christians normally challenge that characterization of God.

Yet Calvinism constructs a theological system remarkably close to the premises of that objection:

• God unchangeably decrees whatsoever comes to pass.
• Fallen man cannot savingly believe.
• God unconditionally chooses whom He will save.
• God effectually regenerates those chosen so they will believe.
• Those not given that effectual grace remain unable and unwilling to believe.
• Nevertheless, God commands everyone to repent and holds them accountable for their unbelief.

Then this is presented as necessary to protect God’s sovereignty and glory.

I do not think the similarity should simply be dismissed.

In fact, I increasingly wonder whether there is a spiritual dimension to theological systems that distort God’s character in ways that make Him appear arbitrary, causally responsible for evil, or unjust.

I am NOT claiming special revelation that “Satan invented Calvinism.” I cannot establish that from Scripture.

But neither do I believe theology is spiritually neutral.

Scripture warns about doctrines that deceive. It tells us that:

“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Cor. 11:14

And Christianity explicitly recognizes that we are engaged in a spiritual battle involving truth, deception, and the character of God.

So test the doctrine against what God actually says:

“I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Ezek. 33:11

“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.” Deut. 30:19

God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim. 2:4

God “commandeth all men every where to repent.” Acts 17:30

Jesus said:

“Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” John 5:40

And Scripture concludes:

“Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Rev. 22:17

I see a remarkably consistent picture:

God genuinely calls.
God genuinely offers.
God genuinely wants people to turn and live.
Man genuinely responds or refuses.

God does not need to causally determine man’s rejection in order to remain sovereign over him.

Nor does man responding to God steal God’s glory.

Receiving is not providing.
Believing is not earning.
Faith is not merit.
Choice is not sovereignty.

And when a theological system produces a conception of God that so closely resembles one of the principal arguments anti-theists use to portray God as unjust, Christians should at least be willing to ask whether something has gone seriously wrong, spiritually as well as exegetically.

Test the doctrine.

Test its foundational premises.

Test its interpretation of Scripture.

Test the character of God that emerges from it.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21

09/09/2026

The more I watch debates over Calvinism, the more I wonder whether some have become “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:3)

Whenever Calvinism is challenged, the response is remarkably predictable:

“You don’t understand Calvinism.”

“That’s a strawman.”

“You need to understand compatibilism.”

“You don’t understand primary and secondary causation.”

“Read the Reformed confessions.”

“Read Calvin.”

Fine. Define your terms. Represent every doctrine accurately. But eventually all of that terminology has to resolve into propositions that can be tested against Scripture.

So let’s make the central issue very simple:

When God commands a person to repent and believe, can that person genuinely respond by believing or refusing?

Scripture certainly speaks as though he can:

“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.”
Deut. 30:19

“Choose you this day whom ye will serve.”
Josh. 24:15

“Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”
John 5:40

“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 7:51

“Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
Rev. 22:17

Compatibilism generally calls a choice “free” when a person voluntarily acts according to his desires, even though those desires and determining conditions may make any contrary choice impossible.

But saying “he did what he wanted” doesn’t answer the objection if he could not possibly have wanted or chosen otherwise.

It merely moves the determinism from the action into the desire.

And Calvinist soteriology makes the problem especially clear:

If fallen man cannot believe until God regenerates him…

If God unconditionally determines whom He will regenerate…

If that regeneration effectually results in faith…

Then the non-elect person hearing the Gospel cannot possibly believe it and be saved.

Yet Scripture presents the Gospel remarkably simply:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
Acts 16:31

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Rom. 10:17

“These are written, that ye might believe… and that believing ye might have life.”
John 20:31

Hear the Word. Believe. Receive life.

We can discuss compatibilism, libertarian freedom, effectual calling, decretive and preceptive wills, primary and secondary causation, and centuries of Reformed scholasticism.

But none of those terms gets to substitute for demonstrating the doctrine from Scripture.

And if I have actually constructed a strawman, there is a very simple remedy:

Quote what I said. Explain exactly what Calvinism teaches instead. Then show it from Scripture.

“You don’t understand Calvinism” is not a refutation.

Scripture tells the teacher to hold fast the faithful Word so that “he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Titus 1:9)

If Calvinism is sound doctrine, convince the gainsayer with Scripture.

It shouldn’t require a degree in Reformed philosophy before a Christian is permitted to understand what God said.

09/07/2026

Calvinism creates a serious problem with moral responsibility that deserves more attention.

Calvinists often compare regeneration to physical birth:

“You had no more control over your new birth than you had over your first birth.”

Fine. Follow that analogy through.

If a baby is never born because of a stillbirth, nobody holds the baby responsible for failing to be born. Why? Because the baby had no ability to cause its own birth.

Yet Calvinism says the unbeliever is spiritually dead, utterly unable to believe, unable to come to Christ, and unable to do anything leading to regeneration unless God first gives him the effectual grace necessary to do so.

Then Calvinism says God chooses not to give that grace to everyone, while nevertheless holding those people responsible for remaining unbelievers.

That is where the analogy collapses.

Scripture presents a very different sequence:

“These are written, that ye might BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that BELIEVING ye might HAVE LIFE through his name.”
John 20:31

Believe → have life.

Jesus says:

“And ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life.”
John 5:40

Notice what he does not say:

“You cannot come to me because I have not regenerated you.”

He says you WILL not come.

Peter says:

“Repent… and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Acts 2:38

Paul says:

“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Romans 10:9

And God says:

“I have set before you life and death… therefore CHOOSE LIFE.”
Deuteronomy 30:19

Finally:

“Whosoever WILL, let him take the water of life freely.”
Revelation 22:17

None of this means man regenerates himself.

God provides the Savior.
God provides the Gospel.
God provides salvation.
God provides the gift of holy spirit.
God raises us to new life.

But receiving a gift is not creating the gift.

Believing God’s promise is not saving yourself.

Calvinism repeatedly conflates those categories.

If an unbeliever literally has no more ability to respond to the Gospel than an unborn child has to cause its own birth, then Calvinists need to answer a straightforward question:

On what basis does God condemn someone for failing to do something that God created him incapable of doing, while withholding from him the only grace Calvinism says could ever enable him to do it?

Simply answering, “God is sovereign,” does not resolve the contradiction.

God’s sovereignty does not require that every choice be God’s choice.

Scripture repeatedly treats human choices as real, consequential, and morally significant. God genuinely calls people to repent, believe, come, receive, and choose life.

God provides salvation. We decide whether we will receive what He has freely provided.

Without genuine choice, moral responsibility itself loses its meaning.

09/04/2026

The Part of Job Most People Miss

The book of Job is often reduced to a simple story: God and Satan made a “bet,” God allowed Satan to torture a righteous man, and Job was eventually rebuked for questioning God’s sovereignty.

But there are two verses that radically change how I read what was happening before Satan ever attacked Job.

Job 1:5:
“And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”

Job was righteous, but righteous does not mean flawless in his believing. He was continually concerned about what might happen concerning his children.

Then, after catastrophe strikes, Job reveals something extremely important:

Job 3:25:
“For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.”

The fear didn’t begin after the tragedy.

The fear was already there.

Then Satan appears as the accuser, seeking an opportunity against Job.

Satan says:

“Put forth thine hand now…” (Job 1:11)

But God does not strike Job. Instead:

“Behold, all that he hath is in thy power.” (Job 1:12)

Again Satan says:

“Put forth thine hand now…” (Job 2:5)

God answers:

“Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.” (Job 2:6)

And then Scripture explicitly identifies who performed the attack:

“So went SATAN forth from the presence of the LORD, and SMOTE JOB with sore boils.” (Job 2:7)

There was no “bet.”

Satan accused. Satan sought access. God imposed limits. Satan attacked.

And Job himself tells us that the catastrophe corresponded to something he had already greatly feared.

I believe that fear is significant to understanding the adversary’s opportunity against Job. But we should distinguish interpretation from what Scripture explicitly states: Job tells us he greatly feared these things, and Scripture tells us Satan attacked him. It does not explicitly state, “Job’s fear gave Satan access.”

Most importantly, Job didn’t know what the reader knows.

We see behind the curtain. Job doesn’t.

Job knows his integrity.
Job knows his fear.
Job knows his suffering.

But Job doesn’t know his enemy.

So as his suffering continues, he increasingly attributes Satan’s attacks directly to God and eventually begins questioning God’s justice.

That’s where Job goes wrong.

God asks:

“Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?” (Job 40:8)

Job needed his understanding of God corrected. His friends did too.

The lesson isn’t that God caused Satan’s evil, nor that God and Satan wagered over how much suffering Job could endure.

The text gives us a much more complex picture:

Job feared. Satan accused. Satan sought access. God limited him. Satan attacked. Job couldn’t see the spiritual conflict and eventually blamed God for what Satan was doing.

When reading Job, don’t skip Job 1:5 and Job 3:25.

They were written for a reason.

09/03/2026

“Strawman” Is Not a Rebuttal

One of the easiest ways to avoid defending a doctrine is simply to accuse every criticism of being a “strawman.”

But calling something a strawman does not demonstrate that it is one.

If someone misrepresents your doctrine, the response is simple:

* Quote the claim being criticized.
* Identify exactly what was misrepresented.
* State what you actually believe.
* Demonstrate it from Scripture.

That is especially important in theological debate because Scripture explicitly tells us how doctrine should be defended:

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by SOUND DOCTRINE both to exhort and to CONVINCE THE GAINSAYERS.”
— Titus 1:9

“Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason…”
— 1 Peter 3:15

Paul “reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”
— Acts 17:2

And the Bereans were commended because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
— Acts 17:11

That is biblical debate.

Accusations like “strawman,” “dishonest,” “you don’t understand our theology,” or even questioning someone’s Christianity do not establish that an argument is false.

Expose the supposed strawman. State the correct doctrine. Open the Scriptures. Convince the gainsayer with sound doctrine.

If your doctrine is true, examination should strengthen it, not threaten it.

09/03/2026

Calvinism, Evangelism, and the Logical Conclusion

There is a recurring disconnect in discussions about Calvinism and evangelism.

The objection is not that Calvinists don’t evangelize. They obviously do. The objection concerns what evangelism can actually change within Calvinist theology.

Classical Calvinism teaches that God eternally chose a definite people for salvation. Those elect people will be effectually called, brought to faith, justified, and ultimately glorified. Those not elected do not receive the effectual saving grace Calvinism says is necessary for them to come to Christ.

Calvinists answer that God ordains the means as well as the ends. Evangelism is one of those means. Fair enough. That explains why Calvinists preach.

But it doesn’t resolve the logical consequence.

Ask two simple questions:

Can anything I do cause someone whom God eternally elected to salvation to be finally lost?

No.

Can anything I do cause someone whom God did not elect to salvation to be finally saved?

Again, no.

Then my actions cannot alter who ultimately gets saved.

If I preach and someone believes, Calvinism says that person was already elected and God effectually brought him to faith through the ordained means.

If someone remains in unbelief, Calvinism says that person either has not yet been effectually called or was never elected at all.

And if God has decreed both the outcome and every means necessary to accomplish it, even my decision to evangelize is incorporated into that decree.

So saying, “We preach because God uses preaching to save the elect” doesn’t answer the objection. It describes how the predetermined outcome is accomplished.

Now compare that framework with the straightforward language of Scripture:

“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.”
Deuteronomy 30:19

“Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?”
Ezekiel 33:11

“Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”
John 5:40

God “commandeth all men every where to repent.”
Acts 17:30

“Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
Revelation 22:17

Scripture repeatedly speaks as though the hearer’s response genuinely matters. People are commanded to repent, invited to come, rebuked for refusing, and told to choose life.

That is the issue.

I’m not arguing that Calvinists don’t evangelize. I’m asking whether Calvinism can consistently maintain the genuine contingency implied by those biblical invitations and warnings while simultaneously teaching that the identity of everyone who will ultimately believe was unconditionally settled before they were born.

Calling evangelism an “ordained means” explains its function within the system.

It does not make the outcome any less predetermined.

09/02/2026

The “People of the Book” Problem

There is a serious problem with claiming that Jews and Christians corrupted their Scriptures to remove Muhammad.

The Qur’an calls Jews and Christians “People of the Book.” More importantly, it speaks of them as possessing those Scriptures in Muhammad’s own lifetime.

Qur’an 5:43 asks why Jews seek Muhammad’s judgment:

“…while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allah.”

Qur’an 5:44 describes the Torah as containing “guidance and light.”

Qur’an 5:47 tells Christians:

“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”

And Qur’an 5:68 tells the People of the Book that they have nothing to stand upon unless they uphold the Torah and the Gospel.

That creates a significant problem for the common claim that the Bible was textually corrupted.

If the Torah and Gospel had already been corrupted beyond reliability before Muhammad, why does the Qur’an direct Jews and Christians to them?

If they were corrupted afterward to remove prophecies about Muhammad, we should be able to compare our present texts with manuscripts from before Muhammad.

And we can.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint textual tradition, the Samaritan Pentateuch, ancient biblical quotations, and Christian biblical manuscripts written centuries before Islam. These witnesses contain textual variants, as ancient manuscripts do, but there is no manuscript trail showing that “Muhammad,” “Ahmad,” Medina, the “land of dates,” or an explicit biography of Muhammad was systematically removed.

There is also no plausible historical mechanism by which Jews, Christians, and Samaritans could have secretly coordinated such a deletion across independent textual traditions spread across different languages and regions.

Muslims are certainly free to argue that passages such as Deuteronomy 18 or sayings about the Paraclete should be interpreted as prophecies of Muhammad. That is an exegetical argument and can be examined on its merits.

But claiming that explicit references to Muhammad used to be there and were removed is an entirely different claim.

That requires manuscript evidence.

Existing text can be debated through interpretation.
Allegedly deleted text requires evidence that it ever existed.

Where is it?

09/02/2026

One of the things I have never been able to reconcile with Calvinism is where unconditional election and irresistible grace ultimately lead.

If a person literally cannot believe unless God first changes them, and God only does that for those He already chose to save, then everything is decided before anyone ever hears the Gospel.

The elect will believe because God makes them able and willing to believe. Everyone else remains unable to believe because God withholds the very thing they would need in order to do so.

Then we’re told this arrangement demonstrates God’s glory: His mercy through those He saves, and His wrath and power through those He doesn’t.

But taken to its logical conclusion, that makes creation feel like an enormous wind-up show. Almost a simulation where every outcome was programmed beforehand and everyone simply plays the role assigned to them.

That is very difficult for me to square with the way God actually speaks to people in Scripture.

“I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked TURN from his way and live… for why will ye die?” — Ezekiel 33:11

Jesus looked at people who rejected him and said:

“Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life.” — John 5:40

And of Jerusalem:

“How often WOULD I have gathered thy children together… and YE WOULD NOT!” — Matthew 23:37

God tells Israel:

“I have set before you life and death… therefore CHOOSE LIFE.” — Deuteronomy 30:19

And the Bible ends with an invitation:

“WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.” — Revelation 22:17

Those words sound remarkably hollow if nobody involved could ever have responded differently.

Why say choose when the choice was already determined?

Why plead turn ye… why will ye die? with people who were never given the ability to turn?

Why say “ye would not” if “they could not because God chose not to enable them” is what was actually happening?

None of this means we save ourselves.

God conceived the plan. God provided His Son. God accomplished redemption. God gave us the Gospel. God offers eternal life as a gift that none of us could ever earn.

But receiving a gift isn’t the same thing as earning it.

I don’t see God’s sovereignty threatened by genuine human choice. Quite the opposite.

God is sovereign enough to create people who can actually choose, tell them what He wants them to choose, allow them to reject Him, and still accomplish His purposes.

God sovereignly gave us the choice.

08/24/2026

Going over “Systematic Theology” 2nd Ed by Wayne Grudem…

Chapter 14: God in Three Persons: The Trinity
4. The Importance of the Trinity

This section is useful because it exposes how much of the argument for the Trinity is theological inference rather than explicit biblical proposition.

Several statements on these pages deserve scrutiny.

1. “If Jesus is merely a created being…”

That framing creates a false dichotomy.

The biblical alternative to “Jesus is God” is not necessarily “Jesus is merely some creature.” Scripture presents Jesus as the uniquely begotten Son of God, the Messiah, the second Adam, the man appointed and empowered by God, exalted above every other human being, and the one through whom God accomplished salvation.

Peter summarizes the relationship quite differently:

“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him…”
— Acts 2:22

And Paul:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5

The question therefore isn’t whether an ordinary creature could save humanity. It is whether God could save humanity through the man He appointed as Messiah. Scripture explicitly says He did.

2. “Could any creature… bear the full wrath of God against all our sins?”

Notice the wording: “it is hard to see how…”

That’s an argument from theological intuition, not a biblical statement.

Romans 5 gives Paul’s explanation of why Jesus could accomplish redemption, and Paul’s logic is strikingly human:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
— Romans 5:19

Adam → one man → disobedience → death.
Christ → one man → obedience → righteousness and life.

Paul doesn’t say redemption required an infinite God to pay an infinite penalty because only an infinite being could absorb infinite wrath. That philosophical mechanism isn’t Paul’s argument.

Indeed, Hebrews grounds Christ’s qualification partly in his genuine humanity, suffering and obedience (Heb. 2:10–18; 5:7–9).

3. “If Jesus is not fully God, we would rightly doubt whether we can really trust him to save us completely.”

Again, why?

Jesus repeatedly identifies God as the ultimate source of salvation and authority, while identifying himself as God’s commissioned agent.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” — John 3:16

“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” — John 6:38

“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” — Matthew 28:18

Something given presupposes a giver.

The biblical claim isn’t that Jesus independently possesses saving authority because he must ontologically be God. God gave him authority.

4. The worship argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.

The passage argues:

Only God may receive worship → Jesus receives worship → Jesus must be God.

But the underlying Greek terminology and biblical concept of homage must first be established. Proskyneō can describe homage given to persons who are unquestionably not God (for example Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9).

Philippians 2:9–11 is particularly problematic as proof of inherent deity because the passage says:

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name…”

And the culmination is:

“…to the glory of God the Father.”

The passage distinguishes the God who exalts from the Jesus whom God exalts.

5. “Credit for salvation” presents another false dilemma.

The author says attributing salvation to Christ without making Christ God improperly gives credit to a creature rather than the Creator.

But Scripture itself credits both God and His Messiah while distinguishing them.

God devised and initiated salvation. Jesus obediently accomplished the work God gave him.

That is why Peter can say:

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus…” — Acts 5:30

And:

“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour…” — Acts 5:31

Calling Jesus Savior therefore doesn’t require making Jesus the God who made him Prince and Savior.

6. The “God needs interpersonal relationships to be personal” argument is especially philosophical.

The book argues that without the Trinity:

“there were no interpersonal relationships within the being of God before creation,”

and consequently:

“it is difficult to see how God could be genuinely personal…”

But where does Scripture teach that personhood requires eternally existing interpersonal relationships within one’s own being?

It doesn’t.

This is metaphysical reasoning being used to establish what God supposedly must be like.

Worse, saying God requires an internal plurality of persons in order to possess relational attributes raises its own problem concerning divine aseity: why would the one God require another person within His own ontology in order to possess personality?

7. “The unity of the universe is at stake” is even further removed from an exegetical argument.

The claim is essentially:

Without “perfect plurality and perfect unity in God himself,” we have no ultimate basis for unity among diverse things in creation.

That’s a philosophical model of the relationship between unity and plurality.

It isn’t a biblical demonstration of the Trinity.

There is an enormous difference between:

“Scripture explicitly reveals that God is three coequal, coeternal persons sharing one divine essence.”

and:

“Without three persons within God, I don’t see how ultimate unity and diversity can be philosophically grounded.”

The second proposition cannot establish the first.

And then comes the most revealing statement

The continuation quotes Herman Bavinck:

“Christianity stands or falls with the confession of the deity of Christ and of the Trinity.”

And:

“every error results from, or upon deeper reflection may be traced to, a wrong view of this doctrine.”

That is an extraordinary claim.

Compare it with what Jesus himself identifies as foundational:

“The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.” — Mark 12:29

Or Jesus praying:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” — John 17:3

Or Paul’s Christian confession:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things…” — 1 Corinthians 8:6

Those statements don’t read like later creedal formulations requiring one ousia existing eternally as three coequal hypostases.

The fundamental methodological problem

This section essentially argues:

If the Trinity isn’t true, our theological explanation of the atonement becomes difficult.

If the Trinity isn’t true, our philosophical explanation of God’s relational nature becomes difficult.

If the Trinity isn’t true, our philosophical explanation of unity and diversity becomes difficult.

Therefore:

The Trinity must be true.

But Christianity doesn’t get to reason backward from what a theological system supposedly needs God to be.

The question must remain:

What does Scripture actually reveal about God and His Son?

If Scripture identifies the Father as “the only true God” and Jesus as the Messiah whom that God sent, then our theology has to accommodate that language rather than insisting that Christianity cannot function unless Scripture means something ontologically more complicated.

We don’t establish a doctrine first and then ask how Scripture can support it. We establish what Scripture teaches and require the doctrine to conform to it.

The Sword of the Spirit

09/09/2026

09/09/2026

09/09/2026

09/07/2026

09/04/2026

09/03/2026

09/03/2026

09/02/2026

09/02/2026

08/24/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Place Of Worship

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request