God, Part 3

Understanding Truth and Knowledge

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." —Dresden James

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." —Mohandas Gandhi

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." —Stephen Hawking

Live from the Mecca of Mormonism – Salt Lake City Utah – This is Heart of the Matter – Where Mormonism Meets Biblical Christianity . . . Face to Face Show 9 384 God Part III March 4th 2014

And I’m your host Shawn McCraney. We thank and praise the true and living God for allowing us to be part of this, His ministry. May He be with you – and us – tonight.

The station is up and running. Really good along with some rough spots.

Gonna skip from the Word tonight as the whole show is essentially from the Word. So with that let’s have a word of prayer.

The Concept of the Trinity

Shawn, As one who holds to the concept of the 'Trinity' that I believe to be taught in the Scriptures, I simply wanted to share that I was more than encouraged to see your interaction with Rob Bowman. I have prayed for the success of your ministry in the past, and was elated to see your willingness to learn from someone such as Bowman on a subject so profound as to have tantalized the utmost of intellects for almost two-thousand years (in fact, if one is talking of the infinite and Almighty God, it should be something of a 'red-flag' if it was easily subject to our finite minds).

It takes a man of true character to reconsider his views – on public display, no less regarding such matters. I applaud you (loudly) for such courage. Thank you for your past work concerning our Mormon friends, and* I hope that your intellect, and heart, find satisfaction *with Bowman and his answers as you grow in your knowledge of the Savior. It is my prayer again, that you and I share eternity with all other believers contemplating the beautiful mystery of God's Triune nature.

Encouragement and Blessings to you and yours, Russ

Reflections on Jesus as Light

Comments here on the unknowability of how Theos, and what John calls Logos and the Holy Spirit related to each other. Shawn, As one who holds to the concept of the 'Trinity' that I believe to be taught in the Scriptures, I simply wanted to share that I was more than encouraged to see your interaction with Rob Bowman. I have prayed for the success of your ministry in the past, and was elated to see your willingness to learn from someone such as Bowman on a subject so profound as to have tantalized the utmost of intellects for almost two-thousand years (in fact, if one is talking of the infinite and Almighty God, it should be something of a 'red-flag' if it was easily subject to our finite minds).

It takes a man of true character to reconsider his views – on public display, no less regarding such matters. I applaud you (loudly) for such courage. Thank you for your past work concerning our Mormon friends, and* I hope that your intellect, and heart, find satisfaction *with Bowman and his answers as you grow in your knowledge of the Savior. It is my prayer, again, that you and I share eternity with all other believers contemplating the beautiful mystery of God's Triune nature.

Encouragement and Blessings to you and yours, Russ

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” I want to focus on the first line of this passage – where Jesus says, “I Am the Light of the World.”

Understanding "I Am the Light of the World"

It’s important to our understanding of exactly what He meant here but it is also important to the church and ministry at this very moment in time. The first thing we have to note is in response to this statement the attending Pharisees did NOT rent their clothing nor seek out stones to kill Him. How come? “I am the light of the world” is a very bold statement, is it not? To me, in this day and age, it almost sounds like one of the most incendiary statements a person could make about themselves – sort of like saying, “I am God” right? But interestingly the Jews response to it was sort of like, “yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re just singing your own praises, just testifying of yourself.”

According to German Bible scholar Johann Schoettgen, who specialized in Hebrew Messianism, there was a commonly held belief that the promised Messiah would be “a light to the world.” Where on earth did they get this idea from? The Jews reaction, which was: “Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true,” was really their way of saying, “you’re not the promised Messiah so stop testifying of yourself.” So that is the first point we want to understand about this beautiful line uttered by Jesus – “I Am the Light of the World . . .” The Jews were neither surprised, nor offended by it – they rejected it, but were not offended by it like they were when He says later, “before Abraham was, I AM.”

Perspectives on the Trinity

Of late we have faced an inordinate amount of kick-back from my refusal to accept the term Trinity (as it is a man-made definition of God). The main argument I have is the Trinity has been classically defined as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existing (as separate persons, or minds or core essences) PRIOR to creation. There are two general (but acceptable) views within Christianity relative to this definition of Trinity. One says that the Son, Jesus Christ, has existed as the SON for eternity. This is known as Eternal Sonship. The other is that the Word became the Son when He took on a body of flesh, thus making God a Father with a Capital F.

I adhere to this later perspective and so do PRIMARILY because nowhere in the Old Testament descriptions of God is God described as either being (or being in) a Father/Son relationship. In other words, I reject eternal Sonship and believe pre-incarnate Jesus is better understood as “The Word” of God, the Holy Spirit as the breath (or pneuma) of God, and with God not being a Father (at all) until the incarnation of the Word. Now, understand, this point of view has ALWAYS been my understanding of God since leaving Mormonism and I also believed this view was the Trinitarian view.

The Trinity and Modalism

Additionally, in my tacit rejection of Eternal Sonship, I also ardently clinged to the notion that God was wholly One eternal being who manifested Himself in a variety of different manners from the beginning of His engagements with human-kind. In fact, several years ago (on live television no less) I explained the Trinity as the pre-creation God being an all-consuming fire. Then I illustrated how at the incarnation His Word (by which He established all things) took on flesh (which contained this consuming fire and glory), and then after Jesus ascended, the Holy Spirit, when it fell on the day of Pentecost, was also manifest as fire on the heads of those present!

Not so, says the Trinity. In fact, this description has led many Christian believers educated and not to cry “Modalist! Modalist! Heretic! Heretic!” Again, for clarifications sake, Orthodox Christianity has long taught and believed the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existed in the beginning, as persons individuated (before the foundations of the world) and they are respectively known as the eternal persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Conclusion on God’s Nature

To deny the Eternal Sonship is not unheard of in the realms of Christian theological discussion as the late Dr. Walter Martin did as well, but in my case, red flags went up all over because I also questioned the words persons (or core individualities, or minds) preferring instead, the simple name, before the incarnation, of God or Theos. Understand, I believe and admit that God, His Word and His Spirit have all existed from eternity, that they are co-equal, and are uncreated –

Discussion on the Concept of the Trinity

I just have issue with the man-made characterization (or what we might call the personification) of any of them being called “persons.” Why do this, Shawn? You may ask. For several reasons.

First of all, having come from Mormonism I want to make sure the idea of “persons” of the Godhead in the Trinity are not mistaken for the anthropomorphic persons of the LDS Godhead. Rejecting the word “person” commonly used by Christians to describe the three of the Trinity goes a long way to avoid this confusion. Secondly, while I readily acknowledge the existence of “three” in the pre-creation period, and AGREE with the Trinitarian notion that they are all of the same God-matter (or substance) I do firmly believe this God-substance is best understood as fire, AND I am convinced the oneness of God is best understood by this characteristic.

Critique of Modalism and Traditional Views

This example has been criticized by some because (for them) it smacks of an idea called Modalism – which, depending on the form of Modalism – describes ONE God who manifests Himself in three different ways. Traditional Modalism – also known as Sabellianism – says that God could not be in more than one place at one time, therefore the Father BECAME the Son and the Son BECAME the Holy Spirit. I reject this teaching out of hand. Additionally, most Modalists reject the deity of Christ – and nothing could be further from my mind and heart.

I completely adore and accept all verses of scripture including Matthew 1:23 which says: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” When the virgin was with child and brought forth a Son, whose name was Emmanuel, “God with us” do I also believe that God (the Father) was looking “down from on high” so to speak? Absolutely. That the Holy Spirit was also simultaneously at work as God? Yes. But we are still left with some issues that I cannot reconcile by embracing the man-made term Trinity nor the orthodox descriptions of it.

Personal Approach to Theology

Here is a major point which GREATLY annoys my fellow brothers and sisters in the Body – I have not and I do not read what other men have said on this issue. In a text conversation with a brother recently, I was given a laundry list of men I ought to read and consult to understand this issue better. I wrote back to him and said, “When it comes to reading books I have not and do not read Christian authors – I rely on the Bible alone and always have.” His response was, “this hurts my heart deeply.”

Our dear brother Rob Bowman from IRR, in his review of our conversations regarding the topic kindly wrote: “My assessment is that Shawn’s theology is confused and otherwise lacking largely because he has never studied Christian theology at a serious level and because, probably in overreaction to the programmed instruction and extra-biblical texts imposed in Mormonism, he has tried to develop his understanding by reading only the Bible.”

I want to openly admit something to you. I have purposely avoided reading most Christian books and literature and have instead longed to be taught only by His Word. While modern Christianity and certainly theologians are critical of this, in my opinion, I left a religion full of teachings of men. I want to experience a relationship as free of their influence as possible.

Understanding Eternal Sonship

And what has my reading the Bible (hopefully in conjunction with the Holy Spirit lead to): First, as mentioned, there is the problem of Eternal Sonship. I do NOT believe most Christians know that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that Jesus was the Son – separate and distinct from the Father with his own personality, and had a type of a relationship with His Heavenly Father that an earthly Father has with a Son. When I learned this, my ontological understanding of the Trinitarian God was rocked.

Now admittedly, in ways we will never understand or comprehend with our finite minds how precreation God was three in one. Orthodox Trinitarianism calls the three co-equal persons (uncreated).

Understanding Pre-Creation Ontology of God

and applies the New Testament titles given them at the incarnation of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Admittedly, once the Word was made flesh, those titles were absolutely biblical and apropos. But pre-creation? While Theos is certainly eternal, and His Word, and His Spirit, I reject the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because the Old Testament NEVER identifies them by these titles unless we are speaking prophetically. And then that is only in a few instances.

Secondly, the prevailing and overemphasized MONOTHEISM found in the Old Testament (which is reiterated over and over and over again by the Prophets) leads me to view God as manifesting Himself (in His relation to the salvation of humankind) in flesh and blood and by the indwelling of His Spirit far more than thinking three separate and distinct persons existed pre-creation and then showed up on the Biblical scene to challenge this monotheistic history. I am NOT saying that the burning bush was God (meaning the bush itself) but I am saying that at that point in His work among fallen man this was a way God represented Himself. Additionally, I am also NOT saying that the burning bush was on the same level of Godly manifestations as Emmanuel or the Holy Spirit falling or indwelling.

Scriptural Insights on God's Nature

The pneuma and the Word are “as much God” as the Father – how? This is the mystery I cannot explain. But what we can do is appeal to scripture for insight. Which is what we will do from this point forward. Speaking of reprobate, fallen humanity, and what they do with God, Paul writes in Romans 1:22-23: 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Listen) and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to (1) corruptible man, and (2) to birds, and (3) four-footed beasts, and (4) creeping things.

The glory of God is not anything like “corruptible man” (and bottom-line, when we say “persons” we cannot help but think MAN) or “birds, four-footed beasts, or creeping things” – this we can assure ourselves. But scripture DOES say a few things relative to the make-up or ontology of God doesn’t it. It is by and through the study of scripture I have come to identify or see the pre-creation ontology of God. And the scripture gives us some very strong statements about God, saying: God IS love, God IS light, and God IS a consuming fire.

God as Light and Consuming Fire

I (still and ardently) maintain that the best way to understand pre-creation Theos, Logos, and Pneuma – which are all manifestations of the monotheist God – is fire – not fire that burns like a campfire, converting material into heated energy but fire that burns clear and clean and without the need of any . . . other matter to exist. Scripture also says that God is Light, which goes hand in hand with our understanding of fire – an attribute Jesus assigns to Himself here in John 8:12. I am not going to cover the third description of Him being love – which is a characteristic rather than a physical description and one we’ll save that for another day – but for the time being just stick with the biblical descriptions of God “as a consuming fire,” and “light.”

1st John 1:5 says “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” I would suggest that “no darkness” means not only the absence of physical darkness . . . but also of any spiritual darkness, including Guile, Lies, Hypocrisy (Jesus despised the darkness of hypocrisy), Shadow, Trickery, Death, Deception, Blindness, Ignorance . . . etc. He knows all – a stance which completely rejects what is known as Open Theism, a theology that maintains God does NOT know everything. For Him to not know all would convey ignorance of some – which is not part of His character as light.

The thinking then, and for me at least, is that if scripture plainly says God is Light, and if Jesus is God, then the syllogism must be Jesus is light, and His words here in the temple are true. Meaning by His own admission (which is our text for the Milk Gathering this morning) He is the Light of the World. Then 1st John 4:8 says “God is love.” Since God is love, and Jesus is God, then Jesus must be love – and we see this manifested throughout His earth life. Finally, and relative to our topic of the ontology of God, Hebrews

Understanding Jesus as the Light of the World

Since God is a consuming fire, and Jesus is God, I know that Jesus, under all that flesh, was (and is) a consuming fire. So all of this brings us back to Jesus standing there in the temple and saying point blank: “I am the light of the world.” I don’t think there is enough time in a month to fully flesh this verse out in a contextual and biblically sound manner it is SO rife with meaning. So . . . let’s try and understand it in the next ten or fifteen minutes or so.

Scriptural Foundations of Light

I want to appeal to three sets of passages of scripture to set the stage – Genesis 1:1-5, John 1:1-3, and 1st John 1: Genesis 1:1-5 says:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Then let’s read from the Gospel of John, those all-familiar verses in chapter 1:1-5:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

And finally, John the Beloved gives some more personal witness of the divinity of Christ in his epistle 1st John, saying:

1st John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of the World

Now, go back with me to the Genesis one verses which I am going to use to prove my perspective. While you are turning there, we know something very important from the New Testament narrative – from the foundation of the World God had His plan of victory in place. By and through what? Light – which became incarnate and dwelled among us as Jesus Christ.

Matthew 13:35 talks about the Messiah coming and that he would open “His mouth in parables; uttering things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” John 17:24 has Jesus praying and (speaking of His disciples) saying: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” Speaking of Jesus since ascended Peter says in 1st Peter 1:20: “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” Then of course Revelation says in 13:8: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Insights Into the Foundation Event

So what is this about the foundation of the world, with the Lamb being slain then? Do we have any insight to this event at all? We do. And it is fascinating. Go back with me to the very first verses of the Bible. Here we read a number of things that are often misunderstood so let’s read them together. In what I believe is a summary or preamble to all he is about to write thereafter, the first verse of the Bible has Moses says: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. In other words I think (and of course, I could be wrong) but I think Moses is saying: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and…

Insights on Creation in Genesis

Here are some insights to it… Where it says “God” the Hebrew is elohiym, and it is plural. I would suggest that the better understanding of this is that Theos, by His Spirit and through His Word – the three in one – are being spoken of here. In verse two I would suggest that Moses now provides a very abbreviated description of creation, saying:

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. There are a number of interpretations of this verse as well but the Hebrew word for darkness here in the second verse of the Bible is “Kho-shek.” For the most part, throughout the Old Testament, this term Kho-shek (translated darkness in the English) describes some form or expression of evil. It does describe physical darkness but it more often than not describes destruction, misery, and the general opposite of light. In fact Strong’s Bible Interlinear says this of the word: Literal – darkness; figuratively – misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:–dark(-ness), night, obscurity.

The Concept of Darkness

Many people, without really looking at context interpret the term darkness here in verse 2 as literal darkness. It kind of makes sense since God is about to create everything so it seems the entire space void would be physically dark. I would strongly, strongly suggest that this darkness is figuratively speaking, and that evil, destruction, ignorance, sorrow and wickedness was upon the face of the deep. Prior then, to doing any creating, prior to anything being formed, we read the third verse, God’s response to this darkness. They are His first words spoken in the Bible and they say:

3 And God said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” A couple of things about verse three. First of all, it is not speaking of God creating the Sun that hangs in our sky or the stars or moons. He speaks these into existence later (on the fourth day which are described in verses 14-16) and where we read “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”

The Significance of Light

Here in the very beginning we are reading about the first day (which, by the way, proves that these days could not be twenty-four hour periods since God calls what He is doing here as the first day… but the sun and stars are not created until the fourth (anyway, that’s for another day too). So what was it God was talking about when He said in verse 3 “Let there be light.” First of all, the Hebrew word translated light is “RWA” and it not only means light, but also fire. In the face of the darkness God said, before doing anything else, before, as it were, from the foundation of the world, God said, “In the face of this darkness, let there be light.” This gives some real significance to Jesus words in John 8 as He stood in the temple and said: “I am the Light of the World.” It also helps us understand why the Pharisees standing there were not overwrought with anger over it. According to Bible scholar Schoettgen a number of Jewish Rabbins believe that Genesis 1:3 was in reference to the promised Messiah.

Now this is going to get a little heavy. God – Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit – are uncreated and self-existing. Knowing that the Word was NOT created, but was “with the Father from the beginning,” co-eternal and co-equal, I think we can see that “In the Beginning,” when God (plural) said “Let there be light,” … that the “Word of God,” self-existing, was offered up (listen) as the light of the world from before the foundation of the World.

The Concept of Light in Biblical Creation

But in and through it we agree that the Word creating all things, that the Word spoke light into place (before the foundations of the world) to confound (and have victory over the darkness), and we are able to see how Jesus, the incarnate Word, was able to plainly refer to Himself as I AM – the self-existent one. So again, from before the foundation of the world, God SAID, in the face of the DARKNESS “Let there be light,” and here, from the foundation of the World, God’s solution – light, which was come into the world thousands of years later, was established by His Word. He did not say, “Let there be my Son.”

The first thing He said (and I’m going to paraphrase so please forgive me God) but He said, “Let there be light to come in, offset and overwhelm the darkness, and have victory from the foundations of the world.” In other words, “In the face of such darkness, I am going to first establish victory – light – my light, to overcome the darkness and I’ll do it by speaking . . . 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Separation of Light and Darkness

Now as mentioned this is NOT speaking of the sun, moon and stars that hang in our sky. In verse four where we read: Genesis 1:4 “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Perhaps the better way to read this would be: “And God saw the light, that it was good, and God put a separation between the dark and the light.” To me, when God said, “Let there be light,” He was saying, “Before I create anything I am going to establish the solution to all this misery and darkness, by allowing there to be light in the face of it . . . my light . . . my fire.” And He did this by His word.

But the real clincher to it all is located in verse five, which says: “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Notice the capitalization here of Day and Night. What is that about? I would propose to you that this is a naming of the “light” Day is the naming of the Light of the World Day (with a capital D) and the naming of the darkness of the world Night (with a capital N).

Symbolism of Light as Christ

In other words, pre-incarnate Jesus, pre-creation “Word” was, from the foundation of the World, called Day (again, not Son) as He is the light of the world, the Day Star. This is highly symbolic, metaphorically driven language – but it is not limited to Genesis one. Let me conclude today by going to a final few verses to put a point on all of this: In 2nd Peter 1:19 we read: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the “day star” arise in your hearts.” Where it says, “And the day-star arise in your hearts,” this is speaking of Christ and is better translated as morning star. I consulted twelve translations of this verse and ten of the twelve translate Day Star as Morning Star. Who, again, is Christ – a light, a Fire, the Day Star, the Morning Star. A lamp unto our feet.

2nd Corinthians 4:3-6 says: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Then, speaking of Himself, Jesus says in Revelation 22:16: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

For these reasons, from before the foundations of the World, in the face of the darkness, God said, Let there be light, and then “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Topic: Critique of Show's Representation of Mormon Faith

Introduction to the Show's Influence

Shawn, First off I must congratulate you. Few people in this world are capable of providing so little true evidence, yet convincing so many of so much falsehood. I commend you. You truly are crafty. I recently stumbled upon your show and became quite intrigued. I have watched and listened to multiple callers, and I must say that I agree- most are the epitome of the naive Mormon. None seem to have much of a grasp on church doctrine, let alone church history. This makes your wins all the less impressive.

A Call for Knowledgeable Representation

As an active Mormon, I am disappointed and somewhat embarrassed that such callers have not defended the faith adequately. And for that reason, I ask that you allow someone with knowledge of church history and biblical history to defend that which is true. If you accept my invitation, I will call in to your show at your earliest convenience (with the exception of tomorrow night). If not, I understand, as it would clearly be detrimental to your ratings and audience to allow someone with a brain to have a debate with you. I look forward to hearing back from you, Sincerely, Drew

Critique of Misrepresentation

Shawn,

First off I must congratulate you. Few people in this world are capable of providing so little true evidence, yet convincing so many of so much falsehood. I commend you. You truly are crafty. I recently stumbled upon your show and became quite intrigued. I have watched and listened to multiple callers, and I must say that I agree—most are the epitome of the "naive mormon". None seem to have much of a grasp on church doctrine, let alone church history. This makes your "wins" all the less impressive.

Call for a Knowledgeable Debate

As an active Mormon, I am disappointed and somewhat embarrassed that such callers have not defended the faith adequately. And for that reason, I ask that you allow someone with knowledge of church history and biblical history to defend that which is true.

Invitation to Engage

If you accept my invitation, I will call in to your show at your earliest convenience (with the exception of tomorrow night). If not, I understand, as it would clearly be detrimental to your ratings and audience to allow someone with a brain to have a debate with you. I look forward to hearing back from you,

Sincerely,
Drew