Bobby Richardson Scripturally refutes Larry Ray Hafley


LAST UPDATE 02-18-03 ... STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION ....

Non-denominational Layman, Bobby Richardson, Scripturally refutes the flawed doctrine articles of Larry Ray Hafley, a Church of Christ preacher, evangelist and seasoned Bible debater, with OVER 30 years of debating experience under his belt.

What you are about to read is VERBATIM ... word for word ... actual email communications which began when an individual named, Jason, responded to one of Bobby's web pages. Shortly there after, Bobby was introduced to Larry Ray Hafley, who identified himself as being a retired school teacher, and flatly denied being a professional public speaker. Bobby has been unsuccessful in getting Mr. Hafley to answer the seven remaining questions of the following eight, listed below. The ONLY one Mr. Hafley would answer was question # 1. Here are the questions ...


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Larry's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?




Bobby finally decided to conduct an Internet search, to see if he could find out something about this person who was acting very strange. As it turns out from the information Bobby obtained about Mr. Hafley from his Internet search, it appears Mr. Hafley is much more than a retired school teacher, who denies being a professional public speaker. Bobby came across some of Mr. Hafley's Bible doctrine articles on the Internet. Since Mr. Hafley will NOT answer Bobby's questions, Bobby set aside some time and Scripturally refuted Mr. Hafley's articles in great detail ... POINT BY POINT, sending Mr. Hafley a copy of each refutation for his records. Here's the list of Mr. Hafley's articles which have been Scripturally refuted ...



1. Answering "Jesus Only" Questions
2. More Comments On The Godhead
3. PENTECOSTAL IN EXPERIENCE (?)
4. An Unknown Tongue


This web pages contains a total of 52 DOCUMENTED EMAILS that contain the entire word for word exchanges ... and sent via blind carbon copy to over 50 "observers". The POINT BY POINT Scriptural refutations of the four articles (listed above) begin with EMAIL # 17 on Jan. 28, 2003 and ends with EMAIL # 30 on Feb. 1, 2003. I decided to include, at the end of this web page, the feed back and input from about 10 of the 50+ "observers" in my audience, who follow the Bible discussions and debates that I engage in via email.


HELPFUL HINT: Since there are 52 EMAILS on this web page, and is rather lengthy. You might want to to stop at some point, and come back later and pick up with the EMAIL that you left off with. You can do so by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of browser window. And when the slide down menu appears, click on "Find (on This Page)." Next, type " EMAIL # " (without the quotation marks) into the white bar and then click on "Find Next." This will take you right down the list ... one by one. Or if you prefer, type in the actual EMAIL # that you want to go to, and click on "Find Next", and that should take you to the beginning of that particular EMAIL.


After Bobby Scripturally refuted the above articles by Mr. Hafley, Bobby put his own proposal for an oral debate on the table, which, unlike Mr. Hafley's does NOT place a time limitation for either party making an assertion or responding to an assertion. However, Mr. Hafley will not agree, and still refuses to answer the seven remaining questions, or to respond to the Scriptural refutations of his articles. Mr. Hafley refuses to negotiate on any other terms for the oral debate other than what he insisted on from the very beginning. Since Bobby feels that a serious Bible student should not object to a debate which would enable both participants to have enough time to FULLY present an assertion or to respond to an assertion. Instead, Mr. Hafley insists on it being conducted in a very tightly controlled, time limited, environment, limited to just eight hours (four - 2 hour sessions), with Bobby having the floor for only 1 hour per session, broken down into three 20 minute segments. That's all the time Bobby would be permitted to, both, present the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine AND to respond to Mr. Hafley's presentation of the man made theory of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead that evolved out of Rome centuries AFTER Christ, known as the trinity. So far, Mr. Hafley refuses to meet Bobby somewhere between these two proposals. As a result ...


Things are dead locked. However, it's all documented below ...

((IMPORTANT NOTE: Links or any other information throughout the following material can be copied and pasted by left clicking the mouse and highlighting the area to be pasted as one would normally do, and [while holding down the "CTRL" key] pressing the "C" key to copy .... then [while holding down the "CTRL" key] pressing the "V" key to paste.)



Let's get started! Here's the documentation of it all ...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 1
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Bible discussion with Jason ...


Jason: I stumbled across your Website and found it interesting. I agree with your assessment of what the scriptures teach about baptism, but I disagree with your assessment of the nature of God.

Bobby: Praise the Lord, Jason! I am very glad to hear you agree with the baptism instituted by the "original" New Testament Church leaders and "footprint followers" of our Lord. As far as the distinction in the Father and the Son, I do not put forth the notion that there is no distinction in the the Godhead. Instead, I assert that the distinction in the Godhead is flesh and Spirit .... not in three separate persons or even two separate persons (as you and I are separate persons). As a matter of fact, I do not even use the word "persons" in my understanding ... or explanation ... of the Godhead. Before I speak further on this, I will address the Scriptures you brought up ....

Jason: Here are some scriptures that I believe refute that doctrine and indicate a distinction between the son and the father: 1. Gen. 1 states "Let us"...

Bobby: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1. No one else but God performed the miracle of creation. "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" Isaiah 44:24. And God said, "Let us make man in our image..." Genesis 1:26.

POINT # 8. Bobby: To use the word "us" and try to form other Gods ... or other "persons" ... as if there was "more" than ONE involved in the creation, clashes not only with the Scriptures, but with common sense. The word God means Supreme Being, the eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator and Sovereign of the universe. There cannot be more than one Supreme Being. By no means was God talking or counseling with other "persons" or other Gods. It should be obvious that God was NOT talking to any assistants or co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent PERSONS who were about to help Him make man. God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

The Incarnation did not take place until centuries later when the virgin conceived and gave birth to the Christ child (Galatians 4:4). God is an invisible Spirit without flesh and bones (Colossians 1:15; John 4:24; and Luke 24:39). God speaks of things that are not as though they are (Romans 4:17). And He counsels with Himself ... His own will (Ephesians 1:11). We know that God did not have any assistants in the creation of man because of what the very next verse says ... So God created man in HIS (singular) own image, in the image of God created HE (singular) him (NOT "created 'they' him"); male and female created HE (singular)them (NOT "created 'they' them"). Genesis 1:27.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

POINT # 9. Bobby: Furthermore, we know that angels are in the presence of God, but they weren't involved in the actual creation process either. So the explanation of Genesis 1:26 has to be found in the foreknowledge of God who knows the beginning from the end and the end form the beginning ... and speaks of those things which are not as though they are ... because man was created in the image and likeness of God, but was created flesh and bones ... NOT an invisible spirit as God is ... even though there couldn't have been a flesh and bones person physically present at the time Adam was created.

Jason: 2. At Christ's baptism, God spoke from heaven. You said that at times the flesh spoke and at other times the Spirit spoke, so I assume that's how you'd answer this verse. But who was speaking when Christ said to John that he wished to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Was that the flesh speaking?

Bobby: There is a very real purpose in everything God does. Most of the time, it is for the benefit of people just like you and me. The voice from Heaven is one of those instances. Here's why I say that ...

John 12:28-30 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

The voice of God is a Divine (supernatural) witness to those who hear it. And just because God can manifest Himself in various ways, and/or provide Divine witnesses like that, in many geographical locations, simultaneously, does NOT turn Him into more than ONE PERSON. If I believed God's voice being uttered ... and heard by people ... confirmed the presence of only ONE PERSON in a three person Godhead, namely, the Father ... then there would be some very serious situations in the Scriptures, including at the Burning Bush that Moses stood before. I often use the analogy of Clark Kent/Superman. While it is not a perfect analogy, it is a good one, because if ever there was a genuine Superman, Jesus Christ was the genuine Superman. Like Clark Kent, He didn't go around telling everyone about the real identity of Superman, but spoke of God (the invisible, omnipresent, omniscient Spirit), much of the time, as if He was another person up in Heaven or off on some other planet or something ... when in actuality, God resided in that "tabernacle of flesh", and was standing before them in the form of a mortal man.

The Scripture to which you refer to the fulfilling of all righteousness can be found here ...

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

It was necessary for John to baptize Jesus ... and for them to fulfill all righteousness. Even though Jesus had no sin to repent of, He walked (or rode an animal) about 60 miles or so to be baptized. And He was our example. Furthermore, for those who say baptism in NOT important, I say .... WRONG!

Jason: What does it mean to say that one's flesh is speaking but their spirit is not speaking?

Bobby: Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, and was BOTH God and man, flesh and Spirit, human and Divine. While He was tempted in all points like as we, and had a free will like other men, He was no "ordinary" man. He was the Incarnation of Almighty God ... or God come to earth in the form of a man. Here's a real quick example of what I mean when I say sometimes the flesh spoke and other times the Spirit spoke (which, by the way, is to say there were times when Jesus spoke as an ordinary man, and other times when He spoke as Almighty God) ...

When Jesus said, "I thirst" that was the mortal side (the flesh) speaking. When He said, "Peace, be still (and the winds and waves obeyed)" that was the voice of Almighty God.

In conclusion, to this point, there are times I speak, act and function as a father, and other times as a son, and still at other times as a husband .... but I am still only ONE PERSON. As a matter of fact, I can be in the room with a bunch of people ... or with just one ... and can speak as a father, a son and a husband without causing the other person to wonder how many persons are in the room with them ... or confusing the other person with whom I am speaking. Now, concerning the Father and the Son, here's where I would suggest you consider the Clark Kent/Superman analogy I spoke of earlier. Last, but not least, I occupy more than one office and function in more than one capacity. A person can be a student, teacher and an administrator, while being only one in person. Now, if this attribute is applicable to man ... and man was created in God's "likeness" and image ... why do some insist man can do something which God either cannot ... or will not ... do??? I find that position totally illogical.

Jason: I Cor. 2:11 says, "For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God." Grace and peace in the Lord, Jason

Bobby: Precisely my point. Because Jesus was BOTH God and man, He was no "ordinary" man. He was qualified to speak of BOTH the things of man as well as the things of God. He just did so in such a way that some could understand His parables while others did not. The same is true today when it comes to His written Word ... some get it and some do not. The key to "getting it" (in my opinion and my understanding of the Scriptures) is to earnestly desire it ... to hunger and thirst for righteousness ... and to lay aside all preconceived ideas, opinions, theories, and indoctrination ... and allow the Word of God to interpret itself, which it definitely will do .. when "rightly divided".

You said you stumbled across my web site. Since I have a number of web sites, I am not sure which one you saw, so I will list them below. If you would like to challenge my position on the Godhead, please begin by addressing the points on this web site ...

http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

I wish you much success in doing what God leads you to do. The fields are truly white to harvest.

Bobby G. Richardson
Non-Denominational Layman
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The whole gospel to the whole world!

$ 10,000.00 Reward.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html

Bible Study.
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/

50 Reasons Why.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/believed.html

Open letter to Mormons.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/mormon.html

Open letter to Jehovah Witnesses.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/witness.html

Open Letter to professing Christians who are homosexual.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/profess.html

Who says the supernatural manifestations of God have ceased?
http://hometown.aol.com/actschap2bgr/myhomepage/profile.html

Mainline Minister accepts the Bobby Richardson challenge. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/newsletter.html

What you always wanted to know about Freemasonry. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/military.html

Can a Christian be (or should a Christian remain) a Mason? (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/newsletter.html

Bobby Richardson refutes a former Mason and some ministers on Freemasonry (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/rant.html

The saga continues - withstanding the anti-Freemasonry crowd (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/business.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 2
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: More communications with Jason and a debate initiated with Larry



Jason: Bobby, I spent some time on your nicely-constructed Website, mainly reading the 50 reasons you listed. I have also spoken with a friend of mine who preaches in Houston (where I currently live) who is more knowledgable than myself about these matters. If you are willing, he would be willing to have a public discussion with you on the godhead doctrine. I think such a discussion would be beneficial to me and others who are interested in learning the truth on this matter. If I am following error on a doctrine, I want to be corrected (Acts 18:26). I don't know where you live, but I believe that the congregation where he preaches would be willing to house the discussion. Grace and peace in the Lord, Jason

Bobby: Jason, Sorry to be so long getting back to you, and I plan to respond to your previous email soon. This is being sent to you from another email address (after I forwarded it to myself at this email address). I can retrieve email on my acts2@impact-ministry.com email account, but there's a glitch concerning the email address when I send email from that account on my my lap top. At any rate, please continue to use my acts2@impact-ministry.com email address, not this one. We've been visiting our daughter in Florida for almost 3 weeks, and don't plan on being back in Mississippi (our home) for another week or so. We lived in Florida for 15 years (1986-2001), and have a daughter (and two grandchildren) still living here, just south of Kissimmee/Disney. As far as Bible discussions/debates are concerned, I've been doing that for several years now ... via the Internet and in person. All you need to do is have your friend email me at acts2@impact-ministry.com (in about 10 days) and we'll discuss/debate this subject thoroughly. There are about 50 people (most of whom I don't have a clue what their religious persuasion is) who have filled out a form on one of my web pages to receive (via blind carbon copy) the Bible discussions/debates that I am involved with from time to time. I can either add your email address to that list, or your friend can forward the discussion/debate to you, himself. The way I do it is to remove the email address, and any other presonal information, of the person I am discussing/debating the Scriptures with that would compromise their privacy. Other than that everything is left as is ... word for word ... and documented. Then I email it to myself and blind carbon copy it to my email list of "observers" ... which also protects their privacy as well. I've been involved with discussions/debates in person many, many times. And, I've also attended debates that are held in a large arena, before two opposing sides ... which, by the way, usually always turn into dog and pony shows because most people go into them with their minds already made up one way or the other, and just root for their team like they were at a sports event and/or are not really evaluating what is being said and/or become overwhelmed with all the slide rule terms, Greek word explanations, bending and twisting of Scriptures, etc. At any rate, that's the way I do it, Jason. If you and your friend are interested in an open discussion/debate in this fashion, please feel free to initiate the process ... but give me about 10 days to get back home and sort of get caught up a little. If this is not acceptable, I might consider working something else out later on. We may be over in New Waverly, TX at Timber Lodge RV Resort (our home resort) later on in the year. If so, I might consider working something out for getting together, in person. Again, if you find where I have ever mis-handled, mis-interpreted or mis-represented the Word of God in any manner, shape, form or fashion, please call it to my attention. If your friend embraces, promotes and defends the trinitarian theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ, we can't both be right on on this subject, and being "about right" or "close" only counts if we're talking about throwing horse shoes or hand grenades ... certainly not being in compliance with the explicit, plan of God as preserved and presented in the preponderance of Scriptual evidence and verbatim examples given to us in the Word of God. Let God ... and the Word of God ... be true and every man a liar. God bless!

Jason: Bobby, I visited Florida for the first time last January and enjoyed the visit (Orlando, for a professional conference). It's nice to experience 70 degree weather in the middle of winter. I am glad to hear that you are willing to publicly discuss your understanding of the Scriptures. I have learned immensely from debates on various topics and have changed several views over the years as a result. Regarding formal debates, I agree that there is often a sizeable percentage of attendees who are only there for the "dog and pony show," as you indicated, but at least a few who have an open heart ("good soil" per Matt. 13) and will accept or at least begin to accept the truth if presented plainly and Biblically. The friend I mentioned, Larry, indicated that he would be willing to discuss these matters in a public setting if he thought some good could come of it, which I also hear you saying. As to whether it should be conducted through email or in a more public venue, I will leave that and related details for you and Larry to arrange. I will forward your message to him and expect that he will contact you upon your return in a couple of weeks. If you two decide to hold a public discussion in a city distant from Houston, I would suggest that it be audiotaped to allow more widespread dissemination and further study of the arguments espoused. I agree that both positions on the nature of God cannot be right, and thus we are to "test the spirits" to see which are from God (I Jn 4:1). Grace and peace in the Lord,
Jason

* * * Jason sent me an email from Larry, to which I have responded below .....

Jason: Bobby, I assume that you have now returned, or will do so soon. Hope your trip was
pleasant. Larry wanted me to convey the following message to you:


Larry: I will be happy to debate the following propositions in a public, oral debate at his (Bobby's) congregation in Mississippi:

Bobby: Larry, I do not have a congregation in Mississippi. I am a non-denominational lay man, not a pastor or a preacher or professional speaker. I've been discussing and debating Bible subjects for a number of years both in person and via the Internet. This debate has already begun ... and in very public (global) forum. The message content will be available to anyone with an email address or access to the internet. I have no problem with my email address being given out, but I will remove yours ... as well as any other contact information that would compromise your privacy ... before I make it available to others. Unlike oral debates, the Robert's Rules or Order time constraints and the dog and pony show distractions will not limit or take from the substance of the debate. Everything will be very well documented ... word for word ... and researching who said what will much more convenient for anyone to pull up and access.

Larry: The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism is not for believers today. I affirm; he denies. The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, is for believers today. He affirms; I deny.


Bobby: Since I was contacted initially about the Godhead issue ... and since there couldn't possibly be anything more important than understanding who God really is, this debate will deal with the Godhead issue FIRST. Then we can deal with any other subject you wish later.

Larry: Then, at a later time, in an oral, public debate at our building in Baytown, I will be happy to debate the following propositions: The Scriptures teach that there are three, separate and distinct persons in the Godhead; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I affirm; he denies. The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead. He affirms; I deny.

Bobby: Larry please give "direct" answers the following questions ...


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead?

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

Also, I challenge you to Scripturally disprove any one my "50 Reasons why the Bible doesn't mention TRINITY or refer to God as PERSONS" web page found here ...

http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html


Larry: Each debate will be four nights in duration. Each affirmative will have two nights of affirmation on each proposition. Each speaker will have three twenty minutes speeches per evening. Each speaker agrees to conduct himself "as it becometh the gospel of Christ" (Phil. 1:27). It is also agreed that each disputant will request that there be no demonstrations from the audience. Other details as to specific dates, mutually convenient for both parties, can be worked out when the propositions are agreed to.

Bobby: **IF** you have time to drive to Mississippi for a four night oral debate, you have time to deal with the Godhead issue at your leisure, and in the comfort of your home or office, via the Internet without having to watch a goofy stop watch, nor deal with distractions coming from an audience, some of whom are going to hoot and holler as if they were at a sports event ... regardless of how much we ask them not to. This is NOT about me. This is NOT about you. This is all about Almighty God ... our LORD, Saviour and Creator ... and the Apostles' One God Monotheistic truth in its entirety! I am set for the defense of the gospel, and will eagerly await your email response to the questions above, as well as any one of my 50 points that you feel you can Scripturally disprove.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 3
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:36 PM
Subject: Larry's 01-22-03 response


Larry: Jason, Bobby, ..... During the debate on the Godhead, after the one at a congregation
which will endorse Bobby, I shall be happy to answer the questions posed. In part, the answer to such queries is the purpose of the debate.


Bobby: Jason, Larry, ... I am affiliated with a Bible believing ... Bible teaching ... congregation. And I am pretty sure the pastor has confidence in my ability to proclaim and defend the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. However, I fail to understand why one has to agree to host an oral debate with Larry in order to enter into a dialog with him about something as important as the Godhead. He missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate to you how the "three persons" in the Godhead theory, that came along a couple centuries AFTER Christ, is superior to the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine which is found in the preponderance of VERBATIM Scriptures throughout the Bible, which I proclaim and defend. Why is it that he will not debate me in this forum, at his own leisure and in the privacy and comfort of his own home or office, and without any time constraints? Why is it that he does not want to go on record and document his position by giving a few direct answers to my questions?


Larry: Accordingly, I shall not engage in a lengthy response to such matters. If Bobby is not willing to engage in the oral debates as proposed, let him select one of his brethren who will do so. Surely, there is a "oneness," "Jesus Only," Pentecostal church that will open its doors to a study of Holy Ghost baptism.


Bobby: God called me out of the red neck beer joints of Mississippi back in 1985, and put something down deep in my soul that has been like fire shut up in my bones. Needless to say, I stay pretty busy doing what God has called me to do. God didn't call me to minister behind a pulpit. And I don't feel the same compelling that Larry obviously does about going here and there and having oral debates. I've already gone on record stating that I am not a pastor, preacher or a professional speaker. However, I do know a little bit about what the Bible says. Direct answers to the questions I asked Larry to answer would not have required him to give lengthy responses. I stand amazed that he will not engage me on the Godhead issue in this forum.


Larry: Neither I nor the church here is interested in furnishing an audience for Bobby. Let him find a church of his persuasion who will endorse, support, and advertize the first debate. When he does that, we will have the first debate, as proposed. Then, we shall have the one proposed here. It is that simple.


Bobby: I am not at liberty to speak on behalf of a congregation, but I will very gladly debate Larry in this forum.


Larry: Frankly, it appears that Bobby may not be a qualified opponent. After receiving a proposition wherein I agree to affirm "that there are three, separate and distinct persons in the Godhead; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," he then inquires of me, "How many 'persons' are in the Godhead?" If he must ask such a question after seeing the proposition I will affirm, perhaps he lacks the ability to engage in a debate.


Bobby: I may not be a qualified opponent, which is even more reason why Larry should engage me in this forum, if for no other reason than to just test the waters with me. I've listed the questions below again. This time, I have placed Larry's answer to question # 1 immediately following in BLUE. Now all he needs to do is just give a few direct answers to the others ... AND show me where I am wrong by disproving any one of my 50 points on my web page ...

http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? THREE

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Larry: However, be that as it may, when he finds a church of his persuasion which will agree to host the first debate, let me know, and we can arrange mutually agreeable dates for the discussions. Larry


Bobby: Jason, I reget that Larry is not willing to go on record and engage me in this forum. **IF** you can ever persuade him to tell you what his answers to questions 2-8 are, I would really like to know. Meanwhile, if you would like to see whether or not I am qualified to discuss the Scriptures with someone of Larry's (and I guess yours) sect on this subject, please check out this web page ...

Mainline Minister accepts the Bobby Richardson challenge. (loads slowly and may take several tries)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/newsletter.html

By the way, Jason, I am NOT against the good people who are members of this particular sect. While I was not a member of this particular sect, I am a former trinitarian. However, this particular sect did have a certain amount of influence in my life early on. While I may not subscribe to some of their doctrinal positions, I am NOT against the people personally. If I have an ax to grind, it is with the wolves in sheep's clothing who are fleecing their flocks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 4
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Fw: Response to Larry 01-23-03


Larry: Jason, Bobby, ... I am not a professional speaker, either. I am a retired school teacher. However, if I had what Bobby and his brethren claim they have, I would not be afraid to meet even a "professional speaker."


Bobby: Who said anything about being "afraid to meet" a professional speaker. I'm not "afraid" to meet Larry, whether he is a professional speaker, a pastor, preacher or an indoctrinated theologian with a doctorate. However, I must say, it appears Larry is the one who is "afraid" to go on record and just answer a few questions concerning his theology as it relates to the Godhead. He has already invested enough keyboard time to have answered them more than once. It is very likely that the real reason Larry won't do it is because he's afraid for his theology to put to such a straight forward test ... because the numbers just wouldn't add up in the final analysis, which would be pretty embarrassing.


Larry: However, I will not debate debating. The offer is on the table. When Bobby, his "Pastor," or one of his brethren find the courage to defend their faith in an open and fair forum, I shall be there. Then, they may ask their questions.


Bobby: As far as I'm concerned, this debate has already begun. Larry is the one who is stalling, and who will not step up to the plate in obedience to the Scriptures with direct answers to questions. I guess his interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 reads like this ... But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ... only if he is willing to host an oral debate. Jason, I am ready, willing and able to debate Larry on the Godhead. And I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why we can't debate this issue in this forum ... DO YOU???


Larry: If Bobby wants to to continue to talk about everything else except agreeing to the discussion, that is his choice. I will not play his game. Jason, I've been through this "hedge and dodge" scenario with his brethren many times over the years. They are full of bluff and bluster. They boast about their impregnable position and speak disparagingly of the pagan doctrines of their opponents, but when they are faced with an opportunity to actually defend their teachings in an open and fair arrangement, where they will be questioned and challenged, these men, who claim to be led by the Spirit, suddenly invent every excuse under heaven not to discuss the scriptural issues that divide us.


Bobby: Jason, Larry may, otherwise, be a nice guy, but he has crossed the line here with his judgment seat condemnation of me and those I fellowship with. I feel resonable sure there's preachers who would have an oral debate with Larry in front of a live audience. It sounds glamerous and I suppose being in the spotlight for a little while may mean a lot to some, but I'm just not into that. At any rate, if Larry will not debate unless in front of a live audience, go to this web site and click on your state and see if you can find some Apostolic churches in your area who will oblige him ...

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/organizations/

By the way, not all Apostolic churches are listed on this web page. But, I feel reasonable sure there will be one in your area which will be listed there. If not, let me know and I'll see if I can find one for you. Also, I haven't ruled out an oral debate all together. And I think I made that plain from the get go. If you go back and read our correspondence, I think you will see that. Jason, here's the bottom line: Larry and I have a very effective means of communication right now ... today. I have asked him some questions which he still refuses to answer. My question to you is WHY??? Jason, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Larry is very childish if he thinks he has to get his way BEFORE he will answer my questions. Furthermore, Larry may have people eating out of his hand and thinking he can walk on water, but Larry doesn't dictate to me what I must do before he will debate me. Either he will step up to the plate in this forum whether we ever have an oral debate or not or he won't. So far, he hasn't ... and I doubt seriously that he ever will.


Larry: Sadly, Bobby is no different. Like the rest of his brethren, he prefers to cower and crow behind his keyboard. He will not dare to put himself out in the open where his charges and assertions can be examined before others. So, Jason, when you find a Pentecostal who is "set for the defense of the gospel," and who will "earnestly contend for the faith," submit the propositions to him and let us get on with a date for the discussion. Thanks for your work, Jason. Larry


Bobby: Jason, my name is Bobby Richardson. My address is 1452 Calvary Drive, S.W., (P.O. Box 377) Bogue Chitto, MS 39629. My telephone number is 601-833-3240. I AM NO COWARD. AND I AM NOT HIDING BEHIND MY KEYBOARD FROM LARRY OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER ... AND I VERY HIGHLY RESENT HIS SPIRITUAL ARROGANCE! I find it amusing for Larry to consider having a debate via the Internet as somehow being "beneath" him ... AND he has time for a four night oral debate, but will not take a few minutes to answer a few questions. Also, I find it very disturbing that he so quickly climbs up into the seat of judgment and pronounces his judgment against me and those with whom I fellowship. Larry might be able to glaze people's eyes in an audience, and dazzle them with his charisma and charm, and his flowery words of men's wisdom, but I promise you he wouldn't out lawyer me in this forum ... not on this subject, anyway. This oral debate "hold out" Larry is using is a farse ... a red herring. **IF** he has time to come to Mississippi for a four night oral debate, he has time to answer a few questions and to deal with the Godhead issue at his own leisure, and in the comfort of his home or office, via the Internet without having to watch a goofy stop watch, nor deal with distractions coming from an audience, some of whom are going to hoot and holler as if they were at a sports event ... regardless of how much we ask them not to. This is NOT about me. This is NOT about you and/or Larry. This is all about Almighty God ... our LORD, Saviour and Creator ... and the Apostles' One God Monotheistic truth in its entirety! I am set for the defense of the gospel, and will eagerly await Larry's email response to the questions I've been trying to get him to answer ... as well as his correction of any one of my 50 points that he feels he can Scripturally disprove. By the way, I don't wish you or Larry any malice. God bless!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 5
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:18 PM
Subject: Response to Larry's 2nd email 1-23-03 and also to Jason's email 1-23-02




* * * * * * * From Judge Larry's email * * * * * *

Judge Larry: Jason, Bobby, ... Jason, the Lord has told us why neither Bobby, his Pastor, nor any
of his persuasion will agree to the open discussion such as we have proposed: "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn. 3;20).

Bobby: Soooooo, Judge Larry claims I am practicing evil just because I keep pressing Larry for a few direct answers before agreeing to an oral debate, eh? WHEW! Or is it that Judge Larry's mind is so closed until he has already judged me BEFORE he has heard me and, therefore, would not profit from a debate anyway. I must admit, this is getting a bit ridiculous listening to Judge Larry's self righteous babble. I mean, give me a break, man. Just because Judge Larry will not answer my questions and I will haven't agreed to an oral debate just yet does NOT mean that I hate light and will not come to the light ... unless, of course, Judge Larry thinks "HE" is that light. And in order for me to come to the light, I must appear before him in person. WHEW! If this wasn't so serious, it would be a real hoot!


Judge Larry: \Next, the Lord describes those of us who are willing to enter into an open, fair
discussion of our differences: "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God"(John 3:21).


Bobby: You mean to tell me that Judge Larry thinks a Bible discussion/debate cannot be conducted via email ... or that one conducted via email, for some mysterious reason, would not be open and fair. Come on folks, let's get real here for a minute. Let Judge Larry answer my questions and then let Judge Larry, at the very least, throw out a few Scriptures, or put forth some info from some of his notes or his debate outline, as to why he feels the Scriptures teach that there are three, separate and distinct "persons" in the Godhead. Why can't that be done by email? It can! Judge Larry is just too afraid OR too ashamed to do it. I realize when it is entered into the record and put down in writing and documented for the world to see, it doesn't satisfy an ego as much as getting up in front of a bunch of people and putting on a show for them. Intelligent people can read a Bible debate via email and view both sides of an issue, checking the Scriptural references, etc. and draw their own conclusion. They don't have to attend a dog and pony show somewhere in order to grasp the subject matter that is presented.


Judge Larry: Again, I will not debate debating. The propositions have been extended. Jason, when a man with the courage of his convictions is found, put him in touch with me. Until then, I shall leave Bobby to continue to cower and crow from behind his keyboard. Larry


Bobby: Judge Larry, when you answer a few questions I will consider an oral debate with you. Until then, why don't you just go do whatever it is self righteous people like you do, and I will continue doing what God has called me to do. Furthermore, while I shucking some corn, let me just tell you a few things. One of the dearest and best friends I have on this earth is a member of the Church of Christ ... and he also is among the 50+ people who receive copies of my Bible discussions and debates (including this one). My grandmother, who had a very big influence in my life early on, was a member of the Church of Christ. I had other close relatives who were members of the Church of Christ. While I was not a member of the Church of Christ, I grew up in and around it, and it did have an influence in my life early on ... and, to be honest with you, I'm glad it did. However, stubborn and spiritually arrogant people like you make me want to puke, ragardless of what their religious persausion is. It ain't going to matter what the name on a building is when that long awaited trumpet sounds. And while I am not a member of the Church of God, that term is used more in the Bible that the Church of Christ. At any rate, as far as I am concerned, you are a poor excuse of what you claim you represent if you can't (or won't) answer a few questions via email.


* * * * * * * * From Jason's email * * * * * * * *


Jason: Bobby, ... I think Larry is not responding to your doctrinal questions because he prefers to discuss these issues in a more public setting, where more good can be accomplished.


Bobby: WHAT??? More good can be accomplished??? Listen, Jason, whether it is one or a thousand who are exposed to a Bible debate, it is NOT up to us to decide how "more good can be accomplished". I mean, God can take one person who is inspired and accomplish more with that one person, than a million people who are only impressed bench warmers. And I ain't trying to impress anybody! Furthermore, I don't feel that I have anything to prove. Judge Larry is the one who promotes the man made doctrine of three separate and distinct "persons" in the Godhead ... which, by the way, doesn't have a shred of specific VERBATIM Bible authority, and probably wouldn't even pass his own "sound doctrine" scrutiny, if it were some other subject. Look, I realize the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine is despised and hated by self righteous people like Judge Larry. If it was popular in self righteous religious circles, all of the Apostles would have probably retired in ease and comfort at a ripe old age .... and would have probably been as well off financially as most of today's indoctrinated hirelings. At any rate, I don't buy your reasoning for Larry's refusal to answer my questions.


Jason: The extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer your arguments is not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened.


Bobby: WHAT???? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT, JASON! Man, you need to repent if that's the way you really feel. Just what do you think a soul is worth in the sight of God, anyway??? As far as extensive preparation time is concerned, debating via email is much better because instead of having to jump up with only 20 minutes, or whatever it is, to respond to what someone has just said ... whether it is misleading and truthful or not ..., a person can take as much time as they may need to carefully evaluate and research what is put forth and then respond. It doesn't matter to me if the debate would take a month or more. I've been in some that have lasted that long or longer. And I have stayed up all night long reading, researching and responding to someone in a debate via email.


Jason: A debate will provide you with an opportunity to present your questions openly to Larry before others.


Bobby: Listen, Jason, with all due respect, I don't need an audience to evaluate Judge Larry's answers to the questions I put forth to him regarding his theology. He has already tied up enough of his time to have answered them, and we could have moved on, instead of all of this back of forth junk.


Jason: Since you have not ruled out an oral debate, let us proceed with it. Then, you can publicly confront Larry with your questions and arguments.


Bobby: Nope! You get Judge Larry to answer my questions first. Then, we'll talk about an oral debate. I don't dance to Judge Larry's tune. You might. And that is your business. But, I'm not on the end of any man's (or religious organization's) string. I don't know how much of my writings you have read, but you have not one time tried to refute any of it. If you have to depend on Judge Larry to do your thinking for you and/or to handle your Bible discussions, I truly feel sorry for you, Jason. I mean, you, a person with a Ph. D. yourself, should be more capable than that.


Jason: Jesus and the apostles were willing to orally debate (e.g., Matt. 23; Acts 15:2; Acts 17:2, 3; 18:4; 18:28; 19:8, 9; 28:22-31). Larry is willing to do so. Thus, we are simply waiting on you to work with us in making the necessary arrangements. Jason


Bobby: And I am waiting on Judge Larry to give a few direct answers to a few questions. This is not my first day at the rodeo. I've dealt with Judge Larry's kind before. I imagine he looks about as puffed up and starched stiff as he sounds. I mean, if I didn't know any better, I might even think God had to consult him before He made any major decisions. Anyway, the ball is in Judge Larry's court. I will wait to see if he ever answers my questions before I will entertain having an oral debate with him ... whether it is one on one, eyeball to eyeball, in my home or his, or in a church building or coliseum in front of thousands of people. Meanwhile, you might want to contact an Apostolic church in the Houston area to see if you can appease his insatiable appetite to get before a bunch of people and put on a show.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 6
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Response to Judge Larry's 3rd email of 1-23-03


Judge Larry: Jason, I hate to say I told you so, but.... If anything changes, let me know so we can work out an acceptable date for the first debate. Thanks. Larry


Bobby: Jason, you've got a real jewel there in that Judge Larry. He makes like I'm scared to debate him in person or something, therefore he refuses to answer a few questions that cuts to the chase of his theology and shows how flawed it is. Instead, he shadow boxes and dances around and climbs up into the judgment seat and spouts off like he's God Almighty. Naw, God wouldn't be that arrogant and stubborn. At any rate, let me know if and when you ever get him to answer those questions. **IF** so, send them to me and we'll take it from there about this oral debate business. Otherwise, I'll probably give you a call when ever we get out to New Waverly ... just in case you would like to get together for a cup of coffee or something. I remember you telling me in your very first email that you agreed with my assessment of what the scriptures teach about baptism. I don't imagine Judge Larry does, though. Anyway, God bless. And, again, I wish you (nor Judge Larry) any malice. I just disagree with the way ya'll conduct yourselves ... and with your man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ asserting that there are three "persons" in the Godhead ..., which either portrays God as:

1) three separate and distinct persons as you, Judge Larry and myself are three separate and distinct persons who could be joined together in some sort of mysterious union, working together as members of one family or one team .... OR

2) one person with three heads.

Both of which are in error and contradicts the vast preponderance of VERBATIM Scriptures concerning God and the Godhead.

PS: I just went to the Apostolic Network web site and was sorely disappointed to read the following ...

Sorry: As of January 23, 2003, we are terminating our Apostolic Pentecostal churches listing service and our church web sites program.

The only service that we will continue to offer will be our free Bible study tools resources (links are available below).

Sincerely,
Apostolic Churches Network Ministries.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The United Pentecostal Church organization has a church directory, but I liked this one because it listed churches both independent and those that are affiliated with one of the various Apostolic Pentecostal organizations. At any rate, maybe I can locate another one somewhere else.




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 7
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:46 PM
Subject: Response to Jason 01-24-03


Jason: Bobby, I did not mean to imply in my last message that discussing biblical doctrines with an individual one-on-one is unimportant or a waste of time, merely that a better use of time is to discuss the doctrine in a way that many others may be benefitted as well.


Bobby: Well, here's what you said, Jason ... "The extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer your arguments is not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened." Jason, you're gonna spin you way out of that with the explanation above. That just ain't gonna fly my man. You said it was not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened. By the way, every thing said between you, me and Judge Larry is going out to OVER 50 people right now. So, you see, Jason, ya'll are already in front of an audience (so to speak). And, so far, Judge Larry hasn't answered the bell by simply giving a few direct answers.


Jason: If one is faced with the options of spreading the truth to 200 people or 2 people, which option do you think Christ and the apostles would have selected? Clearly the former because more good could be done.


Bobby: Well, Jason, what do you honestly think Jesus would have done if someone had told him they would consider hosting a meeting for Him **IF** He would just answer a few questions for them? I don't think He would have done like Judge Larry is doing, DO YOU???


Jason: I fail to understand how you can claim to wish to spread the truth (as you understand it), offer $10,000 to anyone who can answer your arguments, and refuse to participate in a simple out-in-the-open debate where much good could be done and many souls influenced to abandon false teaching.


Bobby: Jason, this may come as a real shock to you, but God is blessing my efforts tremendously. And souls are being born into the Kingdom of God. I have received emails from people all over the world, and the testimonials both inspiring and humbling. I fail to understand why you and Judge Larry think I'm sitting over here with nothing going on, and too scared to face either one of you. Go back and re-read what I wrote you in the beginning and get Judge Larry to step up to the plate and give a few direct answers, and we'll take it from there.

Jason: I am almost positive that Larry would be willing to answer any questions you gave him during a debate, and he is willing to travel to your city, so you would not have to travel.


Bobby: Look, Jason, I'm getting a little weary of the intellectual insults. **IF** Judge Larry is willing to come to Bogue Chitto, MS for four nights but not willing to give a few direct answers in an email, something is wrong with him and/or his motives. By the way, I'm not afraid to travel. I just got back from being gone about a month, and have lots of stuff going on right now. I don't have time to set aside four nights right now. Even doing this, I have to do it as time permits. Which, by the way, is a plus for having a Bible debate via email. Both he and I can do this at our own leisure and in the comfort of our home or office.


Jason: The debate could be recorded via audio, video, or text, thus allowing both of you to "go on the record" as to your doctrines, per your expressed desire. In fact, having the oral and written component would likely do twice as much good as having only a written component. Jason


Bobby: Well, let's start with the written component FIRST, Jason. That's the way I've been debating mostly for the past several years. I've had one on one ... or me against two or three others ... but I've never personally been involved in an oral debate, in front of a bunch of people (although, I have attended some). At any rate, **IF** Judge Larry steps up to the plate and answers my questions I will consider having my very first oral debate in front of a live audience, even if Judge Larry is a seasoned religious exhibitionist. But, I continue to emphatically insist that what Judge Larry or I have to say, can be said right here. **IF** it is a audio cassette tape of a debate between an Apostolic minister and a Church of Christ minister that you are wanting, just go to this web site and order you some (it is down on the page a little ways) ...

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/godhead.htm





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 8
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Response to Judge Larry's email 01-24-03


Judge Larry: Jason, Thanks for your insights. Yes, it is certain that the second debate in our building will be video and audio taped. As you may know, we have sent out nearly 14,000 tapes the past 7 years. If equipment can be secured, I definitely want the first debate in Bobby's town to be video taped. We would be happy to circulate it, as we have always done, free of charge to all who request it.


Bobby: Sounds like you have a whole lot to account for, Judge Larry. By the way, I am no more interested in changing what I've been doing for a number of years than you are. However, I will consider doing it **IF** you just answer the following questions ....

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Your answer here is THREE .. 1 down and 7 to go)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Judge Larry: Since I am away from home in meetings 20 weeks from Valentine's day to Thanksgiving, I must use my time wisely. I am writing a second book, which consumes a lot of time. Lord willing, the publisher wants it done by September. In addition, I am on the staff and write regularly for two religious publications. Too, we have a weekly teaching bulletin, for which I write every line. This requires that I have 2 or 3 new articles every week. (This does not mention the sermons I preach each Lord's day, nor the time I must spend in preparation for a weekly adult and a weekly teenage class.)


Bobby: Ummm, am I supposed to be impressed. O.K. .... whoopieeeeeee! I value my time as much if not more as Judge Larry does. And those who know me, know I stay probably as busy if not busier than Judge Larry. However, none of this is about me or Judge Larry. And the Bible says that those who compare themselves among themselves are NOT wise.


Judge Larry: As you may guess, the writing I do generates a great deal of correspondence from all over the world. I could literally sit 24/7 and never catch up with the questions, correspondence and challenges that come my way from all over the religious spectrum. It is physically impossible to "take on" each one. If Bobby wants to continue his harangues against me and charge that I am afraid to answer his questions, etc., he will have to stand in line. Many are doing the same thing! Bobby is not alone!


Bobby: Well, I've taken my number. So, I guess I'll just stand here in line until you get around to giving me a few direct answers. You've done prattled away enough time posturing to have answered them 90 times.


Judge Larry: However, like Bobby, these same folks are unwilling and unable to muster the courage to engage in an open debate. I know why, and they do, too (Jn. 3:20).


Bobby: I can't speak for the other folks, but ole Bobby boy has the courage to engage in an open debate **IF** you muster the courage to go on record and give a few direct answers right here in this forum ... with OVER 50 people standing on one hock waiting to see what your answers are, most of whom would probably not be able to come to attend an oral debate in Bogue Chitto, MS to find out.


Judge Larry: Like you, Jason, with little time to waste, I have found that it is better to arrange sessions where many can be taught the truth (Cf. Acts 13:14-16, 44; 17:16, 17; 18:4-6; 19:8, 9; 28:22-31). The propositions are "on the table." When a Pentecostal respondent is found, let me know.
Thanks. Larry


Bobby: Judge Larry, I am admonished by the Apostle Paul to turn away from those who "deny" the power of God. However, I would still love to debate you. Why don't you just answer the questions and let's take it from there?? Your disdain, contempt and outright hatred regarding the "power" of God that you deny is condemned by the Apostle Paul right here ....

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


And if you say the power of God is no longer in existence, but that everything out of the ordinary is of demonic origin, you're gonna be in for one big surprise when the trumpet sounds. At any rate, just in case you never get the courage to go on record and give a few direct answers, why don't you look into this business of having a "form of godliness", but denying the "power" thereof??? I believe most folks would be out right shocked to learn a little bit about that Greek word that was translated "power" in verse 5. And people like you not only "deny" it, you fight against it viciously! If you ain't gonna step up to the plate, please stop sending me copies of your email or having Jason to send your email to me. I have plenty to keep me as busy as I care to stay. And if this is the last time we correspond ..., "Happy Trails" I really do not wish you any malice. I just hope and pray you stop denying the power thereof and come to the knowledge of the truth and repent. Otherwise, you are gonna be in for a rude awakening come reckoning day. Don't mark my word ... mark God's!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 9
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:44 PM
Subject: Response to Jason's 2nd email of 1-24-03



Jason: Bobby, For one who said "I just disagree with the way ya'll conduct yourselves", you are certainly quick to label another as "Judge Larry" .....


Bobby: Jason, this is precisely why I love email discussions/debate so much. It does NOT leave any room for someone to try and sweep something underneath the rug, or to play some sort of shell game, or use what President Bush referred to as Al Gore's "fuzzy math" to confuse the audience. No sir, it's all written down and documented ... and easily pulled back up quickly by doing a word search. Now, let's go back and see under what circumstances I started referring to "Judge" Larry, shall we???? Here's it is. It was from Judge Larry's THIRD email that he emailed directly to me ... pretty early on, Thursday, Jan. 23, to be exact. At any rate, here's what Judge Larry said about me, my Pastor and those I fellowship with ....


----- Original Message -----
From: Judge Larry
To: Bobby Richardson
Cc: [unknown] ; [unknown]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Response to Larry 01-23-03


Jason, Bobby,

Jason, the Lord has told us why neither Bobby, his Pastor, nor any of his persuasion will agree to the open discussion such as we have proposed: "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn. 3;20).

* * * * Therefore, immediately following this asinine statement of his I made my very first reference to Judge Larry in my response, and have been referring to him as Judge Larry ever since. Anyway, here's my first reference to Judge Larry. * * * *

Bobby: Soooooo, Judge Larry claims I am practicing evil just because I keep pressing Larry for a few direct answers before agreeing to an oral debate, eh? WHEW! Or is it that Judge Larry's mind is so closed until he has already judged me BEFORE he has heard me and, therefore, would not profit from a debate anyway. I must admit, this is getting a bit ridiculous listening to Judge Larry's self righteous babble. I mean, give me a break, man. Just because Judge Larry will not answer my questions and I will haven't agreed to an oral debate just yet does NOT mean that I hate light and will not come to the light ... unless, of course, Judge Larry thinks "HE" is that light. And in order for me to come to the light, I must appear before him in person. WHEW! If this wasn't so serious, it would be a real hoot!


Jason: .... you are certainly quick to label another as "Judge Larry"... and quick to judge me when I misspoke in a previous message. When I corrected myself, you label it as "spinning my way out of it." Interesting. Could it be that you have never said something in trying to make a point that, upon later reflection, you noticed did not convey exactly what you intended?


Bobby: What do you mean "judge" you for mis-speaking? Jason, I copied and pasted what you said. You did not "imply" anything. You made an unequivocal statement. Here it is again ...

* * * * * * * * * *
Jason: The extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer your arguments is not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened.
* * * * * * * * * *

Bobby: Jason, you did more than simply mis-speak. Now, if you feel an apology is in order, that is entirely up to you. And, yes I have said things I've regretted later ... and I have also eaten humble pie, and made apologies as well. But I didn't "judge" you. Your words judged yourself. I just pointed that out to you and suggested that you repent if you really felt that way.


Jason: In a related vein, I do not mind that my personal communications to you are being broadcast, but common decency requires one to indicate that such is happening ahead of time.


Bobby: My, my, my I'm glad this ain't an oral debate because I wouldn't be able to quickly access stuff like this. This method of discussing/debating and documenting information is invaluable for referencing material ... which, by the way, prevents anyone from playing dirty pool. At any rate, here's precisely what I told you in my SECOND email response to you on Sunday, January 12 ....

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
As far as Bible discussions/debates are concerned, I've been doing that for several years now ... via the Internet and in person. All you need to do is have your friend email me at acts2@impact-ministry.com (in about 10 days) and we'll discuss/debate this subject thoroughly. There are about 50 people (most of whom I don't have a clue what their religious persuasion is) who have filled out a form on one of my web pages to receive (via blind carbon copy) the Bible discussions/debates that I am involved with from time to time. I can either add your email address to that list, or your friend can forward the discussion/debate to you, himself. The way I do it is to remove the email address, and any other presonal information, of the person I am discussing/debating the Scriptures with that would compromise their privacy. Other than that everything is left as is ... word for word ... and documented. Then I email it to myself and blind carbon copy it to my email list of "observers" ... which also protects their privacy as well.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Bobby (from previous email): "Well, Jason, what do you honestly think Jesus would have done if someone had told him they would consider hosting a meeting for Him **IF** He would just answer a few questions for them? "


Jason: On the contrary, if Jesus was asked to participate in an oral debate, I know that he would have done so because it is so recorded in the Scriptures (Matt. 22:15-22, 23-33, 34-40, 41-46).


Bobby: See, Jason, this is precisely why I prefer debating in this manner. It is much easier to see when things get twisted around than when you're dealing with a verbal discussion. My question to you was concerning what you thought Jesus would do if someone told Him that they would consider hosting a meeting for Him **IF** He would just answer a few questions. I believe Jesus would have answered the questions without quibbling about it. I certainly do not believe he would have acted like Judge Larry has acted, and refused to give an answer ... or demanded an audience before He would do so. At any rate, it appears you turned things around a bit here to take a swipe at me by saying Jesus would have participated in an oral debate if asked, implying that I won't do what Jesus would have done when Judge Larry insisted on an oral debate BEFORE he would give a few direct answers. Over and over again I have told you that I will consider an oral debate with Judge Larry after he goes on record by giving a few direct answers to the following questions. By the way, Judge Larry is the one who is not doing what Jesus would have done if asked to answer a few questions. Anyway, here's the questions, yet again ...


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Judge Larry's answer to this one is "THREE")

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Bobby (from previous email): Jason, this may come as a real shock to you, but God is blessing my efforts tremendously. And souls are being born into the Kingdom of God. I have received emails from people all over the world, and the testimonials both inspiring and humbling.


Jason: The question I have had since the beginning of our discussion is not how many souls you have converted or people you have influenced, but rather the validity of the doctrines you are teaching.


Bobby: Jason, with all due respect, you are acting rather silly. You could have already found out about the doctrine I am teaching by reading it for yourself. I've already sent you the link to my Bible Study. It is found here ... http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/


Jason: John said (I Jn. 4:1), "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are
of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Peter said (II Pet. 3:16f), "some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked." Paul said (I Thess. 5:1) "Prove [test] all things."


Bobby: I embrace those Scriptures who heartedly ... and use them ... myself. Not only did I provide you with the link to my Bible study, in my very first email response to your initial contact, here is what I told you ... "If you ever find in any of my writings where you feel that I have mishandled, misinterpreted or misrepresented the Word of God, please call it to my attention immediately." Now you are acting like you have no way of knowing what I teach unless you attend an oral debate. Jason, I am beginning to lose respect for you, but not as fast as I have lost it for Judge Larry.


Jason: I am asking that your doctrines be tested through the crucible of public, oral debate, as were those of the apostles and Jesus, yet your response is to cite all of the "good" you are doing.


Bobby: My doctrine has been tested ... and is being tested ... through the crucible of public discussions/debates. This oral debate junk of yours and Judge Larry's is really starting to make ya'll look like a couple of clowns in this public arena, especially when I keep telling both of you that I will consider an oral debate with Judge Larry after he give me a few direct answers to the questions I've been trying to get him to answer for the longest time. As far as me citing the "good" that I am doing, since Judge Larry felt the need to tell you about all he is involved with, I just thought it would be good to let you know that Judge Larry ain't the only one doing something, that's all.


Jason: Would that have sufficed the apostles in the first century? The Pharisees weren't permitted to cite the "good" they were doing. In fact, Jesus said to them (Matt. 23:15): "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves." So that argument holds no water.


Bobby: Jason, when someone gets saved (so to speak) the wrong way, it is twice (twofold) as hard to get them saved the right way. When preachers having itching ears tell them a bunch of stuff that does not conform to the preponderance of VERBATIM Scriptures, but instead clashing with what the "original" New Testament Church peached, practiced and taught, then people can get really messed up. These preachers who are teaching the commandments of men for doctrine and are not baptizing correctly, etc. ... whether through ignorance or in defiance ..., are going to be in heap big trouble when they stand before out Lord.


Jason: I will be away from email for the weekend. Jason


Bobby: I may not spend a whole lot of time on the computer this week end myself. Oh, by the way, you have convinced me in this one email that I will probably need to really watch what ya'll say very closely, because it appears to me that you (and more than likely Judge Larry) have a tendency to say things that aren't really accurate to support your position. If I didn't have all of this documented, and was not able to pull it up rather easily and refute the inaccuracies, this sort of thing would have the potential of swaying a crowd, and causing them to believe something that is not accurate. And that is NOT good ... not good at all. I'm prefectly contented in keeping everything flowing via email, so it will continue to be documented and easily accessible without having to rewind a tape and try to find where something was inaccurately represented.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


EMAIL # 10
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 12:44 PM
Subject: Has Judge Larry "really" being truthful with us thus far???


I don't plan to spending a lot of time on the computer this week end, as I have other stuff going on. But, I got up this morning and decided to see what more I could find out about Judge Larry than I already know. You see, I don't claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but something is really "smelly" about Judge Larry's entrance into this forum, refusing to answer a few direct questions (or acting like he doesn't have time to do so) while at the same time claiming to have time to come to Mississippi for a 4 night oral debate in front of a crowd ... AND also while already having prattled away enough of his precious time to have answered the quesitons 90 times over again, as they would NOT require lengthy, time consuming, responses.

Jason had told me back on Dec. 30 that he had a friend who preaches in Houston more knowledgable than him about these matters, and that if I would be willing, he would have a public discussion with you on the godhead doctrine. Well folks, I am willing and this is a public discussion, is it not??? I mean, Judge Larry and Jason could have as many as they could possibly get in their audience (and may have). I already have an audience of over 50 people ... all of whom are free to ask questions, make comments, critique, suggest, criticize or whatever. Now, why is it that Judge Larry and Jason continues to whine that a public discussion is NOT ... and cannot be ... conducted via email or somehow wouldn't be a fair and open forum, and, therefore, they continue to insist on having an oral debate BEFORE they will even give direct answers to a few questions??? Folks, something about this just doesn't pass the ole smell test, if you know what I mean. I know it and Jason and Judge Larry knows it, too. But they are, evidently, trying to act like school yard bullies (so to speak) or acting as though they are right and I am wrong, while refusing to step up to the plate. At any rate, here's Judge Larry's own words thus far ...

Judge Larry: I am not a professional speaker, either. I am a retired school teacher.

Bobby: Well, if Judge Larry is a "retired" school teacher, I would assume he has had considerable experience at speaking in front of groups of people. Which, in my view, would certainly qualifiy him as being a "professional speaker" ... since a teacher is a professional and teaching required him to speak before groups of people. And that ain't all. Judge Larry is listed as being the preacher of a Church of Christ in Texas, as well as an evangelist. Now folks, I ain't saying Judge Larry lied about being a retired school teacher, but I am saying he is practicing guile and deceit by trying to act like he is JUST a retired school teacher. This man apparently loves to get up in front of people, while I am NOT a glory hog. I ain't even a preacher ... and just bearly graduated from high school back in 1970. I haven't had the experience Judge Larry has had in getting up before people. And if none of you have ever gotten up before a group of people, you can forget what day of the week it is ... and maybe even your own name ... because it can make you so nervous. Which, by the way, would have nothing to do with whether or not a person is right or wrong on an issue. Anyway, just listen to what else Judge Larry has said ...


Judge Larry: Since I am away from home in meetings 20 weeks from Valentine's day to Thanksgiving, I must use my time wisely. I am writing a second book, which consumes a lot of time. Lord willing, the publisher wants it done by September. In addition, I am on the staff and write regularly for two religious publications. Too, we have a weekly teaching bulletin, for which I write every line. This requires that I have 2 or 3 new articles every week. (This does not mention the sermons I preach each Lord's day, nor the time I must spend in preparation for a weekly adult and a weeklyteenage class.)


I could literally sit 24/7 and never catch up with the questions, correspondence and challenges that come my way from all over the religious spectrum. It is physically impossible to "take on" each one. If Bobby wants to continue his harangues against me and charge that I am afraid to answer his questions, etc., he will have to stand in line. Many are doing the same thing!


Bobby: Kind of sounds like Judge Larry is so stretched out that he might need to consider getting someone else to eat and sleep for him, doesn't it? If he is sooooo busy, why has he spent so much of his time emailing me and babbling, but not answering a few questions. Yet, he has time to engage in Internet discussions. And calls himself answering more questions that I've asked him ... and at very great length..., which I now have positive proof of from his "bible coaching" correspondence on the Internet which I have obtained.


Judge Larry: Like you, Jason, with little time to waste, I have found that it is better to arrange sessions where many can be taught the truth


Bobby: I sick and tired of Judge Larry's asinine deception, games and junk! Now that I have quite a bit of his Internet work, **IF** he fails to step up to the plate and answer my questions, I will just set aside some time to Scripurally refute POINT BY POINT his so called "Jesus Only", "Pentecostal In Experience" and "Unknown Tongue" articles on the Internet that I now have in my possession. However, I must advise you it will be lengthy, which will probably require me to break them down into several emails. God bless, and have a great week end!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 11
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: Response to Jason's email of 1-25-03


Bobby (from previous email): Jason, you did more than simply mis-speak. Now, if you feel an apology is in order, that is entirely up to you. And, yes I have said things I've regretted later ... and I have also eaten humble pie, and made apologies as well. But I didn't "judge" you. Your words judged yourself. I just pointed that out to you and suggested that you repent if you really felt that way.


Jason: And when I tried to clarify what I intended to convey, you accused me of "spinning my way out of it." Your pettiness and lack of grace and integrity is evident in our exchanges on this matter, and yet you have the audacity to say there is something "smelly" about Larry's entrance into this forum and that we are acting like "schoolyard bullies."


Bobby: What? You tried to "clarify" what you intended to "convey"????? First, lets' look at your choice of words "clarify" and "convey". Then, let's revisit what you SAID, Jason:

clarify - To make clear or easier to understand; elucidate: To clear of confusion or uncertainty:

Bobby (continued): There was NOTHING hard to understand, confusing or uncertain about what you SAID, Jason.

convey - To communicate or make known; impart:

Bobby (continued): You very effectively COMMUNICATED ... MADE KNOWN ... IMPARTED ... that the extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer my arguments is not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened. Now, how on God's green earth can that possibly mean ... or be taken as ... what you subsequently said in the following "clarification"???

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jason: Bobby, I did not mean to imply in my last message that discussing biblical doctrines with an individual one-on-one is unimportant or a waste of time, merely that a better use of time is to discuss the doctrine in a way that many others may be benefitted as well.

to which I responded ...

Bobby: Well, here's what you said, Jason ... "The extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer your arguments is not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened." Jason, you're gonna spin you way out of that with the explanation above. That just ain't gonna fly my man. You said it was not worth the time investment if only two or three individuals are enlightened. By the way, every thing said between you, me and Judge Larry is going out to OVER 50 people right now. So, you see, Jason, ya'll are already in front of an audience (so to speak). And, so far, Judge Larry hasn't answered the bell by simply giving a few direct answers.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bobby: Now, Jason, as anyone ought to be able to see ... especially your retired, stubborn, school teacher ... you did NOT "imply" anything in your original unequivocal statement. Furthermore, nothing needed to be "clarified" in what was "conveyed" in that original unequivocal statement. And for you to act like it really depends on what the word "is" is, smacks of hypocrisy in its highest order. Now, either you can repent (if you haven't already) and admit you were totally out of line by saying two or three people are NOT worth the extensive preparation time necessary to consider and fully answer my arguments, OR you can continue to spin what you really, really SAID and what it really, really meant! Whatever you floats your boat about is fine by me. I don't need to hear your apology. It really didn't bother ... nor surprise ... me, to hear that coming from one who is so closely aligned with Judge Larry, who is so dead set against the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine of the "original" New Testament Church and who has obviously made it his life's goal to fight against the true Church of the Living God. And, no, I ain't talking about a denomination and I ain't talking about a physical building made up of bricks, mortar and sound equipment. The true Church of the Living God is living and breathing human beings who have been born again "the Bible way" regardless of what the sign on the building they assemble to worship in reads.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 12
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: Bobby gives Judge Larry 24 hours ....


Judge Larry: Jason, Here is an article for your consideration. Hope you find it useful. Thanks. Larry

Clouds And Wind Without Rain

(Bobby placed this article in the file with Judge Larry's other articles to be Scripturally refuted.)

Bobby: Jason, I am going to give Judge Larry 24 hours from now to furnish me with direct answers to the questions at the end of this email .... THE ONES I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET HIM TO ANSWER FOR THE LONGEST TIME . If he fails to do so within this 24 hour window, I will be blocking both of your email addresses until AFTER I have Scripturally refuted his articles POINT BY POINT, so that I won't have to continue to deal with your correspondence in the mean time. Now, if ya'll would like for me to send both of you a copy of my Scriptural refutations, I will be most happy to do so. AFTER I have sent my Scriptural refutations of Judge Larry's articles ...

1) Jesus Only;
2) Pentecostal In Experience;
3) An Unknown Tongue;
and now this latest one (which I didn't have)
4) Clouds And Wind Without Rain.

.... I will unblock both of your email addresses to receive what ever either of you would like to send AND make it available to "my audience" ... word for word. Sooooo, here they are one more time ...


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Judge Larry's answer to #1 is THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 13
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:34 PM
Subject: More prattle from Judge Larry ...



Judge Larry: Bobby, I will send you some information soon, Lord willing. I predict, however, that you will not share it with your 50 friends. If you do, please copy me on what you send them. Jason, we shall see just how badly Bobby wants his 50 brethren to see our material. Again, though Bobby finds it easier to cut us off than to engage in an open, fair forum of public discussion, he still has to face John 3:20. Larry


Bobby: Like I've already said, Judge Larry, I've given you 24 hours to give direct answers to the 7 remaining questions of the 8 that has you shaking in your boots. If you do, fine. If you don't I will take your Godhead material apart and Scripturally refute it and the other stuff that I mentioned. The rest, I'll probably just trash. Unless, of course, you get some guts between now and about this time tomorrow and answer those questions. It's your call my man. Makes no difference to me in the least. Oh, and by the way, not all of the 50 (actually closer to 60) are Apostolic. At least one of them that I know personally is a member of a local Church of Christ. And, as I have already stated, he is one of my best and dearest friends on this planet. I don't think he's one of your fans, though. It seems you haven't made a very favorable impression on him AT ALL! Any how, all eyes are on you now, bubba. Either answer the questions or be cut off until I do what I said I was going to do.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 14
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: You sent me yours, so I'm sending you mine ...



Well, Judge Larry and Jason, I received the 10 emails from Judge Larry containing his material, and have put them into a separate file .... just in case he gets the guts to answer my questions and debate me. **IF** he truly expects me to look at all the stuff he sent me, and answer him concerning it all, I am going to expect the exact same thing from him concerning the following four emails I sent him which contained my material. **IF** he thinks I am going to evaluate his material and respond without him evaluating my material and responding, he has another think coming. The four emails I sent him (and you) were four of my web pages, as listed below. I can ignore his as easily as he ignores mine.

$10,000 Reward
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html

50 Reasons why the Bible doesn't mention TRINITY
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye BELIEVED
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/believed.html

Who says the supernatural manifestations of God have ceased?
http://hometown.aol.com/actschap2bgr/myhomepage/profile.html




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 15
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: PS - I overlooked something real important ...


PS: I missed something, Judge Larry. You said I was going to have to face John 3:20 as if that were supposed to have some sort of special significance, which says ... For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


What John 3:20 says to me, it says to you also. So, let's see if you step up to the plate and expose the very core of your man made theology by answering those questions. I have the preponderance of VERBATIM Scripture on my side concerning the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and you have a 1700-1800 hundred year old theory that evolved out of pagan Rome, which does NOT have a shred of "specific" Bible authority for referring to God as "three persons" ... or using man made UNSCRIPTURAL terms terms in reference to two of these three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" as "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" ... God is all inclusive ALL - NOT PART. Which, by the way, is a seriously flawed theory even by your own logic, and is NOT "sound" doctrine at all. At any rate, unlike those of you who promote this stuff, and don't preach it and teach it just like the "original" New Testament Church did, and mislead multitudes in the process, I will not have to be concerned about the Apostle Paul's stern warning found in Galatians 1:8-9 ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 16
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: Judge Larry and Jason are now blocked ...


Well, folks you have just witnessed how Judge Larry has been backed down, as demonstrated here before your eyes. You see, Judge Larry's man made theology would not hold up under scrutiny if he stepped up to the plate and answered the remaining 7 of the following 8 questions. He was never going to give direct answers to these questions. I knew it and he knew it. So, I had to finally just give him a 24 hour time limite. This highly educated, but deceitful, retired school teacher turned preacher, evangelist and Bible debater was backed down by a little ole back woods non-denominational lay man who just bearly made it out of high school over 30 years ago. Now ain't that a hoot! However, **IF** I still believed in three separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" in the Godhead as he does, the following questions would have probably caused me to have to back down ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Judge Larry's answer to #1 is THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

Since Judge Larry failed to answer the bell, I have blocked both his and Jason's email addresses in my Outlook Express, so I don't have to continue to deal with their babbling prattle, deception and spiritual arrogance. If either one of them tries to send me anything now it will go directly into my "deleted mail" file ... not my "in box".

I plan set aside some time in the coming week to begin working on Scripurally refuting his so called "Jesus Only", "Pentecostal In Experience" and "Unknown Tongue" articles that I obtained on the Internet and now have in my possession. I must advise you it will probably be a lengthy, and I'll probably have to break them down into several emails. However, when I'm done exposing shining the light of God's Word on this man made theory, there should be a doubt in anyone's mind as to what the "real deal" is here. Then, it will be up to you on which side you come down on this subject. As far me, I stand with the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine that is very well documented in the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written VERBATIM upon the pages of God's Holy Word. Once I have finished this project, I will unblock the email addresses of Judge Larry and Jason, in unlikely event either one has anything to say for themeselves after I have conclusively proven with Scriptural documentation that their man made doctrine is NOT what the "original" New Testament Church preached, practiced and taught but, instead, is built upon the sands of the doctrines of man. God bless!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 17
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: Question ONE of the Judge's Godhead article ....


While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.

We will begin this with message # 6592 on what is apparently a Church of Christ message board the the Judge is involved with. The person is requesting information to deal with the "Jesus Only" persuasion. I have removed email addresses and names that would compromise anyone's privacy, and copied the requesti followed by Judge's response, with my rebuttals inserted POINT BY POINT throughout. Before we begin this, let me just say that it is essential in understanding the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctine to realize and understand that Jesus Christ was NO "ordinary" human being. No siree! Jesus Christ was a Super Human being. He was Almighty God manifested (revealed and robed) in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 & Philippians 2:6-8) ... the Creator (John 1:9-10). He was BOTH "fully" God AND "fully" man. At times, He spoke and functioned as Almighty God. At other times, He spoke and functioned as a man. If ever there was a "real" Superman, Jesus Christ was the "real" Superman! However, He did not have to jump behind a rock and come out with His Superman cape on, or anything like that. What He said and did, He quite often said and did very openly. And while it thrilled, excited and mystified some, others became very highly upset, offended and outraged, just as is the case today among many hypocritically self-righteous, Pharisaic, people in religious circles ... concerning the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine that is still being proclaimed. He that hath ear to hear, let him hear. Some got it then and some didn't. Some get it today and some don't. The reason some don't get it ... or don't keep it ... once it has been presented to them and/or planted in their heart today, can be found in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13:3-9 and/or in Brother Paul's very direct and blunt explanation found in the 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ... "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. In order to "get it" a person MUST "genuinely" hunger thirst for righteousness AND lay aside all of their preconceived ideas, opinions, theories, creeds, traditions and indoctination and learn how to independently study the Bible and allow it to interpret itself, which it certainly will do when rightly divided. In addition, a person MUST truly learn to speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent ... instead of "making" it say what they want it to say by bending and twisting things, taking things out of context and/or interpreting Spiritual matters using slide ruler explanations of human reasoning and logic .... and being too LITERAL ... OR ... giving very carefully selected Scriptures "implied" interpretations, which clash with the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence that is found written VERBATIM upon the pages of God's Holy Word in other places about the same subject. At any rate, because Jesus is indeed the "real" Superman, I use the analogy of Clark Kent/Superman quite a bit to help people better understand how ... or why ... Jesus sometimes referred to the Father as if He were a completely separate person, somewhere else .... just as Clark Kent spoke of Superman as if he were a completely separate person, somewhere else ... AND while some may have thought otherwise, most people who heard him speak of Superman that way, thought Superman was a completely separate and distinct person than that of Clark Kent (when, in fact, Clark Kent really was Superman incognito). By the way, Jesus' hard to understand words and actions (for some) wasn't to deceive or to misled, but, rather, to safe guard and to protect, so that only those who have ears to hear would get it ... NOT those whose hearts were NOT right with God. I'm speaking in the past tense as to Jesus' speaking the Words of Truth, but the same is true today, because the written Words of Truth that God Divinely inspired to be recorded in the Bible are protected in the very same manner. Some reand and understand, while others don't. Through His Eternal Word, God reveals His Truth to those who truly hunger and thirst for righteousness, and they will eventually get it. But those who have preconceived ideas and/or have been indoctrinated to the point that they are only looking for things that seem to support and/or reinforce their indoctrination position ... DON'T get it. Never have and never will. Only when a person lays aside all their preconceived ideas, opinions, theories, creeds, indoctrination and traditions and turns to the Word of God with an open heart and an open mind and allow the Bible to interpret itself through independent study, will they ever even begin to get it. It is the Word that thoroughly convinces people NOT what someone else says. Anyone can find someone to believe what they say. But that doesn't mean the other person is thoroughly convinced of what they believe if push comes to shove ... or they face the challenge of having to explain or defend that belief. At any rate, during the course of this Scriptural refutation of Judge Larry's man made doctrine in this article he has written on the Godhead, that I obtained by searching the Internet, I am going to show how he, and those who embrace, promote and defend the man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple of centuries AFTER Christ, about there being three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, are forced to use what I call "shell game" tactics, make a play on words and use all sorts of diversions and distortions ... not to mention interpreting Spiritual matters in the Word of God LITERALLY instead of taking the preponderance (or weight) of the Scriptures as found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word on the subject of God and the Godhead. Also, it will be easily seen how he hand picks very carefully selected Scriptures (which clash with the vast preponderance of VERBATIM Scriptures on this subject) and will either give them an "IMPLIED" interpretation OR will interpret them LITERALLY in order to explain and defend his seriously flawed, man made (pagan) theology. By the way, I don't who (if anybody) ever asked the Judge the questions in his article. They don't sound like any I have ever asked anyone since coming out of trinitarianism. I believe the "questions" must be sticking points which conflict with the Judge's theology and, therefore, in order to soothe his conscience and further mislead others, he poses them as questions that an Apostolic believer would ask. As you will see, he stirs the shells round and around and tries to explain these sticking points away and make it look like his position is accurate. At any rate, here we go.

Message # 6592
From: "XX" xxxxxx@xxxx.net
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:39:39 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Subject: Jesus Only
*****
* Bible Matters mailing list
* Send all commands - Suspend, Subscribe, Info, Rules, etc.
* to <biblemat-xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
* List mail to <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
* List owners: XX <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com>,
* XX <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
*****

Greetings from XX in Caneyville KY!
Does anyone have a study, article or sermon outline on the "Jesus Only"
persuasion? I am having a correspondence course with a jail inmate and he is
constantly emphasizing "Jesus only." I will probably either study with him
regarding this after the current study or, if it is a brief study, include
it with one of the current lessons. I know that I will have to study with
him regarding the Holy Spirit when this course if finished.
- --brotherly, XX


Judge Larry's Response to XX - Message 6594
From: Judge Larry <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 00:23:02 -0400
Subject: Jesus Only

*****
* Bible Matters mailing list
* Send all commands - Suspend, Subscribe, Info, Rules, etc.
* to <biblemat-xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
* List mail to <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
* List owners: XX <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com>,
* XX <xxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net>
*****

Here's a little something that appeared in XX. Judge Larry

Answering "Jesus Only" Questions
Judge Larry

QUESTION #1: Is it true that the name of God the Father is 'Jesus' according to John 5:43?

Judge Larry: The answer is "no," and here is why. First, the term, "name," in John 5:43 does not refer to one's proper name, like "John" or "Larry." It refers tothe Father's authority. Jesus did not come in his own name; that is, he did not come by his own authority. Jesus did not speak by his own authority (Jn. 12:49). His doctrine was not his. It was not of his devising, but it was the doctrine which his Father gave to him to deliver (Jn. 5:30; 7:16; 8:28). In that way, he came in his Father's name; that is, by his Father's authority.

Bobby: The judge has an ulterior motive for wanting to start off by getting people to accept a false assertion. It has to do with the error of his baptismal formula, which I'll prove later on. At any rate, the Greek word translated "name" in his above reference can ... and does ... mean a proper name, NOT the "authority" or "power" of someone else. Watch this closely as I show how ludicrious it is for him to assert that the word that was translated "name" here does NOT identify a proper name in John 5:43, but was used only to say that Jesus was acting on the behalf of, or by the authority of, a completely separate and distinct "person" to whom the "authority" and "power". All the Judge has done here is to make a false assertion and follow it up with very carefully Scriptures which, when interpreted LITERALLY appear to support his man made theology ... AND I'LL CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THIS!


Here's the verses the Judge referred to above ...
Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name (Strong's # 3686), and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name (Strong's # 3686), him ye will receive.


Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.


Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.


Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.


Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

As you will notice, the judge carefully hand picked a few verses in the Book of John to follow up his initial Scripture which do NOT even contain the words "authority" OR "power". Now, that's strange, isn't it??? I believe he thinks if a person buys his initial false assertion that he can convince them of his man made theory by LITERALLY interpreting Scriptures which appear to support his theology. In a minute I will show you some things Jesus said in the Book of John that the Judge has conveniently failed to mention ... especially something specific Jesus said concerning people's understanding of the Father, which is found further on back in the Book of John from where the Judge carefully hand picked his "pet verses". At any rate, here's what the word Greek word "onoma" {on'-om-ah} (Strong's 3686) that was translated "NAME" in John 5:43 really means ...

1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason


Now, I know the Judge must be aware of the stern warning in the Bible about adding to or taking from the Word of God. But, let's pretend for a moment that the Judge is right about the word "name" in John 5:43 really meaning "authority" and/or "power" ... and not the actual proper name, "Jesus" as stated. That being the case, we could just remove the word name in John 5:43 and replace it with the word "authority" and/or "power" ... just whatever suits our fancy. Also, that being the case, here's what some other verses would look like if we followed the Judge's false assertion and decided to insert the words "authority" and/or "power" where the exact SAME Greek word (that was translated "NAME") in John 5:43 is found (which will conclusively expose the error of the Judge's position) ....

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his AUTHORITY and/or POWER (name -Strong's #3686 ) JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his AUTHORITY and/or POWER (name -Strong's # 3686 ) JESUS.

Mat 10:2 Now the AUTHORITIES and/or POWERS (names -Strong's # 3686 ) of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Do you see how flawed the Judge's position is, thus far??? I want you to keep in mind the Clark Kent/Superman analogy I keep referring to as we go through this material. Now, the verses the Judge used to start this off with were spoken to people BEFORE it was fully known and understood who the Father ... and Jesus ... "really" is, but was actually being concealed at that time. As a matter of fact some of the verses the Judge hand picked to LITERALLY interpret were directed to those who hated ... and persecuted ... Jesus. At any rate, here's a real quick sampling from the same book in the bible that the Judge began his focus on ... the Book of John. I pulled these portions of Scripture up to to back up what I am talking about when I am withstanding the man made theory of the three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead and, instead, am presenting the Deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ ... Almighty God in human form, God manifested in the flesh. However, I am NOT referring to the flesh ... or the human side of Jesus ... when I am speaking of the Deity of Jesus Christ. I am speaking of the Spirit that dwelled in that sinless tablernacle of Flesh ... or the Divine side of Jesus ... that's what I am talking about concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ. There is ONLY ONE LORD ... ONE SAVIOUR ... ONE SPIRIT ... ONE PERSON ... in the Godhead, and Jesus Christ is that ONE LORD in human form. That is why the Judge refused to answer 7 of the following 8 questions. Doing so would have clashed with his theology and exposed it for what it is ... a man made theory that is in error! Because he firmly clings to the three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" ... "spirits" (one for each person) ... in the Godhead theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ.


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (the Judge's only answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

Jesus had TWO NATURES, which even the Judge says he believes (I think), although he sometimes acts like he doesn't believe it, especially when he is LITERALLY interpreting Scriptures in an effort to prop up his "implied" man made theory. At any rate, here's some Scriptures in John that have got to harmonize with the rest of what is written in John, unless, of course, the Judge believes the Word of God is full of distorts, contradictions and/or out right lies. In which case, this would all be futile. And we should all just go fishing or something.

John 1:1 and John 1:14 ... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (The Judge would try to shift the focus on the phrase "with God" and avoid any mention of the phrase "was God" in verse one. My word is with me becasue it "IS" ME. My word is NOT a completely separate and distinct person as the Judge would have you think.)


John 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. ((Only ONE created the world and He did it ALONE ... by Himself. Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;))


John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. ((spoken to Nicodemus while Jesus was standing on planet Earth))


John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (Jesus was equal with God because He was God manifested in the flesh. God has no equal. There is no "person ... or persons" equal with God)


John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (Here, the Judge would have you believe that Jesus existed as a completely separate and distinct Spirit than that of the Father BEFORE the Incarnation or the birth of the Christ child. Which would mean the Judge believes there are three separate and distinct Spirits in the Godhead ... one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Spirit. However, I don't know how many of them dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place. I can prove only one did.)


John Chapter 8
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. ((Note: Jesus was NOT implying that the Father is a MAN too [for we know He is an invisible Spirit] ... neither was Jesus saying the Father was another separate and distinct "person" for that matter. What He was establishing was He had BOTH a human AND a Divine witness [TWO WITNESSES] as to His Deity. **IF** I present two forms of identity to confirm and validate myself for the purpose of cashing of a check, I haven't presented two identities ... just two "forms" of my ONE identity. Granted, some folks have more than one identity ... or fake identities ..., but Jesus was NOT an imposter!))
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.


John Chapter 10
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,



John Chapter 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.



John Chapter 16
25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:



The Word of God does NOT contradict itself and no amount of LITERAL interpretations given to "pet verses" by the Judge will supercede or nullify what you have just read. The Judge can't have it BOTH ways. Either Jesus is fully God ... and God is totally and completely God of all ..., or He is not God at all! The Godhead is NOT divided up into three separate parts like a pie sliced into three equal pieces, each of which are required to make up the whole. Nor is the Godhead like an equalateral triangle (as I was presented in a one on one debate with a Church of Christ minister once). If that were the case, and since none of the angles are lesser or greater than the others, there wouldn't be a superior or a subordinate. And we know for a fact that the flesh .. or the human nature and will of Jesus Christ was most definitely subject to the Spirit ... or the Divine nature and will. The Judge, Jason and myself are three separate and distinct persons. We could be joined together as co-equals, to function as one team. But, God is NOT three separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-EXISTENT AND CO-ETERNAL "persons", the Judge would have you believe. The sooner a person understands this simple, common sense approach to studying the Godhead, the better off they will be. Now, I will expose the Judge's ulterior motive for his false assertion about the word "name" actually meaning "authority" or "power" in John 5:43. You see, he needs those whom he misleads to believe this, because he believes and teaches others that Matthew 28:19 actually could be interpreted as follows .... and trust me, he will correct this if I'm wrong. But I know I'm not wrong because I used to be a trinitarian myself and I've debated scores of them since coming out of trinitarianism, some of whom were very highly educated and had impressive titles). At any rate, the Judge really believes Matthew 28:19 could be interpret to read like this ...

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them by the "AUTHORITY" of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost:

However, that is NOT the way Matthew reads. Here's how it reads in the King James Version of the Bible. By the way, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus was telling His followers what to do NOT what to say. Here's the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 given ....

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (Strong's # 3686 ... NAME-SINGULAR) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Now, here's the Great Commission carried out (this is were the rubber meets the road ... the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, which the Judge, up to this point, has apparently made one of his life's purposes to fiercely attack and fight against) ...


Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be BAPTIZED every one of you in the name (Strong's # 3686) of JESUS Christ for the REMISSION sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name (Strong's # 3686) of the Lord Jesus.)


Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name (Strong's 3686) of the Lord Jesus. (((The Apostle Paul felt so strongly about baptism in the name of Jesus that we find here where 12 disciples of John the Baptist were RE-BAPTIZED)))


Act 10:48 And he COMMANDED them to be baptized in the name (Strong's # 3686) of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (((the RSV, ASV, NLT, NASB, and Darby translations all have the name of JESUS in this verse ... but even if one rejected this one, the preponderance of the Scriptures support the use ... or invoking ... of the name JESUS in water baptism))).


Again, Jesus was telling His disciples what to DO ... NOT ... what to SAY in Matthew 28:19. The "original" New Testament Church went forth and baptized by invoking the Name of Jesus. They never invoked these words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," at a baptismal ceremony. Even if you refuse to accept Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 as being examples where the name of Jesus was actually invoked at baptism, according to Colossians 3:17 we are to do everything ... in word or deed ... in the Name of Jesus. And the following are undeniable examples of where the name of Jesus was literally invoked in other "deeds," because this is actual "quotes." Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." Acts 16:18 "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." Now, other than Matthew 28:19 ... where Jesus issued the Great Commission (which is as misunderstood today as many of His words were by misunderstood by certain people who heard Him speak) where's any scriptures where the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were ever invoked for any reason?


Now, I'm by no means an English major. As a matter of fact, I bearly made it out of high school, and didn't even go to college. But, I do know that the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not proper names. They are descriptive titles ... NOT proper names. And, it is my understanding that it becomes very obvious, when Matthew 28:19 is diagramed, that the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Ghost is ONE NAME. However, if someone is just dead set on hanging on the man made theory of "three persons" in the Godhead, I suppose they could add an "S" to the word NAME in Matthew 28:19 to make it plural ... NAMES ... one name for each of the "three persons" in the man made theory of the Godhead. However, besides adding to the Word of God, there is another big problem with that. If pressed for a further explanation, a person could get by, by using the Hebrew name Yehovah (or the English name Jehovah) ... which was arrived at by adding vowels to the prelude of God's reveal name ... YHWH ... for the Father's name. And, of course, the name of the Son would be a no brainer for them. It's Jesus. But where their ship would run aground would be in trying to come up with a name for the Holy Ghost. That would derail their efforts, right there. At any rate, the Judge's LITERAL interpretation AND application of Matthew 28:19 is diametrically opposed to the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word in other places on this same subject. This, I hope and pray, is just due to his ignorance as to who Jesus "really" is ... and about the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost really being "JESUS" ... I hope and pray he is not doing this deliberately, knowing better, but continuing in error anyway. I realize the Judge doesn't grasp the concept of the two separate natures of Jesus (flesh and Spirit ... human and Divine ... God and man ... Father and Son), and how Jesus spoke in parables and spoke of the Father like Clark Kent spoke of Superman. And if there ever was a "real" Superman, Jesus Christ was the "real" Superman. At any rate, all Judge Larry needs to do is to take a closer look at the name "Jesus" ... Where do you think the name Jesus came from, Judge? Do you think Mary and Joseph just woke up one morning and drew the name out of a hat? That name Jesus was "inherited" and dispatched from Heaven by an angel to both of them individually. And it means "Jehovah-Saviour" or "Jehovah has become salvation." ... "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." Zechariah 14:9. Vowels had to be added to YHWH in order for the Tetragrammaton to become a name that could be pronounced Yehovah in Hebrew or Jehovah in English. YHWH was a prelude to the revealed name of Jesus because the name Jesus literally means "Jehovah-Saviour" or "Jehovah has become salvation" ... and the name "Jesus" came from God ... NOT man.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Judge Larry:Second, see John 17. In verse six, Jesus says, "I have manifested thy nameunto the men which thou gavest me...." In verse eight, he says, "For I havegiven unto them the words which thou gavest me...." He made known theFather's name, his power and authority, when he gave them "the words" whichGod had given him to speak. Further, he said, "I have given them thy word"(v. 14). Then, he said, "I have declared unto them thy name" (v. 26).


Bobby: The word "manifested" in John 17:6 means "revealed" ... "made known".

Jhn 17:6 I have manifested (Strong's # 5319) thy name (Strong's # 3686) unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.


phaneroo (Strong's 5319)
1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
a) make actual and visible, realised
b) to make known by teaching
c) to become manifest, be made known
d) of a person
1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one's self, appear
e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood
1) who and what one is


Now, let's talk about this "power" that the Judge keeps alluding to. Teaching someone the Word of God, I suppose, could be considered making known, or revealing the "power" of God, which He placed in the Church AND in the life of those who are born again "the Bible way. It is also the same "power" which some folks deny in these last days. By the way, teaching someone the Word of God does NOT endue them with the "power" which Jesus said would come as a result as being born again "the Bible way".


Luke Chapter 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power (Strong's # 1411) from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

The Greek Word translated "power" in verse 49 (above) is dunamis {doo'-nam-is}(Strong's # 1411) which means ...

1) strength power, ability
a) inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth
b) power for performing miracles
c) moral power and excellence of soul
d) the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth
e) power and resources arising from numbers
f) power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hosts




Acts 1
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power (Strong's # 1411), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
* * * * * *
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

There was 120 disciples of Christ, including the mother of Jesus, in the upper room. However, they did NOT actually "experience" the POWER of the New Birth until AFTER Jesus' ascension and until they were born again "the Bible way" as per Acts 1:8 (listed above) and Acts 2:1-4 (listed below).

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (((The Bible says in Acts 1:14-15 that there was about 120 disciples, including the mother of Jesus, who had gathered together in the upper room. However, I have never known of anyone who could find any place in the Bible where about 108 of them left out of the upper room BEFORE the out pouring of the Holy Ghost ... the new birth AND the birth of the "original New Testament Church ... in verse 4 above)))



Let's look a little bit futher into this power, shall we??? The "power" of God is not just knowing and/or being taught the Word of God, it is supernatural power ... miraculous power ... that one doesn't not possess of their own accord. The Judge might want others to believe he's telling it like it really is, but he denies and rejects the "power" dunamis {doo'-nam-is}(Strong's 1411) that we're going to read about now, and says it is not for us today. It is no more ... bye, bye ... gone, gone! My question for him would be just exactly when did it leave, where did it go, why did it disappear ... and does that mean God placed something in the "original" New Testament Church and then recalled it ... took it back ... and is what the American Heritage dictionary refers to as an "Indian giver"? At any rate, here's more on the "power" ....


Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power (Strong's # 1411), did great wonders and miracles among the people. ((Stephen was NOT one of the original 12 Apostles))


Act 19:11 And God wrought special miracles (Strong's # 1411) by the hands of Paul: ((Paul was NOT one of the original 12 Apostles))


Rom 15:19 Through mighty (Strong's # 1411) signs and wonders, by the power (Strong's # 1411) of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.


1Cr 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (Strong's # 1411).



1 Corinthians 12:8-10
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles (Strong's # 1411); to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: ((God placed MIRACLES in the "original" New Testament Church as one of NINE gifts of the Spirit. Has some of the fruit of the Spirit been suspended? Not according to Romans 11:29 ... For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.))


Just like the 120 disciples of Christ in the upper room that I can find Scriptural proof as being in attendance (that I haven't known of anyone finding Scriptural proof where any of them left for any reason prior to Acts 2:4), I can find Scriptural proof where God placed "power" in the lives of those who experienced the new birth "the Bible way" and also place it in the "original" New Testament Church, but I haven't known of anyone who can Scripturally remove it from either place at any time BEFORE the sound of the last trumpet for any reason.


1Cr 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles (Strong's # 1411), then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.



Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power (Strong's # 1411) that worketh in us,

1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power (Strong's # 1411), and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.


2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power (Strong's # 1411), and of love, and of a sound mind.


2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power (Strong's # 1411) thereof: from such turn away.


Bobby: Jesus did reveal and impart to His disciples the Truth in its entirety, and reminded them (before they had been born again and fully understood some things) that when they were born again "the Bible way" all the things that they had been taught and the things that had been revealed to them would be brought back to their rememberance ....


John 14
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Furthermore, when Jesus alluded to the NAME (singular) of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost in Matthew 28:19, Peter immediately upon being born again "the Bible way" and anointed by the the Holy Ghost revealed what that name is in Acts 2:38 ...

Matthew 28
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Luke 24
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Acts 2
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Judge Larry: Third, in 1 Samuel 25:5-9, David sent some young men to Nabal and said,"Greet him in my name." Verse 9 says they "spoke to Nabal all those wordsin the name of David and ceased." What does that mean? It means they spokeonly those words which David authorized them to speak. They did not speakof their own accord, but they spoke the words which David gave them tospeak. That is how they spoke "in the name of David."The Pentecostal might be asked if "the name" of the young men was "David."Since they came in David's "name," does that mean that their name was"David?" No, it simply means they spoke only that which David authorizedthem to speak.Fourth, when he fought Goliath, David said, "I come to thee in the name ofthe Lord of hosts" (1 Sam. 17:45). Was David's name, "Lord of hosts"? Or,was the Lord's name, "David"? If the Pentecostals are consistent, they willhave to say that God's name was "David," since David came in the name ofthe Lord of hosts. See the point? What did David mean when he told Goliath,"I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts?" He meant that he came bythe power and authority of God


Bobby: The Judge is up to his shell game here, folks. I have already conclusively proven that the word "name" in John 5:43 means the proper name "Jesus", NOT representative of the "power" and/or "authority" of someone else. Futhermore, to speak or act on the authority of another one would have to invoke, or present, that authority in some manner. These men would have had to verbally uttered something that invoked the name of David (his authority) OR presented a document with David's name and/or seal on it. But I'll look at his Scriptures here, anyway ...


1Sa 25:5 And David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name (Strong's # 08034): ((The Hebrew word translated "name" here is shem {shame}(Strong's 08034) meaning ...


1) name
a) name
b) reputation, fame, glory
c) the Name (as designation of God)
d) memorial, monument

As you can see, while it is possible to bend things around to make this Hebrew word appear to only mean authority, this Hebrew word actually can ... and does ... mean a literal name.


1Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name (Strong's # 08034) of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.


* * * the conclusion of question one * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


EMAIL # 18
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: Question TWO of the Judge's Godhead article ....


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



QUESTION #2 Is it not true that the Son inherited the name of the Father according to Hebrews 1:4? If so, Christ is the Father.

Judge Larry: First, if I had given one of my sons my name, would that mean that my son was me? If I gave him my name, would I be him? Would we be the same person? If so, he would be married to his mother, and I would be married to my daughter in law, and he would be the Father of his brother!


Bobby: If that's you script for a stand up comedy routine, you ought to be on a stage. And one leaves town in about 30 minutes. Seriously, I am NOT impressed with your answering a question with three ignorant ones, followed by an ignorant statement. If the Father wasn't an omnipresent, omnipotent, omiscient, INVISIBLE Spirit, BUT, instead, was a distinct and separate person, as you and your son are, what you just said might have some significance concerning the Godhead. However, you should know good and well that Jesus was NOT conceived by sperm and a female egg as your son was. I mean, God could have just spoken the Christ child into existence if He so desired, but He didn't. Jesus was supernaturally conceived, but delivered like any other ordinary child, but He definitely was NOT ordinary. God came to earth and was manifested in flesh, and went through everything we mortals go through ... from womb to tomb. He condescended and experienced it first hand, Himself. One of the many problems with the trinitarian theory (and I am a former trinitarian, myself) is that we were so heavily indoctrinated to believe in three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, that our indoctrination would not allow us to see and understand how in the world God could be "IN" Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, as per 2 Corinthians 5:19, and still be omnipresent, and still on the throne in Heaven. Furthermore, when human reasoning and logic, as well as interpreting Spiritual matters LITERALLY are involved, trinitarians seem to think God is limited to time and space as we humans are ... but He is NOT.

At any rate, back on the inherited name matter. I have already proven that the name "Jesus" IS the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost. I also proved that the name Jesus was given by ... and inherited from ... Almighty God ... not Joseph or Mary. You are just trying to muddy up the water with human reasoning and logic and goofy questions to divert and distract. By the way, the name I inherited came from my daddy. I guess there may some children who inherit their mother's name, but that is not customary. The name the Christ child inherited came from His daddy (so to speak) .... The Spirit of Almighty God ... and it's JESUS. And it literally means, "Jehovah-Saviour" or "Jehovah has become salvation". Now, how can you tell me that JESUS is not the name of the Father. I've been running pretty much at an idle speed during this debate, thus far. I haven't provided you with all the Scriptures that I could have, pertaining to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being ONE and the same PERSON/SPIRIT/LORD/SAVIOUR/GOD ... NOT A THIRD PART OF A THREE PART GODHEAD ... and that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is JESUS. However, the following prophetic Scripture in Isaiah concerning the Messiah needs to be put in the record at this point ....

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name (Strong's # 08034) shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Guess what the Hebrew word that was translated "name" in the verse above is ...

Yep, you got it. It's that same Hebrew word that was translated "name" in 1 Samuel 25:5 and 1 Samuel 17:45 that you referred to in your answers to question #1 ... which does NOT just mean power and authority, but, rather a proper name. And that proper name is JESUS.

shem {shame}(Strong's 08034) meaning ...


1) name
a) name
b) reputation, fame, glory
c) the Name (as designation of God)
d) memorial, monument


Judge, God said a long, long time ago that He was going to do something so incredible that some would not believe it if it ever if it were told them. Listen to this ...

Habakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.

Now listen to this ...

Micah Chapter 1
2 Hear, all ye people; hearken, O earth, and all that therein is: and let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the LORD from his holy temple.
3 For, behold, the LORD cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.


Now, Judge, I realize you do not believe this, but just because you don't, that doesn't mean it's not true, just the same. Furthermore, this thing that God foretold, that He was going to do, is so incredible that our finite human minds don't have anything to compare it to in order to truly grasp it. There hadn't anything like it happened before and nothing has happened like it since. I was talking to the friend I call Lamont today via email and this is what I told him about the Father, Son relationship of the Godhead as it relates to our finite human comprehension and experience. It is my position that the love of a mother for the children, she has carried in her womb, and given birth to, is about as close as we humans can come to in our finite minds, and our human experience, to understanding the Love of God. Likewise, the relationship of a father and a son is about as close as we humans can come in our finite minds, and our human experience, to understanding the relationship between the Spirit of Almighty God and the Incarnate Christ. However, neither one of these understanding of our finite minds is really accurate ... or adequate. Now, Judge, you implying that you and your son are like that of the relationship of the Spirit of Almighty God and the Incarnate Christ must have truly been a sudden surge of ignorance. But, for the record, I would put the farm up that you wouldn't be able to live, speak and function inside your son's body. Well, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here because I have already proven the name "Jesus" actually means "Jehovah-Saviour" or "Jehovah has become salvation" AND that the name JESUS was inherited from Almighty God ... not Mary or Joseph. So, for you to assert that the name "Jesus" was NOT inherited and/or is not the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is exceedingly foolish and grossly in error.

Judge, we were created in the image AND likeness of God. I assume you are a father, a son, and a husband. If not, I know you must be a son, a teacher and a preacher. However, none of these titles is your name. Furthermore, I'd be willing to put the farm up that you could speak, act and function in all of these capacities in a room full of people, without anyone getting confused as to how many "persons" you really are. Now, how is it that you can do something that God either will not do ... or cannot do ... unless He splits Himself up into three different people ... persons ... in order to pull it off? Ummm, I guess I should have asked you how many persons you are. I make be taking too much for granted to assume your position is that you are ONE ... and only one ... PERSON who functions in more than one capacity ... or occupies more than one position, or holds more than one office. And that is precisely what the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is. They are just 3 of the many titles of Almighty God ... or 3 capacities in which God functions ... or 3 descriptive terms of the three offices which God holds. You know God was known by many titles in the Old Testament. However, He revealed ... or manifested ... Himself to humanity in the form of a lowly servant about 2,000 years ago, and brought an end to the ceremonial laws of Moses and ushered in the New Covenant ... and the New Testament Church Age.




Judge Larry: Second, the name Jesus received in Hebrews 1:4 was not the name, "Jesus." He received the name, "Jesus," at his birth (Lk. 1:31). However, the "name" in Hebrews 1:4 was not that kind of name. It referred to his power and authority which he received after his death on the cross (Phil. 2:9-11). Read that text carefully. After his death, and because of his death on the cross, Jesus was given a "name which is above every name." That cannot refer to the name, "Jesus," for he was given that name at his birth. He was given a "name," a power, an authority, which is above every name, power, or authority. This "name," or power, or authority was given to him after his death on the cross. "Wherefore," because he was willing to die, God gave him "a name," a power, an authority which is above every name, power or authority--"Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come" (Eph. 1:21; Cf. Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1:4).


Bobby: Well let's take a look at the first four verses of the First Chapter of Hebrews, shall we?

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: ((Notice the "PERSON" of God is mentioned in verse 3 .... NOT the "PERSONS" of God ... looks like the trinitarian's third "person" got left out.))
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


Now, Judge there is NOTHING in this passage that should make you think anything was "inherited" at this particular time in Hebrews 1:4. Sure, it mentions inheriting, but the "inheriting" had already taken place.


Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name (Strong's # 3686) than they.


Furthermore, there's that Greek word "onoma" {on'-om-ah} (Strong's # 3686) again, that was translated "NAME" in John 5:43 ... and many other Scriptures ... which really means ...

1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason


Now, I am NOT denying the "power" and "authority" of Christ, nor saying that the glorified (resurrected) Christ did not take on even more significance after His resurrection. He fulfilled his role as the sacrificial Lamb that was needed to make a way to end all sacrifices and redeem man back to Himself. Jesus does have all "power" and is even referred to as the ALMIGHTY in Revelation 1:8. Now, regardless of how you parce your words, there can't be two or three ALMIGHTIES. ONLY ONE CAN BE ALL MIGHTY. Judge, Jesus is a kind and compassionate Saviour today, but when He comes back, He will take over the position you've self appointed yourself to, and will be our Judge.


Judge Larry: Third, if Hebrews 1:4 teaches that "Christ is the Father," then upon whose right hand did the Son sit when he ascended into heaven? Hebrews 1:3 says he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." It would be an amazing feat for a man to sit on his own right hand! I cannot do it, but
one of my sons could. As David showed in Psalm 110, two persons are involved in the concept of one sitting on the right hand of another--"The Lord (that is one person) said unto my Lord (that is another person), sit thou (one person) at my (another person) right hand." See also Acts 7:56; Hebrews 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22.


Bobby: You are really stirring the shells round and around now, aren't you? I'll tell you what would be more amazing than seeing a man sit on his own right hand, would be to see a man sit (or stand) on the right hand of an omnipresent, INVISIBLE Spirit. Judge, references to the "right hand" of God in the Bible do NOT refer to a physical right hand OR a geographical location. Do you honestly think you should interpret EVERYTHING LITERALLY in the Bible??? If so, I guess you think a gigantic nose came down out of the sky and blew the waters of the Red Sea back for the Children of Israel to walk across on dry ground, as spoken of in Exodus 15:8, huh? ... And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. The "right hand" of God is NOT a geographical location. The right hand of God has a spiritual significance which you are interpreting LITERALLY. At any rate, the right hand of God is a place of acceptance and/or authority and power ... as the sheep on the right and the goats on the left.



Judge Larry: Fourth, if Hebrews 1:4 teaches that "Christ is the Father," why does verse eight say, "Unto the Son (one person) he (another person) saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom"? Sounds to me like two different persons are
contemplated in the text. Hence, verse four cannot be teaching that Christ is the (same person as) the Father.


Bobby: Interpreting the Bible the way you do (LITERALLY), Judge, you would have God calling the Son His God in verse 8, and in the next verse referring to Himself as the Son's God. I always thought a reference to "God" (upper case "G") was a reference to a SUPREME BEING. If so, how many SUPREMES BEINGS can there be ... and each one still be SUPREME??? If there is more than ONE SUPREME BEING, will the main SUPREME BEING please stand up? Rightly dividing the Word requires not only honesty and openness, but it is necessary to keep in mind who is speaking, who is being addressed, what the circumstances are ... in addition to what is said. I've already told you that your shouldn't interpret Spiritual things with human reasoning and logic. Besides, if you look back, you'll that this reference in Hebrews was recorded centuries prior in a Psalm. Let's take a quick look ...

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



Psalm 45
1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.
2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.
3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



Judge Larry: Fifth, Hebrews 1:4 cannot be teaching that the Father and the Son are the same person, for in Hebrews 5:4, 5, the writer makes an argument which demands two separate persons. "No man," he argues, makes himself a high priest. He must be called and selected of God, "as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest...." In other words, just as Aaron did not appoint himself to be a high priest, neither did Christ! However, if the Father and the Son are the same person, as Pentecostals contend, then Jesus did appoint himself. Observe the words, "So also." They are crucial. Just as Aaron was appointed by another person, "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest...." Since he did not take this honor upon himself, since he did not glorify himself,
who did?


Bobby: The Book of Hebrews was written to people, some of whom, were still having problems concerning whether or not to continue on under the Mosaic Law. All Paul was trying to do is convince these people that Jesus was not an ordinary man, nor did He self appoint Himself as a Priest, Lord, Saviour, King, etc. But, instead, His calling to be a Priest, (and in Jesus' case) Lord, Saviour, King, etc. was ordained of God ... NOT man ... as Aaron's calling came from God. I feel reasonably sure that some of the people that the Book of Hebrews was directed to were having about as much trouble as you concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ and His two natures.




Judge Larry: Sixth, Hebrews 1:4 cannot be showing that the Father and the Son are the same person, for in Hebrews 10:5, he cites a Psalm which says, "A body hast thou prepared me." The Pentecostal should be asked to explain what "body" is referred to. Ask them, "Who is the thou in the text?" Then, ask them, "Who is the me in the text?" "Thou," one person, has prepared "a body" for "me," another person. So, even if I could not explain Hebrews 1:4, I would know from Hebrews 5:4, 5 and 10:5 that it could not be teaching that the Father and the Son are the same person.


Bobby: Abraham prophetically uttered that God was going to provide Himself a lamb (Genesis 22:8). Therefore, a body had to be prepared. However, interpreting Hebrews Chapter 10 LITERALLY, I can see why one might think there is more than one "person" in the Godhead, but I have already proven that that is NOT the case. This verse does NOT trump the mountain of Scriptural evidence that is found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word concerning God and the Godhead ... nor does it trump the absolute silence of the Word of God about Almighty God being three "persons". I have already proven, LITERAL interpretations of Scriptures concerning Spiritual matters is NOT the way it's done. Hebrews Chapter 10 was sort of a sprinkling of portions of other Scriptures the writer of Hebrews was using to minister to the Hebrews that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah and He was indeed the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Even interpreting Hebrews 10:5 LITERALLY, and in the face of all the other vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word on the subject of God and the Godhead, I still couldn't say that Hebrews 10:5 is proof that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" in a "three persons" Godhead. The body of Jesus Christ did NOT exist prior to the Incarnation as a separate and distinct person in the Godhead. But this verse interpreted LITERALLY could be used to assert He did. And I think you probably know that even trinitarian Bible scholars have been debating Hebrews 10:5 for a long time. If you are not aware of that and/or you doubt my assertion, check out these web sites ...

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/46.htm

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol44/htm/xx.xxxii.htm


The following is from David K. Bernard's Book, "The Oneness of God" (Pages 194-195)

Conversations Between Persons in the Godhead?

There is no biblical record of a conversation between two persons of God, but there are many representations of communion between the two natures of Christ. For example, the prayers of Christ portray His human nature seeking help from the eternal Spirit of God.

John 12:28 records a request on the part of Jesus that the Father would glorify His own name. A voice from heaven spoke, answering this request. This demonstrates that Jesus was a man on earth but His Spirit was the omnipresent God of the universe. The voice did not come for the benefit of Jesus, but for the people�s benefit (John 12:30). The prayer and voice did not constitute a conversation between two persons in the Godhead; it may be said that it was communication between Jesus� humanity and His deity. The voice was a witness to the people from the Spirit of God, revealing God�s approval of the Son.

Hebrews 10:5-9 quotes a prophetic passage from Psalm 40:6-8. In this prophetic depiction of the coming of the Messiah, Christ as a man speaks to the eternal God, expressing His obedience and submission to the will of God. Essentially this scene is similar to that of Christ�s prayer in Gethsemane. It is obvious that Christ is speaking as a man because He says, "A body hast thou prepared me" and "I come to do thy will, O God."
In conclusion the Bible does not record conversations between persons of the Godhead, but between the human and divine natures. To interpret these two natures as "persons" creates the belief in at least two "Gods." (It is very strange that the Holy Ghost is never part of the conversations!) Moreover, "persons" would imply separate intelligences in the one deity, a concept that cannot be distinguished from polytheism.


* * * conclusion of question two * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 19
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: Question THREE of the Judge's Godhead article ....


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.


Question #3 Is the name of the Holy Spirit 'Jesus' according to John 14:26?

Judge Larry: First, go back to the argument made earlier from 1 Samuel 25:5-9. If John 14:26 "proves" that the Holy Spirit's name is "Jesus," then the servants of David were named "David." Since David, as also noted earlier, came against Goliath "in the name of the Lord of hosts," was his name "Lord of hosts"?


Bobby: Nope, Judge, I ain't gonna let you slide. You're only playing your shell game with words and implications, and jumping back over into the Old Testament to assert that the Hebrew word that was translated into English as "name" doesn't really mean any proper name at all ... which is grossly in error ...

shem {shame}(Strong's 08034) meaning ...
1) name
a) name
b) reputation, fame, glory
c) the Name (as designation of God)
d) memorial, monument

I have already conclusively proven that the word "name" in John 5:43 means the proper name "Jesus", NOT representative of the "power" and/or "authority" of someone else. You're gonna have to try something else.


Judge Larry: Second, just look at the text of John 14:26. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (a person, as 'whom' implies), whom the Father (another person) will send in my (another person) name, he (the person referred to as 'the Holy Spirit,' and 'Comforter') shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I (Jesus) have said unto you." Simply look at the pronouns used in the text! They reveal more than one person!



Bobby: Pronouns???? Who on earth are you to admonish anyone to look at a pronoun??? Judge you just interpret the Bible wrong .... you interpret it LITERALLY. And that's why you're so messed up. At any rate, just look at the pronouns in the vast preponderance of VERBATIM Scripture on the subject of God and the Godhead that you, evidently, deny .... English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD".

**IF** the word "GOD" identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.



At any rate, you've hopped back over into the New Testament, still stirring those shells round and around as you move on to yet another flawed aspect of your indoctrinated man made theory. So, let's see if you can separate the Spirity of Almighty God the Father to form a completely separate and distinct Spirit for your "third person" ... the the Holy Spirit ... shall we? You are now asserting that another "Comforter" actually means another "CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL AND CO-EXISTENT PERSON" ... according to your indoctrinated theology. Since Jesus didn't intend to spend the next 2,000+ years on earth in human form, let's see who this "Comforter" is, that you are so worked up about, and how this "Comforter" arrives ...



John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.



Again, LITERALLY interpreting verse 16, I can see how you might convince someone that another Comforter is a completely separate and distinct Spirit ... PERSON ... from Almighty God the Father, who had manifested Himself to humanity in the flesh, as the Incarnate Christ. But you theology is taking on water ...


There are a number of things you either don't understand, or you are deliberately avoiding altogether. **IF** the Holy Spirit is "another" PERSON altogether, AND the Holy Spirit and the Father are two separate PERSONS ... SPIRITS ... then the Holy Spirit would be the Father of the Christ Child instead of the Father (see Matthew 1:18 & 20 ... child of the Holy Ghost). It is my position that the Holy Spirit "IS" the Spirit of Almighty God ... the Spirit of the Father which dwelled in Jesus (see St. John 14:10). However, as the following verses will point out, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father AND the Holy Spirit is also the same Spirit as the Son.

St. John 14:16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (It is my position Jesus dwelled with them, but it was expedient that He depart in bodily form so that the Holy Ghost ... the Spirit which dwelled in Him ... should comfort, lead, teach, dwell in and abide with His disciples during the entire New Testament Church Age ... just as He had done in human form during His Earthly ministry. The abiding presense of this Comforter would be just another "form" of Almighty God who had dwelled with them for several years as the Incarnate Christ. Instead of abiding with them externally in human form, He was going to abide with them INTERNALLY in Spirit form. I mean, surely, you must acknowledge Jesus can't physically enter into a believer and dwell there any more than you could physically enter into that son of yours that you identified as your concept of the Godhead earlier in this debate. At any rate, continuing ....

St. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name 3686, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ((There's that Greek word again that actually means a proper name ... JESUS. Since you apparently aren't genuinely seeking Truth in its entirety, you must hate it when your theory gets shot down by the Word of God.))


St. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (Houston, we have a problem. If the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct persons ... Spirits ... just who is sending the Comforter, the Father or the Son? John 14:26 says the Father, but in John 15:26 Jesus says He will send the Comforter.)

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Oops! Another snag! Here we are admonished that we MUST have the Spirit [NOT Spirits] of God dwelling in us, and the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are likened as being the same Spirit).

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ((The Spirit of Almighty God the Father dwells in believers. CHECK!)

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Spirit of Son the same as the Holy Spirit, or we would have more than one Spirit abiding in us) (How many Spirits of Deity dwells in a believer?? I say ONE. However, according to the Judge's theology and LITERAL interpretation of the Scriptures, there has to be THREE SPIRITS of Deity dwelling in the believer. Here, we see that the Spirit of the Incarnate Christ dwells in believers.)

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (Well, the Judge claims to have the Holy Spirit abiding in him, but I wonder if he will go on record to state that he also has two other Spirits dwelling in him as well. I very seriously doubt it. Although, that is precisely the corner his LITERAL interpreation of Scriptures and his flawed theology has painted him into,)

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (((According to the "plurality" of three "persons" ... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology ... which makes up ONE God, this verse should read ... "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the the Spirits (plural) of God dwelleth in you.")))

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (((Now, the Judge hasn't done it just yet, but I feel reasonably sure he's gonna whoop out a few more verses with the plural pronouns "we" and "us" in them to focus on LITERALLY in order prop up his flawed theology. And, that being the case, and according to the "plurality" of three "persons" ... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology of his ... which makes up ONE God, this verse in 2 Corinthians 6:16 would have to read like this in order to keep from clashing with those verses he, will, no doubt try to use at some point ... "for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, WE will dwell in them, and walk in them, and WE will be their God, and they shall be OUR people.")))


I could go on and on and document how flawed this theology of the Holy Spirit ... or Holy Ghost ... being a completely separate and distinct Spirit ... Person ... than Almighty God the Father really is, but I see no point in doing that right now.



Judge Larry: A good way to begin dealing with John 14:26 with a "oneness" Pentecostal is to look at the last part of the verse first. When the text says, "he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance," ask them if they understand who is being referred to by the pronouns, "you" and "your." Generally, they will see that "you" and "your" refers to the disciples being addressed. Once they agree to that, they have shown their ability to distinguish between persons mentioned in the text. If they can see that "you" and "your" refers to certain people, and if they can infer from those pronouns who those people are, they should have no problem being able to see the same thing with respect to the other pronouns used in the text.


Bobby: It is not unusual for the ONLY SUPREME BEING OF DEITY ... ALMIGHTY GOD THE FATHER ... to be referred to in the singular as I, ME, MY, HE, HIS and HIM. That's the way He is identified throughout the Bible. Just because the Holy Spirit is called "He" in a few places does NOT mean the Holy Spirit is a completely separate and distinct Spirit ... Person ... than Almighty God the Father. By the way, the words ... "thing" ... "it" ... and ... "itself" ... are used to describe the Christ child as well as the Holy Spirit in a few places, but that doesn't mean Jesus and the Holy Spirit are any less significant in the capacities in which Almighty God the Father chose to reveal Himself to humanity, and function and abide during the redemptive process and throughout the entire New Testament Church Age. However, for those who interpret the Bible LITERALLY, as the Judge does, the following few verses that I pulled up right quick must be a real bur under their saddle ...

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.


Israel had just ONE LORD according to Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is ONE LORD:" (Not two ... not three ... ONE!). To assert that God is actually a plurality of three separate and distinct "persons" who are co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent with one another either portrays three individual "persons" of Deity like three members making up one family/household, OR portrays God as being one "person" with three "heads" ... either of which is about as pagan and polytheistic as you can get, and an abomination to boot, in my opinion. The Judge can embrace it, promote it and defend it until the cows come home, but he has been innoculated with the Truth about the Godhead now. So, he will stand before God without excuse ... and that's a certainty.


Judge Larry: Then ask them, "To whom does the pronoun "whom" refer?" To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? To whom does the pronoun "I" refer? They cannot tell you they are unable to understand to whom the pronouns refer, because they have already identified the pronouns "you" and "your," which shows their ability to distinguish between the various pronouns.


Bobby: Ummm, Judge, I thought this was all about ANSWERING your "Jesus Only" ... or "Oneness" ... questions, NOT asking questions. However, unlike you, I don't hesitate to step up to the plate to answer you. And I answered your "pronoun" problem above. You know, Judge, it a man's theology can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe he needs to take a closer look at his theology ... and yours defintely doesn't stand up to scrutiny ... Scripturally speaking OR Historically speaking. And, I don't think I've even introduced any historical documentation yet. So, maybe, now is as good a time as any to do so. I do not deny the three "aspects" of God being Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I just cannot find any place in the Bible where it says that these three aspects are separate and distinct persons who are each co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent. Since the Bible does not mention a trinity I searched into history. Here is what I found:
.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol. 13, p. 1021

The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.). He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol. 27, p. 69

The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scriptures to the Trinity.

World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T p. 363

Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

New International Encyclopedia, Vol. 22 p. 476

The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol. 29 No. 18 p. 51

The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Green: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture...But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as The Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels.



One of the major differences in the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and the indoctrinated trinitarian theory, which evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ, is found in the non-use (or use, in the case of trinitarians) of the word "persons" in describing God. It is my understanding that the major distinctions in the Godhead is flesh and Spirit ... NOT "persons" as you and I are different "persons". God is a Spirit ... ONE SPIRIT. However, the Bible doesn't refer to God or the Godhead as "persons", as the trinitarian theory is very clearly defined and very adamantly defended. God has manifested Himself as the Father in Creation, as the Son in Redemption, and as the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of born again believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. And I just don't find any place in the Bible where anyone ever referred to the ONE TRUE God as "persons." I embrace the concept of three forms of God ... three manifestations of God ... three offices of God ... three positions of God ... three roles of God. Now, if it is a matter of semantics, then dropping the unbiblical descriptive term of "persons" (that evolved centuries AFTER Christ) in reference to God, should bring true monotheists into the unity of the faith concerning this matter. However, it is my position that those who insist on using the "persons" designation in their description of God, are treading on some very dangerous territory.


Judge Larry: Third, in John 14:26, the Holy Spirit is called "the Comforter." Earlier, Jesus called the Spirit "another Comforter" (Jn. 14:16). How could he be "another Comforter" if the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same person? If they are the same person, the Spirit could not be "another." Note, too, that "the Father" (yet another person) "he" (personal pronoun) "will give you another Comforter;" that is, one other than I, Jesus, will give you
"another Comforter."


Bobby: Good Lord in Heaven! Judge you are ricocheting around and stirring those shells round and around something fierce, aren't you??? Now we're back on "another Comforter". I'm not going to copy and paste what I said above, but your notion that "another Comforter" actually means "another CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT PERSON" is very, very wrong! And no amount of shuffling the shells around and bouncing back and forth is going to change that.


Judge Larry: Fourth, the Holy Spirit was sent in Jesus' name; that is, by his authority. The Father gave "all authority" to the Son, Jesus (Matt. 28:18). Hence, the Spirit was sent to guide the apostles into "all truth," speaking and revealing the things which Jesus had spoken and taught (Jn. 14:26; 16:13, 14).


Bobby: Judge, you are about as slick a shyster as I've ever debated. I have aready refuted this word game you play with "name" and "authority" and/or "power" earlier on in this debate. Your repeating the same old flawed argument here again is NOT going to change anything. All the shell stirring and swapping around with words that you have to do must be an intensely stressful way to live. Having said that, there is one thing I would really like to hear you talk about and that how and when Jesus, who you are on record above as having "all authority" ever relinguished any of that "authority" and handed it over to your third person, the Holy Spirit. Just when did that take place, Judge??? I want Book, Chapter and Verse now ... NOT some slide ruler, half baked explanation.


Judge Larry: Fifth, read John 14:21-23, the verses right above verse 26. Note the plural pronouns. For example, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we (My Father and I) will come unto him and make our abode with him."


Bobby: I knew you would finally get around to some of your indoctrination's "pet verses" with a pronoun in it, that, when interpreted LITERALLY, seems to support your man made theology. But you know what, Judge? For every place you can find in Jesus' Clark Kent manner of speech about the Father with a pronoun in it that would seem to support your theology, I could supply many, many times more instances where the vast preponderance of VERBATIM Scriptures would contradict your man made theology. Now, that being the case, either the Bible has some serious contradictions in it concerning God and the Godhead ... OR ... you are all wet! And I say it is the latter. 1 John 2:23 says ... Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Judge, all the "we" did ... in Jesus' very intimate conversation with His disciples AFTER Judas went out to betray him ... was to assure them that when they have the Son, they, indeed, have the Father. And even though they still did not fully understand at that particular moment in time what all was going to happen ... and, even, had to happen ... Jesus felt it necessary to continue His Clark Kent manner of conversation with them. And that's what you just don't get. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!


* * * conclusion of question three * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 20
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:34 PM
Subject: Question FOUR of the Judge's Godhead article ....


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



Question #4: If the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, is it not true that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to Philippians 1:19?

Judge Larry: Yes, the Spirit "is called the Spirit of Jesus Christ," but that does not say they are the same person. In John 14:17, the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of truth." Are the Holy Spirit and the truth the same thing? No, the Holy Spirit revealed the truth; he was not the truth itself, but he revealed it (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12, 13). If calling the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" means that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same person, then calling the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth" would mean that the Holy Spirit and the truth are one and the same thing. If not, why not?


Bobby: Lord have mercy! Judge, I stand in total awe and amazement at your glaring ignorance ... your silly diversionary tactics, shell games and play on words. You would probably make the grand illusionist, David Copperfied (or whatever his name is), jealous with your shell games, diversions and grand illusions. At any rate, the Holy Spirit is NOT just called the Spirit of Christ ... the Holy Spirit "IS" the Spirit of Christ. And since Jesus emphatically stated in John Chapter 14 that He was the way ... the TRUTH ... and the life, the Holy Spirit is NOT just called the Spirit of Truth ... the Holy Spirit "IS" the Spirit of Truth. You will never in a million years separate God from His Word. God and His Word is the same ... just as you and your word are the same. I mean, surely you don't claim that your word is NOT you, but is, instead a totally separate and distinct person. If so, what is the name you have given your word??? We have already covered in this debate that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Almighty God the Father, the Spirit of Christ, and, of course, the Holy Spirit. Jesus not only stated that He was the Truth, but He stated the Word of God is Truth in John 17:17. Therefore, for you say the Holy Spirit is NOT the Truth, is really pretty silly and/or ignorant. You'll go to any extreme to try and prop up your man made theology, won't you???


Judge Larry: John the Baptist came "in the spirit and power of Elijah," but he was not literal, physical Elijah (Lk. 1:17; Jn. 1:21). We could say that John was "the spirit of Elijah," but that would not mean that they were the same person. Likewise, to say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus is not to say that they are one and the same person.



Bobby: Well, the spirit of men and the Spirit of God that moved upon men prior to the out pouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts Chapter 2 are two very, very different subjects, Judge. That would be like comparing apples and oranges. No doubt, Elijah and John the Baptist were bold as they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit, but according to Jesus in John 7:39 the Holy Ghost was not given to people to abide within them until AFTER His death, burial and resurrection. So, no, Elijah and John the Baptist were not the same PERSON, but the same Spirit of God moved upon both of them. However, that didn't make either one of them a Jehovah, Jr. ... any more than receiving the Holy Ghost the Bible way would make a person a Jesus, Jr. I must admit, I marvel at your diversionary tactics and shell games. However, we're not talking about whether or not two different men are the same person, Judge. We're talking about whether or not the Holy Spirit is a completely separate and distinct Spirit ... Person ... in the Godhead, than Almighty God the Father. That's really what is at issue here. The Spirit that moved upon Elijah and the Spirit that moved upon John the Baptist was NOT two separate and distinct SPIRITS/PERSONS. By the way, while Jesus actually referred to John the Baptist as Elijah (or Elias) in Matthew 17:12 and Mark 9:13. However, John the Baptist said he wasn't Elijah. Now, since you always interpret everything in the Bible LITERALLY, is it your position that Jesus was confused as to who Elijah really was???


* * * conclusion of question four * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: Question FIVE of the Judge's Godhead article ....


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.


QUESTION #5 - How can we answer this question, 'Is there any verse in the Bible which says that there are three separate and distinct persons in one God?'


Judge Larry: Let me ask, "Is there any verse in the Bible which says there is only one person in the Godhead?" If the fact that no single verse says there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead "proves" the doctrine is not true, then the fact that there is no verse which says there is only one person in the Godhead also proves that doctrine is not true!


Bobby: Well, well, well, I can Scripturally prove that God ... the Godhead ... contains ONE LORD ... ONE SAVIOUR ... and ... ONE SPIRIT. Unless or until you can Scripturally prove God ... the Godhead ... contains THREE LORDS ... THREE SAVIOURS ... and ... THREE SPIRITS, I would suggest you stop while you're behind. Unless, of course, you have gotten over your skeered spell, and you are now ready to answer the remaining 7 of the following 8 questions ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Judge's only answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Futhermore, it is my position that the descriptive term "person" is really inadequate to discribe Almighty God the Father, who is an imnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, INVISIBLE Spirit. Here's how I approach this subject on that web page of mine, that you are afraid to tackle and attempt to refute ... http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

The word "persons" is NOT used a single time in the entire Bible to describe God or the Godhead. However, the word "Person" is used once in Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his "PERSON," and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

The Greek word used here, that was translated "person," is hupostasis (Strong's # 5287) which means -

1) a setting or placing under

1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation

2) that which has foundation, is firm

2a) that which has actual existence

2a1) a substance, real being

2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing

2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution

2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance

Jesus said in John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

.

Here's the definition of "person" as it appears in my Webster's Dictionary:

person: n. [< OFr. < L. persona, lit., actor's mask, hence a person]

1. a human being; individual man, woman, or child

2. a) a living human body b) bodily appearance [to be neat about one's person]

3. personality; self

4. Gram. a) division into three sets of pronouns (personal pronouns), and, usually, corresponding verb forms, to identify the subject: see FIRST PERSON, SECOND PERSON, THIRD PERSON b) any of these sets

5. Law any individual or incorporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities - in person actually present.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the word "person" is really not adequate to describe Almighty God, who is also invisible (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17;) and omnipresent throughout the universe (Psalms 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23-24). At any rate, I use the term "person" in reference to God when discussing the scriptures with those who embrace the three "persons" of God theory (as I once did) in order to relate to them in language they, hopefully, can understand.

I've had many Bible discussions and debates with those who had impressive titles and degrees behind their name (who were far superior to me in secular education), on the subject of the three "persons" of God THEORY and "easy believing" with fruitless faith vs. the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine of Jesus Christ (being God manifested in flesh -the complete embodiment of every attribute, characteristic and nature of God) ... of repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, the infilling of the Holy Spirit (the Bible way) and living a clean and godly life of separation, dedication and commitment while reaching out to a lost and dying world. Notice I referred to the three "persons" of God being THEORY. That's because it is NOT found anywhere in the Bible described as trinitarians describe it, but is based entirely upon suggestions, conjecture and very carefully selected scriptures which have been given "implied" meanings in an attempt to support such a THEORY.

Past experience has taught me that a discussion is a discussion ONLY when it is done decently and in order. Otherwise, it is just an argumentative debate, much like a tennis match of hitting the tennis ball back and forth, picking and chosing what is addressed and what is not. I've had more "tennis matches" than I care to mention ... with people who only "parrot" the "pet" verses of their indoctrination and ask the same questions they've been trained to ask, without really giving serious consideration to what I presented to them ... or being open minded enough to lay aside their indoctrination which is not "sound doctrine" and backed up "verbatim" in the scriptures, the way they present it ... and independently evaluate God's Word. Normally, this type of person will just respond to the parts that they have been trained to handle, and let the rest go. I am convinced that God's Word is NOT pages with blanks which have to be filled in. No, it is NOT lacking in any way, shape, form or fashion.

The revelation and explanation of the three "persons" theory which evolved from pagan Rome centuries AFTER Christ has been very effectively instilled into the hearts and minds of many people by the blind who are leading the blind or either the wolves in sheep's clothing who have lined their pockets from the blood, sweat and tears of good, decent and honorable (but misled) people. I have made it my business to expose their doctrine for what it is. Those who are honorable like Apollos of Acts Chapter 18 was, will recieve the Word of God. But those who aren't will either have to ignore me or wrestle with the scriptures in an attempt to prove me wrong, if they can. And you know what? THEY CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG! They know it (or soon find it out) and I know it. The dishonest ones who have feathered their nest, made merchandise of people and/or just tell people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, have no intentions of rocking their boat ... and they get really mad at me for doing what God has called me to do. But if the Truth hurts ... it ought to!



Judge Larry: In response, oneness Pentecostals will usually cite John 10:30--"I am my Father are one." The text does not say they are one person. It says they are "one," but it does not say they are "one person." Husband and wife are "one," but they are not one person (Matt. 19:5). So, I might say, "I and my wife are one," as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." My wife and I are no more one person than the Father and the Son are one person. Paul and Apollos were "one," but they were not one person (1 Cor. 3:6, 8). Genesis 11:6 says, "Behold they are one people" (NASB). Were they one person? No; they were "one," but they were not one person.



Bobby: What??? You and your shell games ... I'll declare! Are you now saying the word ONE doesn't really mean ONE - NUMERICALLY? John 19:30 does NOT say ... I and my Father are one person. Nor, does it say that I and my Father are NOT one person. However, it very definitely says I and my Father are ONE ... NOT two or three ... as you and your wife are, indeed, two separate and distinct persons. Furthermore, 1 John 5:7 does NOT say ... and these THREE persons are one. I will now show you how you are mis-handling the Word of God just like I did with the word "name" when you started this debate off with a false assertion concerning your position about the word "name" actually meaning "authority" and/or "power". You are pretty brazen to put forth the notion that the word ONE really means two ... or more. I will now prove that the Greek word heis {hice} (Strong's 1520) means ONE ... numerically.


Jhn 10:30 I and my Father are one (Strong's # 1520).


1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three ARE one (Strong's # 1520).


Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one (Strong's # 1520) of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.


Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one (Strong's # 1520) sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?



Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one (Strong's # 1520) or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.


Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one (Strong's # 1520), that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


* * * * * * * * * *

Now, as you will see, a completely different Greek word was translated into English as "one" as it relates to you and your wife being one.


Mat 19:5 And said 2036, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one (Strong's # 3391) flesh?


Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one (Strong's # 3391) flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

**IF** you claim to embrace "SOUND DOCTRINE", and you have to resort to all the diversions, distortions, and shell games, as you have demonstrated in this debate, you don't know what "SOUND DOCTRINE" is!



Judge Larry: In John 17:20-22, Jesus prayed that believers might be "one." How are believers to be "one"? They are to be "one, even as we are one." If the Father and the Son are one in person, then Jesus was praying that the disciples all might be one person! Obviously, that was not his prayer. He
wanted the disciples to be "one in us." The disciples were not to be one person, but "one, even as we are one." Note the plural pronouns, "us" and "we." Jesus used them to speak of himself and of his Father.




Bobby: Judge, **IF** you truly have received the Holy Spirit, as you say you have, you should be one with Almighty God the Father. One with Him in heart, soul, mind, Spirit and will ... just as the Incarnate Christ was. Does that mean you are Almighty God in the form of a man? Absolutely not! But the Incarnate Christ certainly was! I won't re-address your LITERAL interpretation ... and use ... of the pronouns. I believe the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence that I have already presented has sufficiently refuted your position.


* * * conclusion of question five * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 22
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: Question SIX of the Judge's Godhead article ....


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.




QUESTION #6: If Christ is God, but he is not God the Father, and at the same time he is not God the Holy Spirit, because they are distinct, are we not teaching that there are three Gods?



Judge Larry: First, Christ is God, Deity (Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8). The Father is God, Deity (Eph. 4:6). The Holy Spirit is God, Deity (Acts 5:3, 4).


Bobby: Well, it looks like you are putting forth a theory that there are three "Deities" in the Godhead ...

1) Christ
2) Almighty God the Father ... and
3) the Holy Spirit

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you do affirm that Jesus was FULLY God. However, this is quite an interesting turn of events ... you going on record to assert that, as opposed to embracing the concept of three offices in the Godhead which ONE Deity holds ... or three capacities in which ONE Deity functions, you believe there are three Deities in the Godhead. That being the case, it would appear to me that you are duty bound to defend that position and explain just how it is that you believe there can be "three Deities" in the Godhead of your man made theology, and yet that is not the same thing as polytheism (the belief in more than ONE Deity). Now, if your position is that each one of the "three Deities" you mentioned above are not FULLY God at all ... but are only "PART" of the ONE Deity ... then we still need to talk about some stuff. I just need to know where you are going to come down on this matter.


Judge Larry: Second, there is only one mankind, one humanity, "one blood." I am a man, of mankind, bearing the nature of humanity. You are a man, of mankind, bearing all the qualities and characteristics of humanity. We are two separate and distinct individual persons. Does that mean there are "two" mankinds, two humanities? No, there are two persons in one mankind. There are billions of persons on the earth who are of mankind, of one nature (Acts 17:26). Though there are many separate and distinct persons, there is still only one mankind, one humanity, one human nature. Likewise, there are three separate and distinct persons who are Deity, God. There is only one Divine essence or nature, one Godhood, but there are three separate and distinct persons who are God.




Bobby: Well, let's see if I can follow this shell game of words, by replacing One God or One Godhead with the words one mankind, one humanity and/or one blood. You say one mankind ... one humanity ... one blood ... can be likened the One God ... One Godhead, right? In this analogy, there is only one unit, but it is made up separate and distinct "persons" like you and me, right? Then, you said that does NOT mean there are two mankinds, two humanities, right? You say all of this to try to keep from painting yourself into a corner where you would have to admit that what you believe is polytheistic because you are now going on record that each separate and distinct person who makes up mankind ... humanity, are NOT the totality of mankind or humanity ... BUT are only "PART" of mankind and "PART" of humanity. Well, well, well, I guess that answers my question from above. But, boy, have you made a mess for yourself. You believe that the three separate and distinct "persons" in the Godhead or only "parts" of the Godhead. Judge, this is still a very, very flawed doctrine. Even though you must have thought you made a safe move (as in a game of chess) ... because you described the Godhead in such a way that I couldn't say that there are two mankinds, two humanities, yet there are separate and distinct persons like you and me in it who are only "PARTS" of the whole of humanity. However, what you have failed to realize that, even though after you had already gone on record previous to this analogy, pointing out the fact that Christ was Deity, Almighty God the Father is Deity, and the Holy Spirit is Deity. And now you are on record asserting that these separate and distinct "persons" are only "parts" of the whole. You're in a mess now. You now have ONE DEITY made up of three "parts". I mean, your theology has to be that way because your theology demands a belief in three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" and you've already went out of your way to point out the all three are Deity. Now, either each one of them is FULLY God, which would give you three Deities (polytheism) OR each one of them is PART of God. And you've just used an analogy that says you believe each one is PART of the whole. You are correct that you and I are NOT two mankinds, two humanities ... which can only mean you and I are only "PART" OF ONE MANKIND, ONE HUMANITY. Well, Judge, you might have thought you avoided painting yourself into the polytheistic corner, but you painted yourself into another corner, which is just as bad, in my opinion. However, **IF** you believe you can extracate yourself from this mess, go for it. You might be able to convince some of the nearly 60 people this is going out to, but unless you know some Scirptures that I am not aware of, you are not going to convince me.



Judge Larry: Third, "one God" does not mean "one person," anymore than "one nation" means there is only one person in the nation (2 Sam. 7:23).



Bobby: You are only reinforcing what I just pointed out to you. Each person in the One Nation makes up "PART" of that nation ... which means you believe Christ ... Almighty God the Father ... and the Holy Spirit are NOT FULLY God, but only "PARTS" of the Godhead. That is not good, Judge, not good at all.


Judge Larry: "One God" does not demand only "one person" anymore than "one people" demands just one person (Gen. 34:16).


Bobby: As I have already pointed out, the term "person" .. in my view .. is really inadequate to describe Almighty God, who is an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient INVISIBLE Spirit. However, "One God" certainly does demand "One LORD" ... "One Saviour" ... "One Spirit" actually which gets us right back around to those questions you've been hiding from for so long. Are you ever going to answer them??? Here they are again ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (The Judge's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Judge Larry: "One God" does not require "one person" anymore than "one tribe" requires only one person in that tribe (1 Kgs. 11:36). "One God" does not nullify more than one person anymore than "one body" negates the fact that numerous persons are parts of that one body (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:14, 20).


Bobby: You are only futher reinforcing what I have pointed out to you about your flawed belief system. You might say you believe Christ is FULLY God and FULLY man. But, what you have been saying for the last little while, Christ couldn't possibly be FULLY God, according to your own admission. He would have to be "PART" of the Godhead .... i.e. "PART" of mankind, "PART" of humanity, "PART" of the nation, "PART" of the tribe, "PART" of the body. Can't you see that, Judge??? You've squated with your spurs on, my man. I hope this teaches you a valuable lesson that those shell games, diversions, distortions, etc. will come back to bite you **IF** you run across someone who has the conviction, motivation, time and patience to sort through it all, like myself. Also, I hope you not only learn a valuable lesson from this incident, but I hope you repent and start working towards getting this stuff right, and get out of that old argumentative oral debate, dog and pony show mentality ... AND lay aside all your preconceived ideas, opinions, indoctrination, tradition and theories and really and truly learn to speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is Silent. **IF** you will do that, you won't be referring to God as "persons" any longer. And that would be a good thing.


Judge Larry: "One God" does not mean only "one person" anymore than "one flesh" means that husband and wife are just one person (Matt. 19:5). Many persons constitute "one nation." Many persons are contemplated when we speak of "one people." Many separate and distinct individuals make up "one tribe." Many persons are seen when we speak of "one body," the church. Two persons are "one flesh" in marriage. Thus, the fact that there is "one God" does not mean that there is only one person.


Bobby: This is just more of the same old flawed reason, logic and indoctrination which reinforces your position that the Godhead is made of three "persons" who each are only "PART" of the Godhead. You do whatever, floats your boat about it, but I wouldn't touch the doctrine of three "PARTS" that make up the ONE Godhead. That's mighty smelly as far as I'm concerned.


* * * CONCLUSION OF THIS ARTICLE * * *

* * *ANOTHER ONE TO FOLLOW * * *



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 23
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:03 AM
Subject: Part One of the Judge's Second Article ...


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



This next article is a follow up message to the previous one from the Judge to this person in Kentucky (or anyone else who reads that board) who is trying to find some ammunition in order to to deal with the Godhead subject that some poor soul he is apparently ministering to in jail, keeps bringing up. It appears this person in Kentucky is concerned about this and/or may be dreading ... or unprepared ... to deal with this particular subject. Therefore, the Judge jumps in and tries to load him up with plenty of ammunition. Real edifying, ain't it?? At any rate, here we go again .....


message 6595
From: Judge Larry xxxx@xxxxx.com
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 00:23:07 -0400
Subject: Jesus Only
*****
* Bible Matters mailing list
* Send all commands - Suspend, Subscribe, Info, Rules, etc.
* to <biblemat-xxxxx@xxxxx.xxxxx.net>
* List mail to <xxxxx@xxxxx.xxxxx.net>
* List owners: XX <xxxxx@xxxxx.com>,
* XX <xxxxx@xxxxx.net>
*****


Judge Larry: Again, an article which appeared in XX Magazine on the Oneness, JesusOnly doctrine.

Bobby: NOTE: It's really very funny the way the Judge points out the article appeared in some magazine, instead of just saying, "Here's some stuff I've written on the subject that you may find helpful," or something like that. I guess mentioning the magazine write up gives him a little more stroke or something ... hee, hee. What a riot! Anyway, here it is ....


More Comments On The Godhead
Larry Ray Hafley

In response to the May issue's review of Bob J, a "oneness" Pentecostal, Corneila H. replies as follows:

Cornelia: The Bible says the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived. Are the Father and the Holy Ghost the same? I submit that it is no harder to believe that Jesus is the expressed person of God, the manifestation, the embodiment of a Spirit (Who was the Father), in a word "His own Father"
than to believe He could have TWO fathers. Col. 2 ... in Him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily. The godhead is in Jesus, not Jesus in the godhead. Three manifestations of one God. No denial of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. The Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in operation in the Church today. The Spirit (Father) had no body, created Himself a body ... the Son (Jesus Christ). The Holy Ghost = simply the Spirit of God poured out upon the believers. Cornelia H


The Judge's Response: Who "poured out" the "Holy Ghost" "upon the believers"? Someone did (Joel 2:28; Jn. 14:26; Acts 2:17). Who was it? Perhaps Cornelia will tell us. Or did the Spirit of God pour out of (from) himself? If he did, let her, by citing pertinent passages, tell us that, too.


Bobby: Ummm, Judge, Here's who poured out the Holy Spirit. It was right under you nose in two of the passages of Scriptures you referred to above ...

Joel Chapter 2
27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.


Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


Now, it is just a matter of finding out who you think the "I" and "MY" is of these verses, Judge. Confession time ....


Judge Larry: The answer to her introductory query, "Are the Father and the Holy Ghost the same?" is "no." Just because both the Father and the Spirit of God acted in the conception of Jesus, "the Father and Holy Ghost" are not "the same." God is "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6; Eph. 1:3). Jesus is "the Son of the Father" (2 Jn. 3).


Bobby: Ummm, Judge, I'm gonna need some documentation ... preferably Book, Chapter and Verse ... about this notion of yours that the Father and the Holy Ghost are not the same. Granted, I readily admit Almighty God the Father is an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, INVISIBLE Spirit and the Incarnate Christ was the embodiment of Almighty God the Father ... or God in human form. However, that just makes the distinction flesh and Spirit ... NOT two separate and distinct "persons" as you keep asserting. The only reason references of the Father and the Son are in the Bible is because God did such an awesome work that some won't beleive it, even if it is told to them: The Spirit of Almighty God the Father prepared Himself a body to dwell in ... the Spirit begat the flesh. And about the only way we humans could even begin to grasp this is for God to relate it the closest thing our finite minds can identify with, and that is a Father/Son relationship. The flesh was begotten of the Spirit similar to the way a son is begotten of a father. And the flesh was subject to the Spirit like a son is subject to his father. And folks like you just have a tought time understanding Jesus' Clark Kent manner of speech because you interpret everything in the Bible LITERALLY.


Judge Larry: Jesus knew and recognized the difference between His Father and the Holy Spirit. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my (Jesus') name, he (the Comforter, the Holy Spirit) shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I (Jesus) have said unto you" (Jn. 14:26). "The Comforter," the "Holy Spirit" was sent "from the Father" (Jn.15:26). Thus, Jesus (if language means anything at all) made a distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit.


Bobby: Judge, there is a distinction in Almighty God the Father and the Holy Spirit abiding in the heart of a believer, but it has nothing to do with CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS". Almighty God the Father is all inclusive. In other words, all of the QUALITIES AS WELL ALL OF THE QUANTITY OF ALMIGHTY GOD THE FATHER. Whereas, the Holy Spirit abiding in the heart and life of a believer is all the QUALITIES of Almighty God the Father ONLY. The reason I point out this distinction in QUALITIES AND QUANTITY is because it would be impossible to put all of the QUANTITY of Almighty God the Father into any vessel, building, body, or what have you. However, all of the QUALITIES of Almighty God the Father most certainly could be ... and are ... present in the those who have been born again the Bible way ... as was the case when God dwelled in the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle of badgers skins which Moses was instructed to build AND the tabernacle of flesh of the Incarnate Christ. Now, if there are any who believe God was confined to just the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle of badgers skins OR was confined to just the tabernacle of flesh in the Incarnate Christ, they might be sincere about such a belief, but they would be sincerly wrong. God was still an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, INVISIBLE Spirit. As a result, He could ... and did ... manifest Himself is many different ways SIMULTANEOUSLY ... whether to a crowd, a few individuals or just one person AND whether in one geographical location or many. However, none of this would necessitate Him becoming more than one in person. I mean, the burning bush was NOT a completely separate and distinct "person" .. nor was the pillar of cloud by day, or the pillar of fire by night ... nor was the dove ... nor was the voices from Heaven, or a donkey talking.


Judge Larry: God, the Father, acted through the agency of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus (Matt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:31, 32, 35). However, that does not make them the same person, nor does it mean that the Corinthians had two fathers (1 Cor. 8:6). Likewise, we are "begotten" by the gospel, but
the gospel is not our Father. God is (1 Cor. 1:3; 4:15; Jas. 1:18). Further, Paul "fathered" the Corinthians "through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15). Are Paul and God the Father the same person? No (1 Cor. 1:1-3). Paul was the agent, the "earthen vessel" used by the Father to "father" the Corinthians "through the gospel." If, through the example above, one can see how Paul and God the Father are not the same person, he ought to be able to see that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same person in the birth of Jesus. As the Corinthians did not have two fathers, neither did Jesus.


Bobby: No, Judge, you need to go back and read Matthew again. **IF** you truly believe Almighty God the Father and the Holy Spirit are two separate CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" ... SPIRITS ... in the Godhead, then may have an arguemen that your first person commissioned the third person, but the third person would be the Father of the Christ child according to Matthew ... NOT the first person. I mean you do still read everything LITERALLY, don't you??? Here it is ...

Matthew Chapter 1
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


* * * conclusion of part one of second article * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 24
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:14 AM
Subject: Part TWO of the Judge's Second Article ...


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



Judge Larry: "His Own Father" ...... I wonder if the Holy Spirit led Cornelia to tell us that Jesus was "in a word, 'His own Father'"? (That will be a difficult concept to affirm in a discussion, will it not?)




Bobby: I've been wondering if the Holy Spirit is leading you at all ... in any of this stuff ..., Judge. It sure doesn't looks like your doctrine is the same as the "original" New Testament Church. And I know for a fact the Holy Spirit was leading them.



Judge Larry: If Jesus is "in a word, 'His own Father,'" perhaps Cornelia will explain the following distinctions between the Father and the Son to us. 1) Jesus said, "All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (Jn. 5:23). How could they do otherwise if Jesus was "'His own Father'"?


Bobby: They could do just as you are doing, Judge. They could assign the Incarnate Christ an inferior, subordinate place in the Godhead, while "claiming" to believe in three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" ... which they can't really explain and/or reconcile when challenged. And, as a result, they have to resort to LITERAL interpretations, human reasoning, logic, implications, bending and twisting, shell games, mental gymnastics, and various and sundry other methods to try and shuffle the shells around while holding a finger in the dike, hoping not to be over taken by their on doings. Now, here's a few passages I pulled up right quick regarding what the Bible says about the significance of the Son...


Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


(You conveniently left off the last part of this verse above)
Matthew 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.


1 John Chapter 2
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.


2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


John 14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


Hebrews Chapter 10
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Judge Larry: We are to forgive our brethren "even as" Christ has forgiven us (Col. 3:13). Here, "even as" distinguishes between us and Christ. We are not Christ, for we are to forgive "even as" he forgives. Likewise, the Son is not the Father, for men are to "honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father."


Bobby: Who ever said anything about us being Christ? I sure haven't. But, as far as forgiveness is concerned, if you go take a look at what is referred to as the Lord's Prayer, you will find that we are apparently forgiven as we forgive others. In other words if we don't forgive others, God doesn't forgive us. By the way, I've been meaning to mention why I refer to Almighty God the Father. It is because Almighty God is the Father ... OR God the Father. Whereas, the trinitarian terms "God the Son" AND "God the Holy Spirit (or God the Holy Ghost) are not found in Scripture. In other words the Bible is silent there ... but trinitarians sure ain't. At any rate, Judge, who is this verse alluding to??? How ... or should ... He be honored???

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Judge Larry: 2) Jesus said, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me," and "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also (Jn. 14:1, 7). "Also" means, "in addition" to. Why did Jesus use the word, "also" if he was "'His own Father'"? "In addition" to Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jepthae, there was "David also" (Heb. 11:32). In like manner, Jesus speaks of "my Father also."



Bobby: Judge, your straining at gnats really takes the cake. You, no doubt, pride yourself in being a well studied and astute teacher/preacher/debater of the Word of God. And, you, no doubt, like to think of yourself and/or present yourself as embracing "sound doctrine", yet you have to go to some of the silliest extremes I've ever seen in my life in order to defend your man made theology, and keep from having to acknowlege the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Oh well, not that that is off my chest, let's go ...

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also (Strong's # 2532) in me.


The Greek word that was translated into English as "also" is kai {kahee} (Strong's 2532), and means 1) and, also, even, indeed, but

This Greek word is found OVER 9,000 times in the King James Version of the New Testament. It serves as a copulative to connect. Let me further explain how ministers and teachers who either don't know that they don't know, OR are just wolves in sheep's clothing who make it their business to deceive as many good, decent and honorable, yet misled, people as they possibly can ... and this is what really gets me riled up. I really and truly love people, but I really and truly detest those who deceive, mislead and take advantage of others. If I have an ax to grind, it is with the wolves in sheep's clothing who deceive, lie and mislead people while they line their pockets from the blood, sweat and tears of the flocks they fleece. As far as I'm concerned that ranks right up there with grave robbing and child molestation. At any rate, here's just one of the ways these deceivers (whether by design or through ignorance) are able to be so effective with their "shell games". And the sad part is, most of the common, everyday people (who are unwittingly supporting false prophets and false teachers) don't have a clue they're being led down the wrong trail, because they either take it for granted that their "leader" is right and/or they are not as Biblically literate as they really need to be in order to know any different .....

This Greek word is used to CONNECT ... NOT SEPARATE ..., and was translated into English as "AND" in OVER 8,000 places of the 9,251 times it appears in the New Testament. But, someone like you comes along and says, "Hey, the word "AND" separates instead of joins together." Here's what I mean. You, no doubt in my mind, would say the following places where this Greek word was translated in English as "AND" proves that the Father and Son were "SEPARATED" by this word to make a distinction of the two different persons (instead of joined together by this word to reveal that the Father and the Son are NOT two different persons (and trust me, this is a very small sampling of the places I could have listed) ...


Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, AND the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, AND from the Lord Jesus Christ.


2 Corinthians 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, AND from the Lord Jesus Christ.


Now, if that weren't bad enough. I will, now, expose the hypocrisy and deception of this "shell game". While the above references would emphatically be promoted and defended as being positive proof that Almighty God the Father AND Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct "persons" ... these same false prophets and false teachers would deny the fact that the same word would separate into distinct "persons" in the following Scriptures. They would fight tooth and nail to defend a position that is joins together ... like the word is really meant to do. By the way, and as a side note, I want it very clearly understood that I have NOT denied a distinction in the Godhead. I just emphatically deny and reject the notion that the distinction is in "three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT, "PERSONS". However, the Judge always, always, always (until he acknowedges error and embraces Truth) will come down on the side that the distinctions in the Godhead have to do with there being "three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS". AND, if you think you have seen something thus far, you just wait until he gives his slide ruler explanation for what a "PERSON" is. I will be about as clear as mud because on one hand he will talk like these three persons are as separate and distinct as you and me. Then, on the other hand, he will try to, somehow, make ONE out of them to keep from being exposed as being polytheistic. At any rate, here's the examples that expose the hypocrisy and inconsistency of their use of this little Greek word that was translated into English as "AND" because,using their very same argument and logic, the following would conclusively prove that God AND the Father are two separate "PERSONS" ...


2 Corinthians 11:31 The God AND Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.


Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God AND Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:


1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God AND Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


What follows next is how this same exercise would prove that our Saviour and Jesus are two separate persons ... which would either give us TWO SAVIOURS or would prove Jesus really wasn't the Saviour in the event they insisted there is only one Saviour. Do you see how convoluted all of this can get when deception, ideas, opinions, indoctrination, traditions, human reasoning, logic and LITERAL interpretations gets involved??? Neither Jesus, nor any of the "original" New Testament Church leaders were this complicated and messed up. Anyway, here's a real zinger (**IF** you use the Judge's method of interpreting the Bible) ...

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, AND Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;



Judge Larry: 3) In John 15:24, Jesus said of some in his day that they had "both seen and hated both me and my Father." Are "seen" and "hated" two different, distinct things, or are they the same thing? No Pentecostal will say that "seen" and "hated" are the same thing. The word, "both," tells us that. Are Jesus and the Father two separate and distinct persons? The word "both" tells us they are not identical in person, not the same person. Both America and Australia speak the English language. Are America and Australiathe same country?



Bobby: First off, Judge, your LITERAL interpretation of what Jesus said is wrong. Nobody has ever "seen" the Father LITERALLY as you, no doubt believe since you interpet everything LITERALLY. At any rate, whether seen and hate are two different, distinct "things" or not is no comparision to the Godhead because God ... an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient INVISIBLE Spirit really and truly did become man, and manifested Himself in a human body. And just because a Spirit and a body are NOT the same, does NOT mean a Spirit and a body are two different "persons". And that is really the core of our argument. Either your position is that the Spirit of God and the body of Jesus are two separate and distinct persons OR it would have to be that the Spirit of God was not the same Spirit in Jesus. **IF** your position is that the Spirit of God and the body of Jesus are two separate "person" then you and I, each, would be two separate "persons", because we each have a body and we each have a spirit. Hummm, could that be why some folks they say they are beside themselves ... they're really two different persons?


Judge Larry: John, through the Holy Spirit, spoke of "both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9). XX tells about the squirrel hunter who, returning from a hunt, said to his neighbor, "If you can guess how many squirrels I've got in my sack, I'll give you both of'em." If you know how many squirrels were in that sack, you ought to know how many persons are referred to in John 15:24 and 2 John 9!


Bobby: Judge, **IF** you ever reach the point where you can just teach and preach the Word, without having to rely on all these old stories and analogies, you're gonna love it. I mean, having to use all this stuff to try and convince others of what the Word just doesn't specifically state must really get stressful. While your squirrel hunting story is a hoot and I really like hoots, I won't allow you to use your hoot to reinforce a false assertion. Judge, there are distinction in the Godhead and the distinctions are flesh and Spirit. The Spirit is Almighty God the Father and the flesh is the Incarnate Christ. Now, listen to this very closely .... Almighty God the Father spoke the world into existence and everything else, except man whom He formed out of the ground. Almighty God the Father manifested (revealed) Himself to lost humanity in the form of a man ... Jesus Christ ... and was know as BOTH the Son of God AND the Son of man. Almighty God the Father also abides in the hearts of believers in a portion of His Spirit which is referrred to the "earnest" (a portion received up front ... in advance) of our inheritance ...

Ephesians Chapter 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


This is why it can be very accurately be stated, when one receives the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), the Bible way, they have the Spirit (singular) of God, the Spirit (singular) of the Father, the Spirit (singular) of the Son, the Spirit (singular) of Christ, and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) abiding in them NOT several separate and distinct Spirits .... "PERSONS". **IF** these are different "PERSONS" that would mean they are also different SPIRITS ... which would be be diametrically opposed to the overwhelming vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written VERBATIM on the pages of the Word of God.




Judge Larry: 4) "The Son can do nothing of himself" (Jn. 5:29). How can he "do nothing of himself," by himself alone, if there is no other "self" or person involved?


Bobby: The flesh was NOT what was Deity, Judge. The flesh (humanity) of Jesus couldn't forgive any sins. It couldn't raise the dead, unstop deaf ears, open blind eyes, heal the lame, cleanse the leper, calm the waves and winds, walk on the water, or do any of the things that Jesus surely did. It was the Spirit of Almighty God that enabled the "man" Jesus to do and be everything He did and was/is. Now, you and I weren't supernaturally conceived and born of a virgin. So, we are no comparison to God manifested in the flesh. However, He did come to set an example for us to follow. And, as a result, He prayed, He gave glory and honor to the Father in Heaven, when the Father was also dwelling within Him, He said things that were hard (for some) to understand. And, because all of this stuff is recorded in His Word, there are still people today who just don't get it ... and, obviously, you are one of them.

* * * conclusion of part two of second article * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 25
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: Part THREE of the Judge's Second Article ...


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.


Four Arguments Which Show Jesus Is Not "'His Own Father'"

First Argument: If Jesus is "'His own Father,'" and he and the Father are the same person, someone, perhaps Cornelia, must explain John 8:16-18. Note the text: "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Ignoring for the moment that Jesus said, "I am not alone," observe that Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 19:15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Cf. Num. 35:30). Now, did the law to which Jesus referred allow the testimony of one person, or were two or more persons required? Let the "oneness" Pentecostal answer that question. The answer is obvious. Therefore, either Jesus and the Father are two, separate and distinct persons, or Jesus misapplied Scripture. Which is it? "I am one" witness, said Jesus, "and the Father" is the other--"I am not alone." (Note, "I am one...myself" versus "the Father that sent me.") Either Jesus told the truth; namely, that he and the Father, in accordance with the principle of two witnesses, are two persons, or Jesus misapplied Scripture and misrepresented himself and his relationship to his Father. Which is it? In numerous discussions with some of the best Pentecostal debaters, I have never had one yet who ever blinked or swallowed like he thought he could answer those questions. Perhaps Cornelia, or our friend, Bob J, will try to answer them.



Bobby: Judge, I have already addressed this Scripture previously. Jesus was NOT referring to the Father as being one of two "men" necessary to validate a matter as your LITERAL interpretation would, no doubt, demand ... nor was He referring to the Father as being a completely separate "person". He was referring to the Father ... the Spirit of Almighty God ... as being a "witness". It is obvious you must not have spent much time reading about Jesus' references about His Divine Witness. Jesus was NOT alone ... He wasn't just tooting His own horn. No siree, Bob. Jesus had all sorts of Divine validations ... a Divine "witness". It wasn't just Him saying He was from above. Soooo, let's see if I get your LITERAL interpretation straight. According to your theology a "witness" has to be a "person". That's NOT what the Bible plainly reveals ...


Acts 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. ((the tabernacle was a person if a witness has to be a person))


Deuteronomy 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. ((heaven and earth are persons if a witness has to be a person))


Deuteronomy 31:19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. ((even a song is a person if a witness has to be a person))


Deuteronomy 31:21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware. ((yep, a song is a person if a witness has to be a person))


Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. ((the gospel is a person if a witness has to be a person))


Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. ((even the countenance of folks is a person if a witness has to be a person))


Joshua Chapter 22
26 Therefore we said, Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice:
27 But that it may be a witness between us, and you, and our generations after us, that we might do the service of the LORD before him with our burnt offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace offerings; that your children may not say to our children in time to come, Ye have no part in the LORD.
28 Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should so say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say again, Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it is a witness between us and you. ((an altar is a person if a witness has to be a person))


Joshua 24:27 And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God. ((A Stone is a person if a witness has to be a person. Well, actually, I'm sure the Judge already believed the notion that a rock is a "person" because the Bible states in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that the Rock that followed the children of Israel in the Wilderness was Christ .... And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.))



Well, I'll stop for now, as these Scriptures should be suffiecient to conclusively prove that a witness does NOT have to be a "person".





Second Argument: John 17:20-22:



Judge Larry: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." When Jesus prayed that those who believed on him "may be one," was he praying that they all might be one person? Was he? According to the "oneness," "Jesus Only," Pentecostal, the Father and the Son are one in person. If that be true, when Jesus prayed that all believers might "be one, even as we are one," he was praying that the believers all might become one person! If "oneness" doctrine says Jesus was not praying for believers to become one person, it automatically and immediately surrenders its cardinal tenet. If the Father and the Son are one person, they (he?) could not be one in any other sense. If they are one person, there is no way for that one person to pray that others (plural) "may be one, even as we are one." Husband and wife are "one," but not one person (Matt. 19:6). Disciples may be of "one mind," and they may speak with "one mouth," but they are not "one person" (Rom. 15:5,6; 1 Pet. 3:8). Of himself and Apollos, Paul said, "(We) are one" (1 Cor. 3:8). Yet, not even the "oneness" Pentecostal
believes they were "one person" (Acts 19:1; 1 Cor. 16:12). Again, since Jesus was not praying for believers to be one person, he and the Father are not "one person," for he prayed that "they may be one, even as we are one."


Bobby: For believers to be One as the Spirit of Almighty God the Father and the Incarnate Christ are One, it would require all believers to have the same mind, the same message, the same faith, the same purpose, the same will, the same mission, the same goals, the same desire, etc. And that's the way it really should be, since most believers use the same Book. However, look around you, Judge. How many different denominational edifices are there within a 5-10 mile radius of where you live??? Are they One in mind, message, faith, purpose, will, mission, goals, desire, etc.?? Nope! The good news is, those who truly hunger and thirst for righteousness willingly lay aside all their preconceived ideas, opinions, theories, creeds, human reasoning, logic, indoctrination and and traditions and will search the Word of God with an open heart and an open mind. As a result, they will come to the knowledge of the Truth and be filled ... and come into the "unity of the faith" of the "original" New Testament Church ... which is the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, NOT the man made theory, which evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ which asserts there are "three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT PERSONS" who are joined together in some sort of mysterious union to form ONE GOD, which the Judge embraces, promotes and defends .


Third Argument: Hebrews 10:5 says:


Judge Larry: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." There are three questions; namely, (1) Who, or what, is "the body" referred to? (2) Who is the person represented by the pronoun, "Thou"? In other words, Who is "thou"? (3) Who is the person referred to by the pronoun, "me"? Or, who is "me"? There are not enough persons to go around for a "oneness" Pentecostal to answer those questions without hesitation or equivocation. I challenge one of them to supply direct and candid answers to each of the questions. I maintain they cannot do so and hold to their doctrine. "Thou," the Father, prepared "me," the Son, "a body." "A body hast thou prepared me" simply cannot refer to only one person.
Observe how the above is contradicted by Cornelia, who said, "The Spirit (Father) had no body, created Himself a body ... the Son (Jesus Christ)." She says the "body" is "the Son (Jesus Christ)." Alright, if the "body" is "the Son (Jesus Christ)," who is the "me" in Hebrews 10:5? It cannot be "the Son (Jesus Christ)," for that is the "body" in the passage, according to her. Who, then, is "me"?
Cornelia equates the Spirit with the Father and says the Father "created himself a body." Forgetting her presumption (without proof) that the Holy Spirit is the Father, will she please read for us where Scripture says the Father "created himself a body"? Now, I read where one said, "A body hast thou prepared me," but I do not find where the Spirit says the Father "created himself a body." Where is that Scripture? Can any produce it? Bob J and Cornelia will love you forever if you can find it! They would give their right arm, yea, both arms for such a passage as that! However, even should they find it, even if they should find a verse which says the Father "created himself a body," they still will have one more perplexing question! Who is the "me"? Remember, according to Cornelia, the "body" is "the Son (Jesus Christ)." So, even if they find a verse which says the Father "created himself a body," they will still have to tell us who the "me" is. "Me" in Hebrews 10:5 cannot be "the Son (Jesus Christ)," for that is the "body," they say. "Me" cannot be the Holy Spirit or the Father, for that is the one who created the body, "the Son (Jesus Christ)," according to Cornelia. Friends, this is the kind of hole into which false doctrine will put a person. If any Pentecostal will seek to dig himself out by answering the questions above, we promise to examine them with all candor (1 Thess 5:21).
(In the same context, one person came to do the will of another, "I come to do thy will, O God" [Heb. 10:7, 9]. Jesus did not come "to do [his] own will, but the will of him that sent [him]" [Jn. 6:38; Cf. 5:30]. So, he came to do his Father's will, and it was the Father who prepared for him a body through which to do that will.)


Bobby: Umm, Judge, does someone presenting a challenge for you to supply direct and candid answers to questions ring any bells??? hee, hee. What about it Judge??? When are you going to quit hiding from these questions?? Are you ever going to answer them???

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (The Judge's ONLY answer .... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

Now, let's re-visit Hebrews 10:5 ... I have already dealt with this in a previous email, so I will copy and paste that info again ... and follow it up with some additional information. I thought of some other stuff concerning Hebrews 10:5 since my last response.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): Abraham prophetically uttered that God was going to provide Himself a lamb (Genesis 22:8). Therefore, a body had to be prepared. However, interpreting Hebrews Chapter 10 LITERALLY, I can see why one might think there is more than one "person" in the Godhead, but I have already proven that that is NOT the case. This verse does NOT trump the mountain of Scriptural evidence that is found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word concerning God and the Godhead ... nor does it trump the absolute silence of the Word of God about Almighty God being three "persons". I have already proven, LITERAL interpretations of Scriptures concerning Spiritual matters is NOT the way it's done. Hebrews Chapter 10 was sort of a sprinkling of portions of other Scriptures the writer of Hebrews was using to minister to the Hebrews that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah and He was indeed the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Even interpreting Hebrews 10:5 LITERALLY, and in the face of all the other vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written VERBATIM on the pages of God's Holy Word on the subject of God and the Godhead, I still couldn't say that Hebrews 10:5 is proof that the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" in a "three persons" Godhead. The body of Jesus Christ did NOT exist prior to the Incarnation as a separate and distinct person in the Godhead. But this verse interpreted LITERALLY could be used to assert He did. And I think you probably know that even trinitarian Bible scholars have been debating Hebrews 10:5 for a long time. If you are not aware of that and/or you doubt my assertion, check out these web sites ...

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/46.htm

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol44/htm/xx.xxxii.htm


The following is from David K. Bernard's Book, "The Oneness of God" (Pages 194-195)

Conversations Between Persons in the Godhead?

There is no biblical record of a conversation between two persons of God, but there are many representations of communion between the two natures of Christ. For example, the prayers of Christ portray His human nature seeking help from the eternal Spirit of God.

John 12:28 records a request on the part of Jesus that the Father would glorify His own name. A voice from heaven spoke, answering this request. This demonstrates that Jesus was a man on earth but His Spirit was the omnipresent God of the universe. The voice did not come for the benefit of Jesus, but for the people�s benefit (John 12:30). The prayer and voice did not constitute a conversation between two persons in the Godhead; it may be said that it was communication between Jesus� humanity and His deity. The voice was a witness to the people from the Spirit of God, revealing God�s approval of the Son.

Hebrews 10:5-9 quotes a prophetic passage from Psalm 40:6-8. In this prophetic depiction of the coming of the Messiah, Christ as a man speaks to the eternal God, expressing His obedience and submission to the will of God. Essentially this scene is similar to that of Christ�s prayer in Gethsemane. It is obvious that Christ is speaking as a man because He says, "A body hast thou prepared me" and "I come to do thy will, O God."
In conclusion the Bible does not record conversations between persons of the Godhead, but between the human and divine natures. To interpret these two natures as "persons" creates the belief in at least two "Gods." (It is very strange that the Holy Ghost is never part of the conversations!) Moreover, "persons" would imply separate intelligences in the one deity, a concept that cannot be distinguished from polytheism.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Bobby (continued): O.K., it seems you are worked up about the use of pronouns, because you interpret everything quite LITERALLY. And when you run across pronouns, then you insist the pronoun is most definitely referring to a "person", right? Well, your theology has brought up something I've never heard of ... nor been confronted with ... before ...


Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. ((According to your theology, fruit trees must be "persons".))


Ezekiel 34:27 And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them. ((According to your theology, trees of the field and even the earth must be "persons"))


Psalms 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. ((According to your theology, the sun must a "person".))


Isaiah 13:19 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. ((According to your theology, the sun AND the moon must be "persons"))


Job 14:18 And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. ((According to your theology, rocks are "persons". Now that I think of it, Jesus did say once that if the people, who were worshipping Him during His triumphant ride into Jerusalem, held their peace, the rocks and stones would cry out.))


Acts 27:15 And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive.
Acts 27:32 Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off. ((According to your theology ships and boats must be "persons"))




Now, here's you some stuff for you to ponder, since you say you've been waiting for someone to answer your question about the "body", and how it relates to Almighty God the Father (Spirit) and the Incarnate Christ (flesh). The LORD of the Old Testament is the ONLY GOD ... AND ONLY SAVIOUR. There is not any others with Him, beside Him, before Him or after Him.


Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. ((God did provide a substitute for Isaac that day [a type of the Incarnate Christ]. And centuries later, God provided a substitute for all humanity when He prepared Himself a body to dwell in and became the Lamb of God))


Isaiah 43
1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. (Notice there is no mention of the Holy Two or Holy Three ... as in Holy Trinity).
4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. ((Remember, Jesus said in John 8:24, "... if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.")
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.
15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.
16 Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters;
17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.
18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.
20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
21 This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.
22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.
23 Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.
24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.
25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.
27 Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.
28 Therefore I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and have given Jacob to the curse, and Israel to reproaches.


Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.


Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD 03068: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. ((the LORD here is the Hebrew word Y@hovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} [Strong's # 3068]) and He said He would NOT give His glory to another ... and that would include another "person". Therefore, the Incarnate Christ couldn't have been another "person", and we know He came in the glory of Almighty God the Father. And He will come in the Glory of Almighty God the Father when He returns.))


Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.



John 1:1 & 14 ... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



Philippians Chapter 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ((There's the body))
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


Titus 1
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. ((the Spirit anointed Words of the Apostle Paul will reveal that the Incarnate Christ really was Almighty God the Father. Remember, the Saviour of the New Testament is none other than the Incarnate Christ. Therefore, be sure to keep these words tucked away ... God the Father ... and ... God our Saviour ... and remember them, because long after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul, who was a former Pharisee (a strict Jewish sect) .... and knew the Old Testament extremely well, uses theses terms a good bit ... but NEVER ONCE uses the terms "God the Son" OR "God the Holy Spirit (or God the Holy Ghost). Nobody else in the entire Bible does, either. And that really is exceedingly significant!))



Titus 2
1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: (sound doctrine ain't man made implied stuff that is arrived at by slide ruler explanations, human reasoning, logic, ideas, opinions, theories, or LITERAL interpretations of Scriptures concerning Spiritual matters.)

* * * * *

Titus 2 (continuing from verse 6)
6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; ((is there going to be TWO Gods coming back ... or just ONE??? I can prove there will be just ONE.))
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.


Titus 3
1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. ((I must confess that I am still working on this. However, I have made some very significant progress over the last few years))
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.





Titus 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.



1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;


Jude ...
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.


1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe



James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.


Fourth Argument: In becoming a high priest, Hebrews 5:4, 5, declares:


Judge Larry: "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." Did Aaron make himself a high priest, or did God call him? Obviously, Aaron did not appoint himself. God did it. "So also" (and note the force of "so also"), in like manner, just as Aaron did not anoint himself, neither did Christ glorify "himself to be an high priest." Well, if Christ did not make himself an high priest, who did? The Hebrew writer answers, "He that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day I have begotten thee" (Cf. Psa. 2:7; Heb. 1:5). The Lord said it, hence, the one who made Aaron high priest also made Christ an high priest. Neither made themselves to be high priests. Since Christ did not make himself to be an high priest, and since no man
"taketh this honor unto himself," our "oneness" friends need to tell us who made Christ to be an high priest. If the Father and the Son are the same person, Christ made himself to be an high priest. The "oneness" position will not permit them to harmonize their doctrine with this passage. Will one of them make the attempt? Their answer must parallel the case of Aaron, for Christ's call to be an high priest is after the same manner as Aaron's, "So also." (Note that I did not say their priesthoods were alike. I said that Aaron and Christ were both made high priest by another. In that way, the Hebrew writer parallels their cases. The "oneness" Pentecostal cannot square his doctrine with the divine "So also.")


Bobby: When are you going to stop trying to understand Spiritual matters by interpreting them LITERALLY??? "Thou art my Son, to day I have begotten thee," presents an exceedingly serious flaw in your LITERALLY interprested, man made "CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, AND CO-EXISTENT PERSONS" theology, which you so adamantly embrace, promote and defend. It is NOT possible for one CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person" to have no beginning, and also to have been begotten by another CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person" who had no beginning. That is a blatant contradiction of terms. You've GOT to know this. This is my previous response to this priest business ...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): The Book of Hebrews was written to people, some of whom, were still having problems concerning whether or not to continue on under the Mosaic Law. All Paul was trying to do is convince these people that Jesus was not an ordinary man, nor did He self appoint Himself as a Priest, Lord, Saviour, King, etc. But, instead, His calling to be a Priest, (and in Jesus' case) Lord, Saviour, King, etc. was ordained of God ... NOT man ... as Aaron's calling came from God. I feel reasonably sure that some of the people that the Book of Hebrews was directed to were having about as much trouble as you concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ and His two natures.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


* * * conclusion of part three of second article * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 26
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Part FOUR of the Judge's Second Article ...


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



"Three Manifestations Of One God"

Judge Larry: Cornelia H takes the standard Pentecostal view when she speaks of "(t)hree manifestations of one God." As other Pentecostals have poetically proclaimed it, "Jesus is the Father in creation, the Son in salvation, and the Holy Spirit in revelation." However, "manifestation" does not demand identity. (1) John the Baptist manifest Christ to Israel, but John was not Christ (Jn. 1:31). (2) Paul made manifest the savor of Christ's knowledge, but Paul was neither Christ's knowledge nor the aroma of Christ's knowledge (2 Cor. 2:14). (3) Paul made manifest the mystery of Christ, but Paul was not the mystery of Christ (Col. 4:3,4). (4) God has manifest his word through the message, through preaching, but God himself, personally, is not the message; he is not the preaching of his word (Titus 1:3).


Bobby: Judge, it ain't just a "standard Pentecostal view" concerning three "manifestations" of one God. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "manifestation as ...

The act of manifesting. The state of being manifested. An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease. One of the forms in which someone or something, such as a person, a divine being, or an idea, is revealed. The materialized form of a spirit. A public demonstration, usually of a political nature.




"Manifestation" is a real word that found in the Bible, and it used in connection with the Spirit AND the Truth in the inerrant Word of God ...

1Cr 12:7 But the manifestation (Strong's # 5321) of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2Cr 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation (Strong's # 5321) of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.


Now, let's talk about the word "manifest". Now, I know you can argue that the Bible does not state that there are three "manifestations" of God just like it does not state there are three "persons" of God. However, here's how the American Heritage Dictionary defines "manifest" ... To show or demonstrate plainly; reveal: To be evidence of; prove.


Also, the Greek word that was translated into English as "manifest" is phaneroo {fan-er-o'-o} (Strong's 5319). This word is found in the New Testament 49 times and was translated as follows ...

make manifest 19 times, appear 12 times, manifest 9 times, show 3 times, be manifest 2 times, show (one's) self 2 times, manifestly declare 1 time, manifest forth 1 time

This Greek word means ...


1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
a) make actual and visible, realised
b) to make known by teaching
c) to become manifest, be made known
d) of a person
1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one's self, appear
e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood
1) who and what one is


Now, here's some places where it can be found. Take a look at them and tell me why you object so strongly to the "three manifestations of one God" description used by Cornelia.


1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest (Strong's # 5319) in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest (Strong's # 5319) by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:


2Cr 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest (Strong's # 5319) the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.


2Cr 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest (Strong's # 5319) in our mortal flesh.


Colosians Chapter 1
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest (Strong's # 5319) to his saints:


Tts 1:3 But hath in due times manifested (Strong's # 5319) his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;


Hbr 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest (Strong's # 5319), while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:


1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest (Strong's # 5319) in these last times for you,


1Jo 1:2 (For the life was manifested (Strong's # 5319), and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested (Strong's # 5319) unto us;)


1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested (Strong's # 5319), that he might destroy the works of the devil.



Judge Larry: Conclusion: Though it might be profitable to do so, we shall not notice several other areas of interest in Cornelia response, such as her equating of the Holy Spirit with the Father, but shall let this suffice for now. If we receive a reasoned response to the thoughts above, we shall keep
our readers apprised. Finally, neither Bob J nor a kindly Pentecostal lady known only to me as "Debbie," has been able to secure a Pentecostal preacher who will agree to a public discussion with us on these and other issues, such as Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, and miracles. Is there any Pentecostal out there who will defend his doctrine (John 3:20, 21; Jude 3)?


Bobby: Ummm, "Earth to the Judge ... Earth to the Judge." I believe you have someone rattling your chain right now in an effort to get you to respond, and give direct answers to the remaining questions below, in order to see where we go from here as to an oral debate. Therefore, unless or until you go on record, and give direct answers to the 7 remaining, of the 8, questions below via return email, you really ought to just cool your jets. And not be crowing like that of a little Bantam rooster in a yard full of big Rhode Island Reds. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that you can put on quite a show. But, it appears to me you'er more interested in getting up before people and putting on your version of David Copperfield's grand illusion show than in rightly dividing the Word of God. I mean, I've already seen how you mis-handle the Word of God, interpret everything LITERALLY, play shell games with words, etc. **IF** you ever do answer the following questions AND **IF** I agree to have a series of oral debates with you, we are going to make some new rules that will NOT limit the time of either one of us to adequately respond to an assertion by the other, as the Robert's Rules of Order in an oral debate would do. I don't care if we have to schedule a month long debate in 12 hours a day, 7 days a week sessions. We would arrange it to where each one of us would have as much time as we needed to thoroughly respond to any assertion by the other party. The reason I say this is because I have already seen that the limited amount of time allowed by the Robert's Rules of Order format would not be sufficient for me to adequately explain ... and Scripturally expose ... the method of your deception, provide examples of how inconsistent your argument really is, and to unravel and refute the yarn you have very sufficiently demonstrated here that you would spin in an oral debate. Futhermore, neither one of us would be the one "in charge" AND you will NOT define what it is I would be affirming or denying. We would iron all of that out together. Now, for the umpteenth time ... I AM WAITING ON YOU ... here's the questions ...


1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? ((The Judge's ONLY answer .... THREE))

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Now, **IF** you do finally decide to step up to the plate and answer the 7 remaining questions above, then I will make a decision as to an oral debate with you. By the way, you are still blocked, and will remain so until I finish your other articles I obtained from my Internet search, that I said I was going to going to respond to, POINT BY POINT. What I would suggest you do in the mean time, **IF** you are not going to answer the above questions, is to do as I'm doing and start working on your responses to what I have sent ... and am sending ... to you ... POINT BY POINT. Otherwise, each point that you do NOT respond to is going to remain unchallenged, and stand victorious as the Truth in its entirety ... the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Get busy now. You've got a platter full, and there's more coming!


* * * conclusion of part four of second article * * *
* * * and conclusion of second article * * *
* * * two down and two more articles to go * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 27
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:36 PM
Subject: Point ONE of the Judge's "Pentecostal In Experience" article


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.



We begin this article with what appears to be an email that was posted on this "bible coaching" message board and/or that was sent out to the various subscribers ...

From: xx@xx.net on behalf of Judge Larry
[JudgeLarry@xx.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:48 PM
To: Bible Matters
Subject: "Pentecostal In Experience"?


*****
* Bible Matters mailing list
* Send all commands - Suspend, Subscribe, Info, Rules, etc.
* to <xx@xx.net>
* List mail to <xx@xx.net>
* List owners: xx <xx@xxl.com>,
* xx <xx@xxt.net>
*****

"PENTECOSTAL IN EXPERIENCE" (?)
Judge Larry


Judge Larry: Victory Temple, a "Pentecostal Church of God," claims that it is "Pentecostal In Experience." If their "experience" matches that of Pentecost in Acts 2, we should find the following features:

Bobby: What a pleasant surprise to hear of your interest in the "Pentecostal experience". I know you must recognize my last statement as being just a little satirical humor. I know you are no more interested in the "Pentecostal experience" for yourself (and others) than I am in eating liver. It might be good for me, but I just don't like the taste of it ... or the smell of it cooking. However, the difference between us is I ain't running around trying to schedule an oral debate with ... and working (and talking) against ... people who actually love it and thoroughly enjoy it AND the good the get from it. And even if I did, I am not convinced running around and mouthing off about the ones who would not give me the time of day, let alone engage me in an oral debate, would be such a good thing. At any rate, let's get started on, what I'm sure is going to be quite a show you'll put on ....

Judge Larry: (1) "There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind" (v. 2). Has such a thing occurred at Victory Temple? If not, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?

Bobby: The experience of the out pouring of the Holy Ghost, recorded in Acts Chapter 2, is the documented historical evidence which our Lord inspired to be recorded and made part of the Bible concerning the birth of the "original" New Testament Church which He initiated, authorized, shed His life's blood on a tortuous cross for, and established ... HIS BRIDE. The reason many people refer to it as the "Pentecostal experience" is because it was first documented ... or all started ... on the Day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2. I guess you could sort of think of it as being similar to why Legionaires' Disease is called by that name. It was named due to an outbreak in Philadelphia in 1976 when people attending the state convention of the American Legion at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel contracted the illness. The "Pentecostal experience" is not a sickness ... and isn't bad ..., to the contrary it is very, very good. At any rate, I hope you can now understand why many people refer to the New Birth ... "the Bible way" as the "Pentecostal experience" OR why some say that Penecost is NOT a denomination, but an experience. However, let me hasten to point out that there are lot's of people today, claiming to be Pentecostal who do NOT embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, regardless of how Spiritual they may think themselves to be. Remember, some are going to present a fake set of credentials. At any rate, the experience that was recorded in Acts Chapter two focused on that of being born again "the Bible way" ... NOT on the man made stuff that has evolved over the centuries, such as today's modern ritual of walking down the aisle in front of a bunch of folks to make a "public profession of faith" by "accepting the Lord as your personal Saviour" and "shaking a preacher's hand" ... and then getting submerged in water (or sprinkled by water - depending on your religious persuason) with the titles of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" pronounced over you by a preacher. Even though I have personally experienced the "Pentecostal experience", I also, earlier in my life, experienced the modern day ritual I just explained above. And I am here to tell anyone who will listen to me, there is just NO COMPARISON between the two. After I did the ritual thing, I really felt good about what I had done, and even felt pretty good about myself for a while. However, as time progressed, I began to get this nagging feeling that there just had to be more to it than that. I know, I know, some of the self righteous folks would just say I never got saved to begin with. But that is the standard cop out most of them use to explain why ... or how ... it is some folks just don't just ain't what they're supposed to be, as it relates to the congregation they "joined".

At any rate, Almighty God the Father foretold many centuries in advance, that one day He was going to put His Laws in the hearts of people ... upon tables of flesh ... instead of just having them written on the tablets of stone. This is confirmed by the Word of God.

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


Now, Judge, I know how you LITERALLY interpret everything, but I don't want you jumping the gun and claiming that my position is that everyone who has been born again "the Bible way" had to undergo some sort of surgery in order to have the Word to be physically written inside ... or upon ... their heart. But that's what this Pentecostal experience is all about ... receiving the Law of the Spirit on the inside ... the Word being in a person's heart so that they are not just trying to live by the "Letter of the Law" contained in the list of "Thou shalts and thou shalt nots", but are actually moved upon by the Spirit of God to do those things which please Him from a heart of love, by the very nature of God's Spirit abiding within them and leading and guiding them, as opposed to being yoked up with the bondage that legalism always brings about. By the way, this is why I'll tell anyone that I still drink just as much as I want to, and do all the other things I used to do ... It's just that I really and truly don't want to any longer. And I say that unequivocally, without hesitation. I have no desire for those things after having come back to God as a prodigal son and have personally experienced the "Pentecostal experience" myself ... that you, obviously hate worse than the plague. However, I'll tell you one thing for certain, Judge ... **IF** everyone would repent of their sins and receive this "Pentecostal experience" (and everyone who hasn't commited the unpardonable sin certainly could), this world would be such a much better place until people might even think Heaven had come down here to earth. There wouldn't be all the worry about most all of the stuff people worry about today, concerning lawlessness and the ramifications of rampant sin everywhere you look. People would have such a peace within themselves ... even during their most trying times of life, involving extreme adversity and stress ... that there would be no need for a whole lot of the head doctoring and head medicine that multitudes are dependent upon today. And the intoxicating "spirits" business, and other mind altering substances that many people turn too, and are dependent upon, as I once was, would probably have to go out of business because there probably wouldn't be enough of those who have commited the unpardonable sin to keep them afloat. Besides, they probably wouldn't have any workers to make the stuff, anyway, if everyone else received what I'm talking about. Why, law enforcement people probably wouldn't even need any weapons to protect us, as they would probably be reduced to desk work and other administrative type stuff ... and parking tickets ..., I guess. At any rate, I would not trade my life today ... right now ... with all the stress and adversity in life I face ... for 10,000 life times of the way things used to be. AND I mean that with all my heart and every fiber in my being. Now, on to this "sound" of the wind you are concerned about. If you claim to have the Holy Spirit, then I am going to prove to you from the Bible that there would have had to been a "sound" ... be it the sound of a rushing mighty wind or not.

I will begin by showing you how Jesus, Himself, explained this to a very religious man (like you, no doubt) in John Chapter 3. And, by the way, please notice, Jesus did NOT say a word about how loud the "sound" would be or anything about it being "as of" (similar to) a rushing mighty wind ... but He most definitely said there would be a "sound". After I finish with this Scriptural explanation, I want you to tell me about the "sound" when you received the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit ... if Holy Ghost sounds too scarey for you), o.k.??

John 3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. ((No sound .. no Spirit. Pretty plain.))


Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.


Mark Chapter 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. ((The Judge says none of this is for us today, even thou he'll probably march right in a hospital and shake and/or hold someone's hand and actually pray for them. WHY?? If He rejects this?? Also, you watch this, before it's over with the Judge will probably dare me to drink poison or something like that to PROVE I'm a believer, while he, himself "claims" to be a believer, too. Notice that it reads, these signs SHALL follow them that believe ... NOT shall follow only the original twelve Apostles and/or the first Century Church ONLY. And what it says to me, it says to the Judge ... and vice versa.))



Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. ((watch out if you start bad mouthing the operation of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean all tongues are Divinely inspired. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Just as sure as there a genuine, you can rest assured there is a counterfeit. Which is why we must "try" the spirits to ascertain whether or not they really are of God.))


Acts Chapter 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Acts 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve. ((Now, Judge, knowing how you interpret everything LITERALLY, be sure to make a note that verse seven does not mean the men were all about twelve years old. It was about a dozen [12] disciples of John the Baptist who were RE-BAPTIZED and received the Holy Ghost "the Bible way" here.))


1 Corinthians Chapter 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
* * * * * *
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
* * * * *
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
* * * * *
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
* * * * *
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order. ((The Judge, and anyone else who believes as he does about this stuff [which is the way I used to believe, too] really ought to do a whole lot more learning than teaching until they get some stuff under their hat, leat they journey too close to the line, which once crossed, where there remaineth no repentance. This is exceedingly serious stuff ... whether a person believes it or not, or even undertands it or not.))


I'll let the Judge argue against this stuff for himself, but I want to share a couple things that will expose his flawed theology ...

1 Corinthians 12
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

* * * * *
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. ((Well, folks, there they are. Nine Spiritual gifts God placed in the "original" New Testament Church. Reckon how many of them the Judge utterly rejects? I'd say from about three to five of them ... according to his theology ..., are gone bye, bye.))
* * * * *
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

Would you believe the Judge uses verses 30 and 31 to throw the baby out with the bath water ... to deny that which he rejects, and say they are not for us today? Not only will he deny the Holy Spirit ministers through him to speak in tongues, or prayer for someone and see them experience a miraculous recovery or receive an instant healing. He'll probably say the Holy Spirit can't ... or won't ... operate today as in the "original" New Testament Church. I will guarantee you he will say some of this stuff is NOT for anybody in the New Testament Church of today ... NOT ONE SOUL. As a matter of fact, I'll go so far to say that he will claim some of this stuff is evil, and of demonic origin. You see, the reason I can make this kind of assertion is I have new had an opportunity to see where he is coming from. It's right where I once was, myself, at one time in my life. Ignorant and/or sincere, but sincerely wrong. You see, the Bible tells you and me that it is NOT wise to make a determination or judgment about a matter BEFORE you have heard the matter. However, I can now say with conviction that I once thought (if not just like him) very close to the way he thinks. And I'll share with you the Scriptures I used to support my opinion. It is found in the Chapter in Matthew which starts off, "Judge not .." (you listening, Judge?)

Matthew Chapter 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Folks, while I didn't go around, like the Judge does, jumpin on people, arguing and giving people a hard time who do not believe the "easy believism" stuff that both he and I were indoctrinated to believe, I still thought I was right about what I had been indoctrinated to believe ... and sincerely believed it. However, that was BEFORE I started independently studying the Bible and thinking for myself again, AND BEFORE God revealed to me, through His Word, some things concerning these Spiritual matters. These people Jesus was talking about were actually presenting their credentials. However, the credentials were counterfeit credentials which looked like the "real deal", but they didn't get past our Lord. You see, folks, these people (whether they actually did any of this stuff or not) thought they could tell the Lord that they had been doing all of this stuff, and the Lord would pleased and say, "Come on in," because these works are the kind of works which identifies the operation of the Holy Spirit in the true Church (congregation - NOT building or denomination) of the Living God. However, they didn't weren't able to pass off their counterfeit credentials, and get past God. They got caught, not because of what they claimed they had been doing, but because He never "knew" them (you know, like Joseph married Mary and "knew" her not until after the Christ child was born). There was no intimacy between these folks and our Lord. That's why He said He never "knew" them. He knew them as far as knowing who they were because the only thing our God does not know is another God. Remember the parable about the person who slipped in to the feast without a wedding garment on, and got caught? Don't tell me there ain't gonna be a bunch of folks trying to slip through even though they haven't had their ticket punched/validated (so to speak). Now, I feel reasonably sure the Judge will say in response to this, "Yep, Bobby, your credentials are counterfeit because that stuff is NOT for us today, it was only for the 'original' Apostles and/or the First Century Church ONLY." The reason I know this is because this is not my first trip to the rodeo. And I've now had an opportunity to look over just what the Judge really does believe about this stuff. However, I've debated his kind many times before. He thinks all of that supernatural stuff ... the speaking in tongues, miracles, supernatural deliverances and healings ... came to a sudden grinding halt as soon as the written Word of God (the New Testament) was completed and/or when the last Apostle died. I mean as soon as the last period was put on the scroll or the moment the last Apostle breathed their last breath, POOF, and hoss, it was gone ... never to come back again. I know it sounds incredible, but that's what he believes. He's got to believe it because his indoctrination demands it. And here's why ...

1 Corinthians Chapter 13
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Miracles have always been closely associated with God, His work, and His people. However, there are professing Christians today who adamantly reject and denounce certain miracles and manifestations of the Holy Spirit which we read about in the Bible. They claim these supernatural manifestations were temporary and were only for the purpose of confirming that the message of the Apostles was truly of Divine origin, and that God no longer uses them today. Some even claim that these supernatural manifestations were only for the 12 Apostles ... and/or that any and all supernatural manifestations in our day and age are of demonic origin.

To be more specific, the supernatural manifestations held in such contempt by those who have been indoctrinated to believe such includes miracles, healings and speaking in tongues. Furthermore, many claim that speaking in tongues was just a temporary manifestation so that the early Church could take the message to the then known world ... but that supernatural prophecies, tongues and knowledge all came to a grinding halt as soon as the writing of the New Testament scriptures was completed. They base this upon what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:8 about prophecies failing, tongues ceasing and knowledge vanishing away ... "when that which is perfect is come."

**IF** the completion of the Bible is the "that which is perfect is come" that Paul spoke of, as some claim it is, then it should follow as a result of the end of supernatural manifestations of prophecies, tongues and knowledge, that there would be no room left for any new beliefs to be "added" on later which were not specifically stated in the completed Word of God ... such as the theory of the trinity which evolved many, many years later.
Independent Bible students should want to take a closer look at this very interesting interpretation of the scriptures put forth by many who assert the supernatural manifestations of prophecies, tongues and knowledge ended when the written Word of God was completed ... which must stand in harmony with other scriptures on the same subject to be a valid interpretation. If it does then their interpretation is correct ... if it doesn't, then of course, their interpretation is NOT correct.
.
Let's take a look at the scriptural setting where Paul speaks of this:
1 Corinthians Chapter 13
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in PART, and we prophesy in PART.
10 But when THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME, then that which is in PART shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in PART; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
.
Notice the wording: prophecies shall fail; tongues shall cease; knowledge shall vanish away (Think back over the advancements in technology in the 20th Century and ask yourself if knowledge has vanished away). Listen to this ... Daniel 12:4, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Does that sound like knowledge was done away in about 100 A.D.? I don't think so. That which is perfect has not made it here yet, folks ... but it is getting very close!
At any rate, "FAIL" is the Greek word KATARGEO (Strong's # 2673), meaning to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative. "CEASE" is the Greek word PAUO (Strong's # 3973) meaning to make to cease or desist, to restrain a thing or person from something. "VANISH" is also the Greek word KATARGEO (Strong's # 2673), meaning to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative.

I will not argue that the day will come when these attributes for edification purposes in the Church will no longer be needed because those who have obeyed the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine concerning God's plan of salvation will be caught up to be with the Lord for ever and ever. What I would like to point out is this: Something can cease, pause, temporarily suspend and then resume again later. When a car stops for a traffic light, the trip is NOT over. When someone stops eating, that doesn't mean they'll never eat again. I contend that these things that Paul says are going to cease, subside or pause were not permanently ended ... and will not end permanently until "that which is perfect has come."

Generally speaking, the spiritually of the nation of Israel and their relationship with God, as well as the fervent revivals of the Church Age has ebbed and flowed. It has been anything but a steady consistency of growth and spiritual awareness. Instead, it has been with cessations, pauses and temporary or sporatic moves. Otherwise, there would be no need for a "REVIVAL" ... a rekindling of that which has been deminished or has even completely ceased.

Also, notice Paul's use of the word "PART" in the passage above. The word "PART" here is the Greek word MEROS (Strong's # 3313), meaning to get as a section or allotment; a division or share, piece, portion. MEROS is translated "PART" only 24 times in the Bible and 4 of those times are right here in these few verses.
I would like to turn your attention to another Greek word which also means "PART":

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the EARNEST of the Spirit in our hearts.

2 Corinthians 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the
EARNEST of the Spirit.

Ephesians Chapter 1
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the EARNEST of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In the above verses Paul used the word "EARNEST" which is the Greek word ARRHABON (Strong's # 728), which means a pledge, PART of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest -a down payment, to describe the Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer. It is quite common for someone to put "earnest" money down on property or a possession in an act of good faith to secure it until they complete the transaction. It could be said that the joyous experience of the infilling of the Holy Spirit is just a small portion of what Heaven is going to be like because it is given to us as an EARNEST (PART) of our inheritance. The final transaction will take place when the Church is taken home to be with our Lord. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath PURCHASED with his own blood." Acts 20:28

Has God quit imparting the GIFT of the Holy Spirit to believers? I say emphatically, NO! Therefore, it is my position that Paul was referring to something besides the completion of the Bible as being when "that which is perfect is come." Because, as we have seen above, he said in I Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then ("when that which is perfect is come") face to face: now I know in PART; but then shall I know even as also I am known". Also Paul said in verse 10 "BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME, THEN THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH."

My friend, when "that which is perfect is come" there will be no need for God to impart the GIFT of the Holy Spirit (the EARNEST of our inheritance) to believers because we'll forever be in His presence!

Paul wrote much of the New Testament and this subject is addressed in other places in such a way which refutes the idea that this phenomena was going to be removed and taken out of the Church along with prophecies and knowledge with the completion of the Bible.

In addition, if the completion of the Bible was "that which is perfect is come" and that "which was in part" was done away with, then God would not bestow upon believers the GIFT of the Holy Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, and we would have a MAJOR problem with the following promise:

Acts Chapter 2:
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, BOTH Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.
39 FOR THE PROMISE is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL.
.
Has God quit calling? I say emphatically, NO!

It is my most sincere prayer that this will be received with the same love in which it is being presented.

A wise man named Gamaliel in Acts chapter 5 might not have agreed with or understood the Apostles' doctrine, but he reasoned that if it was of men that it would come to nought, but if it was of God they could not over throw it lest haply they be found even to fight against God. Jesus warned against those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost as being in danger of eternal damnation ... without the chance of forgiveness. This is a very serious matter! Today, I feel, some may be speaking evil of the operations and manifestations of the Holy Spirit through ignorance, as a result of them being indoctrinated to believe things that are contrary to the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.

Because there is the genuine manifestation and power of God and the counterfeit works of darkness, we are commanded to "try" the spirits to see if they be of God. Not to try as in "try it you may like it" but to TEST its validity.

1 John Chapter 4:
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but TRY the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Revelation 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast TRIED them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

The word "try" in 1 John 4:1 is the Greek word DOKIMAZO (Strong's # 1381) meaning to test, examine, prove, scrutinize. And the word "tried" in Revelation 2:2 is the Greek word PEIRAZO (Strong's # 3985) which also means to test, examine and prove. Sometimes something is so obviously false that anyone can see it, but there are those instances in which only a "trained eye" can detect the falsehood as with a bank teller detecting a counterfeit bill.

Because it is foolish to stick your head in the sand when you run across something which you don't understand, I determined a number of years ago to investigate different doctrines. As a result, God revealed to me a seven step process to "TRY" doctrines by using only the Bible, and which works 100% of the time ... without fail.

I refer to them as the Seven Undeniable Beliefs of the New Testament Church. You can take a look at them at one of my other web sites: Bible Studies
.
Many companies recruit and intensively train their sales people to go out and sell only their products or services. Many of these sales people are aggressive, and have no problem with sweeping any negative aspects under the rug while tearing apart the competitor who gets in the way of their personal gain. They live it, breathe it, eat it, sleep it, use high pressure scare tactics, are very zealous and almost always have no ethics whatsoever. They usually stay stressed out and frustrated most of the time, and live a very unhappy, unfulfilling life of chasing that elusive carrot at the end of a pole ... never finding true joy, contentment and inner peace. Well, believe it or not, I've just described a lot of "professing" Christians, including ministers, who have been indoctrinated to believe Rome's version of the gospel of three "persons". Many have no earthly idea what their calling or mission in life really is, and don't have the wisdom, knowledge and understanding necessary to defend the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine while reaching out to lost souls in an effort to win them over to the truth of the Word of God and steer them away from the doctrines and traditions of man.
.
My dear friend, to arbitrarily classify anything and everything supernatural as being demonic is an extremely grave mistake whether one understands and/or believes in it or not. If there is one thing I have learned in my years of independent Bible study, it is this:

God does not need me, you or anyone. We are absolutely nothing apart from His love and mercy. As a matter of fact, He has people in their graves who paid the price, stood the test and are just waiting for that trumpet to sound! It is true that there is still work to be done, but God will call people out of the places where some of us have been if necessary. Just as He by-passed the synagogues of His day that were full of Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes to call some men who weren't educated beyond their intelligence to be leaders in the Church of the New Covenant.
I realize the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit of God is a deep subject, and one that may be far removed from the minds and concerns of a lot of people, but 2 Timothy Chapter 3 warns us about conditions in the last days:

2 Timothy Chapter 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 HAVING A FORM OF GODLINESS, BUT DENYING THE POWER THEREOF: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY.

Notice that verse 5 reads, "Having a form of godliness (outwardly appear to be religious), but denying the POWER thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY. The word "POWER" used here is the Greek word DUNAMIS (Strong's # 1411), meaning: force, special miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself) ability, abundance, meaning, mighty deed, (worker of) miracle (s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work. This Greek word DUNAMIS is also used in Matthew 22:29; Luke 4:36; 5:17; 9:1; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 3:12; 4:7; 4:33; 6:8; 10:38; Romans 15:13; 15:19; I Corinthians 2:4-5; 4:20; 5:4; 2 Corinthians 4:7; 12:9; Ephesians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:7; Revelation 13:2; 15:8; 17:13.

It is super important to remember that in the last days there will be some who have a form of godliness but will deny the POWER ... DUNAMIS ... thereof. Granted, in the last days there will also be lying signs and wonders ... which is all the more reason a person needs to be able to distinguish between that which is genuine and that which is counterfeit. Also, the Greek word DUNAMIS is translated "MIRACLE" and "MIRACLES" in the following verses. Who denies supernatural miracles today? Or claims that all supernatural manifestations are of demonic origin? I'll let you answer that question, but here's some scriptures where the word DUNAMIS is translated miracle and/or miracles .... which some having a form of godliness (outwardly appear religious) adamantly deny:


Mark 9:38-39 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a MIRACLE in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.


Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by MIRACLES and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:


Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the MIRACLES and signs which were done.


Acts 19:11-12 And God wrought special MIRACLES by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.


1 Corinthians 12:4-11 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of MIRACLES; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


1 Corinthians 12:27-28 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that MIRACLES, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh MIRACLES among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers MIRACLES, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


As we've seen above in 1 Corinthians 12:10 DUNAMIS ... MIRACLES ... is one of nine gifts of the Holy Spirit that is listed there, AND in 1 Corinthians 12:28 God placed DUNAMIS ... MIRACLES ... in the "original" New Testament Church.

So there we have it. According 2 Timothy 3:1-4, some will have a form of godliness (outwardly appear religious) but will deny the "power" ... DUNAMIS ... MIRACLES ... thereof.

Is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever as His Word declares, or has He changed His mind in dealing with His Church? Should we rip James 5:14-15 out of our Bibles and refuse to pray for the sick?

James 5:14-15 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

What about the drug addicts, prostitutes, alcoholics and those out there in the pig pens and dens of iniquity? Without a miraculous deliverance and transformation their fate is sealed. And my friend, I know first-hand that true deliverance and transformation does not come by merely accepting Christ as your personal Saviour and shaking a preacher's hand. Some may say what I am talking about is just an emotion. Well, it is an emotion. But it is also much, much more than an emotion! What is love? Can you put a handle on it? Is it tangible? Isn't it an emotion which produces tangible and intangible results? To say the operation of the Holy Spirit is no longer manifested as in the Bible days, or to describe such as demonic or merely an emotion is a very grave mistake.

God knows the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning and He knew long before that there would be a "dark ages" followed by a reformation period. And although I am under a command to turn away from those who deny the POWER THEREOF and to mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the Apostles' Doctrine I felt compelled to communicate this to those who are serious about independent Bible study and Truth in its entirety.

It is a real tragedy when those who claim to be spiritually discerning can not discern or distinguish between the genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit operating in the five-fold ministry Church that Jesus Christ ordained almost 2,000 years ago and that of the counterfeit works of darkness performed as by the magicians of Egypt. However, Truth will withstand the onslaughts from Hell as well as from ignorant zealots. God is not the author of confusion, but neither is the prophecy of the scriptures of any private interpretation. Therefore, we must give diligence to their proper interpretation in establishing our convictions.

This communication is not designed to be a scathing rebuke, but rather it is presented with godly fear, in sincerity and love. We must speak where the Bible speaks, but let's be sure we do that.

The Bible speaks of the "former" rain and "latter" rain. It is my understanding that the "latter" rain fell on Jan. 1, 1901 at a little" Bible College in Topeka, Kansas following a time of fasting, prayer and tarrying by a group of students and their teacher which has spread around the world just like in the days of the Apostles. People from all denominations, backgrounds and walks of life have experienced this "new birth" that Jesus told Nicodemus about in John Chapter 3. It is interesting to note that, according to Jesus in John 3:8, there would be a "sound" associated with EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit (the Bible way).

On the day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2, which records the inauguration of the "original" New Testament Church, there was a sound associated when they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit.

The book of Acts is the history book of the "original" New Testament Church. And it is still being written today, so to speak, because it has no ending. If there is anything in the Book of Acts which a believer stays away from or denounces, that in itself should be a "red flag" to the serious Bible student.

The initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (former rain) witnessed by speaking in tongues in Acts 2:1-4, the continuation of the witness of speaking with tongues upon receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44-48 and Acts 19:1-6, the ceasing of tongues in the "religious church world," the "dark ages" followed by the "latter rain" outpouring at the turn of the 20th Century which sparked a great worldwide revival, and the ultimate end of the New Testament Church Age is my understanding of Paul's meaning in 1 Corinthians 13:8, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away," ... and NOT that Jesus Christ has changed and is no longer the same yesterday, today and forever.

It is Jesus, faith in His Name and the Word of God which saves, heals and delivers people today ... not man. The gifts of the Spirit described in I Corinthians 12:1-14 were ordained of God to operate harmoniously in the Church. And any attempt to remove one or more of them, in my opinion, is a serious mistake. Has God taken back any of the gifts He placed in the Church? I say emphatically, NO!

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

As we've seen, God placed miracles and tongues in the "original" New Testament Church. And even though some deny them today, I have never met anyone who can scripturally prove when and where God took them out of the Church. Rather than trying to understand them and distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit, some people just throw the baby out with the bath water.

I grew up in a mainline denominational church, which I won't name because it would serve no real purpose. However, I will just say that there is a much deeper depth in one's relationship with God than what most people are exposed to. Jesus did not many mighty works in Matthew 13:58 because of people's unbelief. TRUE faith produces works, and according to James 2:26 , "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The Bible is full of stories about TRUE faith and works, and is pretty well summed up in Hebrews Chapter 11.

* * * conclusion of point number one of the Judge's "Pentecostal In Experience" article * * *



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 28
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: Points 2-11 of the Judge's "Pentecostal In Experience" article


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.

Judge Larry: (2) "It filled all the house where they were sitting" (v. 2). The sound was inside, not outside. We may hear the wind blow outside, but this was a sound "as of " a great wind that "filled the house" in which they were meeting. Has such a phenomenon happened at Victory Temple? If not, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?

Bobby: Judge, unless or until you can establish with Scriptural evidence that this sound "as of" a rushing mighty wind accompanied the out pouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts Chapter 8, Acts Chapter 10 and Acts Chapter 19, I would suggest you not consider it a mandatory "sign" for being Pentecostal In Experience. I mean, are you climbing up into the judgment seat and proclaiming that nobody affiliated with this particular congregation (Victory Temple ... and I don't know a thing about them or their beliefs) is Pentecostal In Experience, and, therefore, has NOT received the Holy Ghost? Never mind, don't answer that. I think I know.

Judge Larry: (3) "They were sitting" (v. 4). Often, those in the Church of God who are seeking Holy Spirit baptism are kneeling or standing, waving their arms, shouting, crying, and praying. In Acts 2, "they were sitting." There were no tearful appeals or loud music to stir the emotions as is done in Churches of God. So, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?

Bobby: Umm, Judge, have you ever been in or around a room full of drunks? Well I have. And listen to this ...

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. ((Note: It was 9 AM .. a time when folks wouldn't be drunk - unless, or course, a person was as bad off as I used to be))
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


Now, Judge, this new birth ... "Pentecostal experience" ... THE BIBLE WAY causes some people to doubt and inquire, but it causes others to accuse those who have experienced it as being drunk. Think about that for a minute. I can assure you, it was a funeralized service ... full of pomp, pride and hypocrisy ... like most church goers todayt are accustomed to. No siree, Bob. A drunk ain't proud and they sure ain't no hypocrite. And these mockers (like you) accused those who had just been filled with the Spirit of Almighty God as being drunk. Now, that's pretty rich, ain't it???

Judge Larry: (4) "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them" (v. 3). Does this happen at Victory Temple? If not, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?

Bobby: Following your logic, a person could argue that unless God formed men out of the ground like Adam in the beginning, there wouldn't be any "genuine" men "in experience" today. Do you see how idiotic that would be? If literal fire had been given as the "sign" that a person had, indeed, experienced the new birth "the Bible way" I would be in your corner about the fire, but the Bible never said literal fire was the "sign". The "sign" is that "sound" that you haven't heard yet ... and so viciously fight against and denounce.

Judge Larry: (5) "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (v. 4). They did not chatter in unintelligible babble, but spoke real languages (vv. 4-11). Does this happen at Victory Temple? If not, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?

Bobby: Judge, it is wise for a person to consult a farmer if they desire to learn something about farming, and a carpenter if they desire to learn something about carpentry. Likewise, it's best for a person to consult someone who has been where it is that they are interested in learning about and/or traveling to, instead of seeking out and/or listening to someone who is not a farmer, is not a carpenter and has never been where the person's interest is. At times I am saddened, and at other times I am amused when I hear someone elaborate on something they don't have a clue about, but have only been indoctrinated ... or told ... what to believe about it by someone they "think" gave them the real skinny on it. The sad times is when it appears the person is very sincere, but just stumbling along, trying to stay within their denomination guidelines. The amusing times is when a person, with great pomp and pride, presents themselves as being an "authority" and you realize they are not even in the same ball park. However, then another sad time immediately follows when you realize, whether they know any better or not, they are convincing no telling how many good people to accept error. I realize you do not understand that there is an "unknown" tongue that no man can understand and there is "another" tongue which can be interpreted. You see (and again, I realize you don't have a clue about this stuff), there is the tongues (evidence of the new birth "the Bible way") which can be understood by those who speak whatever language the Holy Spirit may give utterance to speak. And there is the intercessory prayer tongues which no man can understand, because the person's spirit is praying and they are speaking to God ... NOT man ..., which edifies the individual ... just as I have already documented in my pevious email with Book, Chapter and Verse. And, last, but not least, there is the "gift" of tongues which operates within the Church, which, when interpreted, edifies the whole Church. Why God choose tongues, I really don't know. Unless, it is because the Bible says it is the most unruly member of the body, and that no man can tame it (but, God can). I really don't make a big issue out of speaking in tongues by trying to get people to speak in tongues. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, it is a very personal matter. I just try to convince people to not settle for going bare foot, and to get them set their sights on getting the shoes (the new birth "the Bible way". Because, you see, I know when a person gets the shoes (so to speak) "the Bible way"the tongues will come with 'em. Also, I realize you have never heard someone who did NOT know a word of English, but who, when they received the Holy Ghost, would begin worshipping and praising God, saying stuff like, "I love you Jesus" and other English phrases of praise and adoration. And, frankly, unless or until someone like you does, I doubt you'll ever believe it's real. And since you probably won't ever be in a place where that kind of stuff happens, I'd say your chances are pretty slim of ever hearing it ... or believing it. But I will tell you this, God knows precisely how to get your undivided attention, as a result of your continual kicking against the pricks.


Judge Larry: (6) The Spirit fell on certain of the disciples, not on the audience of sinners (vv. 1, 13-18). However, the Church of God often reverses this process. They call for the Spirit to fall on the unsaved. So, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bobby: Judge, I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the 120 in the upper room, including the mother of Jesus were unregenerate ... unredeemed (sinners ... if you will) up until the time they were born again "the Bible way" in Acts Chapter 2. The twelve may have been sitting together and later stood together, but there was about 108 more disciples in the upper room, making the total about 120, NOT just twelve. Now, I know that is contrary to your indoctrination, but that's the plain facts of it, anyway. At any rate, listen to what Jesus told Peter before this new birth experience ...


Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Furthermore, how could a person receive the new birth ... "the Bible way ... **IF** God doesn't hear a sinner's prayer???


Judge Larry: (7) Those "filled with the Holy Spirit" did not tell the audience how they felt, nor how "thrilling" it was to be baptized in the Spirit. Many Church of God preachers use sensational language to tell how they "feel" about the baptism of the Spirit. No one did this in Acts 2. So, how is the Church of God "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bobby: Umm, Judge, where is it recorded in the Bible where any one ever, ever, ever made a plea for someone in any crowd to come down front to "make a public profession of faith" and "accept Christ as their personal Saviour"??? What you really should have said is, there is no recorded mention of anyone having told anyone else about how they felt, or how "thrilling" it was to be filled with the Holy Ghost. Because that would have been more accurate. However, you are wrong if you are saying nobody in the Bible ever said anything descriptive about the Spirit of Almighty God moving in a person's life ...


Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. ((I challenge you to elaborate on the word "power" that Jesus mentioned above, and state why you have no desire for that power, but, instead fight against it.))


Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:


Psalm 18:29 For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John Chapter 7
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

1 Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.


I'll just have to tell you, Judge, I'll take the "Pentecostal experience" over anything man has ever conjured up ... especially over all of their cold, formal, dead, dull, mundane, ritualized, funeralized meetings multitudes of people call "church".


Judge Larry: (8) Those baptized in the Spirit told sinners to "Repent, and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (v. 37, 38). Is this what Church of God preachers tell men to do to obtain forgiveness of sins? If not, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bobby: The Holy Ghost inspired Peter (who had the keys of the Kingdom) to respond to a direct question that was brought about by the convicting power of the Spirit of Almighty God. The response Peter was anointed to respond to those who very specifically ask him, "Men and brethren, what must we do?" There is nothing recorded that Peter had to hold a conference first, or check with Matthew about what he was about to say. Nope, it appears Peter immediately and without hesitation told those who asked what they MUST do ...


Acts Chapter 2
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.


Also, Judge, I don't find where that was ever annulled or superceded in the Word of God. Now, my question to you would be, why wouldn't you tell someone that??? I expect the following historical documentation will pretty well explain why ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name� The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion� in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)�"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence� suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus� which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' � or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'� Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning� Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."




Judge Larry: (9) Before one could "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," he had to "repent, and be baptized" (v. 38). However, many claim to have received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before they are baptized in the Church of God. Since they promise "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before the apostles did, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?



Bobby: You are reading things into the Scriptures that isn't there, which seems to be the norm ... when you aren't LITERALLY interpreting them.. Peter did NOT say, water baptism had to come first BEFORE the Holy Ghost was promised to them. However, I would be totally amazed if you thought a person could receive the Holy Ghost BEFORE they ever repented of their sins ... or that baptism for the remission of sins could come BEFORE repentance. No, strike that. Nothing you say, surprises me much any more.

How does one know when they receive the Holy Ghost?

Some ministers teach that the Holy Spirit is received "automatically" ... with no apparent outward manifestation ... when a person "believes" and accepts Christ as their personal Savior. However, in Acts 8:12-17, we read about people who believed, yet they had NOT received the Holy Spirit.
.
Acts Chapter 8
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
.
And again, some teach that the Holy Spirit is received "automatically" ... with no apparent outward manifestation ... at the same time a person is baptized in water. However, in Acts 8:12-17 (as shown above), & Acts 19:1-6 we read about those who received the Holy Spirit AFTER being baptized... but in Acts 10:44-48 we read about others who received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized.
.
Acts Chapter 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
.
Acts Chapter 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
.
The Holy Spirit is not "automatically" imparted at believing ... or baptism.

A person shouldn't claim receiving the Holy Spirit entirely on the grounds of someone telling them they have received it ... without them knowing for sure. Nor should they believe things "implied" from very carefully selected portions of scripture by some ministers, as opposed to that which is plainly stated in scripture. There is a way to know for sure when one receives the Holy Spirit ... and the Bible states it plainly.


Judge Larry: (10) "Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles" (v. 43). Those baptized in the Spirit did "many" miracles which were witnessed by unbelievers (Acts 4:14-16). This is not characteristic of Church of God preachers, so, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bobby: I can't speak for the preachers you are addressing, but I can speak for what I have witnessed myself, and for the many miracles that were wrought by the Holy Ghost ministering to ... AND ... through more than just the Apostles. Jesus said these "signs" SHALL follow them that believe. What about Judge, got signs? By the way, the signs following after the believers ... NOT believers following after the signs. There is a tremendous difference in the two.


Judge Larry: (11) Those being saved were "added to the church" (v. 47). However, not all of the saved today are added to the Church of God denomination. Since all those being saved were "added" to the New Testament church, but not all saved people are added to the Church of God, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bobby: Ummm, Earth to the Judge ... Earth to the Judge. The Church of the Living God is NOT a denomnation nor is it a building consisting of bricks, mortar and sound equipment. By the way, if what you just said was turn around to you and asked of you why you consider your denomination and/or church you are affiliated with to be the true church, why aren't all that are being saved today becoming members of it? You are really grasping at straws now, Judge. This is really getting pretty goofy, now.


Judge Larry: Conclusion: If someone from the Victory Temple "Pentecostal Church of God" can explain how, or in what sense, they are "Pentecostal In Experience," we would be happy to give them an opportunity to do so. Our doors, hearts, and Bibles are open for them to explain (Acts 17:11; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).


Bobby: I noticed you didn't say that there would be any minds opened for them to explain. And, to be perfectly honest with you, **IF** all the folks are like you, I would have to question whether or not there would even be any hearts open for them to explain. And, again, I don't have a clue what this congregation you're jumping believes. Therefore, I can't ... and wouldn't attempt to ... speak on their behalf.

conclusion of points 2-11 of the Judge's "Pentecostal In Experience" article
* * * and the conclusion of the Judge's "Pentecostal In Experience" article * * *
* * * three articles down and one more to go * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 29
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:56 AM
Subject: The Unknown Tongue - Points 1-3 responded to


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.


From: xx@xxxx.xxx on behalf of Judge Larry
[xxxxx@xxxxx.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:37 AM
To: Bible Matters
Subject: "An Unknown Tongue"

*****
* Bible Matters mailing list
* Send all commands - Suspend, Subscribe, Info, Rules, etc.
* to <xxxxx@xxxxx.net>
* List mail to <xxxxx@xxxxx.net>
* List owners: xx <xxxxx@xxxxx.com>,
* xx <xxxxx@xxxxx.net>
*****

Speaking In "An Unknown Tongue"
Judge Larry

(The anonymous note below arrived via e-mail. It is published as it came to me--Judge Larry)

To someone who has never experienced speaking in what we as Pentecostal some time call an unknown tong.It doesn't surprise me that you don't believe. I could give you vers,but I am sure you would counter them with other vers. I speak from experience. I was not raised Pentecostal. But I can tell you it real and when I speak in that heavenly language it not jibes it the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in me and through me to edify the Church. In my life time of be used in this gift of God it has never brought harm are confusion to the Body of Christ I have never see Jesus face to face. But I know he real and he has saved me from death and given me hope of an eternal future with him. Seek and you to will fine that some things are not debatable but excepted that we may better serve God.


Judge Larry: Reply: First, since the author did not say, I do not know what I have said that has brought his reaction. It would help this reply if I knew the material to which he is objecting.


Bobby: Gee, Judge, for someone like you, who quietly goes about minding their own business, and not being judgmental of others (Oops! strike the last six words) ... I can't imagine why anyone would send you such a caustic letter. hee, hee Naw, seriously, it appears this person took exception to something you said somewhere at some time about speaking in tongues. And, as much as you've, no doubt, said ... and wrote ... I imagine it would be pretty hard to nail it down precisely. And even though this person did not specifically state, I would find it totally amusing if you were really taken a back by it.


Judge Larry: Second, it should be noted that, whether right or wrong, I have set forth my views openly and plainly, not anonymously. If the author truly has the spiritual gifts he claims to have, why should he be afraid? Why should he hide behind the cloak of anonymity? Of what does he have to be ashamed? Those who had certain miraculous gifts in the New Testament spoke "with all boldness" (Acts 4:29, 33; 14:3; Eph. 6:18-20). If he has what they had, why does he not do the same?



Bobby: Boy, Judge, you must be on one more power trip. I mean, those who do not wish to engage in a public dog and pony show with you, you immediately assume are wrong, not spiritual, afraid and/or ashamed. After having seen the way you operate ... and the way you mis-use and mis-handle the Word of God ..., there is no doubt in my mind that you could really confuse people who are not as Biblically literate as they really ought to be. I've dealt with your kind (and I'm not talking about your denomination right now, either). **IF** you can't blind 'em with brilliance, you'll dazzle 'em with, shall we say, barn yard fertilizer. You know, I'm beginning to look forward to you giving direct answers to the remaining 7 of the following 8 questions, and going forward with scheduling an oral debate with you ... with no rules regarding any time limit to respond to an assertion by either side ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (the Judge's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

Judge Larry: Third, must one "experience" a thing in order to believe in it? Mr. Anonymous ("because I'm afraid you might give me a verse") stated, "To someone who has never experienced speaking in what we as Pentecostal some time call an unknown tong.It doesn't surprise me that you don't believe." Well, has he ever died and been raised, or has he ever been bitten by a serpent or drank deadly poison and not been hurt? If not, does the fact that he has not experienced those things mean he does not believe in them? So, the fact that I have never experienced the ability to speak in tongues as was done in the New Testament has nothing at all to do with whether or not I believe such things did occur or do occur.



Bobby: O.K. Judge, even though there's something smelly here, I'll let you slide on not speaking in tongues yourself but believing they are of God. Now let's move one step beyond your acceptance of speaking in tongues to what Brother Paul said, and let me ask you if you agree with Brother Paul here ...

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Since you have implied, even though you don't speak in tongues yourself, that you do believe speaking in tongues are of God ... would you "forbid" speaking in tongues by anyone and everyone who have spoken in tongues as the Spirit of God gave them utterance???



Judge Larry: Later, our Mr. Anonymous ("because I'm ashamed to be identified with my teaching") makes that same argument for me. "I have never see Jesus face to face. But I know he real and he has saved me from death and given me hope of an eternal future with him." Since he can believe in Jesus without having seen him face to face, so I believe in the fact that certain ones in the New Testament were enabled to speak in languages they had never studied or never learned, though men cannot do the same today.


Bobby: I accept your argument that one can believe something they haven't seen. However, since we know, and you've accepted, speaking in tongues as having functioned in the New Testament Church, how it is .. or why is it .. you make such an unequivocal statement, "though men cannot do the same today." Did God appear before you like He was reported to have appeared to another man in these last days that many people look up to as some great one, and tell you that men cannot be enabled, by the Holy Spirit anymore, to speak in languages they've never studied or never learned before, like they used to do??? I challenge your choice of words, when you emphatically stated "cannot". Is there anything impossible with God? You seem to think so by your use of the word "cannot". Now, I know speaking in tongues is as foreign to you as flying a 747 jet would be to me, but people are flying 'em today in this 21st century. And it would be rather ignorant for me to unequivocally state that, even though people flew 'em in the 20th century, men "cannot" do the same today. What's a century? The Bible say a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day with the Lord. Why is it you believe the Church lost it's power and authority along the way? Why is it you, obviously, believe the best a person can do is to just read the Bible LITERALLY and go though the mundane rituals of an, either, workless faith, or a greatly diminished faith, as it relates to the "original" New Testament Church. When ... and why ... did God change the course of His church to just settle down and become funeralized? Look, judge, many people who feel like you (and the way I once felt) might pooh pooh the Pentecostal experience and worship services, but they'll go to a sports event and whoop and holler, squal and snot until they're soaking wet with sweat and hoarse. And don't tell me they won't, because I know better. Something about this just doesn't pass the smell test to me. Now why would a person get emotional at a goofy sports event, but pooh pooh getting emotional as they worship their Creator, who (in most cases) delivered them from some pretty incredible vices ... cold turkey. Since it is documented some of the on lookers who witnessed this Pentecostal experience for the very first time, thought the folks were acting like a bunch of drunks, I'd say it looked a whole lot different than 99% of the worship services that go on across America each and every week ... including yours. Judge, I've done walked down the trail you're one ... and the one you offer others. It is empty. It is shallow. It is hollow. And it is a facade. I hate to be so blunt, but somebody has GOT to put you in your place AND get your attention so God maybe ... just maybe ... will tear that facade down in order for you to get real and get what you really and truly need and that is a real good dose of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives you the uttereance. I'll guarantee you **IF** it ever happens to you, you will be the happiest person on this planet .... or, at least, you'll think you are (everybody, who experiences what I'm talking about, feels that way).


Judge Larry: Since he can believe in Jesus without having seen him face to face, so he and I can believe that some raised the dead and were bitten by venomous serpents without being harmed, though such things do not occur today (Acts 9:36-39; 28:3-6).


Bobby: Sure, we believe in Jesus without having seen Him face to face. And, sure, we can believe some raised the dead and were bitten by venomous serpents without being harmed. But, come on man, get your head out of ... the sand. Why do you always have to fall back on stuff like this ... "though such things do not occur today???" When did your God go to sleep at the switch? Are there still venomous serpents ... BOTH literal AND spiritual? You bet! Are there still dead people ... BOTH literal AND spiritual? You bet! That's your problem, I'm just going to tell you like it is, Judge. You support your indoctrination, depending on what it opposes or supports, either a LITERAL or an IMPLIED interpretation in the Word of God .... and/or you read things into Scriptures that just ain't there. You'd better find you a place to fall down on your knees, repent of you sins, and pray that God will give you this Pentecostal experience, and also get baptized in the precious name of Jesus ... immediately if not sooner. For somebody like you to come along and try to tell me that God cannot ... or will not ... respond in desperate situations, and answers to prayer, by performing miracles in the lifes of people today, really riles me up ... knowing what I know AND knowing that you don't even know that you don't even know. God is NOT our errand boy that we boss around and say, "Go here .. go there ... or ... do this .. do that," but He really does hear and answer prayer. And sometimes it is something so amazing that if defies our human reasoning, logic and comprehension. I have personally very narrowly escaped death several times. I started riding motorcycles at an early age (about 8-10 years old), of the 5 I've had, I've totaled two of them. One when I had to make a split second decision to take my chances by hitting a gigantic pot hole that went all the way across my lane, instead of hitting an oncoming car on top of a hill. Then, several years later, I T-boned a car that pulled directly out in front of me, with only enough time to grit my teeth. I flew over the car and ended up laying flat on my back in the middle of the highway, looking up into a cloudless, blue sky, thinking, "God, I'm not ready to die", and feeling like somebody had poured gasoline all over me AND inside of me from my chest down, and then lit it. I'm here to tell you it felt like I was literally on fire. Even though I was a prodigal, who had left my father's house, I knew at that moment that I was heap big trouble. Honestly, I can't say I was spared in answer to my prayers ... or if there was someone, somewhere praying for a wayward child. I think, probably, the latter. At any rate, before the ambulance got there, the burning sensation just lifted from me like somebody had removed a blanket while I was still on the ground, and still looking up, but with a crowd of people standing in a circle all around me. By the time the abulance got there, I was standing on my feet, and actually walked on the ambulance. I was transported to the University Hospital in Jackson, MS and checked over thoroughly. Much to everyone's surprise ... and mine, actually, I did not have any broken bones and did not even need one stitch. Granted I was skinned up and hurting all over, but Judge, don't come riding into my town, trying to convince me God doesn't perform miracles any more, because you are just a tad too late. This is just one instance. Another time I fell off an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico about 10 PM one night. I fell about 30 feet or so and fell over board, striking my head on a pipe on the way down. The drilling superintendent saw me fall, and figured there was no way I would be concious when I hit the water, and would be pulled by an undercurrent underneath the drill ship we were on. Therefore, he immediately had a roustabout dispatched to wake up the Captain to get to the wheel house and radio the Coast Guard that a man fell over board and was missing. Although, I distinctly remember thinking about my family and how I never dreamed I'd die in the manner in which I thought I was about to die. As I went down, down, down, into the pitch black water, I really could not tell which way was up. I can still almost hear those Caterpiller engines rumbling down in the engine room below the water level. Well, I survived that close call too. I could go on and on, like the time my daugher hit a 13 year old boy on a dark stretch of four lane highway one night, back in 2000 when we lived in Florida. His body did about $ 5,000 to the front end of the car. His head knocked a hole completely through the windshield about the size of a cantaloupe. He literally died several times on scene, but the medical team were able to resusitate him in the back of the ambulance while they waited on the helecopter to air lift him to Orlando. He was in a lifeless state, on life support, unresponsive, for quite some time. The medical profession gave him no hope, and very candidly admitted they had done all they could do, and that if he made it, it would be a miracle from God. His family allowed my paster, an elder from our church and myself to visit him in ICU one Sunday after church. In obedience to and compliance with James 5:14, we anointed him with oil in the name of Jesus and prayer over him. From that point on, this boy began a slow, but steady improvement. First, someone felt him sweeze their hand ever so slightly, next he opened his eyes in a blank stare, later on someone noticed his eyes follow someone across the room, then he began to say a few words very softly. Today, he is at home, able to talk, feed himself and making A's and B's in a home schooling. While he is still undergoing therapy, and maybe some more surgery on his leg, he is able to walk with the use of a walker. The experienced Florida state troopers on scene that night had prepared us for the worse. They even went ahead and called out their vehicular homicide investigator to go ahead and come interview my daughter that night on the scene, which was very unusual, that's now certain they were the boy was going to die. Then there is my wife's 40 year old neice who had a heart attack a couple months ago, and the best they can determine, she went without breathing for 15-20 minutes .. with no oxygen going to her brain. She was air lifted to the University Hospital in Jackson, MS and place on life support. She, too, was unresponsive. The next morning a doctor was already talking to the family about removing her from life support because there was no brain activity at all. As far as they were concerned, she was already dead, I guess. At any rate, the family refused to take her off life support, as there were people praying all over the country. By the way, I failed to mention that I, too, had people all over the country praying the 13 year old boy during that time, too. Like the 13 year old boy, Teri slowly started making improvements, much to the amazement and delight of everyone, including the medical profession. She recovered, and went home. She is able to walk, talk, feed herself and carry on her life in amazingly good fashion, with only some short term memory loss problems, and some weakness and motor skills slowness. Again, Judge, you've come a little to late to convince me that God cannot work miracles in answer to prayer today. And, surely, you must admit that not all miracles in the Bible were instantaneous. Although, I did witness my wife get an instantaneous healing one night in Chicago, Illinois from what we determined must have been an extremely serious case of food poisoning. When our pastor came over and anointed her with oil in the name of Jesus, and started to pray for her, she begin to weep, and she lifted her hands and within just a couple of minutes, sat straight up in the bed speaking in that heavenly language that you detest so badly. Afterward, she had no signs of the intense sickness and pain that she had had only minutes before. God healed her right there on the spot. So, again, Judge, you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince me that God is out of the healing business and out of the miracle business ... and that it is NOT for us today. Does God love His children today any less than He did about 2,000 years ago? I think not! You can deny the manifestations of the Spirit of the Living God all you want, but you really ought to stop poisoning other people's wells with your garbage. The power of the Holy Ghost is NOT for the purpose of putting on dog and pony shows. But the power of the Holy Ghost has NOT diminished ... except in the lives of people who have squelched it down. God is just as real in our lives as will allow Him to be. I am convinced of that. And He is such a Gentleman (so to speak) that He will NOT impose on anyone. If they don't want Him around, or they refuse to accept what He has for them, He's not going to cram it down their throat anyway. That's just the plain and simple facts of it.



Judge Larry: Thus, even according to our anonymous, frightened friend, one need not "experience" a thing to believe in it, for though he himself has not personally "experienced" or seen Jesus "face to face," yet he believes in him and what he did for the sins of the world.


Bobby: Well, Judge, the reason this person believes it and accepts it, instead of rejects it, is probably largely due to this person having read about Jesus in the Bible. You, on the other hand have read about the power of the Holy Ghost operating in the "original" New Testament Church in the Bible, but deny that power today, just like Paul told Timothy some would do in the last days in 2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


Judge Larry: Christians do not deny that tongues speaking, as defined and described in the New Testament, does not occur today because they have not "experienced" it (Acts 2:4-11). Christians do not deny that men cannot walk on water today, as some did in the New Testament, because they have not experienced it (Matt. 14:25-29). Mr. Anonymous ("because I'm ashamed to openly defend my doctrine") has not walked on water, nor have any of his brethren. Yet, he believes it was done. Would he say men may walk on water today as Jesus and Peter did? If not, would he be denying the power of God? I have met men who claimed they have walked on water as Jesus did. Must our anonymous respondent "experience" it before he will believe his Pentecostal brother's claim?


Bobby: The ONLY reason Jesus allow Peter to walk on the water is because Peter challenged what they thought was a Spirit out there on the water that night. Peter said that if it was really the Lord to bid him to come to him. That was a far cry from the kind of stuff you are, more or less, daring people to do and/or to admit they haven't done it. Far be it from me to try to demonstrate my spirituality to you ... or anyone else for that matter ... in any manner that would even remotely resemble your dog and pony shows. Paul picked up some fire wood, when they were ship wrecked on an island, and a very poisonous viper bit him on the hand. Paul didn't put on a dog and pony show to demonstrate to all about his spirituality. He just shook the viper off into the fire and went about his business. Because he didn't drop dead right away, the natives of the island thought he was some sort of god. That's the kind of stuff you really ought to be looking for, Judge, NOT these dog and pony shows. Just real people who have experienced real supernatural things in their life ... NOT some grand production to strut and boast.

* * * conclusion of points 1-3 of the Unknown Tongue article * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 30
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:58 PM
Subject: The Unknown Tongue - Points 4-10 responded to


NOTE: While this is going out to the Judge and Jason, they are still blocked until AFTER I go through the material I said I was going to go through. Afterward, I will unblock them so they can counter.


Judge Larry: Fourth, in this same connection, he says, "I speak from experience." This assertion is supposed to convince us of the divine origin of his claim to speak in "an unknown tongue." Mormons say they, too, "speak from experience." They testify that God has assured them that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith is his prophet. So does the Muslim testify who says that the Koran is a book of God and that Mohammed is his prophet. "I speak from experience," they all say. If that is "proof" of the divine truth and reality of Mr. Anonymous's "experience," why is it not sufficient to establish the heavenly veracity of the Mormons and the Muslims? Why should we believe him and not them?



Bobby: You know, Judge, you may have just stumbled on to something, quite by accident. Your question give a whole new meaning for the purpose of tongues. Well, actually, it's not a new meaning at all. I believe it is articulated in the Bible as being a "sign" for the unbeliever. You don't believe in tongues today, and unless or until you actually hear someone speak in tongues that know for a fact aren't putting on a dog and pony show, you're probably not going to believe the Word of God about the purpose, function and operation of tongues in the life of a believer ... or in the Church. I think I've said this before, but since you'll probably never be in a place to witness this ... that is with an open heart and an open mind ... you're probably going to continue on down the road of your man made theology. And that is truly sad. But, hey, if that's what you are bound and determined you're gonna do, break bad, big guy. However, you really ought to think twice about getting others to go down that road with you, according to my understanding of the Word of God about the blind leading the blind.


Judge Larry: Assumption and assertion will not suffice. Pagan witch doctors say they speak in heavenly languages and work wonders and miracles of healing. One of them could say, "I speak from experience." Would that assertion prove their case, too? Why should we believe the Pentecostals but not the pagans?


Bobby: You are correct! Assumption and assertion will not suffice. That's why it is super important that the Bible validates anything and everything you and I say, do and think about Spiritual matters. And the Word of God is repleat with documentation and validation for speaking in tongues in a person's personal prayer life for edification AND in the Church for the edification of the congregation. It just doesn't fit into your indoctrinated mold, and you utterly reject it, that's all. While we're on the subject of assumptions and assertion, now would be a good time for you to start practicing what you preach about assumptions and assertions ... and start speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent, leaving off all of your assumptions and assertions. As far as pagans and witch doctors are concerned, where do you think the cross came from ... and why do you think Jesus was crucified on a cross? It has long before the crucifixion been a pagan symbol, and remains one to this very day. Pagan Rome executed people on this pagan symbol. This is just another reason why the crucifixion of Jesus was so terrible. The sinless Saviour of the world, nailed to a pagan symbol of torture, Rome. Now, just because the cross has special significance to a Christian (and I have a cross on the front cover of my Bible), that does NOT means I am worshipping the pagan cross. For some reason, I get the feeling this is going right over your head, or you aren't listening to a word I say. At any rate, just because there are counterfeit works of darkness ... which includes speaking in tongues ... that does NOT mean all who speak in tongues are doing so by the power of darkness. And that, my man, is where you are missing the boat BIG TIME! As a matter of fact, you don't even know what a dis-service you are doing the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, which I've noticed you've not one time claimed to embrace. Could it be that if you made that assertion, you know you would have to deny some of your indoctrination AND really need to go back to a whole bunch of people that you have, no doubt, influenced through the years and confess your error? I say it could be. It's certainly something for you to think about. Eternity is gonna be a very long time, and there ain't nothing worth even taking a chance of falling short.



Judge Larry: Fifth, what is that "heavenly language" ? Our covert correspondent needs to define it for us. His Pentecostal brethren cannot agree among themselves.


Bobby: Ummm, Judge, I believe it would be the "unknown tongue" as opposed to the "other tongues" ... which I realize you don't have a clue about the purpose or funciton of either. If you will go back and re-read 1 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Corinthians Chapters 12 and 14, you might ... and I say might ... begin to start getting a handle on it. I believe Paul was referring to the heavenly language, or unknown tongue, when he made reference to his speaking with the tongues of men, AND angels and also praying and singing with the Spirit and praying and singing with the understanding. Also, you might want to take another look at Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."



Judge Larry: (1) Some say that "heavenly language" is a Spirit generated utterance which is not a language, but an oral expression of ecstacy, and "ecstatic utterance." This cannot be true, for "There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning" (1Cor. 14:10). If there are such utterances, all one is doing is speaking into the air and is to be seen as a "barbarian" (1 Cor. 14:9-11).



Bobby: I don't know where you are getting your information, but you'd be a whole lot better off if you would just stay with the terminology found in the Word of God concerning Spiritual matters. Speaking in tongues is the most refreshing, relaxful, peaceful and grandest experience I've ever encountered ... bar none. And all of that is precisely why most folks turn to booze, drugs (legal and illegal) and/or illicit sex and the associated perversions .. in search of another high, another buzz ... to escape the doom fulfilling cycle of life they feel trapped in. However, looking for love in all the wrong places will lead to more problems than it could possibly ever solve ... not to mention the head aches, hang overs, mully grubs, guilt, depression and various and sundry other "down" feelings. At any rate, to stay with the Word, the Apostle Paul says when a person is speaking in an unknown tongue (which no man can understand), the person is speaking to God, NOT man, and the unknown tongues edifies this person, as their spirit is praying and making intercession with groanings with cannot be uttered.



Judge Larry: (2) Others say they are ecstatic utterances which are a special "heavenly language," wherein one speaks to God, not men. If there is such a passage, it conflicts with 1 Corinthians 14:9, "So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." Again, if there is such a "heavenly language," where is the proof? What passage so states? Most cite 1 Corinthians 14:2, "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries." Note the text. Why does one speak not unto men but not God? Is it because the language is a "heavenly" one? No, see the passage; it tells us why one speaks "not unto men but unto God." "For no one understands him!" That is true if I speak in the Russian language to an assembly in America. The Russian tongue is a real language, but if I speak it to an English speaking audience, I speak "not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth (me)." Thus, the fact that none understand what is spoken does not prove a heavenly language has been spoken.



Bobby: WHEW! Judge, you tried to go clean across town on a dime that time, didn't you??? By the way, now that you are in the "proof" mode, where is the Scripture which refers to Almighty God the Father as "three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXITENT persons", and that is precisly what you believe. So, keep the saying in mind that people who live in a glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Now, let's see if I can unravel your convoluted mess. I can see how, in an oral debate, you would be able to confuse and mislead folks who are not Biblically literate, and run the clock down with such a convoluted mess that, it would be next to impossible to get it all unraveled in just one 20 minute session. And I am now convinced more than ever that you would be a real Scriptural contortion artist every time you got up. Therefore, we will have to agree on unlimited time to respond to assertions by the other. If people who can't stay, get up and leave, so be it. They can get a tape or video of the debate. I ain't going to half do anything when it comes to the Word of God. And I ain't going to allow this thing to be a dog and pony show. No siree, Bob. It is going to be like a trial before a jury with NO time limits. However, this is all dependent upon you answering the questions that, so far, it appears you couldn't be melted and poured on them. Basically, I'm going to try to unravel this tangled yarn of yours, having to do with the "unknown" tongue (which no man understands) and "other" tongues (which can be interpeted).

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


Now, here's where I have to stop to point out the fact that, since there are tongues which can be intepretated and tongues which cannot be interpreted. The Judge wouldn't know if he was plowing or planting after verse 28. That's because not only does he not have a clue about tongues in general, he doesn't know there is more than one type of tongues and more than one operation of tongues. I hope verses 2, 4 and 14 are easy enough for all to understand, that speaking in an unknown tongue is intercessory prayer between a person's spirit and Almighty God, which edifies the individual ... and which can't be understood by anyone else, which would mean there would be no eaves droppers, listening to what is being said to God. It's personal and private. Whereas, the gift of tongues operating in the Church can be interpreted and understood, that the whole congregation can be edified. However, verse 27 describe how this type of tongues are to be governed in a worship service. This type of tongues should be spoken by no more than three, and that by course ... one at a time, not everyone at once ... and one should interpret what was said. Now, notice very carefully what Brother Paul says in verse 28. If there is no interpreter, let him keep silence (NOT SILENT) in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. (Which puts us right back at verse 2, where it says that a person who speaks in an "unknown" tongue is speaking to God because no one could interpret it if they wanted to. It's "unknown". Now, back to the "silent" part. The Bible does NOT say, if there be no interpreter, let him SHUT UP. It says to keep silence. Silence is maintained by not taking charge of OR disrupting the service. Like, when a women has to take a child out who is causing a disturbence. That is what is required to keep and/or maintain silence. I sometimes use the analogy of a public library. People can talk inside the library, but they should help keep ... or maintain ... silence, and not be disruptive. Now, for the Judge (who, I hope, ain't causing me to cast pearls to be trambled on), and any of you who don't know this, a message to a church in tongues that is interpreted is an awesome experience in its self. During some point of the worship service, everything gets very, very quiet. People are usually very still, very quiet, and will have their eyes closed. I mean the whole congregation. Not even a baby will be whimpering. It will get so quiet you could almost hear a pin drop. If everyone's mind is in one accord, somewhere in the congregation, there will just explode a very pronounced, somewhat loud and authoritative, fluent flow of utterance of words. To which, shortly thereafter, there will almost always be (but not always) another explosion of words coming from the interpret somewhere else in the congregation. The messages I have personally heard have all had to do with the Second Coming of our Lord, the urgency of the hour in which we live, and/or an admonishment to the church to tighten up, lest any be found asleep at the switch. There have been times when I've heard a message in tongues like this go forth and there would be no interpreter in the congregation. And that, to me, is a great disappointment and frustration. God hasn't given me this gift of tongues, or interpretation for that matter, but I personally know people who do have these gifts. And when the Holy Ghost is ministering to them, and through them, it is really awesome. You can tell it ain't them pulling some kind of shenanigan. Now, having said that, is it possible that there are false churches with control freak people in charge, who do pull these kinds of shenanigans? You'd better believe it. Which is why, we are to "know them who labour among us". As for those who blaspheme (whether through ignorance or intentional) and make a mockery of the Holy things of God, I wouldn't want to be within 10 miles of them during a lightening storm. Unless they repent, they have a huge bull's eye painted on them, and it's just a matter of time before God has enough of their junk. Once they cross the line ... the point of no return ... where God's Spirit will no longer strive with them ... they're as good as dead ... and toasted. Take heed to this stuff, Judge. I'm as serious as I know how to be, right now.




Judge Larry: (3) A few say they are the tongues of angels. This shifts gears without pushing in the clutch! We are discussing tongues of men, tongues which are "in (this) world" (1 Cor. 14:9-11). Hear these cogent comments with respect to men who might be said to speak with "the tongues of angels."



Bobby: **IF** it ain't possible for a man to speak with the tongues of angels, what is your explanation for the Apostle Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. ((Are you asserting that Paul did NOT speak with the tongues of angels, or with the tongues of men, either? Or are you just playing your little shell game, again?))


Judge Larry: "Paul supposed a hypothetical case, and said, �if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." We know he spoke in human languages, but we do not know that he spoke in the language of angels (1 Cor. 14:18, 19).


Bobby: BONK! No, no, no, you ain't getting away with your false assertion. **IF** Paul spoke with one of them, he spoke with both of them. You ain't splitting them by saying Paul supposed a hypothetical case here. That ain't gonna fly, Judge. Man, I cringe to think of how many people you have caused to believe your false assertions. This is pitiful. I mean it. Of course we know Paul spoke the human language. And you may not know whether or not Paul spoke in the tongues of angels or not, but Paul certainly did admit that he spoke in tongues, and prayed and sung with the Spirit AND with the understanding. Judge, I ain't gonna let you white wash this. Even from you flawed theological standpoint you can't say that Paul did NOT speak in the tongues of angels. And I can't understand why any sincere and honest Bible student/teacher would try. And notice I did say "sincere and honest".


Judge Larry: "The reference to tongues of angels may well be a superlative, just as Paul's statement that though we or an angel preach any other gospel we are to be anathema (Gal. 1:8). Paul was not saying that an angel from heaven would preach another gospel, but emphasizing the fact that the gospel is the only and the final gospel. Just so, even if one spoke with the tongues of men, but had not love, he was nothing. This superlative underscores the fundamental importance of love.


Bobby: "May well be a superlative"??? And you just got through yacking about assumptions and assertions a while ago. Man, you need to repent! Just go ahead and get real and admit it, Judge, the Bible contradicts your theology here, and you're just trying to white wash it. Instead of, truly being hungry and thirst for all of God's Word, you are going down the line like you at a Picadilly Restaurant, taking what you like and chunking the rest. Look, Brother Paul was anointed to write what he wrote. God knew, but Brother Paul did NOT know that there would be a man come on the scene 1800 years later (or whatever it was) who claimed an angel gave him another gospel message. I have a bunch of Mormon friends whom I dearly love, but Paul nailed 'em in Galatians Chapter One. Our God doesn't miss a beat. He has it all under control. I'll tell you something else. Centuries before the UNIVERSAL "mother" church rose to world power, God showed her to John on the isle of Patmos. And he marveled with great admiration, which now doubt blew his mind to see what was coming on the earth in the years to come. You can read about her in Revelation Chapter 17. She is called the Great Whore, the "mother" of harlots (which means she has some whore daughters). The seven heads of the beast she is riding is the seven moutains where she sits. Ever heard of the seven hills of Rome? And speaking of her whore daughters, you are aware the excommunicated monk who started the Reformation retained the core doctrine of the mother church, don't you? Yep! Ole Martin made the man made theory that was born in the mother church, the doctrine of the Protestant movement. The doctrine of "three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT persons" in the Godhead. Judge, you'd better wake up, I'm telling you!



Judge Larry: "In his commentary Matthew Pool suggested that just as manna was called angels' food (Psa. 78:25), without suggesting that angels ate, but that it was a most excellent food, so Paul may mean that if one expressed himself in the most excellent way it can be described as the tongues of angels" (James D. Bales, Pat Boone And The Gift Of Tongues, 77).


Bobby: Oh, whoop-dee-doo! So, what's next on your list for understanding the Bible, the Old Farmer's Almanac? Judge, if you don't see the danger of what you are doing, I surely pity you.


Judge Larry: Which of the three views of what constitutes a "heavenly language," as cited above, is correct? And why cannot men who claim they are led by the Spirit agree on what it is they are speaking when they speak this "heavenly language"? The fact that they contradict one another and give conflicting explanations shows they do not have the Spirit they say they have.


Bobby: It doesn't matter what man says, does or thinks. The Word of God is forever settled in Heaven. It is NOT at the mercy of what people who may disagree about something may say about some aspect of it. Look, the contention over John Mark became so sharp between Paul and Barnabus that they literally parted ways. Did that mean that one of them ... or both of them ... was wrong for going to re-visit the brethren? I don't think so. I disagree with people about Sciptural things from time to time, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or evil or anything like such.


Judge Larry: Sixth, His alleged gift, this "heavenly language, edifies "the Church," he says. What church? Which church? Since he says he was "not raised Pentecostal," I am left to assume that he is now "Pentecostal."
However, the Bible never speaks of a "Pentecostal church" of any kind. In the New Testament, "Pentecost" was a day, not a church, not an "experience," nor a "tongue." It was never used to designate believers in Christ, not even those who had received Holy Spirit baptism and spoken in tongues. Obviously, therefore, the Bible never speaks of anyone edifying a "Pentecostal church," as he claims to do.


Bobby: Man, Judge, you are really one whacked out, vile, and corrupt excuse for a self proclaimed man of God. Just what to you think the Church is? Do you think it's a building or a denomination? The Church is PEOPLE. Flesh and blood, living and breathing human beings. I've already explained to you why the term "Pentecostal" is associated with everything you hate about those who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. It's similar to the reason Legionaires' Disease is called what it is. And for you spout off that this person was incapable of edifying a "congregation" is about as arrogant and judgmental as I've ever heard in all my years of discussing and debating the Scritptures. I almost had to repent for typing something having to do with your head, which I've already had to retract, apologize and repent over. But, man, you can get down there lower than a rattle snake's belly in a wagon rut, when you spout off the kind of stuff you just spouted off. Not that I would ever do it, but it would really surprise me if someone in the audience, who ain't got it together quite as good as they need to, hasn't stomped down front and rung your bell at some point in some of your dog and pony shows. That is, if you talk to everybody like that. Oh, and one more thing. While I am not a member of the Church of God denomination, and do not embrace their three persons in the Godhead theology either, yours is only mentioned in the Bible once (and it is in the plural then) whereas theirs is mentioned by name, 7-8 times. What do you make of that? It doesn't mean anything to me. But I would be curious to know what you think about it.




Judge Larry: Too, when Paul exhorted a church to grow and be edified, even one that had received miraculous gifts of the Spirit, he turned them to the word of God for that growth. "And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; Cf. 19:5, 6).



Bobby: Who was Paul talking to? Isn't it your position that only the Apostles were endued with these miraculous gifts of the Spirit? The other 12 Apostles were endued with these miraculous gifts of the Spirit years before Paul's conversion. And I fail to understand why they needed someone who came along later to tell them something they already had knowledge of. Now, if you are finally admiting other Christians were endued with miraculous power, then you've opened a whole new can of words ... from your indoctrinational stand point. Which, by the way, would take us back to 1 Corinthians and the "unknown" tongue and "other" tongues stuff, wouldn't it? Following your theology, if it is like most in your sect I've debated, the church at Corinth was having problems because of some of the 12 Apostles were going there, and they weren't handling this miraculous stuff properly. Now that would give a unique new prospective to your dog and pony show, wouldn't it? Would you care to elaborate on this, Judge? Hummmm???



Judge Larry: This commendation comports with Peter's command. "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby" (1Pet. 2:2; Cf. Jas. 1:21). Even in the days of spiritual gifts, it was the word of God, whether through prophecy or men speaking God's message in language which could be understood, which edified the church (1 Cor. 14:5).


Bobby: The Word of God is exceedingly important. And I wouldn't agree with anything that conflicts with the Word of God, regardless if a glowing angel was standing in front of me telling something that did not line up with the Word of God. However, I want you to enlighten me as to time, you believe, God withdrew some of the nine gifts of the Spirit which He placed in the Church. I'll give you proof that God did, indeed, place them in the church. Now, I want you to give me proof that God took any of them out ... and when. Will you do that for me, Judge??? I've about had it with your ignorance.


1 Corinthians 12
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the 1) word of wisdom; to another the 2) word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another 3) faith by the same Spirit; to another the 4) gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the 5) working of miracles; to another 6) prophecy; to another 7) discerning of spirits; to another 8) divers kinds of tongues; to another the 9) interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.


Now, Judge, it is put or shut up time, I'm afraid. Let's see you Scripturally prove that God has removed or is going to remove any of the nine gifts of the Spirit in the true Church of the Living God BEFORE the last trump.


Judge Larry: Seventh, anonymous affirms that, "In my life time of be used in this gift of God it has never brought harm are confusion to the Body of Christ." As we have shown above, many of Mr. Anonymous's claims are confused for they do not fit the outline of Scripture. As such they are hurtful and harmful, deceptive and destructive (Rom. 16:17, 18). His words will eat as doth a cancerous tumor. His doctrines will lead to more and more ungodliness (2 Tim. 2:16-18). Because of that, he must be opposed and exposed. If he truly believes his remarks will edify and not confuse people, why does he hide behind his cowardly shield of anonymity?



Bobby: Oh, that's just ripe with godly wisdom, coming from a man who puts himself forth as a minister of God. NOT! You, Larry, I wouldn't allow you to preach to my dog if I had one. Your claims are the ones which do not fit the outline of Scripture. Your claims are hurtful and harmful, deceptive and destructive ... and no telling how many people have believed your error and desception. Your words have, no doubt, already eaten many as doth a cancerous tumor. Your doctrines will lead to more and more ungodliness. And because of that, I want your direct answers to the remaining 7 of the following 8 questions via return email after you have received my last email Scripturally refuting the one remaining article of your which I pulled up off the Internet, (which I hope to have done within the next day or two) so we can schedule that oral debate in Bogue Chitto, MS.

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (the Judge's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


Judge Larry: Eighth, "tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe" (1 Cor. 14:22). Our anonymous correspondent says his "heavenly language" is used to edify the church. How does he use it as a "sign...to unbelievers"? Or does he? Can unbelievers understand his "heavenly language"? If so, do they need an interpreter? What can he tell unbelievers through his alleged gift that the unbeliever cannot learn by studying the Bible?


Bobby: Judge, studying the Bible is essential, except in those cases where the person is only picking and choosing the parts that harmonize with their indoctrination, and either bending the rest to make it fit, or ignoring it. Tongues are for sure for a sign to unbelievers. But tongues are used for more than just a sign to unbelievers, as I have already sufficiently documented from the Word of God. Also, I have Scripturally documented how it is that a person speaking in tongues (that can be interpeted) can edify the whole congregation. Whatever an unbeliever would hear would not becoming from the individual's own intellect, it would be words spoken as the Spirit of God gave that person utterance. It's sort of like the flow of an artesian well. It's not a bunch of gibberish some body is spewing. Not the real deal, anyway. I think I have already gone on record, stating that there are counterfeit works of darkness working in some congregations. However, for someone like you to come along and throw all of it into the trash bin, just because your indoctrination opposes it, borders on insanity.



Judge Larry: Further, in the connection, if no one understands his "heavenly language," he is to keep silence, if there is no interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27, 28). Does Mr. Anonymous ("because I'm afraid you might give me a verse") abide by this direction of the Holy Spirit? Does the church he attends allow two, or at the most three, to speak in order and have one to interpret? That is what the Spirit says should be done. If they do not, they are not being led by the Holy Spirit of God, for the Spirit today would not lead one to contradict what he (the Holy Spirit) said to do in the Bible.



Bobby: Why would you possibly care what goes on in this other person's congregation, and whether or not they are in compliance with the governing of Spiritual gifts? My grandmother used to tell me I should sweep around my own door steps before I swept around someone elses. I'd put the farm up that nobody in your own congregation speaks in an unknown tongue as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. So why do you think that would make yours any better off than this person, even if they weren't governing the operation of the Spiritual gifts as they should?


Judge Larry: Ninth, he says, "some things are not debatable," but simply have to be accepted. If so, why is he debating or discussing it with me? Why did he bother to write me if the issue of his "heavenly language" is "not debatable"? Is it "debatable" that men can raise the dead today? Is it "debatable" that men will not be hurt today "if they drink any deadly thing" (Mk. 16:18)? I wonder if it is "debatable" as to whether our anonymous friend takes up serpents (Mk. 16:18)? Remember, his tongues are "authorized" in the same passages as are the serpents and the drinking of "deadly" liquids (Mk. 16:17-20). Yes, I think it is "debatable" as to whether our friend actually does those things!


Bobby: I can't answer as to why he wrote you. But, I can tell God can still do everything today that He did 2,000 years ago. But, I can assure you it done for the purpose of appeasing hypocrites at a dog and pony show. You are just like the hypocritical Pharisees who were always looking for a sign from Jesus. They didn't believe Him. They dispised Him. They're only interest was to try and catch Jesus in some sort of trap to either discredit and/or embarrass Him. Of course, Jesus wasn't too fond of them either. And if you'll take the time to read the 23rd Chapter of the Book of Matthew, you will see what I'm talking about. Which, by the way, is where Jesus refers to them as serpents and vipers (the exact same Greek word that was translated "serpent" in Mark 16:18 about "taking up serpents". Hmmmm. Didn't know that, did you Judge? Also, I can tell you that everything in the Bible is not to be interpreted LITERALLY as you do all the time ... when it fits into your indoctrinational mold. Here's what the father said, in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son ... Luke 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. ... Judge, was the prodigal son LITERALLY dead? There are spiritually dead people everywhere you look today. And I'm doing what I can to raise some of 'em. And, thank God, some are being raised. I also deal with serpents quite a bit, and am feeling like I'm dealing with one right now.



Judge Larry: Tenth, and finally, tongues are languages. In the New Testament, those who spoke in tongues, were miraculously enabled to speak languages, or tongues, they had never studied and never learned. In Acts 2, men from many nations heard the apostles speak in their tongues, their languages, and they understood them (Acts 2:4-11). It is one of those "things that are not debatable." It is not being done today by the Pentecostals, nor by anyone else. And, that is "not debatable," either!


Bobby: I have already deal with the different types of tongues "unknown" AND "other". And I have explained their function and purpose. There really isn't anything else to say, but to point out that **IF** the 12 Apostles (13 counting Paul) were the only ones in the New Testament Church who have ever spoken in tongues as the Spirit of God gave utterance, did you cut Acts 10:46 and Acts 19:6 out of your Bible? Also, if tongues are for a sign for unbelievers, and since Peter in Acts 10 and Paul in Acts 19 already knew the gospel message and believed, why did any of those folks speak in tongues anyway? Furthermore, according to your indoctrination, Paul had to have been talking to some of the other 12 Apostles in 1 Corinthians concerning tongues .. and NOT the church as a whole. That's really messed up, Judge.

* * * conclusion of points 4-10 of Unknown Tongue article * * *
* * * and conclusion of Unknown Tongue article * * *
* * * one more article remaining * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 31
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:28 AM
Subject: The Judge and Jason are now unblocked ....


After I went back and checked my records, I realized that there is NOT another article which I said I was going to respond to. I have completed what I said I was going to do ... Scripurally refuted POINT BY POINT the Judge's so called "Jesus Only", "Pentecostal In Experience" and "Unknown Tongue" articles, that I obtained by searching the Internet. There was four of them all together ... 2 Jesus only articles, and one each of the other two. I do have some more of his stuff that was sent to me, but since I've done what I said I was going to do ... and have Scripturally refuted these articles POINT BY POINT, without skipping over anything ... and without leaving out parts of the subject matter of his articles.

The Judge and Jason are now unblocked

Now, I want the Judge to answer the remaining 7 of the following 8 questions. And then we'll see where we go on this oral debate business. By the way, Judge and Jason, I am NOT going to spend any more of my time on any more of the prattle and posturing. It's time to fish or cut bait. **IF** either one of you decide to counter any of my POINT BY POINT responses to the Judge's material, that I have reponded to, be real sure you don't fail to respond to everything you take exception to. Because, whatever you don't counter is going to stand unchallenged as Truth in its entirety, and accurate. I ain't gonna let either one of you pick and choose what you want to counter, and then claim you countered everything. Again, any part of my reponses that you do not counter, will stand as unchallenged Truth in its entirety, and accrurate.


Here's those questions I keep trying to get direct answers to ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (the Judge's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 32
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: Input from Oberserve ... a BOMBSHELL for the Judge AND Jason ...


Robert: Bro Bobby, It seems "Judge Larry likes to quote "James D. Bales, Pat Boone And The Gift Of Tongues." I wonder why he doesn't quote James Bales in the same book talking about the Church of Christ Bible Schools saying, "There are cells of tongues speakers in more than one congregation" and that there are tongues speakers on their Bible school campuses. (Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues).


Bobby: To be honest with you, I am not familar with the book. I do read books from time to time, but I don't read books anything like a lot of folks do. Most of my reading and studying is focused on the Bible, Bible Dictionary, Concordance, and or other study material along those lines. Am I belittling anyone who does a lot of reading of books and other stuff than that which I focus my attention on? Absolutely NOT! However, given the Judge's propensity to distort things rather severely AND only applies from the Bible that which fits into his indoctrinated mold ... instead of being open and honest with himself AND those with whom he deals ... I imagine he stays true to form, and remains consistent, in his picking only those things which harmonizes with his man made theology.


Robert: James Bales also writes that "I have learned of cells of tongues speakers in congregations in different parts of the country and in some colleges maintained by the brethern". He asks "WHY?" (Pentecostalism In The Church, p.4) Ben Franklin was considered by Firm Foundation publishers (a "Church of Christ" firm) to be the "greatest New Testament preacher of this century". He has now received the baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues. He has the following words to say to his former brethern:

"As I studied I became aware that mine and the brotherhood's approach to the Holy Spirit question called for side-stepping certain passages, lifting others from their context, and building doctrine on assumptions."

"I came to realize that there was no passage of scripture, taken in its own context, which stated that the miraculous would cease when the original apostles died or the New Testament was written."

Robert (continued): You would expect to hear this from a Pentecostal preacher, but this is from their own brotherhood. Ben Franklin has answered James Bales question of "WHY," and said it far better than I ever could. It is hoped his brethern will take heed to those things which many of their former leaders are saying. My prayer is that all of our "Church of Christ" friends who read this may join the growing company who are receiving the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. Pat Boone expressed it in the following words: "Today, more and more devoted members of our beloved Church of Christ are discovering the reality of the Holy Spirit." (Pat Boone. A New Song. Carol Stream, Ill.:Crearton House, 1970).

The following quotations are from some of the founding fathers of the movement which believes itself to be the Church of Christ.

J.W.McGarvey. Lard's Quarterly. Vol.I, no. 4, June 1964

"The lover of truth should never be a dogmatist nor conclude that on any subject he has nothing more to learn. But he should stand ready whenever his conclusions, even those of which he is most confident are challenged on the basis of new reasons...I have for some years been convinced that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is not fully understood and that it needs investigation and discussion de novo".

Thomas Munnel. Lard's Quarterly. Vol. II.2,Jan. 1865.

"All who have capacity enough to admit some of our views on this subject (i.e. "Church of Christ" theories on the Holy Spirit baptism) may have been erroneous will no doubt be benefited by reading up on the discussion. Those who are too weak to make such an admission would do well to spend their time in some other way".



Robert (continued): I would encourage our friends who believe they are working with the Church of Christ to heed the admonitions of these early founders of their own movement. If they do they will be in good company. Scores are leaving denominationalism and receiving this New Testament baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many of those who were for years leaders in the denominational "Church of Christ" are receiving this experience.

Tom Roberts in the Gospel Guardian says that the number has now "almost reached epidemic proportions". (cf. Jan. 1971 Issue, p.8)

Testimonies of some Church of Christ Ministers, Elders, and laymen who have received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues. You can read about them at

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/churchofchrist.htm

Ben Franklin ; Dean Dennis ; Pat Boone ; Forrest H. Wells ; Donald R. Hurley ;Dwyatt Gantt ; William R. Epperson ;W. L. Wilson ; Jim C. Noblitt

T. C. Wisenbaker ; Paul Logue ; Curtis Lydic ; Lester E. Nichols, MD .


Bobby: WOW! Bro. Robert, that information ... and documentation ... is very, very revealing, AND is, no doubt, a BOMBSHELL for any and all who are in denial like the Judge, obviously, is. It would, no dobut, be invaluable in an oral debate. I personally know an Apostolic minister (today) who was once a member of the Church of Christ sect. However, I was NOT aware there was such a great "awakening" among their ranks. But, let me hasten to add, it really comes as no surpries to me, as it is my firm conviction that anyone ... regardless of their religious affiliation ... who can read and understand, and who truly hungers and thirsts for righteousness, can ... and will ... be shown the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine right from the Word of God, as they diligently read and study it. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because that is precisely what happened to me. I had no earthly idea that my religious cart was going to be turned upside down when I started independently reading and studying the Bible with an open (and hungry) heart and mind, years ago. I truly believe most honest hearted people today have grown weary of the dry, dead, dull, boring, hypocritical, legalistic and ritualistic forms of religious expression that they've been exposed to most all their life. This is because God is doing a mighty work in the last days. The Holy Ghost is convicting and moving upon people in their homes, in their cars, while driving down the highway (just like me at mile marker 7 years ago), on deer stands, while fishing on a lake ... and you name it. Anywhere God can get a person to slow down and do some serious soul searching and reflection, I am convinced He is doing all He can to draw them closer to Him, into that very intimate relationship of receiving the Holy Ghost ... "the Bible way." Trouble is, there are many folks like the Judge out there, who are doing their best to stand in the way and prevent anyone from entering that straight and narrow way which leads to eternal life, just as Jesus said of the relgious leaders about 2,000 years ago ...

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.


Now for the benefit of everyone, I am going to post the message content of the web site you gave above. It is dynamite! http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/churchofchrist.htm


THE MOVEMENT OF THE HOLY GHOST IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When God poured out the the Holy Ghost in Acts chapter 2 on about 120 believers, Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost told the multitude that had gather "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2:38-39). As long as God is still calling people to salvation, then they have the promise of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Today, approx 20 million people claim to have received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues. God is pouring out His Spirit upon all who believe on Him in faith, even in the denomination that calls itself "The Church of Christ". Yet, even from within this movement that denies God's promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, today many honest hearted souls are receiving this experience.

The following quotations are from some of the founding fathers of the movement which believes itself to be the Church of Christ.

J.W.McGarvey. Lard�s Quarterly. Vol.I, no. 4, June 1964

"The lover of truth should never be a dogmatist nor conclude that on any subject he has nothing more to learn. But he should stand ready whenever his conclusions, even those of which he is most confident are challenged on the basis of new reasons�I have for some years been convinced that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is not fully understood and that it needs investigation and discussion de novo".

Thomas Munnel. Lard�s Quarterly. Vol. II.2,Jan. 1865.

"All who have capacity enough to admit some of our views on this subject (i.e. "Church of Christ" theories on the Holy Spirit baptism) may have been erroneous will no doubt be benefited by reading up on the discussion. Those who are too weak to make such an admission would do well to spend their time in some other way".

I would encourage our friends who believe they are working with the Church of Christ to heed the admonitions of these early founders of their own movement. If they do they will be in good company. Scores are leaving denominationalism and receiving this New Testament baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many of those who were for years leaders in the denominational "Church of Christ" are receiving this experience.

Tom Roberts in the Gospel Guardian says that the number has now "almost reached epidemic proportions". (cf. Jan. 1971 Issue, p.8)

James D. Bales admits "There are cells of tongues speakers in more than one congregation" and that there are tongues speakers on their Bible school campuses. (Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues)

James D. Bales also writes that "I have learned of cells of tongues speakers in congregations in different parts of the country and in some colleges maintained by the brethern". He asks "WHY?" (Pentecostalism In The Church, p.4)

Ben Franklin was considered by Firm Foundation publishers (a "Church of Christ" firm) to be the "greatest New Testament preacher of this century". He has now received the baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues. He has the following words to say to his former brethern:

"As I studied I became aware that mine and the brotherhood�s approach to the Holy Spirit question called for side-stepping certain passages, lifting others from their context, and building doctrine on assumptions."

"I came to realize that there was no passage of scripture, taken in its own context, which stated that the miraculous would cease when the original apostles died or the New Testament was written."

You would expect to hear this from a Pentecostal preacher, but this is from their own brotherhood. Ben Franklin has answered James Bales question of "WHY," and said it far better than this author ever could. It is hoped his brethern will take heed to those things which many of their former leaders are saying.

My prayer is that all of our "Church of Christ" friends who read this may join the growing company who are receiving the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. Pat Boone expressed it in the following words: "Today, more and more devoted members of our beloved Church of Christ are discovering the reality of the Holy Spirit."

(Pat Boone. A New Song. Carol Stream, Ill.:Crearton House, 1970).




Testimonies of Church of Christ Ministers, Elders, and laymen who have received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues,



((Bobby's note: The following should be clickable links. If they don't show up that way, go directly to the web page, itself http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/churchofchrist.htm and access them from there))
Ben Franklin Dean Dennis

Pat Boone Forrest H. Wells

Donald R. Hurley Dwyatt Gantt

William R. Epperson W. L. Wilson

Jim C. Noblitt T. C. Wisenbaker

Paul Logue Curtis Lydic

Lester E. Nichols, MD




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 33
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: the Judge - harpooned ...


Not that I don't feel like sufficiently refuted the Judge or anything like that, but I just thought that while we wait this thing out to see if we're going to here anything else out of the Judge or Jason, or if an oral debate will ensue, it would be good to get the following on the record. It came from one of the clickable links (Ben Franklin) on the web page Bro. Robert told us about earlier ....

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/ben_franklin.htm



I Accepted the Challenge

by BEN FRANKLIN


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I PRAISE THE LORD for the understanding, patience, grace, mercy and love that He has for His erring creatures mankind! Where I once walked fearfully, self-righteously, legally, judgmentally, critically, negatively and ignorantly of a complete Gospel, I now, with the Scriptures and the Spirit in closer harmony and balance and a personal encounter with God through the Holy Spirit, draw near my Lord with a joy, peace, faith, trust, love and assurance I never knew before.

We Challenged a Prominent Evangelist

On September 22, 1955 nine of the larger congregations of the non-instrumental branch of the Church of Christ, acting in unison, inserted half-page advertisements in the Santa Ana, California Register, Orange County�s largest daily newspaper, offering $1,000 reward for one proven modern-day miraculous healing. The word of three local accredited medical doctors was all the proof required. A prominent evangelist engaged in a healing ministry had pitched his huge tent at the corner of the Santa Ana freeway and La Palma Street in Anaheim, and they were out to prove him. The money was in a Fullerton bank, and the offer was made in good faith. When the evangelist moved on at the end of his scheduled appearance without laying claim to the money, the congregations and their ministers who had inserted the ad, were sure that the miracles claimed during the meetings were false and the evangelist guilty of making merchandise of gullible people (II Peter 2:1-3). These men were sincere. I know, because since the congregation for which I preached was alphabetically ahead of the other eight, my name headed the list of those making the attack. I mention this here so that it can be held in contrast with my present views. Of course, God did heal and deliver many in those meetings. What I see now that I did not see then, was that I and my brethren were allowing externals to blind and hinder our objectivity to where we could not see what the Scriptures actually did say, and the results that really did occur through the prayer of faith.

Faithfulness to My Church

I had been born and raised in a Church of Christ environment. My father and a grandfather had been elders in that body. I had attended two colleges operated by our brethren. My wife�s family is of that persuasion. We have raised our five children in the church, with them rarely missing a service any time in any week from the time they were a week old, except for what our people call a providential hindrance." At the time of my breaking with my people over the matter of the Holy Spirit, I had been preaching for sixteen years in a number of congregations. I knew all of the reasons our people give for disbelieving in the miraculous for today, and believed that all such ceased with the writing of the New Testament.

In 1962 my family moved to the San Diego, California area where I became the minister for one of the larger congregations. f Shortly after settling there, word came that a well-known doctor and his wife, Church of Christ members from families which had also been such for generations, had received a baptism in the Holy Spirit. An elder and I were talking of this, and wondered how someone so well-grounded in the Scriptures and secularly educated could be led off into such an unscriptural doctrine. It occurred to us that such a doctrine might rise up among us, and that someone ought to make a more careful study of the matter so as to be able to "nip it in the bud," if and when it did. It was suggested that I make such a study, and I accepted the challenge.

Diligently Searching the Scriptures

Thus, as time from a busy ministry would allow, I began to study and compile information relating to the Holy Spirit. Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the study, I received a copy of Trinity magazine (no longer being published) in the mail from some anonymous sender. It was filled with well-written testimonies and teachings relating to a baptismal filling with the Holy Spirit occurring among ministers and lay people in many different mainline Christian denominations. The subjects were, in the main, well educated and consisted mostly of professional people, businessmen, teachers and clergymen. Realizing that these could not be dismissed as ignorant, psychotic, neurotic or hypnotic, I determined to search the Scriptures myself rather than depend upon the findings of someone else, regardless of how well thought of he was in the brotherhood.

In February of 1963 a minister�s retreat was held in the Laguna Mountains east of San Diego and I was assigned to conduct a forum on a subject of my own choosing. I prepared a questionnaire on the Holy Spirit, introduced it and sat back to listen. I was soon startled by what I was hearing. Here were over twenty prominent Church of Christ ministers - respected, honored, and familiar with the Scriptures. On most any subject they would instantly give chapter and verse to undergird their position, but here on the matter of the Holy Spirit they were not doing so. I heard coined brotherhood expressions, interpretations, explanations and assumptions - and such things as: "Let�s not rock the boat," "One might lose his pulpit if he said too much about this," and "Don�t forget how hard we have worked to get our standing in the brotherhood."

Some Criticism Was Unjustified

I left the retreat sensing that something was not right. For the next year or so I pursued the study at every opportunity, staying largely with the Scriptures themselves. I ran all the references in the Bible on the Holy Spirit and related matters, placed them in different categories for comparison, and made copius notes. At no time did I personally study with a "Pentecostal" preacher or teacher, or attend one of their meetings. I did secure several additional copies of Trinity, and several copies of VIEW and VOICE, publications of the Full Gospel Business Men�s Fellowship International. A few tracts also found their way into my hands. As I studied I became aware that mine and the brotherhood�s approach to the Holy Spirit question called for side-stepping certain passages, lifting others from their context, and building doctrine on assumptions. I came to feel that some of our criticism of those who believed in a baptism in the Holy Spirit was unjustified, and on the other hand to see that they had problems, abuses, traditions, and blind spots as well as we, and were trying to do something about them. I came to realize that there was no passage of scripture, taken in its own context, which stated that the miraculous would cease when the original apostles died or the New Testament was written. In fact, the Scriptures said nothing about an apostolic dispensation. I was surprised to find that reliable history records much miraculous activity centuries after the death of the apostles, and became aware that all basic Christian doctrines were initially given to the apostles with the intention of their being passed on to succeeding generations - including a filling with the Holy Spirit with accompanying manifestations. It surprised me to find that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2 :38-89) promised to all was what Cornelius and his household had received, accompanied with evidence seen and heard (Acts 2:33; 10:44-47). Our church doctrine maintained there was a difference.

New Words to An Old Tune

My study led me to see that in all of the Bible there was but one passage (I Cor. 13 :8-10) which even hinted that anything of the miraculous would cease at some time. Rather than stating that the manifesting agent would cease, it spoke of "parts" - that produced by the agent - ceasing. Thus it states that "prophecies," not "prophecy," would cease. The time when they would cease was based on Christian maturity ("perfect") and not on the apostolic lifetime or the writing of the New Testament, as our doctrine dictated. While only knowledge, prophecies and tongues were said to cease, I realized that we had added to the list to the point of removing all of the supernatural from the Scriptures, which are supposed to guide us into all truth. I noted that if "childish things" (I Cor. 13 :11) referred to the gifts rather than to the Corinthian Christians� behavior, then the Apostle Paul was giving strange admonitions in the 14th chapter when he time and again urged disciples to seek the gifts. Was he urging childishness? Of course not. Realizing that Paul was contrasting the divisive, factional, schismatic behavior of the Corinthians (I Cor. 12) with love rather than with the gifts, I saw that parts - a person, a gift, or both - are never the whole, and when used wrongly or rightly have only so much to contribute to the whole and then, having made their contribution, cease. It appears that Paul is saying, "Boast not in the limited part you are allowed to play, but seek instead and glory in the more permanent and important matters of faith, hope and love.��

An Attempt Toward Objectivity

One morning, alone in the church building, as I was contemplating these matters I pushed my chair from my desk and, singing at the top of my voice, made my way to the communion preparation room to make myself a cup of instant. The words and tune of the song I sang was, "How Great Thou Art," but my mind was on the other matters. I had heated the water and was pouring it on the instant, when I suddenly became aware that the words coming from my lips were to the same tune, but were not English. They were strange words, and while I did not cease singing, I did soften down considerably and found myself analyzing what was taking place. No power seemed to have hold of me, yet the words rolled out smoothly and fit perfectly with the tune. I had no idea of what word would come next and I knew that I could stop anytime I wanted to, which is what I did after a few moments of enjoying what was going on. I thought that if this was a tongue as mentioned in I Corinthians 14 then I should be able to speak. I tried, but to no avail. I began singing again and the strange words came, but I still couldn�t speak conversationally. In thinking of this I remember that I was not worked up emotionally, was not sick, and in no way felt abnormal. In fact, physically, mentally, and emotionally I was as normal as a normal, contented person could be.

While at the time I noticed nothing unusual about the above incident, in the following week, quite unconsciously at first, I became aware that I was beginning to look at others in a different light and to feel a depth of brotherly love and concern for everyone such as I had never felt before. When someone would confide in me, I had a genuine interest and found tears forming, which was unusual. Also, the Scriptures began to take on a new light and depth. In passages I had read all my life I now saw matters I had not seen before. Since I found myself unable to speak in a tongue, even with this singing experience, I was not ready to acknowledge that I had been filled with the Spirit but did sense that the Lord was at work in my life as He had not been before.

My Brotherhood Image Was Endangered

Realizing that true objectivity is one of the most difficult positions for a human being to achieve, I deliberately did not take my elders or even my wife into my confidence as I made my study, lest my objectivity be colored by my attachment to them. One day, after becoming certain in my own mind that the scriptures taught that the Holy Spirit�s power and the miraculous did belong to us today, regardless of what I had or had not seen, I told my wife what I had come to believe. She then admitted that she had in her own way been studying the same matter and had also come to the same conclusions. Feeling that God had so much more for us than we had allowed Him to give us, we decided to seek it even though it might mean dismissal from our church. However, before we did this, inasmuch as neither of us lay claim to being exceptional exegetes of the Scriptures, we determined to find out if someone else in the brotherhood with better brain power, education or experience had arrived at the same conclusion.

I Was Not Content With Singing

The Lord provided us with the means. A Christian gentleman, perhaps the best-known evangelist in the brotherhood, was coming to our congregation for a series of meetings. We agreed to take him into our confidence. Material was arranged in such a way as to be presented on charts. Two sheets were secured and prepared for the presentation. In addition to this brother I also invited a former college president and a minister-elder friend. On a Saturday morning the three listened for over two hours. Having no inkling of what was in store, they listened quietly, attentively, patiently and in amazement. At the conclusion, I asked them to please show me where I was mistaken. One of them said little, and later indicated basic agreement. The others used the same brotherhood arguments that I had used myself so often - largely assumptions, interpretations and explanations demanded by brotherhood position. When these failed, an appeal was made towards what such convictions would do to my brotherhood image, such as no church allowing me to preach and so on. If there had been any doubts about my new convictions prior to that meeting, they were all gone when it was concluded. The more they reasoned, the more apparent it became that the Lord had directed my study. I was Determined to be faithful to Him and my convictions, and praised Him for giving me these notable men with which to share them. May God hasten to open their eyes also.

On the following day (Sunday), my wife and I revealed our convictions to the elders and deacons, and on Monday evening were releaved of our duties. In order to feed my family we moved to Santa Ana, California where, due to the goodness of Christian loved ones, I went into the auto supply business and the Lord provided us with what we needed. We continued our studies and sought the Holy Spirit in His fullness. The wife and I and our two children who are still at home have all received the Spirit with the accompaning manifestation of tongues. Although I had sung in a language I did not understand, I was not content, and sought God until He blessed me with the ability to pray and converse with Him at will in a new tongue. This occurred on Sunday at midday, as I sat in a chair in an upstairs bedroom alone, not seeking a manifestation of the Spirit but just rejoicing in the Lord. Since then, I find that I can use this tongue almost at will.

The Spirit Works in All Denominations

We worshipped with the Church of Christ for awhile, but found it difficult to serve the Lord as we wished, since it was almost impossible to lead others to Him and then have them exposed to teaching from the pulpit and classroom that was adverse to a complete Gospel. In time we became identified with the Anaheim Christian Center Church where we became Bible school teachers and I became one of their elders. It was while at Christian Center that I was asked to move to San Diego and work with the downtown congregation of the Church of Christ. We made our convictions known to them and stipulated that in coming there would be no restrictions and that the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, not man, were to structure the congregation. This was acceptable to them. The Lord sold our business and our house and we are now back in San Diego.

God has led us to recognize that believing and accepting more of His Holy Spirit in our lives today does not necessarily make us any less a member of Christ�s Church or more a member of some other denomination. In fact, we can see that all religious organizations, as does the Church of Christ, have their share of customs, practices, and traditions which need to be scrutinized in the light of the Scriptures. Just as Jesus loved all the people of all the "denominations" existing in His day, and freely associated with them in an attempt to call out His sheep, so today the Holy Spirit belongs exclusively to none of our denominational bodies but works in all.




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 34
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Oral debate to convene in Lincoln County, MS at Larry's earliest convenience ...


Judge Larry: Bobby, As stated, all questions can be asked and will be answered in the open, public discussions which I have proposed. Larry (P.S. Bobby could you please send me a list of all the questions you have asked? I would like to have them in one file, please. Thanks. Larry)


Bobby: Judge, here's all that you need to concern yourself with right now. I am not going to do your homework for you. Go back and read it for youself (there will be a test on it). I'm going to accept you challenge to an oral debate in the Bogue Chitto/Brookhaven, MS area. I will secure a location and give you ample time to round up all the Church of Christ people you can get. I will not require you to bear any of the expense to advertise this debate, but it will be advertiseed it the local newspaper, shopper's guide, word of mouth, circulars, etc. Neither will I require you to have a certain number of people present, representing the Church of Christ. And you won't require me to have a certain number of people present, representing my beliefs. This debate will consist of the following, with NO TIME LIMITATIONS on either party to make an assertion, OR to respond to an assertion by the other side. Each of us will be permitted to pass out, or otherwise make available, charts, pamphlets, and any other literature that we so desire to the audience EVERY night. Each of us will be permitted to record the entire debate, via video and/or audio EVERY night. Each of us agrees to conduct ourself "as it becometh the gospel of Christ" (Phil. 1:27). It is also agreed that, EVERY NIGHT, each of us will request that there be no demonstrations from the audience. Hopefully, this debate can be concluded within four nights. However, I want it very clearly understood that this debate (regardless of what you've been accustomed to) will NOT be pre-programmed with a sceduled nightly ending time nor a scheduled ending time and/or date. Now, let's hurry up and get this debate rolling. We'll flip a coin, or draw straws, the first night to see who goes first. Here's what I will agree to ....


Larry will affirm the following, and Bobby will deny ....


1) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTIENT "persons" in the Godhead, i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


2) There are THREE "LORDS" in the Godhead ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


3.) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "Spirits" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


4.) All three of these THREE "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


5.) There are THREE "Saviours" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


6.) Prior to the Incarnation, Jesus existed as a completely separate and distinct "SPIRIT" than the trinitarian's God the Father and their God the Holy Spirit. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


7.) The vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written, VERBATIM, upon the pages of God's Holy Word validates and authorizes the belief of a trinity, as embraced and defended by the Church of Christ today, which is the belief in ONE Almighty God the Father, who exists in THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons", but who are ONE only in the sense that "THEY" are ONE in purpose, and are NOT the SAME Spirit, NOR the SAME Person. Therefore, documented proof for this belief goes all the way back to the Bible itself. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


8.) The belief in a trinity, i.e. THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTIENT "persons" in the Godhead did NOT originate from pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ. Therefore, the fact that pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle, had no significance or bearing on the belief of a trinity of THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, that is embraced and defended by the Church of Christ. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bobby will affirm the following, and Larry will deny ...

1.) There is only ONE PERSON of God. And the Godhead is the "very essence or complete nature and attributes" of this ONE PERSON, who was manifested, revealed, or made known, to mankind as ...

a. Almighty God the Father, who created everything by Himself; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

b. the Incarnate Christ ... Jesus ... who was Almighty God the Father in human form, had two natures (one human and one Divine), and was BOTH FULLY God AND FULLY man; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

c. the Comforter, the Holy Ghost .. or Spirit of Almighty God the Father ... abiding in the hearts of believers beginning with the inauguration of the "original" New Testament Church in Acts Chapter 2 and continuing throughout the entire New Testament Church Age until the last trumpet sounds. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

2.) There is ONLY ONE LORD in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

3.) There is ONLY ONE SPIRIT in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

4.) Only ONE SPIRIT dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

5.) There is ONLY ONE "Saviour" in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

6.) The Spirit which dwelled in the Incarnate Christ, existed prior to the Incarnation as Almighty God the Father. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

7.) The oldest writings which express a belief in a trinity, or refers to Almighty God the Father as "three persons", dates back to somewhere around 185 - 215 A.D. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

8.) Long before the concept of a "triune" God of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle. Therefore, the concept of a "Holy Trinity" was co-opt from this triad concept by the pagan Emperor Constantine (who was said to have become a Christian years later on his death bed), when the "UNIVERSAL" Church of Rome was officially inaguarated in 325 A.D. at the 1st General Council of Churches at Nice (known as the Council of Nicaea), convened by the Emperor, himself, and with him set up as the head of this Universal church of Rome. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please advise as to the earliest opening you have on your calendar for an oral debate with me for at least 4 nights, back to back ... but allowing for a possible overrun of a few nights.




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


EMAIL # 35
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:49 PM
Subject: Waiting on the Judge to set a date ...


Larry, I painstakingly responded to 4 of your articles via email, and Scripturally refuted them POINT BY POINT in very great detail. But now you won't answer the bell, and respond to anything, unless it is in an oral debate setting??? You know, Larry, I don't normally get this pumped about a Scriptural confrontation, as a matter of fact, I really prefer the laid-back, open and honest Bible discussions, as opposed to debates. But, that's all I've heard out of you from the beginning ... is this business about an oral debate. And, you know, I must confess, I am now actually looking forward to an oral debate with you. You've got a whole lot of stuff to give an account for when I finally do get it to to where you have to start giving some answers. I'm so anxious to debate you, Larry, that I'm going to oblige you by letting you set the beginning date of this debate, I'll work around what ever date you select. And, barring some type of unexpected and unavoidable tragedy or family emergency on either side, we'll finally get to the bottom of some things. However, I need you to send me the "START DATE" just as soon as you can possibly get it to me. Also, I will need any titles, and/or other descriptive stuff you want printed up about yourself, other than what I have listed below. Plus, I will need your city and state. I am sending this email directly to you, and copying it to Jason, with a return receipt request (so I should know when you do open it). Then, last but certainly not least, I need you to send me an email to approve the following, so I can go ahead and get busy, getting something printed up for distribution and advertising purposes. If you are waiting on me, Larry, you're the one backing up. I'm tired of your games. It's time to fish. ' Cause, I'm tired of cuttin' bait!

Bobby
PS: This email is being sent out to those on my email list in a separate email (after I remove the email addresses for you and Jason). This will give any of them a heads up, in case some of them might like to make plans to attend this debate.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(lARRY: PLEASE EMAIL YOUR APPROVAL TO THE FOLLOWING, ASAP! - Bobby)

NOTICE: There will be an oral Bible discussion/debate held (the location, starting time each night, and the date the debate will begin to be determined) between Larry (your full name) an accomplished and experienced Church of Christ Preacher, Evangelist and Bible debater from (your city and state) and Bobby G. Richardson, a local non-denominational lay man. The public is cordially invited to attention. The subject matter of this Bible discussion/debate will be focused on the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as embraced, preached, practiced and taught by the "original" New Testament Church leaders. The meetings each night will begin at (time to be determined) sharp, and should be concluded by 9-10 PM. However, there will be no time limit placed on a party making an assertion, nor a party responding to an assertion. Also, while this debate should be concluded in 4 nights, there is a possibility that it could run over in order to thoroughly cover this exceedingly important Bible subject.

There will be no donations received or admission fees, so leave your check book at home. Audio cassette tapes and video tapes will be made available to order, for a nominal fee, AFTER the Bible discussion/debate has concluded. Bring you Bible and a notebook, and come witness what is sure to be a most interesting Bible discussion/debate. The following is what will be affirmed and denied by each ....

Larry will affirm the following, and Bobby will deny ....


1) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


2) There are THREE "LORDS" in the Godhead ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


3.) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "Spirits" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


4.) All three of these THREE "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


5.) There are THREE "Saviours" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


6.) Prior to the Incarnation, Jesus existed as a completely separate and distinct "SPIRIT" than the trinitarian's God the Father and their God the Holy Spirit. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


7.) The vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written, VERBATIM, upon the pages of God's Holy Word validates and authorizes the belief of a trinity, as embraced and defended by the Church of Christ today, which is the belief in ONE Almighty God the Father, who exists in THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons", but who are ONE only in the sense that "THEY" are ONE in purpose, and are NOT the SAME Spirit, NOR the SAME Person. Therefore, documented proof for this belief goes all the way back to the Bible itself. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


8.) The belief in a trinity, i.e. THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead did NOT originate from pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ. Therefore, the fact that pagans in ancient Rome worshiped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle, had no significance or bearing on the belief of a trinity of THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, that is embraced and defended by the Church of Christ. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bobby will affirm the following, and Larry will deny ...

1.) There is only ONE PERSON of God. And the Godhead is the "very essence or complete nature and attributes" of this ONE PERSON, who was manifested, revealed, or made known, to mankind as ...

a. Almighty God the Father, who created everything by Himself; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

b. the Incarnate Christ ... Jesus ... who was Almighty God the Father in human form, had two natures (one human and one Divine), and was BOTH FULLY God AND FULLY man; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

c. the Comforter, the Holy Ghost .. or Spirit of Almighty God the Father ... abiding in the hearts of believers beginning with the inauguration of the "original" New Testament Church in Acts Chapter 2 and continuing throughout the entire New Testament Church Age until the last trumpet sounds. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

2.) There is ONLY ONE LORD in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

3.) There is ONLY ONE SPIRIT in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

4.) Only ONE SPIRIT dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

5.) There is ONLY ONE "Saviour" in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

6.) The Spirit which dwelled in the Incarnate Christ, existed prior to the Incarnation as Almighty God the Father. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

7.) The oldest writings which express a belief in a trinity, or refers to Almighty God the Father as "three persons", dates back to somewhere around 185 - 215 A.D. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

8.) Long before the concept of a "triune" God of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshiped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle. Therefore, the concept of a "Holy Trinity" was co-opt from this triad concept by the pagan Emperor Constantine (who was said to have become a Christian years later on his death bed), when the "UNIVERSAL" Church of Rome was officially inaugurated in 325 A.D. at the 1st General Council of Churches at Nice (known as the Council of Nicaea), convened by the Emperor, himself, and with him set up as the head of this Universal church of Rome. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


EMAIL # 36
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:41 PM
Subject: WHAT? The Judge crawfishing????


Judge Larry: Jason, Bobby, As has been stated, honest and fair proposals for the proposd discussions are on the table. When an opponent is ready to meet those terms, we can set a mutually convenient date. Again, I will not debate debating. Larry


Bobby: JASON, will you see if you can get Larry to explain to me what he considers to be dishonest or unfair about the oral debate proposal I have on the table right now? **IF** he won't do it, will you please explain it to me? I honestly can't see anything dishonest or unfair about it. Did the fact that there wasn't going to be any offerings received, admission fees or monetary gain in it for him (unless he was able to sell a few tapes or videos), cause him to lose interest all of a sudden? Look, nobody is trying to get Larry to debate debating. He, evidently, does NOT believe in negotiating agreeable terms under which we would debate. He gave his proposal and I have given mine. Surely, we can reach some kind of mutual agreement between the two, can't we. I mean, I'm willing to meet him somewhere between the two proposals because I really and truly want to debate this guy in an environment where he has no excuses ... and the deck is NOT stacked in his favor. So, let's negotiate the terms that will get him to do what he said he would do ... and that is ... debate me. Please, don't let him back out of this by using the oldest trick in the book ... an objection that is what is called, in debating terms, a "strawman" argument. I've debated many people in the past who do this sort of thing. But, I would expect more from an experienced, "professional" debater, like Larry. You see, Jason, when a person won't answer the bell, AND won't admit that they're position has been ripped apart, they usually always throw up some flimsy objection ... which is nothing more than a strawman argument to create a diversion, in hopes they can get out of a situation, and still feel like they've saved face. See if you can get him to check his calendar and send me the earliest date he would have open for oral debate. After all, he is on record saying he is willing to come to Mississippi for a four night oral debate. And, I took it that he was serious about wanting to debate me on this subject. However, now, he has thrown up this strawman argument. I am stumped. Is it because my debate proposal doesn't provide any guarantee of personal gain for him to come here, like he said he would do? It is because my debate proposal would be more like a jury trial, with no time restraints on either the defendant nor the plantiff to present ... and defend ... their case?? What is it? Let's work through this so we can get a debate set up. WILL YOU HELP ME DO THIS, JASON??? You do what you want to about all of this, but if I were you, I believe I would have to asking myself the question, "So, what difference does it make that Bobby's oral debate proposal contains no guarantees for personal gain for either him or Larry, and is more like a public trial by jury ... as long as the Truth of the Word of God is going to be presented and defended thoroughly, and beyond any reasonable doubt?" I mean, you do remember telling me this, don't you, Jason???


Jason (from previous email): If you are willing, he would be willing to have a public discussion with you on the godhead doctrine. I think such a discussion would be beneficial to me and others who are interested in learning the truth on this matter. If I am following error on a doctrine, I want to be corrected (Acts 18:26).


Bobby: Look, Jason, either Larry is a true man of God, whose first consideration is NOT self interest or persoanl gain ... or even his own convenience. Instead, he should be one will go that second mile, even though he has only been asked to go one. Is Larry just a blow hard, show off exhibitionist, ... a hireling who deceives people like you, Jason, who has admitted to not being as knowledgeable about this subject as you would like to be? Do people like you, who follow and support people like Larry, elevate them, and their dogma, to the level of Jesus Christ and Word of God? **IF** Larry is for real, he'll negotiate something with me. **IF** he's NOT real, the sooner you come to terms with that, the better off you will be. PLEASE GET BACK WITH ME ON THIS ASAP AND LET'S GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD! GOD BLESS! -BOBBY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 37
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: Larry Ray Hafley


Dear Mr. Cox,

This letter is also being copied to the associate editors and featured writers of the Watchman.

It is my understanding that you are the Editor of Watchman Magazine. It is also, my understanding that Larry Ray Hafley is a featured writer for the Watchman Magazine, and that Mr. Hafley has written a number of articles which have appeared in the Watchman. I have had the unfortunate experience of trying to get Mr. Hafley to answer some questions and/or enter into a dialogue with me via email concerning his stand on the doctrine of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXTISTENT "persons" of the Godhead (the trinity), vs. the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine embraced by those of us whom Mr. Hafley (erroneously) refers to as "Jesus only". Instead, he keeps insisting on an oral debate. After Mr. Hafley refused to answer some questions, and advised me that he was a retired school teacher, NOT a professional speaker, I did some research on my own and discovered that he is much more than a retired school teacher. From the information I've obtained, it appears Mr. Hafley is an experienced and accomplished preacher, evangelist and Bible debater. Therefore, I have concluded Mr. Hafley was less than forthcoming in his approach. At any rate, I obtained a cyber copy of Mr. Hafley's articles:

"Jesus Only"
"Pentecostal In Experience" and
"Unknown Tongue"

After spending a great deal of time and energy going through these articles and Scriturally refuting them POINT BY POINT in very great detail, he still refuses to engage me via email, or to answer the questions I've been trying to get him to answer from the beginning. Althoughly frustrated and disgusted, I finally agreed to an oral debate with him under the following conditions, that there would be no time limit placed on either of us to present an assertion or to respond to an assertion made by the other side, AND that the debate would not, necessarily be confined to just four nights (in case we weren't able to get it all in within the four nights he proposed). Yet, he still declines. I guess you might say that I am running to the teacher, or just "sounding off", because I've just about had it with a man who, as it turns out, is a professional Bible debater, acting like a juvenile on a schoolyard. I will be more than happy to send all of the documentation between Mr. Hafley and myself to anyone who is interested in seeing exactly what I'm whinning about, which will include my Scriptural rebuttal of Mr. Hafley's articles, as well as the asinine things he has had to say about me, and those with whom I fellowship.

By the way, so far, I've only been able to get Mr. Hafley's answer to the first of the following 8 questions ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (Mr. Hafley's only answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is what I sent him regarding the oral debate concerning the questions above, to which he has remained clammed up, and will not respond to the questions nor agree to the debate ....

Larry, I painstakingly responded to 4 of your articles via email, and Scripturally refuted them POINT BY POINT in very great detail. But now you won't answer the bell, and respond to anything, unless it is in an oral debate setting??? You know, Larry, I don't normally get this pumped about a Scriptural confrontation, as a matter of fact, I really prefer the laid-back, open and honest Bible discussions, as opposed to debates. But, that's all I've heard out of you from the beginning ... is this business about an oral debate. And, you know, I must confess, I am now actually looking forward to an oral debate with you. You've got a whole lot of stuff to give an account for when I finally do get it to to where you have to start giving some answers. I'm so anxious to debate you, Larry, that I'm going to oblige you by letting you set the beginning date of this debate, I'll work around what ever date you select. And, barring some type of unexpected and unavoidable tragedy or family emergency on either side, we'll finally get to the bottom of some things. However, I need you to send me the "START DATE" just as soon as you can possibly get it to me. Also, I will need any titles, and/or other descriptive stuff you want printed up about yourself, other than what I have listed below. Plus, I will need your city and state. I am sending this email directly to you, and copying it to Jason, with a return receipt request (so I should know when you do open it). Then, last but certainly not least, I need you to send me an email to approve the following, so I can go ahead and get busy, getting something printed up for distribution and advertising purposes. If you are waiting on me, Larry, you're the one backing up. I'm tired of your games. It's time to fish. ' Cause, I'm tired of cuttin' bait!

Bobby
PS: This email is being sent out to those on my email list in a separate email (after I remove the email addresses for you and Jason). This will give any of them a heads up, in case some of them might like to make plans to attend this debate.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(lARRY: PLEASE EMAIL YOUR APPROVAL TO THE FOLLOWING, ASAP! - Bobby)

NOTICE: There will be an oral Bible discussion/debate held (the location, starting time each night, and the date the debate will begin to be determined) between Larry (your full name) an accomplished and experienced Church of Christ Preacher, Evangelist and Bible debater from (your city and state) and Bobby G. Richardson, a local non-denominational lay man. The public is cordially invited to attention. The subject matter of this Bible discussion/debate will be focused on the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as embraced, preached, practiced and taught by the "original" New Testament Church leaders. The meetings each night will begin at (time to be determined) sharp, and should be concluded by 9-10 PM. However, there will be no time limit placed on a party making an assertion, nor a party responding to an assertion. Also, while this debate should be concluded in 4 nights, there is a possibility that it could run over in order to thoroughly cover this exceedingly important Bible subject.

There will be no donations received or admission fees, so leave your check book at home. Audio cassette tapes and video tapes will be made available to order, for a nominal fee, AFTER the Bible discussion/debate has concluded. Bring you Bible and a notebook, and come witness what is sure to be a most interesting Bible discussion/debate. The following is what will be affirmed and denied by each ....

Larry will affirm the following, and Bobby will deny ....


1) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


2) There are THREE "LORDS" in the Godhead ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


3.) There are THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "Spirits" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


4.) All three of these THREE "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place ... ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


5.) There are THREE "Saviours" in the Godhead, one for each separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "person". ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


6.) Prior to the Incarnation, Jesus existed as a completely separate and distinct "SPIRIT" than the trinitarian's God the Father and their God the Holy Spirit. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


7.) The vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written, VERBATIM, upon the pages of God's Holy Word validates and authorizes the belief of a trinity, as embraced and defended by the Church of Christ today, which is the belief in ONE Almighty God the Father, who exists in THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons", but who are ONE only in the sense that "THEY" are ONE in purpose, and are NOT the SAME Spirit, NOR the SAME Person. Therefore, documented proof for this belief goes all the way back to the Bible itself. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


8.) The belief in a trinity, i.e. THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead did NOT originate from pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ. Therefore, the fact that pagans in ancient Rome worshiped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle, had no significance or bearing on the belief of a trinity of THREE separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, that is embraced and defended by the Church of Christ. ((Larry affirms, Bobby denies))


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bobby will affirm the following, and Larry will deny ...

1.) There is only ONE PERSON of God. And the Godhead is the "very essence or complete nature and attributes" of this ONE PERSON, who was manifested, revealed, or made known, to mankind as ...

a. Almighty God the Father, who created everything by Himself; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

b. the Incarnate Christ ... Jesus ... who was Almighty God the Father in human form, had two natures (one human and one Divine), and was BOTH FULLY God AND FULLY man; ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

c. the Comforter, the Holy Ghost .. or Spirit of Almighty God the Father ... abiding in the hearts of believers beginning with the inauguration of the "original" New Testament Church in Acts Chapter 2 and continuing throughout the entire New Testament Church Age until the last trumpet sounds. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

2.) There is ONLY ONE LORD in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

3.) There is ONLY ONE SPIRIT in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

4.) Only ONE SPIRIT dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

5.) There is ONLY ONE "Saviour" in the Godhead. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

6.) The Spirit which dwelled in the Incarnate Christ, existed prior to the Incarnation as Almighty God the Father. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

7.) The oldest writings which express a belief in a trinity, or refers to Almighty God the Father as "three persons", dates back to somewhere around 185 - 215 A.D. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

8.) Long before the concept of a "triune" God of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "PERSONS" evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshiped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle. Therefore, the concept of a "Holy Trinity" was co-opt from this triad concept by the pagan Emperor Constantine (who was said to have become a Christian years later on his death bed), when the "UNIVERSAL" Church of Rome was officially inaugurated in 325 A.D. at the 1st General Council of Churches at Nice (known as the Council of Nicaea), convened by the Emperor, himself, and with him set up as the head of this Universal church of Rome. ((Bobby will affirm, and Larry will deny))

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In closing, I would be most interested in knowing what the official position of the Watchman is on the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church today. Also, I would like to know how the following Church of Christ members are regarded by the Watchman ...

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/churchofchrist.htm


THE MOVEMENT OF THE HOLY GHOST IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When God poured out the the Holy Ghost in Acts chapter 2 on about 120 believers, Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost told the multitude that had gather "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2:38-39). As long as God is still calling people to salvation, then they have the promise of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Today, approx 20 million people claim to have received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues. God is pouring out His Spirit upon all who believe on Him in faith, even in the denomination that calls itself "The Church of Christ". Yet, even from within this movement that denies God's promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, today many honest hearted souls are receiving this experience.

The following quotations are from some of the founding fathers of the movement which believes itself to be the Church of Christ.

J.W.McGarvey. Lard�s Quarterly. Vol.I, no. 4, June 1964

"The lover of truth should never be a dogmatist nor conclude that on any subject he has nothing more to learn. But he should stand ready whenever his conclusions, even those of which he is most confident are challenged on the basis of new reasons�I have for some years been convinced that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is not fully understood and that it needs investigation and discussion de novo".

Thomas Munnel. Lard�s Quarterly. Vol. II.2,Jan. 1865.

"All who have capacity enough to admit some of our views on this subject (i.e. "Church of Christ" theories on the Holy Spirit baptism) may have been erroneous will no doubt be benefited by reading up on the discussion. Those who are too weak to make such an admission would do well to spend their time in some other way".

I would encourage our friends who believe they are working with the Church of Christ to heed the admonitions of these early founders of their own movement. If they do they will be in good company. Scores are leaving denominationalism and receiving this New Testament baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many of those who were for years leaders in the denominational "Church of Christ" are receiving this experience.

Tom Roberts in the Gospel Guardian says that the number has now "almost reached epidemic proportions". (cf. Jan. 1971 Issue, p.8)

James D. Bales admits "There are cells of tongues speakers in more than one congregation" and that there are tongues speakers on their Bible school campuses. (Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues)

James D. Bales also writes that "I have learned of cells of tongues speakers in congregations in different parts of the country and in some colleges maintained by the brethern". He asks "WHY?" (Pentecostalism In The Church, p.4)

Ben Franklin was considered by Firm Foundation publishers (a "Church of Christ" firm) to be the "greatest New Testament preacher of this century". He has now received the baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues. He has the following words to say to his former brethern:

"As I studied I became aware that mine and the brotherhood�s approach to the Holy Spirit question called for side-stepping certain passages, lifting others from their context, and building doctrine on assumptions."

"I came to realize that there was no passage of scripture, taken in its own context, which stated that the miraculous would cease when the original apostles died or the New Testament was written."

You would expect to hear this from a Pentecostal preacher, but this is from their own brotherhood. Ben Franklin has answered James Bales question of "WHY," and said it far better than this author ever could. It is hoped his brethern will take heed to those things which many of their former leaders are saying.

My prayer is that all of our "Church of Christ" friends who read this may join the growing company who are receiving the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. Pat Boone expressed it in the following words: "Today, more and more devoted members of our beloved Church of Christ are discovering the reality of the Holy Spirit."

(Pat Boone. A New Song. Carol Stream, Ill.:Crearton House, 1970).




Testimonies of Church of Christ Ministers, Elders, and laymen who have received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues,



((Bobby's note: The following should be clickable links. If they don't show up that way, go directly to the web page, itself http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/churchofchrist.htm and access them from there))
Ben Franklin Dean Dennis

Pat Boone Forrest H. Wells

Donald R. Hurley Dwyatt Gantt

William R. Epperson W. L. Wilson

Jim C. Noblitt T. C. Wisenbaker

Paul Logue Curtis Lydic

Lester E. Nichols, MD




Thank you ... and God bless!

Bobby G. Richardson
Non-Denominational Layman
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The whole gospel to the whole world!

$ 10,000.00 Reward.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html

Bible Study.
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/

50 Reasons Why.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/believed.html

Open letter to Mormons.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/mormon.html

Open letter to Jehovah Witnesses.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/witness.html

Open Letter to professing Christians who are homosexual.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/profess.html

Who says the supernatural manifestations of God have ceased?
http://hometown.aol.com/actschap2bgr/myhomepage/profile.html

Mainline Minister accepts the Bobby Richardson challenge. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/newsletter.html

What you always wanted to know about Freemasonry. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/military.html

Can a Christian be (or should a Christian remain) a Mason? (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/newsletter.html

Bobby Richardson refutes a former Mason and some ministers on Freemasonry (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/rant.html

The saga continues - withstanding the anti-Freemasonry crowd (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/business.html




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 38
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: What? ... some other debate?


Larry,

I've been in and out quite a bit today, and this evening. However, having just come back in for the night, I am in receipt of your email to Jason, which was copied to me, concerning your communication with a oneness Pentecostal, and the possibility of an another debate. For some reason, you seem to think that I would be interested in knowing about that. WHY? I'm not trying to get someone else to debate you for me, nor am I trying to get out of debating you, myself. However, I don't think the same can be said for you. At any rate, I have already Scripturally refuted your position POINT BY POINT. You either just don't know it yet (in the event you haven't been reading my rebuttals) OR you do, and you're just looking for a way to back out of the oral debate with me, and save face at the same time.

Look, Larry, you've set the terms to which you would agree, and I've set the terms to which I would agree. Now, it's time from us to meet somewhere in the middle. **IF** you feel you're up to it. You go first, since you went first in the beginning of this ordeal, and I'll see if I am agreeable to it. **IF** not, I will consider making another proffer to see how you might like it ... but, then again, I might be just as stubborn as you about getting my way. Now, wouldn't that be a come off???

Bobby


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 39
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:37 PM
Subject: Where do we go from here???


Jason: Bobby, I can't speak for Larry, but unlimited days for the debate? unlimited time per speaker? no mutually agreed upon time restraints whatsoever? What's to stop one discussant from going on a verbal rampage for 3-4 hours, leaving the other only a limited reply due to audience fatigue? Speak of a "dog and pony show...."


Bobby: Get serious, Jason. Who in their right mind is going to go on a verbal rampage for 3-4 hours and totally alienate an audience?? I know I wouldn't. And I'd put the farm up that Larry wouldn't either. Just because a person has unlimited time does NOT mean they will drag things out, Jason. I can't speak for Larry. But, I can assure you that I wouldn't want to alienate the audience by doing such a thing. However, this UNLIMITED time to make an assertion and UNLIMITED time to respond to an assertion for BOTH Larry AND myself ... what's so dishonest or unfair about that? Hmmm??? You haven't told me. Is just because there is a "possibility" that someone could drag things out? I mean, there's a possibility that I could be struck by a falling meteorite the next time I walk outside, but that is not going to prevent me from venturing outside. The way around your fear of causing "audience fatigue" is merely to start at 7 PM sharp, and allow which ever one had the floor at, say, 9 or 930 PM to continue making their assertion or reponding to the assertion by the other side, and stop right there. Then, close up shop until the next night. It's all going to be on tape anyway, remember? Those who miss the following night will be able to get a tape of it. I am not used to being muzzled by a clock when it comes to presenting and defending Truth ... or exposing error ... when it comes to the Word of God. And I don't think the Apostle Paul was either, since we know he preached, prayed and sang late into the night on more than one occassion. **IF** I had about 30 years of oral Bible debating under my belt, I would probably a lot more organized than my first time out. At any rate, Jason, whether you understand this or not ... or whether you believe this or not ... three 20 minute sessions is NOT sufficient for me to Scripturally refute Larry's convoluted, distorted and deceptive method of presenting his man made theology ... BUT I can Scripturally refute it ... AND HAVE ALREADY DONE SO, for that matter. Oh, by the way, it has now come to my attention that Larry has been doing these oral debates for about 30 years ... and this one would be my first ONE. Now, since he thinks I don't have anything, what's his gripe if I don't want to be muzzled with a time limit??? **IF** either one of us is goofing around, trying to sand bag or filibuster, the crowd will stop that with their boo's and hisses. And after about 30 years of oral debating, I'm sure Larry knows this. Therefore, your concern that I would run down the clock just to drag it out in order to prevent Larry from having his say is extremely misguided. However, I feel confident that Larry has been misleading people long enough with his shell games that he would be better than David Copperfield at convincing an unwitting audience with the fancy stuff which he has had years to develop ... and which would take considerable time to unravel and expose. At any rate, neither one of us would be prevented from having our say ... FULLY. My main concerns are being able to adequately explain Larry's flawed method of interpreting the Scriptures, being able to present and defend my position without having to worry about watching a stop watch, AND making sure the audience is staying with me and understanding what I am presenting and defending.


Jason: I've had no personal experience with public debating, but even I can see that this approach would not work. Larry has offered to participate in a debate format typical of almost every debate I have read in print, regardless of the religious affiliation of those debating. I don't blame him for refusing to debate under such ludicrous conditions. Jason


Bobby: The way I see it, as far as you and Larry are concerned, I would be the one on trial. And the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine I embrace, promote and defend would be on trial. As a result, I do NOT want to muzzled with a time limit, which may cause me to inadequately present AND defend it AND expose Larry's error in the process. I've told you all along that I am NOT a professional speaker. I know the Scriptures pretty well, but presenting AND defending the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine at this keyboard, with plenty of time to do my research about a person's position (all night long in some cases), then, comparing it with the preponderance of the Scriptures on the subject, before stating my position (whether in agreement or not) ... and that of only having 20 minutes to jump up and try to unravel what Larry has just spent 20 minutes knotting up, is two very different things. Jason, if you were unable to see that I disproved Larry's position on the stuff I sent you, I am truly amazed. And if you truly believe my proposal is dishonest or unfair, I am even more amazed. I take it that you are NOT going to try to get Larry to meet me somewhere between his proposal and mine. I don't know where we go from here. I want to debate Larry. He "claims" he wants to debate me. He put forth his proposal. I put forth mine. He is not willing to negotiate, and I'm not so sure I should be the one to do all the giving here, seeing as how he is the one with about 30 years of Bible debating experience under his belt. What on earth could possibly have him so afraid to debate little ole me? As I've said, I'm not going to try to hog all the time, I just want plenty of time to get my point(s) across, that's all. And, who knows??? I may get there and find that I don't need but 10 or 15 minutes to adequately do that. If so, that's all I would take. Ya'll are apparently so negatively oriented that ya'll are thinking the worst case scenario. I mean, ya'll might play dirty pool, but I don't. I am waiting on you and Larry to come up with a proposal that is agreeable to both of us ... not just a one sided deal here. **IF** ya'll are really who and what ya'll claim, something will be worked out. **IF** not, I'll still continue doing what God has called me to do on the Internet ... AND I will more than likely put up a web page showing my Scriptural refutation of Larry's material, which will include his refusal to debate me with no time limits. Whatever ya'll decide, Jason. But, I'm really getting tired of this back and forth prattle from ya'll. I realize Larry says that if I have what I claim to have, I would accept his proposal for an oral debate. And, likewise, I say if Larry has what he claims to have, he would either debate me via email or have an oral debate without time limitations. After all, he is proficient in oral debates with about 30 years experience, and I am proficient in written debates with a whole lot less experience. Again, I will continue to sit and wait ... and hope you can convince Larry to debate me.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 40
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:21 AM
Subject: Mr. Cox and Bobby's chit chat


Mr. Cox: Mr. Richardson, Without having yet spoken with brother Hafley, I thought I would quickly respond. First, I have the utmost respect for brother Hafley, and know him to be a man of integrity.

Bobby: I don't doubt Larry is in very good standing among his brethren. I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. However, Solomon advised us that, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Since Larry obviously isn't interested, **IF** there are any of Larry's brethren who are prudent and wise, and are interested in hearing precisely what I am all worked up about. I will forward all of the documented evidence ... VERBATIM ... WORD FOR WORD. Then a person will be able to make an informed decision.

Mr. Cox: Second, I understand brother Hafley's unwillingness to be categorized as a "professional speaker." I personally find that designation to be rather repugnant. My experience, though I am a younger man, is similar to brother Hafley's. I have had no formal training in speech or debate techniques. I did not go to any "school" to learn how to preach, or to get any theological training. Any experience I have is through personal Bible study, and the preaching of the gospel. As such, I have had no more formal training, perhaps less, than you. I am not a "professional speaker" or "professional debater", I am a preacher.

Bobby: With all due respect to you, Mr. Cox, but I haven't had any formal training and education in the Scriptures either (I just did get out of highschool over 30 years ago) ... AND I am not even a preacher. However, **IF** Larry is a retired school teacher as he says ... and **IF** Larry is an experienced preacher ... and an experienced Bible debater, as I have discovered he is, then, YES, Larry IS a professional speaker. You might find the term repugnant, but school teachers ARE professionals whose profession requires them to get up before audiences and speak (as do preachers).


Mr. Cox: I doubt seriously that brother Hafley was trying to mislead you, as his biography on the Watchman site is very forthcoming concerning his preaching and debating experience. I quote:

"Larry began full time work as an evangelist in 1967. He currently works in a "two preacher" arrangement with the Pruett & Lobit Street congregation in Baytown, TX. The elders there encourage Larry to spend his time in evangelistic meeting work as opportunities present themselves. He is also a staff writer for Truth Magazine, an international bi-weekly publication. Larry has engaged in a number of public, religious debates. Most of these debates have been with representatives of the Pentecostal and Baptist denominations."


Bobby: Again, Mr. Cox, with all due respect to you, I did NOT even know the Watchman existed until AFTER I got to digging around, trying to find out who this stubborn and spiritually arrogant guy really is. And if you think I just came across as being too harsh or as being too judgmental, myself, I will forward you Larry's own words, and allow you to see for yourself that Larry's own words judge him as such.


Mr. Cox: Though Larry is plain spoken in his defense of truth, he is very humble. He looks at his efforts just as did the Apostle Paul, and as all of us should. That we are nothing, and that in all we do, God should receive the glory. I suppose you would regard Paul's demeanor in his confrontations with error to be considered less than forthcoming? "And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1-2). Larry Hafley is not a "professional debater" he is an evangelist who is willing to defend what preaches before all men. Are you willing to do the same?


Bobby: Mr. Cox, they don't come much plainer speaking than myself. He may have been very humble in all of his dealings with you, but I'm afraid I've seen a side of Larry Hafley that you haven't seen. Furthermore, I do not consider the Apostle Paul and Larry Hafley to spiritually akin at all. Paul did NOT embrace, promote and defend a man made theory that wasn't even in existence during his life time about there being three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" who were joined together in some sort of mysterious union to form the "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is ONE LORD" of the Bible. No siree, bob! He didn't. Those who believe differently are adding to the Word of God ... an exceedingly dangerous AND dumb thing to do.


Mr. Cox: I have had numerous individuals decline to debate orally, because they were not "professional speakers." A willingness to uphold your position should include the willingness to do
so publicly and orally.


Bobby: I am willing to debate Larry orally. I just don't want to be muzzled by a stop watch, that's all. I do not know why all of you are so afraid of unlimited time to present an assertion or to respond to an assertion by the other side. Just because unlimited time is granted, does NOT mean a person will drag things out and alienate the audience. I know I wouldn't. And I feel reasonably sure Larry wouldn't.


Mr. Cox: Brother Hafley has long shown his willingness, and so your complaints that he is dragging his feet are frankly without any merit. Are you claiming that brother Hafley would have an unfair advantage over you? That you would be unable to answer his supposed distortions with truth in an oral setting?


Bobby: I am showing my willingness too. Is Larry claiming that I would have an unfair advantage over him? That he would be unable to answer my supposed distortions with truth in an oral setting? Do you see how tunnel visioned you are being??? But, for the record, I am axious to orally debate Larry, and have a proposal on the table which he is not interested in any more than I am his.


Mr. Cox: The desire to debate orally is much to be preferred to a private email correspondence.


Bobby: Give me one reason why. What make you think God places a higher value a room full of people who may not need a physician, than on ONE SOUL whom Larry believes is sick??? And this is what this is all about isn't it? I mean, this is all about the Lord's business and NOT mine or Larry's, isn't it? Besides, I have about 58 people who have either filled out a form from one of my web pages or contacted me personally to recieve (via blind carbon copy) the Bible discussions/debates that I am involved with. So, the private email objection doesn't even apply in my case, anyway.


Mr. Cox: Brother Hafley is confident he has the truth on this matter, and that he can convince open minded individuals who may presently be caught up in error. Why correspond privately with one who has a settled opinion, when the debate can be held before a public who will see the truth contrasted with error? (And, I will hasten to add that if my experience in debates holds true, you will have opportunity to speak to more who believe as he does than he will to speak to those who agree with your position). So, why are you complaining?


Bobby: If Larry is so confident, why is he unwilling to debate me without time limitations ... **IF** the Truth is what's important here? Look, Mr. Cox, I can see I am getting no where by trying to use reason with you in order to get my point across. It appears you're as judgmental, insecure and narrow minded as Larry. I mean, ya'll must think ministering to others should be barking out commands like a drill sargeant (you know, it's my way or the highway kind of stuff) ... or like that of riding herd on a bunch of cattle like during the Old Wild West days or something, as opposed to shepherding sheep. I am truly beginning to regret I ever wasted my time with Jason or Larry ... or you, for that matter.


Mr. Cox: Fourth, your desire for an open ended, informal debate situation would not be workable.


Bobby: Mr. Cox, my proposal would work just fine. It happens everyday in courtrooms everywhere. If my proposal wouldn't be workable, then there would be time limits set for the plantiff and the defendant. And that could very possibly mean the one with the slickest lawyer, who could convince an unwitting crowd, would rule the day (and it's bad enough as it is ... without time limits). But there would probably be a whole lot of innocent people locked up ... and truth and justice would NOT be served, would it? Just think about that for a bit, Mr. Cox.


Mr. Cox: The rules of formal debate have been established and honed to make the event as effective as possible. If you feel you can not establish and defend your position with 4 hours of public speaking, then I am sorry. Larry obviously feels he can.


Bobby: Look, Mr. Cox, Larry has about 30 years of oral debating experience under his belt, as I now find out. This would be my first oral debate, governed by time limitations. While I am proficient in written debates, Larry obviously isn't, but is proficient in oral debates. Therefore, we should be able to reach some kind of agreement. What would it hurt if he spotted me a car length (so to speak) **IF** he is sooo confident he has the goods and I don't ... AND since I can't get him to meet me in the forum that I am proficient in???


Mr. Cox: Too, the rules are intended to make the debate FAIR. He will be constrained to answer all your arguments, and you his. To make such a ridiculous provision, and then to say he is the one hesitant while you are ready is ridiculous.


Bobby: Truth and fairness is NOT gauged in minutes, Mr. Cox. There is NOTHING wrong with a person being able to fully present and defend their case and/or respond to the other side without being prohibited from doing so due to being cut short on the technicality of running out of time. That's what would be unfair.


Mr. Cox: It is you who needs to step up to the plate, and quit trying to make excuses.


Bobby: Excuses? **IF** I had 30 years of oral debating under my belt and Larry had never been in one, I could understand you accusing me of making excuses, but I am just trying to negotiate a setting in which we could debate ... NOT have this "my way or the highway junk thrown in my face."


Mr. Cox: Finally, why do you complain about his unwillingness to debate you privately before you debate him publicly? You know his position, and he knows yours.


Bobby: When I was first introduced to Larry, all I knew about Larry was that he is a three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" of God theory believers. Besides, I have NOT tried to get him to debate me privately. As I told you, there are about 60 people that I send this stuff (including this right here) to ... after I remove email addresses and stuff that would compromise a person's privacy.


Mr. Cox: Personally, I wouldn't be interested in hashing over material before the public presentations either. (Or maybe it is because he is afraid that he can't answer your arguments! ...Of course, then it would be him complaining about an oral debate instead of you). I would encourage you to stop complaining, set the dates for the debate, and let us all know so that we can come hear the truth defended.


Bobby: You get Larry to agree to no time limitations and I'll let him choose the starting date, as I have already gone on record stating. Then you can come hear the Truth in its entirety (and there is a difference) defended.


Mr. Cox: Your initial post to me was very insulting. I know brother Hafley as a dedicated servant of God, and I know he will ably defend the truth. Even in your complaints about his unwillingness to discuss the truth you admit that he is the one who is pushing for a public examination of your respective positions. It does not put you in a good light when you complain about such a public exchange. He will have no advantage in time or opportunity. So just do it. Brother Hafley writes for the magazine. However, I have absolutely no authority over him. He does not receive any
remuneration for his writing. He does not write by assignment, and the sentiments he expresses in the magazine are his own. He does not have to answer to me, and I am not going to try to coerce him in any way. Frankly, as I read over your material, I wonder why you wrote to me? He has agreed
to debate you orally. For one who holds the truth, no greater opportunity exists. So sign the propositions, and lets get on with it!


Bobby: I'm ready, willing and able to debate Larry. Since he refuses to negotiate something agreeable with me, it looks like we're dead locked.


Mr. Cox: In reading the debate advertisement that you asked brother Hafley to approve, it makes me think you do not want to debate him at all.


Bobby: I can't help what you think, obviously. But I resent your opinionated expression. In reading your email thus far, it makes me think your mind a pad locked shut.


Mr. Cox: First, he has to establish himself as the Goliath, and you the David. Is this so that if you fail you can say, well "he was more experienced than me?"


Bobby: Nope, I was just stating the facts as they really are, up front, unlike what Larry did with me.


Mr. Cox: There is no clergy/laity distinction in the Lord's church, and so your contrast between yourself and Larry is untrue. If I were to get to write what I want to write, it would be, "Larry Ray Hafley, Christian and Bobby G. Richardson, Sectarian." You would not stand for that, so why do you think that Larry would stand for your representation of him?


Bobby: The New Testament Church does have distinctions in it, and you can read about them in Ephesians Chapter 4 and also in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12. Furthermore, I believe any rational person who reads the material I have documented between Larry and myself would reach a different conclusion than the way you arranged those titles above. The evidence I have in my possession will prove to any reasonable person, who has the capacity to actually think for themselves, that the term Sectarian would fit Larry to a Tee ....

Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
Narrow-minded; parochial.
n.
A member of a sect.
One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.


Mr. Cox: Also, your characterization of the study is prejudiced to your position. If he were to agree to the advertisement it would be tantamount to admitting himself to be in error. If you can't see the unfairness of this advertisement then you can't be trusted with knowing what unfair is.


Bobby: If you are going to accuse me of something, you ought to, at the very least, be mature enough to be a little more specific than what you just said. Please tell me what was unfair about it. Did I misrepresent Larry or myself in any way??? Did I say something that was untrue???


Mr. Cox: Finally, there is no need to note that no donations or admission fees would be collected. That is unless your people need to know it. All members of the Lord's church are aware of the fact that the gospel is not for sale.


Bobby: Look, Stan, this is where I draw the line with you. You are, no doubt, as arrogant as Larry. There are people who won't come to church if the preacher gets up and says too much about money, or who either won't come ... or complain if they do ... about the offereing plate being passed around. Some folks are just like that. You know that and I know that. And this is NOT unique to any congregation. The reason I put that in there had NOTHING to do with Larry. But I want the general public ... as well as all the tight wads out there ... AND Larry ... to know and understand that this event is NOT being put on for anyone's personal gain, it is NOT a fund raiser ... AND it is NOT a regular church service. If you have a problem with my full disclosure concerning this, you have a problem.


Mr. Cox: Instead, write an advertisement saying "Larry Hafley, church of Christ and Bobby Richardson, Non-Denominational". Put the propositions signed as the subject, and if any title is given, place both positions in the title. Agree to the same amount of time in the speeches, so that the debate will be fair. If you need to tell your people to leave their checkbooks at home, I guess that could remain. I can't speak for brother Hafley, but I think that would be something he would more likely be able to agree to. And to top it off, it would be fair to both!


Bobby: If I am paying for the advertising, I'm going to use full disclosure and say that Larry is an experienced and accomplished Church of Christ preacher and evangelist with some 30 years experience as a Bible debater (now that I know that) ... which, by the way, should get a good number of Church of Christ people out to hear him. As far as me, I really am who and what I say I am ... a non-denominational lay man (or if lay man offends you all to badly, I can put non-denominational Bible student/teacher). How's that???


Mr. Cox: Finally, limit your propositions to two. One you will affirm, and one you will deny. The purpose of propositions is to set the parameters of the debate, not to argue it. You introduce the arguments in your speeches, not in the propositions. Perhaps you need to study up on the history of religious debating, you don't seem to know what you are doing here.


Bobby: I don't need to study up on how to thoroughly present and defend the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. If you mean I'm not as flashy a show man as Larry, I think you would be right. With me, what you see is what you get. But if you are meaning I am not qualified to discuss and/or debate the Scriptures with Larry, you are wrong. Furthermore, God hasn't put it on my heart to study up on the history of religious debating. However, He has prepared and qualified me to do what I've been doing for several years. And that's what really matters to me. I really don't get excited about getting up in front of people like you all must do. Besides, I can find everything I need to know about being set for the defense of the gospel in the Bible. And I don't recall a place where Paul or any to the other "original" New Testament leaders was muzzled and/or restricted some goofy man made rules concerning a clock. Had they been Paul probably wouldn't have been preaching at midnight, would he?


Mr. Cox: To answer quickly your other questions. First, Watchman Magazine does not hold an "official position". Such a question shows your ignorance of the faith we hold dear. The magazine is my personal effort to teach others. Each man who writes speaks only for himself. If there is agreement is simply shows the ability man has to understand the word. Any disagreement is evidence of the fallibility of men.


Bobby: I wasn't sure if the Watchman held an "official positions" ... that's the reason I inquired. You may think I don't know much about the beliefs of your sect, but you would be wrong if you do.


Mr. Cox: Second, your question with regard to how Watchman Magazine regards certain men. Again, Watchman Magazine is my magazine. It had no board, etc. I am the sole voice for the magazine. I consult with my co-editors on occasion, but the final decisions on all issues are mine. My web site has no official capacity in the Lord's church. It is an individual Christian's efforts to teach the word. So, there is no "official position", and as I haven't spoken with Larry on the topic, I don't know if he would agree with my personal assessment of the men you asked about in your post. Of those men, I know
only Tom Roberts, and trust him to be a faithful man. He is a co-editor of Watchman. Pat Boone has long been one known to have left the church because of his liberal tendencies. He was withdrawn from for sinful actions, if I remember correctly, and later joined up with certain charismatics. Does he believe as you? And since the article had to do with Holy Spirit Baptism, what relevance does it have to the "Jesus Only" position?


Bobby: I guess I touched a nerve, huh? I just found it interesting that Larry is so vocal about his disdain and outright contempt for the things that are obviously taking place in his own sect ... according to the information on that web page. I guess, instead of being like Gamaliel in Acts Chapter 5, you guys are going to stand there kicking and spitting, with your finger plugging a hole in your dike, in self denial and rejection of what is obviously going on in congregations all over the world ... including those in your own sect. By the way, would you say that these Church of Christ men who received the Holy Spirit, the Bible way, are now lost ... as a result of that?



Mr. Cox: I don't personally know the other men, nor am I too familiar with their names. However, with regard to Ben Franklin, you may want to check your sources. The Firm Foundation may have been referring to his Grandfather rather than him. Regardless, I have had no association with the man. Perhaps your time would be better spent in determining what the Bible says. After all, the proposition affirms what the "Scriptures teach", rather than how many men you can find who have been influenced to believe differently than what brother Hafley does.


Bobby: A bit testy, aren't we? I'll spend my time the way I see fit and you do likewise, o.k.?? **I've already Scripturally refuted Larry's "Jesus Only" stuff AND his "Unknown Tongue" and "Pentecostal In Experience" POINT BY POINT. You couldn't melt him and pour him on the Scriptural refutation I served back to him. If you think you can, please do. NOTHING would please me any more that to have him attempt to counter.


Mr. Cox: Finally, noting your email address, I took the occasion to visit your congregation's web site. I found there your series on 7 undeniable beliefs of the original New Testament church. In
the introductory lesson you wrote: "This Bible study is a combination of things I have read, researched and/or studied over a period of years, and is being presented here to assist any honest person who desires the TRUTH of God's Word "in its entirety" with absolutely "no strings attached." "I am not a highly educated person. Nor do I possess seminary training with secular titles or degrees to place behind my name. I'm not a preacher, pastor or evangelist."


Bobby: All of that is the facts of the matter. Except that I no longer live in Florida. But the church there does still owns the impact-ministry domain that some of my web pages are on, and one of the email addresses I use. And, except for the fact, that the church I attend now is not affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International organization.


Mr. Cox: Your description of yourself is the same that brother Hafley gives of himself. Except for the fact that he is a preacher. But, if you preach, you are a preacher. So you are too. If you are a layperson, so is brother Hafley, because there is no clergy in the Lord's church. Again, "methinks thou dost protest too much!" You give the title at the end of your introductory comments: Bobby Richardson, Non-Denominational Layman. Is that a title you hold? If so, I am not aware of
any such designation in scripture.


Bobby: What I find incredibly inconsistent in your argument just now, is how a man would quibble over the term non-denominational lay man, but will go to the end of the earth to promote and defend the man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ ... a bona fide, historically proven, product of the "UNIVERSAL" of Rome, but whole heartily embraced, promoted and defended by your sect ... who presents itself as being the true church, when the core doctrine is copt from catholicism. You really ought to read Revelation Chapter 17 and start asking yourself a few questions about the doctrine that evolved from those seven mountains where the great whore sits, whose daughters are spiritual prostitutes, too. Their false doctrine is very definitely spiritual idolatry and prostitution.


Mr. Cox: It seems to me the number of times you put it in your article, and as many times as you have noted it in your post to me that you are as proud of your standing as a "layman" in contrast to the "professionals" as some of the professionals are in their own standing. If so, why are you different? Stan Cox editor, Watchman Magazine


Bobby: One of the differences has to do with me being more open and honest ... and not being influenced by indoctrinated bias like those of you who are joined at the hip with a particular sect which requires certain things of them OR they'll be dismissed. And for self preservation and/or financial security purposes, they willingly comply .. without rocking the boat or questioning anything. It is my position that these are the ones who are, indeed, the pillars ... the professionals of that sect. Also, I don't have to sweep anything underneath the rug, or tippy toe around any Scriptures in the Bible, or whip out a slide ruler and try to figure out what the word "is" is. I can truly be non-denominational and back up my beliefs with VERBATIM Scripture which says it precisely as I believe it, whereas a trinitarian can't. And I say that as a "former" baptized member of a main line trinitarian church. Stan, I wish you no malice. But I am though trying to talk to you, o.k.? I was taught that a wise man does not attempt to teach pigs to sing because he will only end up wasting his time and really annoying the pigs. I believe there is something in that which I need to consider at this point. Therefore, I will close, and leave you alone ... UNLESS you wish to continue. Happy trails!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 41
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: Stan Cox continues the dialogue 2-6-03 - PART ONE


Mr. Cox: Mr. Richardson, I will attempt a final response, even though I am somewhat disheartened that you showed in your post to me either an inability or unwillingness to understand the majority of the points I made to you previously. First, I indicated that Larry has not tried to hide his experience as a debater or preacher. In fact, the Watchman site where you found the objectionable material has a biography which indicates the sum total of Larry's preaching experience. So, your claim that Larry is not forthcoming is false. It is simply an attempt to portray yourself as a David to his Goliath. Your continual poormouthing is in bad taste.


Bobby: Stan, I did NOT find Larry's material at the Watchman site, so your assumption is wrong. The way I found Larry's articles, which I subsequently refuted with the Word of God POINT BY POINT, was through a search engine ... which pulled up the articles themselves NOT the Watchman's web site. In these articles Larry made reference to the Watchman, but, at that point, I still did NOT know anything about the Watchman, the Watchman's web site ... OR Larry's bio that you say is listed on the Watchman's web site. All of this was unknown to me at that time.



Mr. Cox: Second, when I indicated that my own "formal" training may even be less than yours, I was not claiming that, but establishing it as a possibility. A distinction you apparently were unable to ascertain. Further, you initially claimed that Larry was not forthcoming when he presented himself as a retired teacher, not a "professional" speaker. Now you claim that him being a teacher makes him a "professional" speaker. That means that he was completely forthcoming. You can't have it both ways.


Bobby: Look, Stan, it matters not to me, actually, how much or how little "formal" training you may or may not have. The Bible tells me that they who compare themselves among themselves are NOT wise. What matters to me is what thus saith the Word of the Lord. That's what motivates me. As far as Larry's flat denial of being a "professional" speaker while admitting that he was a retired school teacher, that is the facts of the matter. I am not trying to have it both ways. Here's Larry's VERBATIM words ... "I am not a professional speaker, either. I am a retired school teacher."


Mr. Cox: Third, I equated Larry's humility to that of Paul. I know you contend that Larry teaches error, though your contention does not make it so. But, your claim of arrogance, which you now attribute to me as well, is false. Again, you missed the point entirely.


Bobby: Well, obviously you do acknowledge what I said about Paul's message and Larry's not being the same is true ... which is quite an admission. And I congratulate you for, at least, being that honest.


Mr. Cox: Fourth, no, you have not indicated a willingness to debate Larry. Instead, you have hidden behind a provision that you know he would not agree to, (nor any other man who has interest in a fair and equitable discussion). The fact that you can't see the request to be unreasonable is yet another red flag raised in any attempt to carry on a discourse with you.


Bobby: I am not hiding behind anything. I just don't want to be tied to the clock, that's all. Ya'll might believe in "programs", which already has everything lined out by the clock from the moment a person comes through ya'lls doors, but those who worship God in Spirit AND Truth realize God cannot be "programmed" into our services, but He can sure be "programmed" out of our services. We do not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And that is precisely what having a time limit can do. Like I've said over and over, just because there is no time limits in my proposal does NOT mean that Larry nor myself would go over this sacred 20 minutes of ya'lls. But, since I've never been in an oral debate, I honestly do not know if I can get my point(s) across within ya'lls sacred time limit.


Mr. Cox: Fifth, the difference between your two proposals is that Larry's is reasonable, and has been shown and proven to be reasonable in hundreds of religious discussions. Your proposal opens the door wide to abuse. Additionally, your large number of propositions are unworkable, and show a complete
inability to grasp the nature of honorable debate.


Bobby: Well, Stan, the only one who would be abusive would be Larry, so you must not think as highly of him as you let on. All I'm wanting to have is the assurance that I will be permitted to adequately respond to Larry's assertions and present my own ... on my first time out in this oral debate arena. This would be a new frontier for me. And I expect if Larry is truthful he would admit that in the beginning, a person may need a little extra time .... especially going up against a seasoned veteran with OVER 30 years (as I now find out) under his belt. And to be honest with you, I think most folks would consider Larry to be the Goliath, and me the David. However, I'm as confident as David was when he went up against Goliath, but if I fight Goliath, I will not use that which I haven't proven. As David, I will do so without restrictions.


Mr. Cox: Sixth, you asked me to give one reason why public debate is preferable to private discourse. I gave it, and you ignored it. I will say it again, more plainly so that you cannot misunderstand. You have a settled conviction on this matter. I will not be as uncharitable as you to say that your mind is closed, though you have made the charge toward Larry and myself. Larry is confident that he can, in the community where the debate will be held, uphold the truth and thoroughly
defeat your error. He is confident that much good can come to the cause of truth because of such an effort. You, however, have indicated time and again the fear that his experience and ability will harm your chances. If not, why the continued poormouthing?


Bobby: I am convinced that Larry can get up before a group of people and put on a real good show, but that does NOT mean he is rightly dividing the Word. Ya'lls three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" of God theory is NOT what the "original" New Testament Church leaders preached, practiced and taught ... and I can prove it. And I believe in my heart ya'll know I can prove it ... **IF** I am given adequate time to do so. Stan, I feel sure Larry has a lot of tricks up his sleeve because I have already seen, first hand, how he LITERALLY interprets things to fit into ya'lls indoctrinated mold. And I have already proven this, but this does take some patience and time to get across to unsuspecting people or people who aren't as Biblically literate as they should be. And I say that, regardless if they are members of your sect or not. Here's a copy and paste of an email I sent out to my audience, in which I Scripturally refuted Larry's #1 question about whether Jesus is the "name" of the Father. You may not read it, but there might be someone else who will. Since it's is rather long, I will end this email with this and conclude my response to you in a follow up email ...


----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: email list
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Question ONE of the Judge's Godhead article ....


((NOTE: The copy and paste of EMAIL # 17 (posted in its entirety above), which was included in this email has been removed for time and space consideration))


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 42
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: Cox & Bobby 2-6-03 - PART TWO


Mr. Cox: Seventh, your tone has been sufficiently harsh in your two posts to me that it seems a bit disingenuous on your part to call me and Larry judgmental, insecure and narrow minded. Your approach toward those with whom you have doctrinal disagreements does not speak well of your claim to gentleness.


Bobby: Well, since you totally understand Larry's humility, and his being bold and plain spoken when it comes to defending his indoctrination, you should be able to understand the zeal I have for the Word of the Lord that exposes the error of the doctrines of man. I have nothing personally against Larry. His theology is flawed, and I have already proven it. And he has demonstrated a propensity to be stubborn, judgmental and arrogant, but other than that, I don't have a problem with Larry. Those who know me, know that I don't go around looking for a spiritual fight, but won't back down from one when pushed, either. Furthermore, if this is going to turn into a fruit inspection session, I imagine there's a good possibility we would all come up short in the "gentleness" area.


Mr. Cox: Eighth, your illustration of the court and time limits does not hold water. First, the judge DOES control what is said, and for how long. Second, there are rules that severely limit the scope of the discussion, as there would be in the debate procedure advocated by brother Hafley. Third, these rules in a court of law are established precisely to avoid "the slickest lawyer" to "rule the day." The illustration best serves a more formal debate procedure, not your unworkable model.


Bobby: What? Doesn't hold water? Granted, the Judge presides over the court, but he is NOT sitting up there with a stop watch telling the plantiff's or defendant's lawyer that their 20 minutes is up. You know good and well that each side does NOT have an exact equal allotment of time. Instead, they have an equal allotment of "opportunity" to present or defend their case, regardless of how much time it takes them to fully present or defend their case with ALL the evidence ... and this is all in the world I am asking for out of you people. **IF** I followed your reasoning here, it would be acceptable that whatever evidence in a trial that wasn't presented within the prescribed time limit, would be left out. Justice wouldn't be served that way, and you ought to know it, Stan.


Mr. Cox: Ninth, you again poormouth, setting up your David VS Goliath mentality. I guess you really are scared to debate orally. You say, "What would it hurt if he spotted me a car length (so to speak)." First, Larry would never put the truth at a disadvantage. Second, you have just admitted that your debate procedure could be abused and be unfair to him. There is no advantage to either man if the time limit is observed. Again, Mr. Richardson, you can't have it both ways.


Bobby: Look, Stan, I realize Larry thinks of me as being incapable of presenting the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and exposing the man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ, which has been very clearly defined and introduced to the world as the Catholic's Holy Trinity of three CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" in the Godhead, but I defintely can. Since Larry is so experienced in oral debates and since Larry is so confident he has the Truth in its entirety, all I was doing was using a drag racing analogy of having him spot me a car length .... removing the time limitation ... **IF** he's as good as he claims to be, that shouldn't be a problem for him. By the way, speaking of ya'lls man made theology, the fact that the ex-communicated monk, Martin Luther, coopt that doctrine and carried it over into the Protestant movement that ya'll are a part of, was done in fulfillment to the Word of God concerning that stuff in Revelation Chapter 17 that I was telling you about previously. Now, you might find that too incredible to believe, but you'd better start doing some serious Bible study on this Godhead subject.


Mr. Cox: Tenth, Mr. Richardson, yes, fairness in debate IS gauged in minutes. It would be unfair for one man to have a longer time to establish and defend his position. The fact that you can't see that again indicates a deficiency of some sort on your part.


Bobby: It might be fair in a political debate or some other type of debate where people are debating views, positions and opinions. But is certainly isn't fair in a debate concerning the Truth in its entirety according to the preponderance of evidence that must be presented from the Word of God. And it wouldn't be fair in a court room either. As far as I'm concerned, this is more like a trial than a political debate. Therefore, I maintain time limitations can certainly impede exploring all the facts, fully.



Mr. Cox: Eleventh, the standard debate format advocated by brother Hafley is not a "my way or the highway junk" as you express it. One needs only to examine the myriad debates that have been held to know it is the standard procedure. Your way is the way which has its origin with "self." You are the one crying "my way or the highway."


Bobby: Stan, I didn't contact Larry. I didn't even contact Jason, who brought Larry into this. Jason contacted me. God called me to do what I am doing ... and I stay pretty busy doing it. Again, I did NOT approach either one of them, proposing an oral debate. They are the ones on the asking end of this equation. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they don't have the luxury of also dictating the conditions to that which they ask. My proposal is more like that of a trail than a debate, and it is NOT unfair or dishonest. Ya'll are just too scared to step outside the boundaries of ya'lls comfort zone and face someone who has the capacity and the will to expose your man made theology for what it is.



Mr. Cox: Twelfth, it does look like you are deadlocked. And, you have called this a waste of your time. As far as I am concerned, your unwillingness to agree to honorable terms in debate is sufficient cause for Larry to wash his hands of you.


Bobby: Since I've already refuted his theology, and have the evidence to conclusively prove it on a new web page, it really doesn't matter to me what floats his boat concerning me. I'm not asking him nor you to contact me again. But, if contacted, and I so desire, I will continue to respond you.


Mr. Cox: Thirteenth, I established in my last post that your debate advertisement was unfairly biased. You totally ignored the obvious in your response. I know that the advertisement is presented from your point of view. The problem is that you were asking Larry to sign off on it, and claiming him to be stonewalling when he was unwilling to do so. Such is unfair. If you can't see that, you are again showing some deficiency.


Bobby: I'll tell you what you do, Stan, you tell Larry to advise me of any portions of my advertisement that is inaccurate or false, and we'll take it from there. But, again, if I'm the one paying for it, it will be done with full disclosure.


Mr. Cox: Fourteenth, you missed entirely my point about my desire to refer to you as sectarian. Why did you miss it? The point was clear. Let me state it again. Though I believe you to be the one who is sectarian (because I believe you to hold to error), I recognize it would be unfair to label you such in a debate advertisement. Nor would I expect you to sign off on such an advertisement. Nor would I claim that you were stonewalling if you were unwilling to do so. But, you expect Larry to sign off on advertising that is biased to your position. I am not advocating that you misrepresent anything, I am simply saying that you must be fair. Your inability to see that your advertisement is unfair indicates some sort of deficiency on your part.


Bobby: Well, at least you finally got around to saying what you've been thinking about me ... which I already knew that was how you felt. At any rate, Stan, when some of you guys point out what part of my advertisement is inaccurate or false, I will be happy to make the necessary adjustments to correct the error.


Mr. Cox: Fifteenth, you indicated that I was not specific enough in my accusation that the advertisement was unfair. You indicated it showed a lack of maturity. Again, you are showing a deficiency of some sort here. I made it clear, but will state it again. When you present the
discussion as your side= truth, his side=error, and ask him to sign off on it, that is unfair. When you further accuse him of stonewalling when he is unwilling to agree to an advertisement that presents his position as error, that is unfair. Clear enough for you?


Bobby: Look, Stan, I merely was making a public announcement about what was going to take place. Regardless of how ya'll feel or how I feel about our respective beliefs, it is my position that the facts are put out there in an unbiased way, with full disclosure, without the use of false or misleading advertising. Now, just exactly what did I say, or how did I present my side as truth and Larry's side as error in my advertisement? Did I misrepresent Larry's side? If you believe I did, just exactly what was it I said that you feel misrepresented his (and your) side? If you are going to accuse me of something, Stan, at least provide your evidence.


Mr. Cox: I think your position to be error, but if I were to write an advertisement saying that the debate will be about the "Jesus Only" error, and then sent it to you for you to "approve" it, that would be a bit presumptuous on my part, would it not? And yet, that is precisely what you have done. Rather than seek yet another advantage in your advertising, simply state the proposition, and the names of the disputants, without resorting to your prejudicial tactics. If you can't see and accede to this point, it is abundantly obvious to me that any further contact with you is pointless.


Bobby: WHAT??? Where did I say anything in the advertisement about Larry's position being error? You are halllucinating, Stan. Since Larry and I are on opposite sides of the Godhead issue, I simply state what he would affirm and I would deny and vice versa. How on God's green earth do you read into that as me stating Larry's position being error??? Granted, when it is openly shown side by side with one another, I can certainly see why a trinitarian might be a little embarrassed about their theology, but I didn't make any mention of Larry's position being error. Obviously, you've never come that close up and face to face with what your theology is all about. Stan, I used to be a trintiarian. I am very keenly aware of your unanswered questions, insecurity and doubts. That is why my calling and mission in life is to share the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine with people all over the world in person and via the Internet. People all over the world have visited my web pages, whereas I wouldn't have, otherwise, been able to personally witness to them. However, this worldwide exposure also sometimes requires me to be involved in on line debates with people like you and Larry. An arena which I've become quite proficient in. And Larry, obviously knows his only chance of preventing me from totally ripping his theology is to strap me down to a limited amount of time in an oral debate. I mean, as I said previously, you couldn't melt and pour Larry on my Scriptural refutation of his articles.



Mr. Cox: Sixteenth, my point regarding the money is not arrogance, it is fact. In the Lord's church, we have a first day of the week contribution as per 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. The offering is a free-will offering given by brethren who are cheerful and liberal. The concept of a "fundraiser" and any expectation of those present to "foot the bill" for the preaching of the gospel is a foreign concept to those with whom I have fellowship. You indicate that if I have a problem with your full disclosure policy on this, that I have a problem. Again, you miss the point. I don't have a problem with it at all. I can see where you may need to do so. However, it is not needed for those who are members of the Lord's church. That is my point. And you missed it yet again.


Bobby: Look, Stan, my advertisement was directed to the general public. The general public includes those from all different backgrounds, beliefs, walks of life, etc. They may or may not have the same understanding about this as you and I do about giving. As a matter of fact, lots of folks associate religion with an attempt to get in their pocket book, due to all the TV and radio preachers pulling for money to stay on the air, and hawking their books, and tapes, etc. I was NOT writing that advertisement to appeal to only those who embrace and Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine or those who embrace your man made theology. I was writing it to present the facts to EVERYONE concerning the who, what, when and where of this matter. If you expect me to script an advertisement that appeals to just those who believe like you, you've got another think coming.



Mr. Cox: Seventeenth, pay for any advertising you want, and put whatever you want on it. If you want to be unfair, so be it. It's your money. However, don't be so disingenuous to ask Larry to sign off on it, and to claim that he is stonewalling when he won't. Again, if you can't see that the advertising is biased to you and your position, there is something wrong with your "looker!"


Bobby: It is NOT unfair, inaccurate or false. It states the down to the nitty gritty facts of this situation. You, obviously, aren't accustomed to being around someone who can be so painfully honest and open about things as me. You can whine and complain all you want to about the advertisement, but unless or until you present your evidence, would you please whine and complain to someone else about it?


Mr. Cox: Eighteenth, your response to my suggestion that you limit the propositions to two indicates that again, you missed my point. Seems there is a pattern here. My suggestion you study up on the history of religious debating is so that you will know that multiple propositions as you have proposed is unworkable. It has nothing to do with your familiarity with your position. Please read my statements more carefully. You are establishing your arguments in the propositions. That is not the purpose of the propositions. The propositions are designed to give a framework for the debate, so that the relevant arguments can be made. Again, the fact that you are unable to see the untenable nature of your proposals indicates a deficiency of some type in this area. Your use of Paul's sermon in Acts 20 has no bearing on this, Paul was preaching, not debating. And, having had the privilege of sitting through and thoroughly benefitting from some of Larry's two hour sermons, I can say that Larry knows the difference between preaching and debating.


Bobby: **IF** the Lord puts it on my heart to enter the oral debating arena as a participant, like Larry, in addition to ... or as opposed to ... what I'm already doing, then, I realize I would be required to conform to the rules and time limitations of debating. In this case with Larry, as far as I'm concerned, it is NOT one of these, what I call, dog and pony show. It would be an honest to goodness trial ... without the time limitations that could possibly impede justice and truth being served.



Mr. Cox: Nineteenth, You indicated your weren't sure if Watchman held "official positions", but then indicated I was wrong if I believed you were not familiar with our "sect." No, if you had any familiarity with the Lord's church at all you would have known positively that the magazine had no official position. You showed your ignorance in not knowing.


Bobby: Look, Stan, I am very knowlegeable about the Lord's Church, but I don't know beans about the Watchman. I don't subscribe to it. I knew Larry was a member of the Church of Christ sect, but I did not know if the Watchman was a sanctioned publication of his sect or not. Therefore, I asked. Many sects do have official publications, which do have official positions. Now, what part of that do you not understand?


Mr. Cox: Twentieth, you claim to have touched a nerve by asking about those who have left the truth? Such a claim is so illogical it is laughable. I suppose that since Paul had to admonish the Galatians who had been deceived by the influence of the Judaizers, you would say to Paul, "you are going to stand there kicking and spitting, with your finger plugging a hole in the dike, in self-denial and rejection of what is obviously going on in congregations all over the world." I think I am beginning to see where your deficiency lies, Mr. Richardson, you are illogical. The fact that one changes a doctrinal position does not mean that he has gone from error to truth. In fact, for every individual I know who joined a charismatic sect, I could name probably 10 who left one. So, what does that prove? Nothing. If that is the nature of your argumentation, it does not surprise me that you are worried about meeting Larry publicly. Having said that, if you want Pat Boone, you can have him! Concerning those men who have gone into doctrinal error, I refer you to 2 John 9-11.


Bobby: Ummm, Stan, all I wanted to know was how those men were regarded by ya'll. But then you say, these men left the truth. What truth, Stan? Or, should I say, the Truth according to who? Paul or Larry? You see, Paul took his finger out of the dike and quit his kicking and spitting when his life was turned a complete 180 degrees as a result of him being converted and being born again ... the Bible way. Furthermore, he went on to build up the very things ya'll work real hard at tearing down. Which is another reason why ya'lls message and Pauls is NOT the same. Again, Stan, it's just a matter of whose doctrine is being regarded as Truth ... the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, or yours and Larry's. I'll take the Apostles' over yours and Larry's.



Mr. Cox: Twenty-first, you again missed my point when I made mention of the quote concerning Ben Franklin. I am not sure, but I think the article may have an error in it. I have heard that the Ben Franklin of a previous generation was a marvelous preacher, but he would have already been dead before the Ben Franklin of a few years ago departed the church. So, I think it may be an inaccuracy to claim that Ben Franklin, regarded as one of the greatest preachers ever, left the church of Christ. The Firm Foundation may have said it, but I think it might be an error made by the author of the article you asked me to read. I wanted to save you the embarrassment of bringing it up if it were factually
inaccurate. If you don't want to double check your sources, that's your prerogative. But, it is just another example of your inability to grasp the points that I am making.


Bobby: Well, since you are not sure about that which you speak, evidenced by your careful .. but very vague ... wording, I will take the report as stated. That is, unless or until you or someone else refutes it with more than someone's opinion being expressed with vague inferences which are propped up by words like "I'm not sure" ... "I think" ... "may" ... "might" ... "if" ... and "I have heard" .



Mr. Cox: Twenty-second, Your claim that I am being inconsistent when I ask you about your use of the term layman is again a logical fallacy. The position I hold concerning the persons of God has nothing to do with my request that you give authority from scripture for your use of the term layman. There is no such scriptural designation. Again, you missed the point, and left my question unanswered. Where I come from, such obfuscation is a sign of intellectual dishonesty or incompetence.


Bobby: Here's what you said, Stan: "You give the title at the end of your introductory comments: Bobby Richardson, Non-Denominational Layman. Is that a title you hold? If so, I am not aware of any such designation in scripture." I was merely pointing out your inconsistency of quibbling over a description not found in Scripture when you, on the other hand, embrace, as dogma, descriptions that are NOT found in Scripture, i.e. the terms "trinity" ... "God the Son" ... "God the Holy Spirit" and the absolute silence of the Scriptures referring to God as "persons" (let alone the "separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT" stuff) as you and Larry do. How do you explain that glaring inconsistency????



Mr. Cox: Twenty-third. You claim that I am "joined at the hip with a particular sect which requires certain things of them OR they'll be dismissed." Again, you are showing your ignorance. In reality, I answer only to God for what I preach. If I preach error, the congregation where I preach has the right to dismiss me, and to mark me as a false teacher. I would suggest that where you attend if the preacher were to teach error, you would reserve that same right. Your claims otherwise show a complete ignorance of what we teach and hold dear. You lump us in with denominational Christianity in your ignorance.


Bobby: Your sect requires you to deny the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and, instead, to embrace the man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ. Otherwise, they would throw you aside like a dirty shirt, just like you have done with those of your sect who experienced the new birth ... the Bible way. Also, you sect requires you to take a position that the operation of the Holy Spirit in the "original" New Testament Church and in your congregation today are two completely different things, and are NOT alike at all. Futhermore, I believe you and Larry have lumped me into a category due to not only ya'lls ignorance, but your arrogance, as well.


Mr. Cox: Twenty-fourth. In claiming that either Larry or I preach what we preach for monetary gain, in fact, for any other motive than because we believe it to be true, you are guilty of judging the heart. You know that is an ungodly judging, and you should repent of such ungodliness. I would never claim that you are hypocritical in your beliefs, as I recognize that though I believe you to be in error, that you may honestly have those convictions. It is shameful that you judge my heart.


Bobby: Look, Stan, you made an issue out of my advertisement stating there would be no donations or admission fees, and I explained my reason for doing so. Also, I stated that what I do concerning the Work of the Lord is NOT done for personal gain. Since you brought up this matter about Ben Franklin, I'm going to copy his testimonial below. In it you will see why preachers of your sect are concerned about what they preach. Some will cower down in order to protect their financial future, but others will do as Ben Franklin did and obey God rather than man ...

http://www.geocities.com/robert_upci/ben_franklin.htm

I Accepted the Challenge

by BEN FRANKLIN


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I PRAISE THE LORD for the understanding, patience, grace, mercy and love that He has for His erring creatures mankind! Where I once walked fearfully, self-righteously, legally, judgmentally, critically, negatively and ignorantly of a complete Gospel, I now, with the Scriptures and the Spirit in closer harmony and balance and a personal encounter with God through the Holy Spirit, draw near my Lord with a joy, peace, faith, trust, love and assurance I never knew before.

We Challenged a Prominent Evangelist

On September 22, 1955 nine of the larger congregations of the non-instrumental branch of the Church of Christ, acting in unison, inserted half-page advertisements in the Santa Ana, California Register, Orange County�s largest daily newspaper, offering $1,000 reward for one proven modern-day miraculous healing. The word of three local accredited medical doctors was all the proof required. A prominent evangelist engaged in a healing ministry had pitched his huge tent at the corner of the Santa Ana freeway and La Palma Street in Anaheim, and they were out to prove him. The money was in a Fullerton bank, and the offer was made in good faith. When the evangelist moved on at the end of his scheduled appearance without laying claim to the money, the congregations and their ministers who had inserted the ad, were sure that the miracles claimed during the meetings were false and the evangelist guilty of making merchandise of gullible people (II Peter 2:1-3). These men were sincere. I know, because since the congregation for which I preached was alphabetically ahead of the other eight, my name headed the list of those making the attack. I mention this here so that it can be held in contrast with my present views. Of course, God did heal and deliver many in those meetings. What I see now that I did not see then, was that I and my brethren were allowing externals to blind and hinder our objectivity to where we could not see what the Scriptures actually did say, and the results that really did occur through the prayer of faith.

Faithfulness to My Church

I had been born and raised in a Church of Christ environment. My father and a grandfather had been elders in that body. I had attended two colleges operated by our brethren. My wife�s family is of that persuasion. We have raised our five children in the church, with them rarely missing a service any time in any week from the time they were a week old, except for what our people call a providential hindrance." At the time of my breaking with my people over the matter of the Holy Spirit, I had been preaching for sixteen years in a number of congregations. I knew all of the reasons our people give for disbelieving in the miraculous for today, and believed that all such ceased with the writing of the New Testament.

In 1962 my family moved to the San Diego, California area where I became the minister for one of the larger congregations. f Shortly after settling there, word came that a well-known doctor and his wife, Church of Christ members from families which had also been such for generations, had received a baptism in the Holy Spirit. An elder and I were talking of this, and wondered how someone so well-grounded in the Scriptures and secularly educated could be led off into such an unscriptural doctrine. It occurred to us that such a doctrine might rise up among us, and that someone ought to make a more careful study of the matter so as to be able to "nip it in the bud," if and when it did. It was suggested that I make such a study, and I accepted the challenge.

Diligently Searching the Scriptures

Thus, as time from a busy ministry would allow, I began to study and compile information relating to the Holy Spirit. Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the study, I received a copy of Trinity magazine (no longer being published) in the mail from some anonymous sender. It was filled with well-written testimonies and teachings relating to a baptismal filling with the Holy Spirit occurring among ministers and lay people in many different mainline Christian denominations. The subjects were, in the main, well educated and consisted mostly of professional people, businessmen, teachers and clergymen. Realizing that these could not be dismissed as ignorant, psychotic, neurotic or hypnotic, I determined to search the Scriptures myself rather than depend upon the findings of someone else, regardless of how well thought of he was in the brotherhood.

In February of 1963 a minister�s retreat was held in the Laguna Mountains east of San Diego and I was assigned to conduct a forum on a subject of my own choosing. I prepared a questionnaire on the Holy Spirit, introduced it and sat back to listen. I was soon startled by what I was hearing. Here were over twenty prominent Church of Christ ministers - respected, honored, and familiar with the Scriptures. On most any subject they would instantly give chapter and verse to undergird their position, but here on the matter of the Holy Spirit they were not doing so. I heard coined brotherhood expressions, interpretations, explanations and assumptions - and such things as: "Let�s not rock the boat," "One might lose his pulpit if he said too much about this," and "Don�t forget how hard we have worked to get our standing in the brotherhood."

Some Criticism Was Unjustified

I left the retreat sensing that something was not right. For the next year or so I pursued the study at every opportunity, staying largely with the Scriptures themselves. I ran all the references in the Bible on the Holy Spirit and related matters, placed them in different categories for comparison, and made copius notes. At no time did I personally study with a "Pentecostal" preacher or teacher, or attend one of their meetings. I did secure several additional copies of Trinity, and several copies of VIEW and VOICE, publications of the Full Gospel Business Men�s Fellowship International. A few tracts also found their way into my hands. As I studied I became aware that mine and the brotherhood�s approach to the Holy Spirit question called for side-stepping certain passages, lifting others from their context, and building doctrine on assumptions. I came to feel that some of our criticism of those who believed in a baptism in the Holy Spirit was unjustified, and on the other hand to see that they had problems, abuses, traditions, and blind spots as well as we, and were trying to do something about them. I came to realize that there was no passage of scripture, taken in its own context, which stated that the miraculous would cease when the original apostles died or the New Testament was written. In fact, the Scriptures said nothing about an apostolic dispensation. I was surprised to find that reliable history records much miraculous activity centuries after the death of the apostles, and became aware that all basic Christian doctrines were initially given to the apostles with the intention of their being passed on to succeeding generations - including a filling with the Holy Spirit with accompanying manifestations. It surprised me to find that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2 :38-89) promised to all was what Cornelius and his household had received, accompanied with evidence seen and heard (Acts 2:33; 10:44-47). Our church doctrine maintained there was a difference.

New Words to An Old Tune

My study led me to see that in all of the Bible there was but one passage (I Cor. 13 :8-10) which even hinted that anything of the miraculous would cease at some time. Rather than stating that the manifesting agent would cease, it spoke of "parts" - that produced by the agent - ceasing. Thus it states that "prophecies," not "prophecy," would cease. The time when they would cease was based on Christian maturity ("perfect") and not on the apostolic lifetime or the writing of the New Testament, as our doctrine dictated. While only knowledge, prophecies and tongues were said to cease, I realized that we had added to the list to the point of removing all of the supernatural from the Scriptures, which are supposed to guide us into all truth. I noted that if "childish things" (I Cor. 13 :11) referred to the gifts rather than to the Corinthian Christians� behavior, then the Apostle Paul was giving strange admonitions in the 14th chapter when he time and again urged disciples to seek the gifts. Was he urging childishness? Of course not. Realizing that Paul was contrasting the divisive, factional, schismatic behavior of the Corinthians (I Cor. 12) with love rather than with the gifts, I saw that parts - a person, a gift, or both - are never the whole, and when used wrongly or rightly have only so much to contribute to the whole and then, having made their contribution, cease. It appears that Paul is saying, "Boast not in the limited part you are allowed to play, but seek instead and glory in the more permanent and important matters of faith, hope and love.��

An Attempt Toward Objectivity

One morning, alone in the church building, as I was contemplating these matters I pushed my chair from my desk and, singing at the top of my voice, made my way to the communion preparation room to make myself a cup of instant. The words and tune of the song I sang was, "How Great Thou Art," but my mind was on the other matters. I had heated the water and was pouring it on the instant, when I suddenly became aware that the words coming from my lips were to the same tune, but were not English. They were strange words, and while I did not cease singing, I did soften down considerably and found myself analyzing what was taking place. No power seemed to have hold of me, yet the words rolled out smoothly and fit perfectly with the tune. I had no idea of what word would come next and I knew that I could stop anytime I wanted to, which is what I did after a few moments of enjoying what was going on. I thought that if this was a tongue as mentioned in I Corinthians 14 then I should be able to speak. I tried, but to no avail. I began singing again and the strange words came, but I still couldn�t speak conversationally. In thinking of this I remember that I was not worked up emotionally, was not sick, and in no way felt abnormal. In fact, physically, mentally, and emotionally I was as normal as a normal, contented person could be.

While at the time I noticed nothing unusual about the above incident, in the following week, quite unconsciously at first, I became aware that I was beginning to look at others in a different light and to feel a depth of brotherly love and concern for everyone such as I had never felt before. When someone would confide in me, I had a genuine interest and found tears forming, which was unusual. Also, the Scriptures began to take on a new light and depth. In passages I had read all my life I now saw matters I had not seen before. Since I found myself unable to speak in a tongue, even with this singing experience, I was not ready to acknowledge that I had been filled with the Spirit but did sense that the Lord was at work in my life as He had not been before.

My Brotherhood Image Was Endangered

Realizing that true objectivity is one of the most difficult positions for a human being to achieve, I deliberately did not take my elders or even my wife into my confidence as I made my study, lest my objectivity be colored by my attachment to them. One day, after becoming certain in my own mind that the scriptures taught that the Holy Spirit�s power and the miraculous did belong to us today, regardless of what I had or had not seen, I told my wife what I had come to believe. She then admitted that she had in her own way been studying the same matter and had also come to the same conclusions. Feeling that God had so much more for us than we had allowed Him to give us, we decided to seek it even though it might mean dismissal from our church. However, before we did this, inasmuch as neither of us lay claim to being exceptional exegetes of the Scriptures, we determined to find out if someone else in the brotherhood with better brain power, education or experience had arrived at the same conclusion.

I Was Not Content With Singing

The Lord provided us with the means. A Christian gentleman, perhaps the best-known evangelist in the brotherhood, was coming to our congregation for a series of meetings. We agreed to take him into our confidence. Material was arranged in such a way as to be presented on charts. Two sheets were secured and prepared for the presentation. In addition to this brother I also invited a former college president and a minister-elder friend. On a Saturday morning the three listened for over two hours. Having no inkling of what was in store, they listened quietly, attentively, patiently and in amazement. At the conclusion, I asked them to please show me where I was mistaken. One of them said little, and later indicated basic agreement. The others used the same brotherhood arguments that I had used myself so often - largely assumptions, interpretations and explanations demanded by brotherhood position. When these failed, an appeal was made towards what such convictions would do to my brotherhood image, such as no church allowing me to preach and so on. If there had been any doubts about my new convictions prior to that meeting, they were all gone when it was concluded. The more they reasoned, the more apparent it became that the Lord had directed my study. I was Determined to be faithful to Him and my convictions, and praised Him for giving me these notable men with which to share them. May God hasten to open their eyes also.

On the following day (Sunday), my wife and I revealed our convictions to the elders and deacons, and on Monday evening were releaved of our duties. In order to feed my family we moved to Santa Ana, California where, due to the goodness of Christian loved ones, I went into the auto supply business and the Lord provided us with what we needed. We continued our studies and sought the Holy Spirit in His fullness. The wife and I and our two children who are still at home have all received the Spirit with the accompaning manifestation of tongues. Although I had sung in a language I did not understand, I was not content, and sought God until He blessed me with the ability to pray and converse with Him at will in a new tongue. This occurred on Sunday at midday, as I sat in a chair in an upstairs bedroom alone, not seeking a manifestation of the Spirit but just rejoicing in the Lord. Since then, I find that I can use this tongue almost at will.

The Spirit Works in All Denominations

We worshipped with the Church of Christ for awhile, but found it difficult to serve the Lord as we wished, since it was almost impossible to lead others to Him and then have them exposed to teaching from the pulpit and classroom that was adverse to a complete Gospel. In time we became identified with the Anaheim Christian Center Church where we became Bible school teachers and I became one of their elders. It was while at Christian Center that I was asked to move to San Diego and work with the downtown congregation of the Church of Christ. We made our convictions known to them and stipulated that in coming there would be no restrictions and that the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, not man, were to structure the congregation. This was acceptable to them. The Lord sold our business and our house and we are now back in San Diego.

God has led us to recognize that believing and accepting more of His Holy Spirit in our lives today does not necessarily make us any less a member of Christ�s Church or more a member of some other denomination. In fact, we can see that all religious organizations, as does the Church of Christ, have their share of customs, practices, and traditions which need to be scrutinized in the light of the Scriptures. Just as Jesus loved all the people of all the "denominations" existing in His day, and freely associated with them in an attempt to call out His sheep, so today the Holy Spirit belongs exclusively to none of our denominational bodies but works in all.



Mr. Cox: I will finish by noting that I have now spent just over an hour writing this response. This in addition to my first post. You did not answer my first post, in fact, your second post to me indicated an inability to even grasp the simplest of points I have made. I wish you no malice, either, but I fear for your soul. It is my prayer that the deficiency you have shown in your response to me is not the result of a dishonest heart. I pray that God would open your heart to be fair, and to agree to the reasonable parameters of oral debate.



Bobby: I answered your fist post, just as I am answering this one ... POINT BY POINT. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear. AND I've put more time into this than you have, sir. Unless you can Scripturally refute the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, don't fear for my soul, fear for your own.



Mr. Cox: I also fear that this post will have no more effect upon you than our previous one, so I will not attempt any further correspondence. I leave you with a final appeal... try to be brave. Don't let your fear of brother Hafley keep you from defending what you believe. If you truly have faith in your convictions, stop hiding behind your unreasonable and untenable demands, and agree to honorable, fair debate. Unless you are willing to do this, all of your protestations ring hollow. May God turn your mind to truth, Stan Cox editor, Watchman Magazine


Bobby: I don't recall seeing the description of "editor" in the Scriptures, Stan, hee, hee. Seriously, I haven't received the spirit of fear, Stan. But, neither will I be dictated to by the likes of you or Larry. Now, either ya'll are man enough to reach an agreement with me on this oral debate matter or ya'll ain't. The ball is in your court. And like I said, unless you can Scripturally refute the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, you really ought not to be lecturing someone else about God turning their mind to truth. That rings exceedingly hollow ... if you know what I mean. In closing, I will leave you with what someone in my audience wrote me concerning you ...
Bro Bobby,

Mr. Cox said, " I don't personally know the other men, nor am I too familiar with their names. However, with regard to Ben Franklin, you may want to check your sources. The Firm Foundation may have been referring to his Grandfather rather than him."

Notice Mr Cox said "MAY" be referring to his grandfather. It seems he doesn't really know but will not pass up a chance to muddy the waters. I noticed he also failed to mention the comments by:

J.W.McGarvey. Lard's Quarterly. Vol.I, no. 4, June 1964

"The lover of truth should never be a dogmatist nor conclude that on any subject he has nothing more to learn. But he should stand ready whenever his conclusions, even those of which he is most confident are challenged on the basis of new reasons...I have for some years been convinced that the immersion in the Holy Spirit is not fully understood and that it needs investigation and discussion de novo".

Thomas Munnel. Lard's Quarterly. Vol. II.2,Jan. 1865.

"All who have capacity enough to admit some of our views on this subject (i.e. "Church of Christ" theories on the Holy Spirit baptism) may have been erroneous will no doubt be benefited by reading up on the discussion. Those who are too weak to make such an admission would do well to spend their time in some other way".

Tom Roberts in the Gospel Guardian says that the number has now "almost reached epidemic proportions". (cf. Jan. 1971 Issue, p.8)

James D. Bales admits "There are cells of tongues speakers in more than one congregation" and that there are tongues speakers on their Bible school campuses. (Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues)

James D. Bales also writes that "I have learned of cells of tongues speakers in congregations in different parts of the country and in some colleges maintained by the brethern". He asks "WHY?" (Pentecostalism In The Church, p.4)

Mr Cox sweeps these "under the carpet" by stating, "After all, the proposition affirms what the "Scriptures teach", rather than how many men you can find who have been influenced to believe differently than what brother Hafley does."

Mr Cox said of Pat Boone, "Pat Boone has long been one known to have left the church because of his liberal tendencies. He was withdrawn from for sinful actions, if I remember correctly, and later joined up with certain charismatics." Could this be slander???

Pat Boone said, "I'm afraid I was more or less a "typical" Christian; you know, the kind that's determined to be good, no matter how miserable it makes him! I was the product of a fine Christian home, a student of the Bible, a song-leader and Sunday school teacher. I preached occasionally and wrote a couple of books for young people, in addition to consciously attempting to project a Christian image in my career as an entertainer ... hmmmm, sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

I guess in most ways it was pretty good. And it's certainly not accurate to refer to myself as "miserable." There were high points, times when I knew God had blessed and used me, times when I was so grateful for the knowledge that I was truly a Christian, times (as in the books and occasional youth rallies) when I experienced the joy of being able to communicate to others the blessings of living in the Lord's Body, the Church. I had obeyed His commands about repentance, confession, baptism - and of course, I believed. But something was missing. Something big! There were too many vacant spots in my life, too many unanswered questions, too little joy."

It seems Cox and company don't take kindly to Church of Christ brethern searching for truth, finding some, and receiving it.

Bro Robert



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 43
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: Another Bombshell for Larry and his sect ...


Robert: Bro Bobby, Check out this site...It's another bombshell to the Church of Christ.

http://www.bibleworld.com/ss-open.pdf

If the above link doesn't work, then go to http://theyyetspeak.com/oldpage/oldpage.htm , scroll down to "HOLY SPIRIT" August 15, 22, 29 issues of GOSPEL GUARDIAN devoted to the study of the "Holy Spirit" (14 articles). (File Name: Holysp~1.pdf <download/holysp~1.pdf )
Read articles: "ALLEDGED DIRECT OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT AMONG CHURCHES OF CHRIST by CECIL WILLIS page 48

Then read "MODERN PENTECOSTALISM:IT'S PENETRATION INTO DENOMINATIONS AND THE CHURCH" By JIMMY TUTEN, JR. page 42 .... Very interesting articles. Bro Robert



Bobby: Man, Brother Robert, where ... or how ... do you find all this stuff??? I guess Larry and those who kick against the pricks like him must think the genuine operation of the Holy Spirit (which knows no religious ... or denonimational ... barriers) is something they can actually stop. I mean, they must think of it as being the camel's nose under their tent, and they're fighting it tooth and nail to try and keep it from coming on in. As most of us already knew, and as the evidence presents, even Church of Christ people ... and other trinitarians ... are receiving the Holy Ghost ... the Bible way. So, Larry and his crew have a very full platter .... trying to keep the genuine operation of the Holy Spirit out of their congregations ... AND ... also, trying to keep the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine out. No wonder they're as mixed up as a termite in a yo-yo ... and as mad as a hornet. No doubt, some of them are just misguided zealots, like Paul was before his conversion, but I'm sure there are others whose mind God has already seered with that hot iron that the Bible speaks of. At any rate, I'm just going to copy and paste it ... and pass it along to everyone else. Also, I am working on a new web page to put all this documentation on for Church of Christ members ... and anyone else ... who are open and honest enough to look into my email communications with Jason and Larry, as well as my Scriptural refutation of Larry Ray Hafley's articles AND these bombshells you have shared with us. Many thanks! God bless! - Bobby



Gospel Guardian Special Holy Spirit 48

ALLEDGED DIRECT OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT
AMONG CHURCHES OF CHRIST
CECIL WILLIS

Many strange and uncertain sounds have been heard within our ranks in recent years. Perhaps the strangest and least expected of these have been the claims made for supernatural and direct operations of the Holy Spirit within the lives of contemporary Christians.

It is the purpose of this article to document such claims and to prove that such actually are being alleged as occurrences among us. Frequently when some brother has rather carefully investigated a report, some other brethren are just positive that such a claim has never been made, though they have not themselves spent Eve minutes investigating the matter. The charges to be made in this article were not fabricated. The charges that some in the churches of Christ are claiming direct operations of the Holy Spirit did not come "off the top of our head." Such claims actually are being made.

In a documentary of this sort, it is essential to rely on the testimony of others. Obviously one cannot personally have been at all the places where such peculiar phenomena are supposed to have happened. The Bible teaches that a charge is to be substantiated by two or three witnesses in this article. If 'the testimony of our brethren cannot be relied upon, then we cannot know that Christ was resurrected, for Paul cited the testimony of brethren as proof of His resurrection (I Cor. 15:.6).

Brief Historical Background

Most modem claims to direct operations of the Holy Spirit have been in Pentecostalism, which began about seventy-five years ago. Most of us have become accustomed to hearing such claims from members of Pentecostal denominations, Church of God, Assembly of God, United Pentecostal, Church of the Nazarene, etc.

However, there has been a recent outbreak in traditional Protestantism of what has been ter "Neo-Pentecostalism," "the New Penetration, the "Charismatic Renewal." Virtually all of the major denominations have been penetrated by this new movement, including the Episcopals, Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Disciples, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and now the church of the Lord.

"Neo-Pentecostalism" may be traced to Dennis Bennett, Rector of St. Mark's Episcopal church in Van Nuys, California, who claimed on April 3, 1960 to have spoken in tongues. One of the main promoters of "The Modern Tongues Movement" has been the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International, which was founded by Damon Shakarian (a wealthy California businessman in the Pentecostal church) and which has been encouraged by Oral Roberts. The tongue movement now embraces the wealthy, cultured, and educated, including professors, writers, preachers, doctors and lawyers. A good book to secure which traces this history would be The Modern Tongues Movement by Robert G. Gromacki.

Now this "Neo-Pentecostal" movement has begun to infiltrate the churches of Christ. It seems that denominationalism can be affected by no malady without us eventually getting an infection of it. Primarily this "tongue" and "direct operation" movement has affected our liberal brethren; paradoxically, the very brethren who for several years have been predicting a division among the "Antis." These brethren for several years now have sown to the wind, and in the whirl-wind which they are just beginning to reap is a sizeable dose of "Neo-Pentecostalism." There is virtually no trace of such influences among conservative churches.

The nature of the remainder of the article will be documentary. It is not the purpose of this paper to argue the issues involved. Others have done this adequately. It is simply my purpose to prove there is such an issue among us. I shall cite the testimony of several brethren concerning the presence of such an error among church members.

The Evidence

1. FOY E. WALLACE, JR.: "It appears that a combination of professors and young evangelists, with the aid of numerous printed mediums, have formed a confederation to stampede the brotherhood and take over the church for a Holy Spirit Movement, similar to and equal to the millennial movement, and as theoretically wrong. It is in fact a doctrinal defection" (The Mission And Medium Of The Holy Spirit, p. 9). Wallace states that there have been "numerous instances" of this "new movement within our ranks" Q. 2,3). fie cites one case of an evangelist who, before rising to speak, "prayed for the Holy Spirit to enter into him" (p. 3).

Further Wallace said: "The emphasis of this revolutionary movement is on the activities of the Holy Spirit apart from the word. The examples claimed for such extra- curricular activities are such as the 'Holy Spirit led exodus' to New York and New Jersey, a leader of which claimed 'Holy Spirit protection' when he joined the Chicago marchers in the racial demonstration; and another who could not attract a hearing on a New York street comer claimed Holy Spirit direction to another comer several block away where a ready audience awaited him; and one who was attending a party was told by the Holy Spirit to leave the table and to go to a man who would receive his teaching. Other such incidents ascribed to 'activities' of the Holy Spirit recently related are such as the Holy Spirit causing a preacher to miss his plane connection in a city which resulted in teaching a particular person � but
that city had several resident gospel preachers and the Spirit could as well have sent one of them � and, then the preacher who was in a rush prayed for the Holy Spirit to reserve a parking place for him in a congested city business block � and it was waiting for him at the right time and place. So we have a new formula -- pray and park. In these activities they really have the Holy Spirit buzzing about � (p. 2).

Foy Wallace also said, "This clique of Holy Spirit-impressed preachers among us cannot explain the difference of a gnat's eyelash between their form of inspiration and that which was claimed by prophetess Ellen (Ellen G. White of the Adventists -CW) � they had as well join the Adventists .... They had as well join the Holy Rollers" (p. 4,5). Many of our preaching brethren have so enlarged upon their concepts of divine providence that they almost involve themselves in a theory of predestination.

2. G. K. WALLACE: In writing an INTRODUCTION of Foy E. Wallace's book, The Mission And Medium of the Holy Spirit, G. K. Wallace also acknowledged the presence of such an error among us: "If this Baptist doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is not checked, we are in for a complete apostasy in the church. � It might be added, however, that these two brethren have done mighty little of late to "check" denominational error in the church. In fact, in recent years, they have been party to the propagation of it on several points. So how on earth do they think they can be effective in preventing an apostasy when they are now among the ring-leaders of it'?

3. REUEL LEMMONS: "The weird views among some brethren regarding supernatural guidance and manifestations are all based upon this erroneous concept of the Spirit's indwelling" (Firm Foundation, Vol. 83, No. 46, published in 1966).

4. B. C. GOODPASTURE: It is not often one can quote B. C. Goodpasture against anything, except "Anti-ism." So while we have him in print on the negative side of one issue, I certainly want to quote him: "There has been, and is, a great deal of misunderstanding concerning the Spirit and his work. Some erroneous ideas concerning the Spirit have been accepted by some of our brethren in different parts of the country. Some have been drinking at the fountains of denominational error" (Gospel Advocate, Vol. 108, No. 19, published in 1966). Brother Goodpasture, through his Gospel Advocate, has seen to it that these denominational fountains from which some of the brethren have been drinking have been well-supplied with drinkers. One who reads the Gospel Advocate need not search for another denominational fountain from which to drink.

5. GUY N. WOODS: Our old friend Guy N. Woods even has gotten into this act. With a few brethren it now is popular to oppose this new denominationalism. So Woods has gotten on record on this issue real early in the fight, which is a little unusual for him. In refuting the views of Abilene Christian College Professor, J. W. Roberts, Woods said: "We believe that the view we are refuting is a dangerous one; and, that it is an easy step from the concept of a personal, literal, indwelling of the Spirit in the heart � independent of and apart from the word of truth � to fanciful leadings, alleged divine impulses and intimations now believed by some among us to proceed from the Spirit which is by them believed to dwell in the heart actually, personally � apart from the word" (Gospel Advocate, Vol. 108, No. 25, published in 1966).

In AX ON THE ROOT (Vol. 1, p. 27), Woods speaks of this as "the most dangerous movement ever to arise among us." He said, "it is truly amazing that there would arise among us men who would advocate views of the Holy Spirit which were rebated two generations ago on a thousand battle fronts by the giants of the Restoration Movement..." He sounds as if this Holy Spirit controversy is worse than "Anti-ism", and coming from Woods, that must mean it is bad!

6. ALAN E. HIGHERS: Under a heading entitled "Read It and Weep," Brother Highers of Memphis quoted several preaching brethren. The following are two points out of a Gospel Advocate (July 21, 1966) article by him: "ON RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT: am finding that many in the church of Christ may have already received what would have been a baptism of the Spirit � some even going so far as to speak a word or two in a tongue, but due to fear or ignorance of the Spirit's activity were unable to recognize it, at the time, and cooperate properly for a fuller blessing."' Under another heading Highers quotes again: "ON MIRACULOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SPIRIT: 'There is no scripture which says that manifestations of the Spirit will cease when the New Testament was written or when the last apostle died. All such doctrines are a perversion or an invention of men!" Highers then observes, "The foregoing statements would not be so remarkable were it not for one fact. EVERY ONE OF THEM WAS MADE OR PUBLISHED BY A PREACHER WITHIN THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST!"

7. IRA RICE, JR.: In speaking of services at the Whitney Avenue congregation in Hamden, Connecticut, Brother Rice said: "Even on that first day, I was amazed to hear one of the supposedly leading brethren express views on the Holy Spirit, which sounded foreign to New Testament teaching. He made quite a point of declaring that we can know a great deal more of the Holy Spirit's teaching for us other than what A recorded in the Bible. What astonished me even further was the fact that the other members present let him say all those questionable things without one word of either protest or correction!" (AX ON THE ROOT, Vol. 1, p. 7).

8. PERRY B. COTHAM: "Some preachers are saying that the church 'may still have' the miraculous gifts of the Spirit as possessed by the apostles and early Christians. One preacher 'of thirty-eight years of preaching,' who has accepted the personal indwelling and guidance of the Spirit, is more bold in his affirmation. In writing to the members he said: 'There is no scripture which says that manifestations of the Spirit will cease when the New Testament was written or when the last apostle died. All such doctrines are a perversion of the Scripture or an invention of men.' There is no room to misunderstand what the author meant by that statement. It causes one to wonder how long it will be until some preachers begin claiming a ,special revelation' from the Holy Spirit" (FIRM FOUNDATION, Vol. 83, No. 25, published in 1966).

9. DELMAR OWENS: "I have heard some statements concerning the present work of the Holy Spirit which have alarmed me, and while I do not question the sincerity of those making the statements, I must question the conclusions they have reached. I am wondering how long it will be before some will be speaking in tongues, and practicing miraculous divine healing" (FIRM FOUNDATION, Vol. 83, No. 26, published in 1966).

10. J. D. THOMAS: "Neo-Pentecostalism is a designation which has been applied to the recent spread of the use of glossolalia (tongue-speaking -CW) among the larger and more dignified 'established' churches. This aspect began with an Episcopal minister in California, and now affects Presbyterians, Reformed Church of America, some Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists, and it has been taken up among certain youth groups of interdenominational character. It has affected some in the Church of Christ" (FIRM FOUNDATION, Oct. 18, 1966, p, 663).

11. GARY COLLEY; "We do not doubt God's wisdom and care which he gives his children. But it disturbs us greatly to hear of Christians claiming they can 'speak in tongues,' or that the Spirit guides them into a certain parking place at a hospital and on to the right floor off an elevator, simply by his direct operational power. It disturbs us to hear a 'Holiness' pray for the Holy Spirit to come down NOW and fill us directly; but to hear one who is a preacher for the Lord's church do the same, all the while claiming truth for his conduct, disturbs us more than words can express (Firm Foundation, May 17, 1966, p. 311.)

12. MAURICE ETHRIDGE: Brother Ethridge, writing in the NORTH ATLANTIC CHRISTIAN, tells of a young preacher who said, "The Holy Spirit is not locked up in a closed book. He is as active today as He was in the first century. Why, the Holy Spirit guides me in everything I do -when I go shopping, park the car, figure income tax -everything." (Quoted in TRUTH MAGAZINE, June 1967, p. 16).

13. CLINTON DAVIDSON: Brother Davidson, former member of the Manhattan church in New York but now deceased, was owner of the CHRISTIAN LEADER about thirty years ago. Because of his proposal to copyright the paper (apparently to avoid critical reviews of published material), he came- to be called by some "Copyright Davidson:' lie was often in disagreement with Foy E. Wallace, Jr. back then. But possibly Foy E. Wallace capitulated to him also, since he has to nearly everyone else with whom he used to have doctrinal disagreement. But here is Brother Davidson's "testimony": "My daughter-in-law taught in college and has a Master's degree. She never studied Latin and has no acquaintance with it; yet when she spoke in tongues one who was present who was well-versed in Latin
said that she spoke in perfect Latin. He understood her well. One who was present when a friend of mine spoke in tongues said that he spoke in a Chinese dialect with which he was perfectly familiar .... I have been present in meetings of small groups of well-educated people in different sections of country during the past ten years while they spoke in tongues, and in every case these people knew what they were doing" (NORTH ATLANTIC CHRISTIAN, September, 1964, p. 2).

Brother Davidson wrote me (January 6, 1965), "...I might mention that I have never spoken in tongues ... I have, however, been in the homes of people who have excellent scholastic education (something I lack), who appeared to me to speak in tongues exactly as described in the New Testament. Because I know these people so well, I cannot doubt their sincerety (sic) or their veracity..."

14. W. L. TOTTY: Even Brother Totty gets into the act of criticizing his fellow-liberal Jimmy Allen (in this area Allen is of fame for his Greater Indiana Campaign for Christ) for one, of his loose statements. Allen said, "The Holy Spirit comes through the Word of God. When the message is obeyed, the Spirit really, literally, actually dwells within the believer. His indwelling is not representative (i.e. dwelling in us only in the form of God's Word while not really present himself). There is a real affinity between God's Spirit and man's spirit. This is plainly what the Bible says! Explain it, who can? Certainly not I! However, through faith I can believe it. Thank God, we don't walk alone!" Quoted in THE SWORD OF PEACE, December, 1967).

Brother Totty also worked Allen over for his statement of what he did and did not believe. Alien said, "I do not believe the Holy Spirit operates only through the word of God in the life of a Christian:' (Quoted in the Indianapolis Garfield Heights INFORMER, March 19, 1967).

15. WILLIAM BANOWSKY: One of the most popular and widely known "young princes" (as Leroy Garrett is calling them) is William Banowsky, preacher for the large and famous Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas. Following are some of his pronouncements on the current Holy Spirit controversy: "...Neither are his (i.e. the Holy Spirit's) influences limited to the word of God" (Broadway Bulletin, November 27, 1966). "Perhaps our lack of action can be traced to our failure to make use of the person of God's Spirit dwelling within our hearts! What a great gulf separates the tradition-choked church of our day from the vital religion of Acts. We have taken the Spirit out!" (Quoted in Gospel Guardian, February 2, 1967).

16. DALE RIDEOUT: Brother Dale Rideout recently reported that he was moving from Belleville, Ontario to work with the little Barrie, Ontario church, and with our now liberal Brother Wesley Jones, AND with Wesley's $500,000.00 government financed Old Folks' Home. In explaining why he made the move, Brother Rideout said that his work in Belleville was a failure. Thus he said, "we decided the best thing to do is to stop wasting the Lord's money by trying to do something we didn't know how .... The Holy Spirit takes an active part in our lives when we let him. He took a year of my life to show me a need, then He showed me how to fill the need. The congregation in Barrie, Ontario learned of our decision to make a change at the time they were considering someone to work with them. We were led to each other by the Spirit to fill each other's needs," (GOSPEL HERALD, January, 1968).

The Holy Spirit supposedly led Brother Rideout to Barrie. I wonder if the same Holy Spirit led him to Belleville, where he so miserably failed according to his testimony. Or was Brother Rideout resisting the Holy Spirit when he moved to Belleville? Was he then ignoring the Holy Spirit, or was the Holy Spirit ignoring him? One thing for sure; he had better "produce" in Barrie, or he is going to cast a mighty bad reflection on the Holy Spirit, after being hand-picked for the Barrie job by Him.

Such a report reminds me of a Methodist preacher with whom I was in school about fifteen years ago. He was being paid about $250.00 a month, and another church offered him about $50 to $75 a month increase in pay. He had to decide whether to move to get the pay raise. He said he rushed into the house and told his wife, "Honey, you start packing, while I go to pray about this matter!" There is going to be quite a bit of money circulating in Barrie, now that my friend Wesley has built his $500,000.00 Old Folks' Home! The Holy Spirit ismoving Brother Rideout to Barrie at a most propitious time � for Brother Rideout!

Other Evidences

All of the above cited testimonies have been from brethren in the liberal churches. The testimony of these brethren cannot be brushed aside and dismissed as the mutterings of a deranged "Anti" mind. Some of the liberals will not believe anything we say about them, even if we have it in "black and white." But perhaps they will believe it from the mouths of their own brethren.

However, I want now to offer a few other witnesses to prove that some very strange things are being heard from brethren today. Notice again that all of these "happenings" are among the liberal brethren of various shades.

1. "RESTORATION REVIVAL": Will H. Hudson publishes a little paper called Restoration Revival which is published in Sutherlin, Oregon. I do not know Brother Hudson. He may be in the "conservative" Christian Church but he says he is a member of the church of Christ. In this paper, Brother Ralph Sinclair said, "And now in our day with an increasing interest in Glossolalia, some of our people are not only speaking in tongues, but singing as well. And thus they are more scriptural than we skeptics in this matter of I Cor. 14:15. A leader and long-time worker in the Church of Christ says of some current ecstatic singing: 'the harmony was breathtaking with different tunes weaving in and out in perfect harmony ... a girl of strict church of Christ upbringing and wanting to believe but scared said of the singing in the Spirit, That has to be the way the angels sound in Heaven. It is I know, I've never heard anything so beautiful!" (Quoted in TRUTH MAGAZINE, June, 1967).

2. "ABIDE": I receive another little paper entitled ABIDE, about which I know very little. But in the December, 1967 issue there was "A Discussion on Spiritual Gifts" conducted in "panel fashion" by Hervy Abercrombie, Bruce Caldwell, Glen Ballard, Clint Chittock, Carl Whitehead and Floyd Mackler. They sound like liberal members of the church. But it is difficult these days to listen to a man and tell whether he is a liberal in the church of Christ, or a liberal in the Christian Church. They sound so much alike, frankly I sometime cannot tell them apart. But the men I am about to quote speak as though they are members of the church. To illustrate, they speak of the "restoration movement" (Abercrombie, p. 20). Ballard spoke of "We Lord's Supper", though he said "healing can occur at the Lord's supper" (p. 21). Mackler said, "for years I believed that there was a definite set blueprint in the scriptures for the Church. You could have a 'paper church of Christ.' You could have point one, the name � point two, the organization, etc." (p. 24). But these brethren have now "outgrown" sermons like that! Ballard spoke of "When I was baptized into the Lord" (p. 17).

In their discussion on the Holy Spirit Chittock argued, "The main scriptural evidence of the continuance of Spiritual gifts is the lack of any scripture that would indicate that they were to cease" (p. 14). Ballard concurred: ... evidently Spiritual gifts are not done away with and will not be until Christ comes" (p. 14). Caldwell added: "Until it is the sovereign will of God that Spiritual gifts should cease to exercise � and no scripture says they have � they must be in the body until Christ comes again" (p. 16).

Abercrombie said, "A brother showed me that tongues was � a means of edification" (p. 16). However, Mackler said, "Recently I've heard again of people taking corrective measures against those experiencing Spiritual gifts" (17). Whitehead maintained that there are some things that must "be known by inner Spiritual revelation" (p. 18). Caldwell reported being in one meeting where at the proper time, someone said, " ... now all of you people that have the gift of tongues start speaking in tongues" (p. 22).

3. "AN UNCERTAIN SOUND": Robert Barrett, John White and Mary Brown publish from Brightwaters, New York a little paper called "An Uncertain Sound." It is well named; one is apt to find most anything in it. In the January-February, 1968 issue, one of the writers (unidentified) said: "Charismatic Christians who say that they prophesy and speak in tongues, claiming to be following the Bible more closely than their brothers who do not exercise these gifts, are cast out of their Church of Christ congregations as ungodly liberals who refuse to see the Plain Truth."

In an earlier issue (October-November, 1966), they suggested, with considerable irony, some appropriate bumper stickers to be used by members of the churches of Christ. These liberals are so liberal that they poke fun at the liberals! Some of their suggested bumper stickers were "Joan of Arc we know, but who is Herald of Truth?", "Support Law Enforcement � Pay your preacher Well", "See the World's Largest Fossil Collection � in the Big Tent at ACC," "L. R. Wilson for Pope," and "Don't Dance � Park." Befitting to this article were two gems: "Only One-Third of God is Dead" and "Lipscomb has 23% fewer Spiritualists."

4. FROM TULSA, OKLAHOMA: A paper reported, "Tongue Speaking Puzzles Church� Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1967 A. D. A large Church of Christ in Tulsa is even now puzzled anxiously over what to do with a sizeable number of its members who are meeting in homes, experiencing a tongue-speaking gift, and telling others of the joys it brings them. There are out-breaks of tongue-speaking on the campuses of at least five of the major church of Christ colleges � in some cases including staff personnel." (Quoted from the Louisville Reminder, Via Hickory Heights Bulletin, Lewisburg, Tennessee, January 17, 1968).

Brother Dudley Ross Spears, who preaches for the 10th and Francis church in Oklahoma City, wrote me, "The church in Tulsa that is giving them fits over the Holy Spirit is the Brookside church where Paul DuBois is preacher. I am sure you recall who he is. He preached in Kansas City at the same time you were there, I think. At least he remembers you as one who persecuted him beyond measure. Paul claims that his voice has been changed by the direct power of the Spirit, denies that he can disprove modern miracles or tongue speaking and other manifestations of what he and others say is 'the Holy Spirit's work.' They have had some home sessions in which they claim to have received the Spirit" (Letter, No date, 1968). Brother Spears also wrote of Paul Dubois, "he concluded that the Holy Spirit had done that (i.e. caused his voice to quiver � CW) to him to teach him humility, due to the
fact that at one time, earlier in his career, he had been ambitious to be the 'best preacher in the brotherhood."' (Another letter, also undated, 1968).

5. FROM WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS: "My first encounter with brethren mixed up in this 'holiness' movement was announcement of a 'lay preacher' supposed in good standing with the churches of Christ in Wichita Falls, Texas who was to testify at FGBMFI (Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International � CW) meeting in Fort Worth." (R. L. Burns, Gospel Guardian, February 1967).

6. FROM FORT WORTH, TEXAS: "One family left the Park Row church in Arlington some months ago to worship at the Western Hills church in Ft. Worth 'because you can just feel the spirit."' (R. L. Burns, Letter to Cecil Willis, February 21, 1968).

7. FROM ARLINGTON, TEXAS: "Max Leach, Jr. (whose father has been associated with Abilene Christian College for about 25 years � CW) visited our services more than a year ago and contended in public that 'when that which is perfect is come' is the second coming of Christ and therefore miracles will continue until His second coming. He later stated in my home that both he and his wife had attended Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International meetings and that they both had spoken in 'unknown tongues.' His wife said she didn't know what she was saying, but she said it was the most wonderful and edifying thing she had ever known. Max said he had heard amazing prophecies of world events and had heard testimonies of many present miracles...l asked about his father's beliefs and he started to answer, then he said, 'Because of his position (at ACC) I had better let him speak for himself."' (Letter from R. L. Burns to Cecil Willis, February 21, 1968).

8. A. G. HOBBS: Brother Hobbs is the author of many tracts that have been used by brethren. Brother Burns told of meeting Brother Hobbs: "More than a year ago I chanced to see A. G. Hobbs in a cafe in West Texas. He told me the brethren with whom he was associated were badly divided and much troubled over the indwelling of the Holy Spirit question. He told of Foy Wallace preaching 'into the night' near Fort Worth, and Hobbs said they were confronted with a division that made the one between them and us look insignificant ... I have personally talked with two others in Forth Worth, Woodie Holden (hospital evangelist) and Noble Patterson (owner of FW Xian Journal), who told me much the same story (Letter to Cecil Willis, February 21, 1968).

9. HARRY ROBERT FOX: Brother Fox was fired not too long ago from Woodland Hills (a liberal church) in West Los Angeles county partly because he advocated divine healing arid tongue speaking, if the Holy Spirit personally dwells in one.

10. ROBERT MEYERS: Brother Meyers who preaches for the Riverside Drive church in Wichita, Kansas has probably given as much publicity to the new "tongues movement" among us as anyone else. When I began to gather items for this article, I wrote Brother Meyers telling him my intention and asking his assistance. He replied: "I am not interested in helping you with this project, but good luck and good hunting. I have no objection to your quoting from my bulletin or using my name, but I do pot wish to involve any others in the project" (Postcard, undated, 1968) Well, I have so far had both "good luck" and "good hunting."

Apparently some of our more liberal brethren will write to an avowed liberal like Robert Meyers what they will not otherwise publicize. I do not believe Robert Meyers will lie about the letters he claims to have (why should he?). Brother Meyers seemingly has the inside lane on some of us to find out what new modernism is invading our ranks.

Here are some remarks from him: "Glossolalia continues to spread in Churches of Christ. I have a letter from one of America's largest cities, from a minister in an old and notable church, which tells me that some-'half dozen persons in the congregation ... claim to be able to speak in tongues.' The minister says: 'At first I personally didn't believe that such was at all possible, but now am strongly inclined to think it is genuine or at least I am unwilling to oppose it."' (Riverside Weekly News Bulletin, In another article, Brother Meyers reported: "The experience in tongues (glossolalia) is being claimed by an ever-growing number of men and women in local congregations and on the campuses of Church of Christ colleges. These persons are voluble and enthusiastic about what has happened to them ... There are outbreaks of tongue-speaking on the campuses of at least five of the major Church of Christ colleges (reportedly Abilene, York, Pepperdine, Lipscomb, and Harding � CW). The participants include, in some cases, staff personnel and an occasional faculty member. Large churches in Houston and Fort Worth have been visited by the phenomenon... A large church in Tulsa is even now puzzling anxiously over what to do with a sizeable number of its members who
are meeting in homes, experiencing a tongue-speaking gift, and telling others of the joys it brings them. Almost within the days I have been working on this article I have learned of four Church of Christ ministers who claim the gift of tongues" (RESTORATION VIEWS, April, 1967).

Meyers continues, "Within the past few weeks, a well-known Church of Christ college campus has been shaken to its foundations by disagreement over how the Holy Spirit may indwell Christians and influence their lives (I hear that this is York college � CW). Before the dissension and heartache had run their course, two popular faculty members had been forced to resign, effective at once, and a third had voluntarily resigned, effective at the end of the present term ... Two of the men who were leaving had been members of the faculty for nine years ... One man claimed the baptism of the Holy Spirit in fuller measure than he had ever known, including the gift of speaking in tongues." (RESTORATION REVIEW, April, 1967). Brother Meyers verified this report concerning these faculty members by an afternoon of discussion with them.

11. CHARLES HOLT: The nearest thing I could find to a claim for "getting the Holy Spirit" among conservative churches was from Charles Holt. And I personally am not at all sure that Charles is with conservative churches any longer. I think he is inching nearer the "fellowship-every body" Ketcherside position. But Charles said in his SENTINEL OF TRUTH (January, 1968, p. 43): "Wouldn't you enjoy and appreciate some spontaneity now and then? Wouldn't you find it refreshing once-in-a-while to have a very relaxed and informal gathering; more or. less letting things happen as they will � letting the people open up, talk, ask questions, ask for prayers, even 'offer some testimony' or tell an 'experience Then Charles asks, "Have YOU ever been in a service like that; ... Not likely. Such is too much like the Holiness people and the other 'emotionally-moved' people; and we just cannot afford to 'get happy' in our services. We are governed by cold, hard logic and facts; by the 'mind' and not 'heart.' Our services are not designed to make one happy or afford and
opportunity to find stimulation and encouragement for proper feelings."

Charles has not here said he believes in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, but it seems that he infers that he expects some force to turn our meetings into virtual Holiness meetings. For several years now Charles has inferred that he believed several things he has not openly avowed. Frequently when an obvious inference is drawn from what he said, he disavows believing it. He either lacks the willingness or the ability to write and to express himself clearly � he is very often "misunderstood." He may disavow the inference I draw from the quotation here cited. But it seems to me that it fairly might be inferred that he expects something to move people to "get happy," relate an "experience," "offer some testimony" and do "like the Holiness people and other 'emotionally-moved 'People" in our services. But if Charles is not guilty on this point, I know of no claim to direct operations of
the Holy Spirit among those whom the liberals would call "Antis."

Conclusion

It is difficult to tell exactly how wide-spread this new "Holy Spirit Movement" may be. Meyers says it is "spreading significantly for the moment at least," and the "army" is growing "who actually claim Holy Spirit baptism instead of merely citing Scripture about it, and who claim also to speak in tongues of ecstasy and prophecy." Included in this article is at least enough documentation to show the timeliness of such a special issue as this, and the relevance of and the need for the teaching in this Special Issue.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Gospel Guardian Special Holy Spirit 42

MODERN PENTECOSTALISM:
IT'S PENETRATION INTO DENOMINATIONS AND THE CHURCH
JIMMY TUTEN, JR.

In 1947, Carl Brumback, one of the leading authorities and proponents of Pentecostalism. frankly confessed, "we night as well face the facts: speaking in tongues is not acceptable anywhere except in the Pentecostal movement."1 Fifteen years later, Pentecostalism was labeled the "fastest growing church in the hemisphere."2 Life regarded it as "the third force," equal in importance to Catholicism and "historic Protestantism."3 The rapid growth of this movement and its penetration into the church of the Lord attributes to the importance of this article. This treatise is not a refutation of Pentecostalism, but a surveyof its growth.

Five years ago, the average church member had never heard of glossolalia for the simple fact that the tongues-speaking movement was confined to the Pentecostal churches. Today the phenomenon has spread to Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics and even to the Church of the Lord. The outburst of tongues-speaking in various churches has been called the "New Penetration ... .. Neo-Pentecostalism," and "Charismatic Renewal."4 It is so widespread that newspapers, journals, magazines and other secular communications have given attention to it. The impact of this new movement is being felt in various schools across the nation. Almost overnight, speaking in tongues has become front-page, neon.

Historical Pentecostalism

Modern Pentecostalism. has its foundation and heritage in the Pentecostal denominations, which in turn is primarily a Twentieth Century development. The Pentecostal movement is an off-shoot of the Holiness sect which had its beginning around the turn of the century. Some Pentecostals refer to Charles F. Parham (1873-1929) as the "father of the modem Pentecostal movement."5 However, since Agnes Ozman is the first person on record in modern times to speak in tongues as a result of specifically seeking a baptism of the Holy Spirit, her experience has been viewed as the beginning of this movement. With the establishment of Charles Parbom's Houston Bible School in 1905 the Pentecostal movement spread rapidly across the nation.6

Pentecostal theology has many variants, but basically it centers in the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. While there are some differences of opinion on the question of whether "entire sanctification" is necessary before one may receive this "second baptism," most Pentecostals agree that "spirit-baptism" is an instantaneous experience in which the believer is filled with the Spirit and power for Christian service. Some believe that glossolalia is just one of the evidences of Holy Spirit, but all of them generally agree that it is the most distinctive and peculiar belief embraced by them. They recognize it as a distinctive doctrine separating them from other religious bodies. In fact, it is so important that Pentecostals believe that every believer. should try to exercise it as the initial evidence of Holy Spirit, baptism. For detailed study, this writer recommends the study of two publications which are considered authorities within Pentecostal ranks. They are: What Meaneth This by Carl Brumback; The Spirit Himself, by Ralph Riggs. Both are published by the Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Mo. 65802.

Current Emphasis

The current emphasis on tongues-speaking had its beginning in the, years 1955-1960. Prior to this few non-Pentecostals regarded the sect with more than amusement, if they took notice of their existence at all. For years Pentecostals were viewed as being unconventional, with little good to be said about them. Pentecostals themselves felt insecure in their position. Few were willing to talk outside of private gatherings and when they did so they would often preface their statement with, "I must request that my name not be used," or "Now you understand that this is all off the record."

As early as 1955, speaking in tongues began to be practiced by men of stature and reputation, and the phenomenon was no longer confined to the little odd sect across the street. The tide began to swell, and a Pentecostal revolution was in the making. The man credited with setting off the explosion was an Episcopalian by the name of Dennis Bennett. Mr. Bennett was the "rector" or the large St. Mark's church in Van Nuys, California. His confession of tongues-speaking on April 3, 1960, suddenly thrust glossolalia into the headlines and tore the curtain of secrecy away.7 This action was the signal for others of various churches to come out with confessions of similar persuasion and experience.
Overnight reports of experiences cropped up all over the nation, some dating back to the fifties. Most of these experiences were previously suppressed for fear of censure and due to the uncertainty of the experience. Within weeks it was evident that major denominations had been penetrated and influenced by the new charismatic revival. The claim that the Pentecostal movement tended to attract only the unskilled and semi-educated could no longer be sustained. People in all walks of life from various religious and social backgrounds are now taken up in the movement. It is a force to be reckoned with.

The big question often asked by members of the church is: "Is it true that Christians claim to have experienced the tongues-speaking phenomenon?" To which we reply, "yes, it is no longer a rumor; it is a fact! � On both sides of the Mississippi testimonies have been heard from "respectable Church of Christ members" to the effect that they have had this experience and now in one way or another embrace the Pentecostal movement. This writer has been in touch personally with two preachers, and a former member of the body of Christ who have made these claims. One has already identified himself with the Pentecostals. This writer also knows of several others in the St. Louis area who have testified before the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International that they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and that accompanying evidence of tongues-speaking took place. A Newspaper
clipping, 1967, Tulsa, Okla. reads:

TONGUE SPEAKING PUZZLES CHURCH. A large Church of Christ in Tulsa is even now puzzled anxiously over what to do with a sizeable number of its members who are meeting in homes, experiencing a tongue-speaking gift, and telling others of the joys it brings them. There are out-breaks of tongue-speaking on the campuses of at least five of the major Church of Christ colleges � in some cases including staff personnel.

A check with the local chapter of the Full Gospel Business men's Fellowship International in your area could very well reveal the fact that other members of the Lord's body have made similar confessions. Officials of this organization are usually willing and cooperative in revealing the names of those in various religious organizations who have come to embrace the charismatic movement. A check with these brethren who are deceived by "power and signs and lying wonders" (11 Thess. 2:9) will often result in an appeal on their part for faithful brethren to cast aside their 11 squeamish bourgeois prejudices" and take a long, hard look at the movement. So be not deceived, my brethren.
Pentecostalism has indeed penetrated the church! The battle lines are drawn, and we must contend with it. (Jude 3; Phil. 1:7, 17). It has already brought havoc and chaos in some quarters.

Promoters Of The Charismatic Revival

The present charismatic revival, sometimes called the neo-Pentecostalism, cannot claim spontaneity. The emphasis is the result of a determined effort on the part of Pentecostals to win people over from the so-called historic churches (Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc). There are at least 26 churches claiming to be a part of the Pentecostal movement. These groups are using their organizational structure, the printed page, and various smaller organizations to promote glossolalia.

A. Pentecostal Bodies The largest and most influential church within the framework of Pentecostalism is the Assembly of God with headquarters in Springfield, Mo. In 1965, their membership exceeded 555,000. They claim over 8,4000 churches with 10,000 ordained ministers and 5,000 licensed preachers in America along. Their main training school is the Central Bible Institute at Springfield. Their weekly paper is the "Pentecostal Evangel."8

The second largest religious group is the Church of God In Christ. This is a Negro holiness church claiming 400,000 members. Holiness to them is a pre-requisite to salvation and to the baptism of the Spirit.

The Church of God is the third largest Pentecostal body. With their headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee, they are the oldest Pentecostal group in the country, dating back to 1923. Today they number around 200,000 with 7,000 preachers and 3,500 churches.

The United Pentecostal Church is another group devoted to Pentecostalism. It began when two churches merged in 1945. They have about 175,000 members and are known as the "Oneness" church because they do not believe that there are three persons in the Godhead. They claim that the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit are one Person, and that this Person is Jesus Christ.

In addition to these there are the following smaller groups: The International Church of The Foursquare Gospel (started by Aimee McPherson), the Pentecostal Church of God In America, The Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of The World.

These are the main Pentecostal churches, who along with other smaller groups have demonstrated such zeal and vigorousness as to be called the "Third Force of Christendom."

B. Related Organizations: The spread of glossolalia to non-Pentecostal churches can also be attributed to organizations and groups designed to spread the movement. The first and foremost of these is the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International (Referred to as the FGMFI), with headquarters in Los Angeles, California.9 This is a businessmen's organization wholly committed to the "full gospel message" with emphasis upon the spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues. The leaders of this organization readily admit that the main purpose of the FGBMFI is to bridge the gap that has kept the Pentecostal message from the various churches outside of the Pentecostal movement. This organization sponsors banquets and conventions throughout the country and the world. At the monthly banquets and conventions throughout the country and the world. At the monthly banquets and yearly
conventions, key Pentecostal leaders and speakers are featured. Guests from various churches are invited to hear these speakers and may of them are effected by the proceedings. In this respective churches hear the testimonies of these guests who are carried away with the Pentecostal movement. The result is obvious: some churches are taken up in the movement, while others are divided over it. This organization has been very effective even among some of our own brethren.

The Blessed Trinity Society is another related organization designed to see "God pour out His Spirit on the historic churches."10 Some Pentecostals believe that God made it possible for this organization to develop for the sole purpose of reaching those outside of Pentecostalism. There is also the World Missionary Assistance Plan (World MAP), a non-denominational Full Gospel Missionary Fellowship made up of missionaries working in the Western hemisphere, Orient, southeast Asia, India, and Africa. 11

C. There are many publications designed to advance the charismatic movement. Trinity magazine is published by the Blessed Trinity Society; The FGBMFI publishes Eternity; Abundant Life, The Pentecostal Herald, Miracle Magazine, The Voice of Healing, Christian Life, etc. are all actively promoting Pentecostal teachings.

D. Colleges and Schools: There are many schools and colleges maintained by Pentecostals, all of which are raising their academic standards and seeking accreditation in order to enlarge their status and appeal. The outstanding institution within Pentecostal ranks is the Oral Roberts University with its Graduate School of Theology. This Tulsa, Oklahoma university furnishes the best in "Christian education" among the Pentecostals. It is activelypromoting the charismatic renewal.

Motivating Factors

While it does not fall within the scope of this treatise to give a scientific evaluation of the neo-Pentecostal movement, it will be of interest to observe that professional and medical men who have investigated the phenomenon feel that glossolalia is neither directly inspired by the Spirit nor influenced by demons, but that it is a human reaction psychologically induced. 12 Some of the factors that contribute to this state are: the appeal of the mysterious in an age which is predominantly rational; emotional problems such as insecurity, conflict and tension, family problems, and the psychology of suggestion. It may be that much of the tongue-speaking taking place in non-Pentecostal areas today is the reaction in an emotional way against the coldly intellectual type of preaching and teaching, and the stereotyped and formalistic worship that exists in religious circles. Whatever the cause that induces this act at its core is a heart of false mysticism which is contrary to the word of God. It may bepiously self-induced, but it is unscriptural.

Conclusion

When one views the neo-Pentecostal movement and the effect that it has had on some who are our brethren, it is quite obvious that we need to take a long, hard look at the church. Have we become stereotyped in our work and worship? Does our preaching swell with cold intellectualism? Have we failed to instruct our brethren in basic fundamentals? In short, are we laying the ground work by neglect and unconcernedness for glossolalia's entrance into the body of Christ? Pentecostalism. capitalizes on the ignorance of the religious. Greater emphasis needs to be given to a study of the Holy Spirit in the pulpit and in the class room. Because of its appeal to the spiritual side of things, Pentecostalism has an attraction to many people. Have we become too materialistic in our thinking that we have lost sight of the spiritual needs of people around us? Advocates of Pentecostalism have seen the value of group meetings with emphasis upon prayer and dependency upon God. They do not depend upon the Sunday services alone to spread their dogma. During the week home meetings are
abundant among them. Can we not take the truth of God and in turn take advantage of the desire of people for greater knowledge and understanding of God's word? With the zeal of the Pentecostal people and with the Gospel of Christ brethren could turn the tide of error in the church.

The question of the Holy Spirit is not a mystery when considered in the light of proper exegesis of Holy Writ. The purpose of the Holy Spirit was to execute the will of God in the redemption of man. The Spirit guided the Apostles in all truth; He confirmed the Word; He revealed the terms of pardon; He convinces the world of sin and brings love, joy, and peace to the obedient. The, edified the body and enables members to mature in Christ. He gives hope of everlasting life. In short, the Spirit moves, speaks, teaches, quickens, reproves and sanctifies. However, no single action of the Spirit directed to man is attributed to the Spirit apart from the Word of God. The Word is the medium through which the Spirit operates today. When brethren are instructed in these facts, the weird and wild theories will die. The Pentecostals and Holy Rollers with their better felt than told theories will feel the force of the Word of God. Preach the Word!

1. Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This. (Springfield, Mo. Gospel Publ., 1947) Pp. 175-176.

2. Time, LXXX (Nov. 2,1962), P. 56.

3. Life XLIV (June 9, 195 8), P. 113.

4. Robert Gromacki, The Modem Tongues Movement (Philadelphia: Presbyterian �Reformed Publ. Co., 1967), P. 3

5. Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled (Springfield: Gosp. Publ. House 196 1), P. 37.

6. Anthony A. Hoekema, What About TongueSpeaking? (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmah's 1966), P. 24.

7. John L. Sherrill, They Speak With Other Tongues, (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1964) P. 62.

8. Hoekema, op. cit., Pp. 26-33.

9. Located at 836 S. Figueroa St., Losa Angeles.

10. Trinity, 11 (Christmastide, 1962-1963), P. 51. Headquarters for Society are located at P. 0. Box 2422, Van Nuys, California.

11. Gromacki, o.p. cit. p. 33.

12. See Hoekema, P. 130.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 44
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:41 AM
Subject: Larry and Bobby commend Stan ....


Judge Larry: Stan, Thanks for your overly kind and considerate response to Mr.Richardson. I have submitted fair propositions to him for two debates. Lord willing the first will be held where he labors. The second will be held here in Baytown. I will let you know if he agrees to the discussion so that you may, if you will, advertize it in Watchman. David Weaks is here this week and is doing a great job in proclaiming the unsearchable riches. Thanks again. Pray for us. Larry


Bobby: Stan, I don't plan to contact you and the folks with the Watchman anymore, unless it is to respond to something you (or some one else) send me. You did a jam up job sticking up for Larry and your sect, it just didn't convince me that Larry would be at a disadvantage to debate me with no time limitations. Also, your objections did not meet the Scriptural muster necessary to be convincing ... or to refute the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. However, I will say this, you are, without question, very dedicated to Larry and the sect that ya'll belong to. My proposal to debate Larry is still on the table, and will always be open to him, should he ever decide to take me on. Unless or until Larry comes around, I plan to focus my attention back on what God has called me to do, instead of all this harranging and yanking around with Larry.

God hasn't called me to minister from behind a pulpit, nor to build up any particular denomination. He called me to reach people out there in the highways and byways with His Word (the Apostles' One God Monothesitic Doctrine) with no strings attached ... expecting nothing in return. If you ever find in any of my writings where you feel that I have mishandled, misinterpreted or misrepresented the Word of God, please call it to my attention immediately.

No serious Bible student or believer could possibly question or doubt that we are living in the last days. God warns us through His Word about the many dangers of the last days, which is why all of us should pay special attention to Bible "doctrine" ... what thus saith the Word of the Lord. Our doctrine MUST be the same as that which was preached, practiced and taught by the "foot print" followers ... the "original" New Testament leaders. If it isn't, then, according to the Bible itself, it is made of man, built upon the sand, and accursed. Therefore, a serious Bible student and/or believer MUST pay very close attention to "doctrine", which is why we should ALWAYS examine the "verbatim" Word of God AND "preponderance" of Scriptural evidence found in the Word of God.

There were no denominations in the New Testament. And, today, many people wouldn't give a person the time of day, let alone consider listening to a doctrinal presentation different from that which they've been indoctrinated to believe, if they thought the person was representing a particular denomination. Therefore, I have felt a definite compelling to eliminate this barrier right off the bat by staying in the Word of God, presenting myself as a non-denominational layman, and encouraging people to independently study the King James Version of the Bible to establish their faith on book, chapter and verse, instead of the creeds, ideas, opinions and theories of man. Especially those which came along a couple Centuries AFTER Christ, and which are based on a handful of very carefully selected Scriptures which have been given "implied" interpretations ... and which contradict the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence on the same subject found elsewhere ... and written "verbatim" ... upon the pages of God's Holy Word.

There is, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Ephesians 4:5). Genuine Spirit filled believers should speak the same thing when it comes to important doctrinal issues pertaining to salvation and obedience to the Word of God. However, in Acts 15:36-40, Paul had such a different position that he parted ways with a believer over a matter (although it wasn't an important doctrinal issue), which sort of lets us know that believers can (and do) have different positions about some things ... BUT should NOT be related to important doctrinal issues. Also, in Acts 18:24-28, Apollos was doing the best he knew (knowing only the Baptism of John), but had a genuine love for God and His Word. And when Aquilla and Priscilla came along and expounded the Word of God more perfectly to him, he went on to be mightily used of God. This is the same Apollos which Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 3:6 when he said, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." These are a couple of reasons why I try very hard to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Ghost to go, do, say and be as I am led, instead of acting as if I'm better than others ... or as if God called me to be a fruit inspector.

At the end of this letter I have listed some of my web pages. One of them is an actual Bible discussion that I once had with a main line minister. When God called me out of the red neck beer joints of Mississippi back in 1985, He put something way down deep in my soul that has been like fire shut up in my bones. Please, don't misunderstand me, I am NOT "anti-denominational" or against being affiliated with a local, Bible believing, Bible teaching Church. While I discuss the Bible with people of all sorts of different religious beliefs and visit different churches from time to time, I am affiliated with a Church which teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... and am not ashamed of it. What really bothers me is that there are very few religious people who actually think for themselves, or study their Bible independently. Even though they "say" they love God, and love the Word of God, they usually either closely adhere to their particular denomination's prescribed studies and guidelines, or they are Biblically illiterate ... and would totally reject the notion that they have been indoctrinated to believe something which has absolutely no "specific" Bible authority, but, rather, is based upon a handful of very carefully selected Scriptures which have been given "implied" interpretations to support a man made theory which evolved centuries AFTER Christ AND which contradicts the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence on the same subject which is found else where in the Bible written "verbatim" upon the pages of God's Holy Word. Also, I have found, most have accepted their indoctrination without question, but will defend it vigorously. Chances are, independently evaluating, or verifying, it ... placing it under scrutiny ... or questioning it is only a very remote possibility ... UNLESS someone comes along and rattles their cage (so to speak) and challenges them to search the Scriptures concerning their beliefs, their reasoning and their logic, and/or gets them to start independently studying the Bible and thinking for themselves again.

One thing I know for sure is, the people out there in the pig pens where I've been aren't looking for a Church to join, or a religious facade to hide behind. No, they're desperately longing for something to fill the void in their soul ... and give purpose and meaning to their life ... which is NOT being accomplished by what they're involved with ... and/or are looking for deliverance from a very vicious cycle of self destruction which they have gotten caught up in, but, for one reason or another, do not trust anyone or anything ... and may not believe that their answer can be easily found in the Word of God.

There were no denominations whatsoever in the Bible. And that's why I felt led to take the "independent Bible Study" and "non-denominational lay man" approach. Since I don't come in promoting a Church name or organization, and since I am not a preacher, there are two less barriers I have to deal with. As a matter of fact, it doesn't matter to me if a person repents of their sins and receives the Holy Ghost in an empty box car, and is baptized in the precious name of Jesus in a cattle trough in the next town. I just want to get the Word out there in the highways and by-ways. Besides, unless and until a person's heart, soul and mind have been touched by the convicting power of the Holy Ghost, chances are, the Church name or denomination will have little impact, if any. As a matter of fact, with some, it would only serve to alienate. And like I said, most of them aren't looking for a Church to join. They just need to be presented with the Truth in it's entirety, first. Then, the Holy Ghost will lead them.

There have been people who have asked me to help them find a Church which teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine (or "Oneness" as some refer to it) in their area so they could get baptized in the precious name of Jesus. One even wrote me and said that after he ran across my study, he went out and found one on his own. He was baptized in the name of Jesus and had received the Holy Ghost within just a few weeks. Praise God!

Unless a person contacts me, I have no way of knowing the results. However, that's NOT the reason I'm doing what I do anyway. Having said that, it is always good to receive words of encouragement ... and to hear the good reports from those who have received the revelation of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... the Truth in its entirety. It really blesses my soul to hear from someone who has been baptized in the name of Jesus, and received the Holy Ghost as a result of the Bible Study. To God be the glory!

At any rate, so far, what God has led (and allowed) me to do has touched the lives of people, not only here in the United States, but also in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jamaica, Latvia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldavia, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. And I give Him all the glory, honor and praise! It humbles me to think that God would actually call, transform, qualify and use this former rowdy red neck good ole boy ... dirt farming hick kid from Mississippi ... to touch the lives of people all over the world. What would the men, who turned their world upside for Christ, have done if they would have had today's modern day tools and equipment?


I wish you much success in doing what God leads you to do. The fields are truly white to harvest. God bless!


Bobby G. Richardson
Non-Denominational Layman
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The whole gospel to the whole world!

$ 10,000.00 Reward.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html

Bible Study.
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/

50 Reasons Why.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html

Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/believed.html

Open letter to Mormons.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/mormon.html

Open letter to Jehovah Witnesses.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/witness.html

Open Letter to professing Christians who are homosexual.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/profess.html

Who says the supernatural manifestations of God have ceased?
http://hometown.aol.com/actschap2bgr/myhomepage/profile.html

Mainline Minister accepts the Bobby Richardson challenge. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/newsletter.html

What you always wanted to know about Freemasonry. (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/military.html

Can a Christian be (or should a Christian remain) a Mason? (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/newsletter.html

Bobby Richardson refutes a former Mason and some ministers on Freemasonry (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/rant.html

The saga continues - withstanding the anti-Freemasonry crowd (loads slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/business.html



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EMAIL # 45
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:43 AM
Subject: Stan ... and everyone else ..., I over looked this one ...


Judge Larry: ALL, I will not debate debating. The offer below still stands. Larry

If someone will deny it, I will affirm the following proposition in an open, public discussion to be held at a time mutually agreeable to both disputants. The discussion will be held in a building provided by a Pentecostal church, one mutually agreeable to both disputants. The Scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If someone will affirm the proposition below, I will deny it:

The Scriptures teach that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead.

The discussion will be four nights in duration, with two nights being spent on each affirmative. Each speaker will have three twenty minute speeches delivered in alternate order, with the affirmative speaking first. Each speaker agrees to conduct himself "as it becometh the gospel of Christ" (Phil. 1:27). Each speaker will exhort the audience that there be no public displays by the audience. Under the same terms and arrangements above, a second discussion will be held in Baytown, TX, in a facility provided by the Pruett & Lobit Street church of Christ. In that discussion, if someone will deny it, I will affirm: The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism is not for believers today. If someone will affirm the proposition below, I will deny it:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, is for believers today.


Bobby: ALL, I will debate Larry, or anyone else, via email or in person (with no time limitations), who wishes to try and Scripturally refute the Apostles' Doctrine concerning the Godhead that I embrace, promote and defend. Also, my proposal is on the table for an oral debate with Larry, or anyone else, and it will remain open to him ... or anyone else ... who has to courage and the conviction to debate me. I do not require time limitations before I will agree to a debate. And I will not debate with time limitations. To me, the Truth in its entirety is far too precious to try and cram into a scheduled event for the convenience of people who are, obviously, not as interested in the Truth in its entirety as those of us who don't make merchandise out of people ... or the gospel. Unless the Lord puts it on my heart, I don't plan on turning this into a traveling road show, or making special trips, but I would not rule out traveling somewhere for the purpose of an oral debate with no time limitations ... which, by the way, could be in a home, a church, a banquet room in a restaurant, or any other place where the environment would be conducive for engaging in religious discussions. I am NOT on a personal vendetta against any religous group, but I do believe in standing for the Truth in its entirety without fear or favor. After the Godhead debate is over (whether by email or in public), I will debate Larry or anyone else who wishes to try and Scripturally refute the Apostles' Doctrine concerning the operation of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues in the "original" New Testament Church of today.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


EMAIL # 46
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Jeff inquires ...


Jeff: Mr. Richardson: One question: Do you consider it sinful to have a prearranged time limit for religious discussions such as the one that you and Larry are considering? Again, do you consider it to be sinful -- a transgression of God's will? Not just a bad idea, but actually sinful?




Bobby: Jeff, My position is NOT that a time limited debate is sinful, evil or wrong in and of itself. However, a time limited debate can be the cause of what would result in being sinful, evil and wrong, **IF**, as a result of a time limited debate, Scriptural evidence that was needed to properly present all the facts relating to the subject at hand was NOT presented, and, as a result, error was accepted as Truth. Now, that would be sinful, evil and wrong, wouldn't you agree? You see, Jeff, it is my position that part truths can be, and often are, as bad as out right lies. And having already seen how Larry mis-handles and mis-represents the Word of God to suit his own purposes, I know a time limited debate is precisely what he counts on. I'm sure after OVER 30 years, he has enough tricks up his sleeve that he can knot up more in 20 minutes than I can probably unravel in an hour. However, until I get into the oral debate arena with him, I really won't know for sure. It may be that I won't need but 10 minutes to unravel his LITERAL interpretations of Spiritual matters, and expose how the very carefully selected scriptures, that he gives "implied" interpretations to, are diametrically opposed to the vast preponderance of VERBATIM Scripture on the same subject, found elsewhere in the Bible. And since I just do NOT know this, because, unlike Larry, who has OVER 30 years of debating under his belt, this would be my first oral debate with time limitations placed on presenting an assertion or responding to an assertion. And, for the life of me, I cannot see what in the world Larry is so afraid of, unless he feels unlimited time would allow me to do just exactly what I say I can so concerning Scripturally dismantling and exposing his indoctrinated, man made, theology.

But, in answer to your question(s). My answer is, NO. Now, Jeff, since I answered your question(s), I would like you to answer the same questions, as they would relate to a debate with unlimited time to present an assertion or respond to an assertion.

Do you consider it sinful to have a debate with unlimited time for religious discussions to present an assertion or respond to an assertion, as my proposal that is on the table right now? Again, do you consider it to be sinful -- a transgression of God's will? Not just a bad idea, but actually sinful?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 47
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Jeff responds ...


Jeff: Mr. Richardson: Thank you for your reply. To answer your questions, clearly I do not believe it be sinful to have a bible discussion without time limits.My point, however, is this. Since having a time limited debate would not constitute sin in your mind and would not violate your conscience, why not proceed with the debate under the normal description of a debate? If it is truly a matter of indifference, why impose upon Mr. Hafley a set of rules which are extraordinarily unusual for this kind of exchange? I admonish you to show a willingness to yield (James 3:17) on this question of opinion and judgment so that the debate might occur and you might have the opportunity to defend your convictions in an open forum. I want to be objective in this matter, and as such, I cannot see how Mr. Hafley should be required to yield to your demands, which are so unusual as to be most certainly unique in my memory of religious debates. A limitless debate is unworkable and if you have the truth, no amount of Mr. Hafley's considerable skill is going to obscure that. You must have confidence in God's word and not the abilities of the debaters. If you choose to yield on these points of contention, you will show yourself to be an honorable disputant and one truly interested in going forward with the forum. If you continue to insist that the normal course of public debating be cast aside to satisfy your agenda, I am afraid that your credibility will be soon destroyed. Were Mr. Hafley demanding that the usual course of a debate be cast aside to satisfy him, I would join the discussion with the same rebuke of my brother. You simply cannot continue accusing Mr. Hafley of fleeing the debate by refusing to meet your novel demands. If you are truly interested in this debate, step up and prove it by yielding on these issues which you have confessed do not constitute sin. Jeff




Bobby: Jeff, I have shown a willingness to yield. After putting my proposal on the table, I later asked Larry more than once to meet me somewhere between his proposal and mine. See if you can get him to do that. Furthermore, over the past 30 years of debating, I realize Larry has grown accustomed to operating under time limitations. However, over the past several years I've grown accustomed to operating without time limitations ... in my email Bible discussions/debates, as well as, the one on one and group Bible discussions/debates I have been (and am currently) personally involved in. Also, I think I told you (if not, please forgive me) that I have an audience of about 60 people, who have either filled out a form on one of my web pages, or contacted me directly, to receive copies of the Bible discussions and debates that I am involved with. I NEVER ask them what their religious convictions are. All I ask for is a valid email address to blind carbon copy the Bible discussions/debates to. And I NEVER attempt to get them to reveal anything else about themselves, nor do I compromise their privacy. The debating that I have grown accustomed to in this arena is done with as much time as I need to research, study, pray, examine the preponderance of the Scriptures on a given subject ... and sometimes just get up from this computer and go for a ride on my motorcycle to ponder things for a while ..., before having to give a response. In the personal (one on one and group) Bible studies, discussions and debates I've been involved with ... and am currently involved with, I'm not muzzled by a stop watch. Do I make an effort to be time conscious and not become a babbling wind bag? You'd better believe it! However, I always do my very best to be very sensitive to the leading of the Spirit of the Lord and also very submission to His Will. And if you know anything at all about that which I just said, you know there are times when the Spirit of the Lord is moving in such a way that it is just not possible to be ministered "to" ... OR ... to be ministered "through" ... **IF** your attention is on something else ... in this case, a stop watch, and/or your next rebuttal, as opposed to what is actually being said at that moment. I do NOT go with the flow. I do NOT follow the crowd. I am NOT like the crowd. The crowd is WRONG! It does NOT matter to me how it's done any where else, or by whom. It does NOT matter to me what other people are "used" to, or what their comfort zone consists of. The fact that I layed aside my preconceived ideas, opinions and theories ..., as well as the indoctrination I received from a very young age concerning the theology that is based on the Nicene Creed ... and I later whole heartedly embraced the Apostles' One Monotheistic Doctrine, when God showed it to me in His Word, proves that I am NOT like, probably, 90-95 per cent of the people you'll ever meet ... who are what they are, religiously, due to having been raised in a particular sect and/or indoctrinated to believe a certain way. Seldom will you find a person, such as myself, whose religious convictions are NOT a product of their raising, or from having been indoctrinated, but, instead, have been structured and based over a period of time (and continuing) as it has been delivered and revealed to them directly from the pages of God's Holy Wod, as they diligently search the Scriptures, and hunger and thirst for the Truth in its entirety. Jeff, while I'm shucking some corn right now, and while I don't have a clue what you think about me, there are people who you might categorize as being "Pentecostal" .. "Oneness" .. "Jesus Only" .. "Holy Rollers" ... or whatever, who would NOT agree with me about some things, nor I with them about some things. I've paid some dues, and have spent some time on the back side of the desert (so to speak), as I made my calling and election sure. While I was there, I learned a lot about a bunch of stuff ... including myself (which, most of that I wasn't too proud of). God did NOT call me to be a fruit inspector. I am NOT your judge, Larry's judge or anybody's judge. However, I am very definitely set for the defense of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. But, I refuse to be a party to someone's dog and pony show, where .... **IF** I went over my 20 minute allotment of time in either making an assertion or responding to an assertion ..., I would be told to shut up and sit down because my time was up. Will I debate Larry? You'd better believe it! I'd love to debate him right here, in this arena. That way, it could be done at our own leisure and in the comfort of our own home or office ... and without any goofy time limits. However, I will debate Larry in public **IF** he won't try and make me shut up and sit down if I do go over my 20 minute allotment of time or take it off my next allotment. You get him to lift that time restriction and you have yourself an oral debate, Jeff. Ya'll might be afraid to do it, but I ain't afraid to venture outside my comfort zone. I made some very solemn vows to God back on December 10, 1985 at mile marker 7 on Interstate 55 in south Mississippi about 10 PM that cold winter night, that by the help and grace of God, there are certain things I will and will not do from here on out .... regardless of what people may do, say or think. Among the solemn vows to God that night was my determination to be an independent thinker, AND an independent Bible student. That is why I am a "non-denominational layman". I am NOT a representative for any particular sect or denomination, neither do I embrace (or represent) any religious creed ... INCLUDING THE NICENE CREED ..., and I am NOT running around as a self appointed fruit inspector. But I am rattling some cages and causing some people to stop and think about some stuff ... and realize that if they are allowing themselves to be "spoon fed" religious dogma, they'd better make real sure it harmonizes with what the "foot print followers", and "original" New Testament Church leaders, preached, practiced and taught. If it doesn't, they are going to be in for one more rude awakening .... LITERALLY! And they won't be able, nor will there be time, to have any pruning done once the tree falls. This is serious stuff, Jeff. - Bobby

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 48
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:33 PM
Subject: Larry's refutation is now documented on the Internet ....



Larry Hafley, Church of Christ debater with OVER 30 years experience, refuted (loads VERY slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/travel.html

The web page is still under construction ....

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 49
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:25 PM
Subject: Jeff getting ready to pout???


Jeff: Mr. Richardson: I gave you the opportunity to prove that you truly wanted to proceed with this debate. If you truly did, you would acquiesce to the normal methods of debate and not demand a potentially chaotic scenario. While you make great noise about being led by the spirit, you forget that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets and God is not the author of the kind of confusion that would result from a debate without restrictions on speech lengths and propositions (1 Cor. 14:32-33). Mr. Richardson, if you truly wanted to meet Mr. Hafley in this debate, and were truly convinced that your convictions were so obviously rooted in scripture, you would prove it by agreeing to the normal course of debating. The only cage that I have heard rattling in the last three days is your own and I have grown weary of it. It is time to step forward and accept the ordinary terms of debate or confess that you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by meeting Mr. Hafley in this public forum. A time limit and agreeable propositions are not extraordinary requests; they are normal. You are the one who is asking for the moon and crying foul when it does not come. Please cease your unctuous self-aggrandizement and tell us what it will be. Will you stand up for this debate or not? Jeff P.S. If your answer is negative, please remove me from your mailing list. I have no interest in continuing this dialogue forever.


Bobby: Jeff, I realize our court system is not perfect, but **IF** I believed what you just said about the confusion caused by not having time limitations, I would have to also believe that there would be no way on earth a person could get a fair trial, because every one of them would be mass confusion simply because there were no time limitations in defending and presenting one's case AND the necessary evidence. I've made my position about this oral debate abundantly clear. I've already refuted Larry. And it is now on a web page for anybody in the world with Internet access to see without having the expense of making a trip somewhere to attend one of his shell game, dog and pony shows.

Larry Hafley, Church of Christ debater with OVER 30 years experience, refuted (loads VERY slowly)
http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/travel.html

Having said that, my proposal to an oral debate with Larry is still on the table, as is his. I've asked him to meet me somewhere between the two. But, he has refused. What more can I say? If you want to pooch your bottom lip out and go stomping off to pout simply because I refuse to be muzzled by a goofy stop watch, and can't get the Judge to go on record stating that I wouldn't be asked to sit down and shut up **IF** I did go over the 20 minute allotment of time in order to finish presenting an assertion or finish responding to an assertion, then, pooch it out and go to stomping. As far as not sending you anything else, I will try. But, you may have to block my email, if I slip up some, because your email address in bunched in the list with the other Watchman email addresses that I've been copying and pasting instead of individually typing them in. **IF** I don't hear any more out of you or Stan Cox, and no other Watchman person contacts me, I will have no need to "respond" to any of ya'll anyway. Sooo, there you have it, bud. Happy trails! Bobby

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 50
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: Jeff goes stomping off in a huff???


Jeff: Mr. Richardson: Please consider this my last post to you. Your argument that stopwatches are goofy is without scriptural merit. Your argument that Mr. Hafley will necessarily conduct a shell game, dog and pony show in a debate is prejudicial, ungodly and unwarranted. I am thoroughly convinced that this entire email exercise has been nothing but your own dog and pony show to avoid a public forum that you fear. Stan Cox has already refuted your courtroom analogy, where there are great limitations placed upon the process, much greater than on any debate. I know Mr. Hafley much better than you, and yes, he would speak plainly in a debate and you would not enjoy it. But to suggest that he would resort to underhanded and unfair tactics is reading his heart, not to mention the future. Neither of those abilities do you enjoy. Seek the Lord, Jeff


Bobby: I believe I would conduct myself as good, if not better, than Larry in an oral debate. But, like I said, I've ALREADY refuted Larry, Jeff. AND, I've already made myself abundantly clear. My proposal for an oral debate with Larry is still on the table. So, you just do whatever floats your boat about contacting me or not contacting me, o.k.??? I've been dealing with stubborn, spiritually arrogant, ignorant, blind leaders of the blind, who mislead people, for quite some time. And I'm sure I'll still be dealing with stubborn, spiritually arrogant, ignorant, blind leaders of the blind, who mislead people, when the Lord comes, or calls for me. So, once again, Jeff, Happy Trails! Why don't you just go on and pout since ya'll can't force your dog and pony show rules on me ... AND ya'll can't get your hero to answer the remaining seven questions of the following eight (nor will you or any of your cohorts, for that matter) ...

1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? (the Judge's ONLY answer ... THREE)

2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?

3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?

4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?

5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?

6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?

7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"

8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 51
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: ATTENTION TO ALL .... FANTASTIC NEWS!


Just when it looked like Larry Hafley's refusal to answer my questions, or debate me via email, OR debate me in public WITHOUT his stop watch ... was going to end in a very great disappointment for me, personally, God moved on Robert to send me a transcript of one of Larry's actual public debates on the Godhead and Baptism in Jesus' Name. In these 150+ pages of transcripts Larry affirms ...


1) "The Scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead; namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

2) "The Scriptures teach that water baptism is to be performed in the name of the Lord Jesus, and that what is audibly invoked over the candidate is not necessarily important."

In the coming days and weeks, I intend to go through this material. And, unless my mind changes from this very moment, I will more than likely put up another web page for all to see where I've completely dismantled Larry's affirmatives above ... and conclusively refuted them, historically AND Scripturally (just in case he or anyone else doesn't think I'vd done that already). At any rate, I will send EVERYONE an email copy (including Larry, himself) of my refutations, as this unfolds, and before I actually get the web page up and running. Larry knows he can prevent me from exposing him and his false doctrine by not answering my questions or debating me in this forum ... OR debating me in public WITHOUT his stop watch ..., but I have now been given an opportunity to finally deal with him and his false doctrine once and for all. THANK GOD .... and thank you, Robert!

By the way, if anyone is NOT interested in this matter between Larry and me, please advise me ASAP so I can make sure I don't include you when I am addressing my email refutations. Thanks ... and God bless!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Email # 52
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Please Remove


On Feb. 13, Stan Cox wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Cox
To: Bobby Richardson
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: Please Remove


Mr. Richardson,

At present I am getting two copies of every post you send, as I answered you on separate occasions from two different email addresses.

Please remove all of the email addresses which include the domain name @watchmanmag.com from your mailing list.

Thank you,

Stan Cox

O.K. Stan, I get your drift. The watchmanmag.com domain is your baby. And, since I've already refuted Larry and have put up one web page documenting it ... and now am about to blow Larry Hafley's (and your) man made theology into another solar system ... you are going to try and pull the plug on me by censoring me with your request for me to stop sending anything to the others ... whom I have been sending everything via email to ... via your watchmanmag.com domain. You run a tight ship, Stan. But, I guess I'll have to honor your request. This will be the last email I'll send to you ... or anyone else using the watchmanmag.com ... but, of course, you do realize I will still be free to use this communication in my documentation ... and on my web page. Catch ya later, Stan. Happy trails! Bobby



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What follows next is feed back and input from some of the people in my audience ....


Joseph: Dear brother Bobby...This judge Larry cannot answer your several questions correctly and STILL cling to the doctrine that he believes. You have planted the seed of truth and STILL he refutes you and the scriptures. You did right by giving him 24 hours to respond and if he doesn't then as scripture says, cast not your pearls before the swine and shake off the dust from your shoes and avoid them that cause division among you. I give you credit brother Bob for your patience with them thus far. Keep up the good work of the Lord for His word is the only truth. God bless you. Your friend in Christ...Joe

Bobby: Thank you for your kind words and your vote of confidence, Brother Joe. While I'm still a little rough around the edges, I have toned it down some over the past few years. I don't get nearly as worked up with self righteous, indignant, indoctrinated, bone heads (hee,hee) as I used to. As a matter of fact, I try to have a little fun and chuckle every now and then. God bless!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bobby: I got a little too giddy in my last email. I should NOT have alluded to Judge Larry and Jason as being "bone heads" ... that was wrong of me and I am sorry, and apologize to both of them. However, I do believe Judge Larry is extemely stubborn and that they both have been very heavily indoctrinated. So much so, that they don't even know that they don't even know. At least, I hope and pray that that's the case because God can easily break through that barrier, or at least He did with me ... and many others I know. Whereas, if they are intentional and deliberate in this man made error and asault on the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, I would really and truly hate to be standing in their shoes, and I mean that very seriously. Anyway, I'm done now ... and this is going to Jason and Judge Larry.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From one of my best and dearest friends on this planet, who is probably watching this closely ...

Fred, if this not the best chance for rebuttle, he has just messed in his nest. Bird in the hand: save one life and lose several, don't know the scriptures, but it doesn't take a Bible Scholar to figure that one out.
I would harp on that one for a loooooooooooooong time. Lamont

Bobby (Fred): Yep, you are right, Lamont! The Lord would leave 99 in a safe place just to go after the one that had gone astray. It doesn't take a whole herd before He will go to the ends of the earth to try and rescue. Also, I am convinced God would have paid the ultimate price even if it had been for just one lost soul, because of His immeasurable and incomprehensible love. Man, you don't know how much I appreciate you hanging in here with me on this one. I owe you. Well, I already owe you, but you know what I mean. - Fred


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bobby: Lest I shoot myself in the foot, similar to what Trent Lott did, let me explain the Fred and Lamont thing between my friend and myself in my previous email. I was NOT making a racial slur. This all goes back to over a year ago when I was in the process of moving back home to Mississippi from Florida. I emailed my friend and said ....

I think we are coming that way about this coming Thursday or Friday with a load of junk to put somewhere. Do you want to go into the junk business with me?

... to which he replied ...

Dear Fred Sanford, (Bobby Gene), I would like nothing better than going into the junk business with you. I have an old truck that will do fine. Thanks, Lamont Sanford

That's how it all started. And it has been Fred and Lamont ever since. Some of our escapades are probably about as hilarious as what some of the other Fred and Lamont's were. We even have another mutual friend who is Grady ... and we call my wife Esther. It's actually a real hoot!

At any rate, some may think I'm just paranoid after this Trent Lott thing. However, they may not understand that "paranoid" to some of us just means "a heightened sense of awareness" (hee, hee).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From another dear friend of mine, who also survived fool's hill, when God called him out of darkeness into His marvelous light to do a work for Him .....

Bro. Thompson: My Dear Friend and Brother, Bobby, When I first read the statement Jason made about this matter, I immediately thought of the story of the Lord leaving the ninety and nine to search for the one lost sheep. Wow, where has the focus changed?

I am truly saddened to see that men, who claim to be servants of the Most High God, are so carnally minded, and it is apparent that they do not care to walk in the Spirit, or even know how to do that, since, according to the scriptures, they have not even yet received the Holy Spirit, the Bible Way.

I pray that the Lord will salt their tongues to thirst after truth, and a real salvation experience, not just a start to salvation, of repentence alone.

Like you Bobby, I have smelled an unfamiliar spirit, in the camp. What are the motives, the real motives of Judge Larry and of Jason? You hit the nail on the head, when you mentioned the issue of those two being deceitful and full of guile.

In order to come to the place of properly approaching anyone concerning an issue that is not a common belief among those who call themselves Brothers, one first must do it the right way, and with the right spirit, and that is, in and with love.

The enemy would love to keep the focus (of all those who have a concern or a knowledge about the things of God), on those issues which have always been a place of division, rather that developing a real respect for each other and focus on the things which we have in common, so that we may properly approach those issues which are the topics of all these emails.

So much time has been spent in this back and forth keystroking contest, and nobody is closer to developing a friendship or relationship that can be properly built upon, on pure basic human kindness and respect for one another. Now, I am not accusing you of being in error, Brother Bobby. Far from it! When anything starts out wrong, it usually ends up wrong, and the motivation of this dialogue, from the other two, started out, as already disclosed and plain to see, in deceit. No, this is not a judgemental statement, but simply an observation.

Why were you not approached through a real desire to increase knowledge and a real desire to meet a person who could be a real friend, and with an open mind, with just plain human kindness to a stranger, which is something people do in respect for each other?

Point is, there was deception from the get go, and hence this fencing exercise that has ensued.

Your patience far outpaces mine, and I thank God you have that kind of spirit!
We love you, Bobby!


Bobby: Thank you for your kind words and your ensight, Bro. Thompson. They mean a lot to me and I value your friendship, wisdom and counsel. Sometimes, I drop the ball and get a little too frustrated when I feel that someone is getting sideways with me. I am NOT proud of my past. And sometimes my old contentious, carnal ways of the past come back to test me. As a result, I find myself at an altar of repentance probably a lot more often than most folks, who wasn't as quick tempered and who have lived a better life than I did in the past. At any rate, I really am trying to be everything that God wants me to be ... without fear or favor AND regardless of what others may do, say or think. God bless!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


In response to my "time for me to repent and apologize" email ...


Ralph: Well done Bobby. We all have to eat our share of humble pie. It is, as I believe to perceive it, the way God wishes us to do. Lord knows how many times I pray at night for repentence and guidance. God Bless. Ralph.


Bobby: The Lord knows ... and few others ..., that I've come a long ways from where I started at mile marker 7 back on Dec. 10, 1985. But I know and the Lord knows ... as does others ... that I've got a loooooong ways to go to be like my Lord. Experience has taught me that it is best to handle things when they come up, instead of letting them slide, thinking they'll just go away. Neither Judge Larry nor Jason is my enemy. And while I no longer embrace their man made doctrine, myself, I need to always be mindful that when God brought me out of it, He did so without having me badgered by anyone else. I was challenged and started digging to find out what the real deal really was. And I found out that I really didn't know that I didn't know, until God, Himself, showed me in His Word. I will never forget that moment when the scales fell off my eyes (spiritually speaking). Therefore, I while I must do everything I can to reach a lost and dying world, and those who are steeped in the doctrines and traditions of men, and while I must be set for the defense of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... the "real" Good News (Gospel) ..., I must be cautious as to how I do it. Calling ... or alluding to ... someone as being a bone head is NOT the way to do it. At the time I spouted that, I thought it was sort of cute and funny because of the stubbornness I've encountered during this whole ordeal. But I was wrong, and when the Spirit of God pricks my heart about something, I've got to do something about it. I am not going to allow anything like goofy pride to stand in my way from doing what I know in my heart I must do. While I am very much ashamed of my past, and have separated myself from it, I can't allow myself to take this kind of stuff lightly or expect God, others (or myself) to accept my getting in the carnal flesh just because of my pretty extreme wayward past. God delivered me from all of that, and I must continue to press onward. While I am convinced a person hasn't got to be a passive mealy mouth introvert to be a good witness, I also know that Romans Chapters 6 and 8, plus 1 John 3:4-10 blows the notion completely out of the water that we can do and say ignorant stuff and still still be acceptable in the sight of God. I am convinced that an unrepented sin will keep someone out of Heaven as sure as the sun rises in the East. And we're all just one heart beat away from eternity. Therefore, it would behoove all of us to not think too highly of ourselves .... Romans 12:3 puts it this way: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Follow up from my friend out in the desert ...


Bro. Thompson: Dear Bobby, I too, am not proud of my past, and I will not be the one to judge anyone. I have had a similar past as you, and I shutter when I think of that old man with that dynamite temper and ballistic ways! Please, be encouraged and stand strong, for your last statement is one that enforces my confidence in you and the way God is using you to minister to the whole world. The internet is such a much more vast audience than that desired by Judge Larry, and what an opportunity for truth to prevail. Keep on doing what God has put within your heart and spirit to do, and if I sounded a bit judgemental about that, please forgive me, for that is the last thing that I want to do! If ever you and I should disagree or see anything differently, just keep on doing it the way you are, for God has placed within us the abilities to reach souls in many various ways, and they are all not done with the same methods or personalities. To God be all the Glory! Gotta run for now! Always know that I am in your corner! In His awesome embrace, Bro. Thompson


Bobby: Thanks for your kind words, Bro. Thompson. I did not take your previous email as a rebuke, but when I need to be tapped on the shoulder and reminded that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing, I hope there will always be someone around who will walk up and go tap, tap, tap .... just in case I have failed to heed the leading of the Holy Spirit. God bless you my brother!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Robert: Hello Bro Bobby, I just got back from being off two weeks. Seems you are having a "hot" debate with Larry from Houston/Baytown. I was just wondering if this "Larry" is Larry XX? I am from Bridge City, Texas which is 90 miles from Houston. Larry XX is a "hard-head" minister from the XX & XX Church of Christ in Baytown, Texas and has had years of experience public debating. His web page is XXXXXXX.XXX He has debated many Pentecostal and Apostolics. He also writes for the XXXXXXX Magazine XXXXXXX.XXX Keep up the good work, Robert

Bobby: Yep, that's the one. Are you currently on my email list of people who receive (via blind carbon copy) copies of my Bible discussions/debates? The reason I ask this is because I have a XXXX, but his name isn't Robert and the email address is different from this one. If you are not on my list, and would like to be added, just let me know. I am currently sending them out to about 60 people via blind carbon copy to protect everyone's privacy. God bless! Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Robert: I am on your list, and I am the one who had a partial discussion with XXX a while back.


Bobby: Yep, I found that after I took the time to check further (as I should have done before I went running off half cocked) Oops! My mistake! I found you and your email address on my email list. I just shot from the hip too quick. Sorry. I've been up to my armpits with everything I have going on right now. Been burning the late night oil a whole lot ... and even working through the entire night once on this stuff of Judge Larry's, already ... and may have more like it. However, I do that from time to time when I am really into something. Please over look my last email. I thought your name was familar, but I just got cross threaded. That's what happens sometimes when I'm in the middle of something and I sort of pause long enough to do something else right quick. God bless! Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Robert: No Problem... If I can be a help to you in any way just let me know. Robert


Bobby: thanks! Will do.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Robert: I have several articles on the Godhead he wrote against the Oneness, if you want them.


Bobby: I have a bunch of his stuff too, but send them on.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mark: I have been following your exchange with this individual. He is truly amazing in his arrogance. How is it he has given himself the title 'Judge'??? Who appointed him to this position and by what authority does he make this claim? The Spirit through you is doing a tremendous job exposing his deceit and lies, though you are more kind in your description of his antics. I was an agnostic/atheist before I read the bible. I was converted by the time I finished the four Gospels, the first part of the book I read. I was struck by the profound difference between what I read there and many of the practices and doctrines currently being taught to the Church today by self appointed Preachers who apparently never read the Book. What the Book says and what they teach are amazingly different. These are the False Prophets, the wolves in sheep's clothing The Word speaks of for all to see. Let those with eyes see and ears hear. Continue the battle knowing Victory is already won, you have the most powerful weapon available today, the Sword of the Word. which cuts through all the crap to expose the truth. I stand silently and sometimes vocally with you in both Spirit and Truth. Three manifestations of the Father, one Almighty, as the Book so clearly reveals. Thanks, Mark


Bobby: Thanks for you kind words, confidence and support. Actually, I gave Judge Larry the title of "Judge" because that is precisely what he has demonstrated himself as being ... a judge of others who believe the unadulterated, undiluted, preponderance of Scriptural evidence that is found written VERBATIM upon the pages of God's Holy Word, instead of his man made theology, that is full of holes. And, if I may add, he is a rather, harsh, cocky and arrogant judge, at that. But if God can't bring him down a notch or two, there ain't a cow in Texas. One of my problems is trying to keep from getting too cocky and arrogant, myself. There was a time when I would have just loved to dressed him down to the point that it would just be a pitiful pile left. Brother, I used to be so testy that I would actually rebuke people in the name of Jesus via email, if you can believe that. I remember one time, several years ago, when I was debating a preacher who lives up in Canada, that it was more like a verbal fist fight than a debate. God really did call me out of the red neck beer joints of Mississippi (some pretty tough ones), but He is still honing down some of my rough edges. And say all of this to my shame, NOT to boast. I am just so very thankful He is as long suffereing as He is. At any rate, You see, when you have the prepondrance of Scriptural evidence that is found written VERBATIM upon the pages of God's Holy Word, there is nothing and no one who can tear it down. However, there is a tendency, if one is not careful, of becoming as arrogant and cocky as Judge Larry. There's only one thing I know of that would put a bridle on his cocky and arrogant attitude about his man made theology, that is full of holes. And that is a real good dose of the Holy Ghost ... the Bible way.

Brother, I don't know where you are, but stay in the Word ... stay the course, keep the faith, fight the good fight, and keep on keeping on. This thing is winding on down right before our eyes. The time is probably shorter than we can even imagine. However, if not, we're only a heart beat away from eternity this very moment. God bless! Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Wade: Only a couple of men I know of actually had a vision of heaven. Stephen said he saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of God (this is a vision that confirms Matthew 28:18 all power in heaven and in the earth is in the name of Jesus). John the Revelator actually saw heaven and he saw only one who set upon it. Now, Jimmy Swaggart (braggart is a close synonym) claims he went to heaven and saw 3 gods. Now, local lore has it that Jimmy Swaggart makes many claims (especially to prostitutes) that are exaggerated. Now, let's see, should we believe Swaggart or Stephen and John? I'll believe the later. Those who wish to follow Jimmy will have more revelations ahead.


Bobby: Yes, indeed, Bro. Wade, there is only ONE throne of God in Heaven. There is not place in the Bible that says there are three sitting on that ONE throne. However, to follow Judge Larry's man made theology and logic, there would either have to be THREE thrones (one for each "person" of the man made theory) OR one throne with an (invisible) older man sitting in it, a younger man in his lap, and a bird (dove) perched up on the back of the throne or on the older man's shoulder. It would be a hoot to watch Judge Larry get before a crowd of people and and elaborate on this, wouldn't it? By the way, right now, I have Judge Larry blocked. It will be a while longer before I finish up this project. Then, I will unblock him and Jason, so they can start doing some 'splainin'. At that time, he can respond to you **IF** he wants to. Please, though, get him to give direct answers to the 7 remaining questions of the 8 that I've been trying to get him answer for the longest BEFORE you schedule a debate with him. I'm serious. I want him on record somewhere ... whether it is with you or me ... giving direct answers to the questions BEFORE I'll schedule an oral debate with him.



Bro. Wade (to Judge Larry): Last week (not 2000 years ago) we had people receive the Holy Ghost - with the evidence of speaking in tongues by the simple command "receive the Holy Ghost". So, it is not always as you perceive. No one laid a hand on them or did gymnastics.



Bro. Wade (to Judge Larry): Every time someone receives the Holy Ghost there are cloven tongues. I would submit you don't even know what the term means. Study to show thyself approved.


Bro. Wade (to Bobby): the term 'cloven tongues' is an old English word meaning 'individualized'. Imagine that!)


Bobby: Thanks for the insight, Bro. Wade. I wasn't aware of that. However, I very well know how some people mis-use other old English terms to suit their agenda, as I have been on the receiving end of their wrath. Yep, the Greek word that was translated "cloven" is diamerizo {dee-am-er-id'-zo}(Strong's 1266). It is found 12 times in the New Testament, and means: 1) to cleave asunder, cut in pieces, 2) to be divided into opposing parts, to be at variance, in dissension, and 3) to distribute. It was translated into English as part 6 times, divide 5 times, and cloven that 1 time, but I can see how it would be individualized. And just for kicks, here's all 12 verses where the Greek word appears ... and how it was translated:


Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted 1266 his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted 1266 my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.



Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted 1266 his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted 1266 my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.



Mar 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted 1266 his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.



Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided 1266 against itself is brought to desolation; and a house [divided] against a house falleth.



Luk 11:18 If Satan also be divided 1266 against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.



Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided 1266 , three against two, and two against three.



Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided 1266 against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.




Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide 1266 [it] among yourselves:



Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted 1266 his raiment, and cast lots.



Jhn 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted 1266 my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.



Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven 1266 tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.



Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted 1266 them to all [men], as every man had need.


Judge Larry (from previous email): (9) Before one could "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," he had to "repent, and be baptized" (v. 38). However, many claim to have received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before they are baptized in the Church of God. Since they promise "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before the apostles did, how are they "Pentecostal In Experience"?


Bro. Wade (to Judge Larry): How is it that you think you can control where God choses to put His spirit? Or, how He manifests His spirit? Before, after, whatever?


Judge Larry (from previous email): Conclusion: If someone from the Victory Temple "Pentecostal Church of God" can explain how, or in what sense, they are "Pentecostal In Experience," we would be happy to give them an opportunity to do so. Our doors, hearts, and Bibles are open for them to explain (Acts 17:11; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).


Bro. Wade (to Judge Larry): I am ready, willing and capable. Are you really open?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Les: Hey, My Brother! In the following response, it is apparent that you left off one word, (NOT) which we sometimes do as we are engrossed in responding and our fingers just don't keep up with our brain. Just wanted you to know so that you could send the corrected version to Judge Larry.


Bobby (from Previous email): Now, Judge, this new birth ... "Pentecostal experience" ... THE BIBLE WAY causes some people to doubt and inquire, but it causes others to accuse those who have experienced it as being drunk. Think about that for a minute. I can assure you, it was (here is where the word NOT should be) a funeralized service ... full of pomp, pride and hypocrisy ... like most church goers todayt are accustomed to. No siree, Bob. A drunk ain't proud and they sure ain't no hypocrite. And these mockers (like you) accused those who had just been filled with the Spirit of Almighty God as being drunk. Now, that's pretty rich, ain't it???


Bro. Les: Keep up the Good work my friend, for if the Word is not received, upon judgement day, Judge Larry cannot say that nobody explained it to him. I feel that you are not the first to try to reach this egotistical blowhard, but you are doing what God has called you out to do. Love you!


Bobby: Many thanks for calling that to my attention, Bro. Les. At the risk of sounding like I boasting, which I certainly am NOT, I can type pretty fast. The problem is, I don't always type as fast as the thoughts are coming to my mind. And when I sit down here in front of the computer, I do a whole lot of shooting from the hip, and just allowing the Holy Ghost to minister to me and through me. This is something, I guess, I should have pointed out long ago. But, to be honest with you I haven't thought about it until now. I am NOT a highly educated person, as you all know ... and can, no doubt, tell by some of my typos, spelling, punctuation errors and butchering up of the English language, at times. At any rate, just like when I get down to pray and intercessory prayer, I do my best to allow the Spirit of Almighty God to anoint me and bring thoughts and Scriptures to my mind ... and almost all the time, with very few exceptions, whatever comes up, comes out. And the reason I say with very few exceptions, is because, as has already happened in this debate, it is the words of ole Bobby and not the Holy Ghost at all. When that happens, I feel duty bound to retract whatever it was I said and apologize. I suppose up until we get our glorified bodies, and cross over Jordan, it will continue to be that way. Anyway, again, thanks for helping me out. I certainly meant to put "NOT" in there. Just as a little humor, I could have acted all pompous, and told you that I did it intentional just to see if anyone was really paying attention to any of this. hee, hee And there's probably some arrogant folks out there who would have done that, more than likely. But, hey, with me, what you see is what you get. My days of hiding behind a facade and being on an ego (power) trip are over. I'll admit it when I blunder and show warts and all. hee, hee - God bless!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Les: Hey, My Brother! Wonderful is the given word for all your hard work in refutting, word by word and line by line, all of Judge Larry's watered down, parroted and poisioned doctrines! My hat is off to you!

Far be it from me to add to what you have done and said in what has amounted to over 125 pages in my file at present, using the Word to establish and rightly divide the truth of God's Word. What a tremendous amount of work and a wonderful job!

Just for the fun of it, I remember reading on one of those pages something about Judge disputing that the Lord Jesus had received His name through inheritence, and I just wanted to quote this passage: Hebrews 1: 3 and 4...Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express Image of His person, (whoa, we could just stop right there and digest that one truth!) and upholding all things by the Word of His Power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; ( you did an excellent job explaining that God is Omnipresent which shows the symbolism of "the right hand of the Majesty on High", and that being a place or position in authority and power) being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent Name than they.

Numbers 23: 19 says: God is not a MAN, (Whoa, again, we should digest this verse which plainly says God is not a man!) that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. My, my my, why can't educated persons accept the truth of the Word as it is? I suppose we could say here that there are those who do worship God in Spirit and in Truth, and with that said, there are those who DO NOT worship God in Spirit and in Truth, also. Guess where Judge Larry fits into that? How can he worship the Lord in Spirit when He has never received the Spirit the Bible Way, and it is plain that he does not worship the Lord in Truth. Brother, you probably said all of those things somewhere in those pages as you have already said, as the Lord moved through your fingers, to type and to say what He wanted you to relate. This could go on and on, and eventually we could have posted the entire Word in these texts, but until Judge Larry becomes humble before God and repents, he will never see the plain truth because he is too busy trying to prove that he has done no wrong, and that his parroted versions of doctrines, are the truth. (NOT) I pray that he does indeed reach a place of humility, with reverence to the Almighty and His Word, before he leaps into eternity without the Holy Ghost the Bible Way, and then face God with all of this deception tracking him down and following him to judgement. Why does he kick so hard against God?

Thanks for indulging me Brother, for I have gone longer than I had intended to. Be blessed my friend, and I would like to meet this Lamont or Sanford fellow! Maybe I can one of these days real soon! Bye for now! With love and prayer, Bro. Les


Bobby: Praise the Lord, Bro. Les! Thanks for your kind words. Right now, everything pertaining to this matter is still going out to the Judge and to Jason. I have learned some stuff from this ordeal, as almost always is the case ... which is why I love Bible discussions (and when pressed, debates) so much. Because, most of the time, it causes me to really dig into the Word of God to find answers to genuine questions, objections ... and in the Judge's case, goofy assertions. I am especially appreciative of Bro. Robert sharing that dynamite information with us. Yep, I reckon the Judge is clueless about the name of the Incarnate Christ .... Almighty God the Father manifested in the flesh ... "Jesus" having been "inherited" from Almighty God and dispatched by an angel from the portals of Glory. He must figure Joseph and Mary just woke up one morning and drew the name "Jesus" out of a hat or something. Who knows? His understanding of that may have come off the back of a cerial box or somthing. Do you suppose we're gonna hear anything out of the Judge or Jason either one??? I'm beginning to have my doubts. Which, to be very honest with you, will be a real let down for me, at this juncture. I don't normally gloat over the thought of having an opportunity to box some wise guy's ears real good (spiritually speaking), but I'm starting to relish the idea of an oral debate with this character. Time will tell, I guess. If we don't hear anything from them via email within about 3 days, I may just give them a phone call (from their info I retreived from the Internet) to see if the cat has their "tongues" ... pardon the pun. God bless! - Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mark: Bobby, I think you are wasting your time with this guy. He doesn't have a tenable position and unless he is a complete moron he knows it. I seriously doubt he will ever agree to face you in a reasonable manner but will continue to duck and dodge with excuses. The truth cannot be hidden under a basket and you have placed the candle of truth high on a hill for all, including him, to see. >From what I have seen of his point of view and position he will not bend but would rather break than admit what is plain for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. No man comes to the Father except He chooses him. You have been chosen and it looks to me like Larry has chosen himself as so many in positions of leadership today have. Continue the good fight taking heart in knowing the battle is already won. Your brother in Love, Mark


Bobby: Thanks for your kind words and vote of confidence, Mark. I do not know what kind of result this is all having unless I actually hear from someone ... be it a word of encouragement and confidence, or a scathing rebuke. Thanks for taking the time to comment. And I'm glad to know that I am presenting this in a way that is easily understood. Jesus was NOT complicated, the "original" New Testament leaders were NOT complicated, and I try not to be complicated, myself. Although, sometimes I have trouble trying to explain myself in a way that can be easily understood by others. Again, thanks for your words. God bless!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mark: Right on the money, Bobby, Right dead, or should I say live, on the money. There is no amount of debating that will convince someone who has already made up their mind. Speak the truth as you are or rather let the Holy Spirit continue to speak through you as you have been doing. I also am not of any denomination , creed or sect. The Father is my teacher, instructor, confidant. I see this is the case with you also. You have already spoken plainly the facts of the matter. What purpose will any debate serve to further the Truth when it has yet to be answered on this forum. Your brother in Love, Mark


Bobby: Thanks for you support and confidence, Brother Mark, it means a lot to me! There are times I get weary .... not the down and out, giving up, kind of weary ... just the tired kind of weary. When I'm dealing with people like what I am dealing with right now ... arrogant, narrow minded, blind, ignorant and stubborn (to list a few of the things that come to mind) ..., I really get weary. I've spent a great deal of time, day and night, trying to work something out with this mealy mouthed bunch which would assure me that I would not be prevented, on a technicality, from doing the kind of job I would want to do. **IF** it really didn't matter one way or the other, I'd agree to their time limitations ... and I still might would later on, if the Lord placed it on my heart to do so. Right now, I honestly do not feel inclined to do so. And I ain't regardless of how much they whine and belly ache. God bless ... and I hope you have a great week end! Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Les: Brother Bobby, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Mark and with the stand that you have taken, especially as those religious zealots, are actively endeavoring to weaken your resolve to stand by their constant ignorant responses to your rebuttals and questions and answers. This is clearly an attempt by the religious, who attempt to be spiritual, by demanding that you adhear to the rules of public (and this is the key word here) religious, debates. You know, it was the religious crowd who were responsible for putting Jesus to death on the cross, and as we have witnessed, they are still at it. It would be a wonderful thing if they were seeking after the truth and desired to walk into more light, but this is not the case. They are wanting to create (and they demand that you work with them), more confusion. THis obviously gives them great pleasure, for why else would they continue, in the vain efforts to persuade you to "do it their way"? The answer is, of course, Pride in themselves and in further propagating the lies or half truths which the enemy has always caused to flourish. Why do you suppose that they do not want to learn, or why they do not have a desire to know Jesus? They are of their father, the devil. Jesus said it plainly, and so do I. Keep on keeping on, Brother, for I know that it is a very weary thing for you to endure! Love you! Bro. Les.


Bobby: Thanks for your kind words of support and encouragement, Bro. Les. I really and truly appreciate it. You've been following my Bible discussions/debates long enough to know that I stay just about as busy as one person can stay. But, it has been an extra busy day around here today. My son-in-law came over and helped me get some stuff squared away that has been needing some attention for quite a while. We didn't get completely finished, but, at least, things look a lot better out there. The boss lady has been pretty understanding about things, as she knows this non-denomnational Internet Bible discussion/debate stuff is very definitely a driving passion of mine, but you can usually always tell when their understanding starts to subside, can't you?? Hee, hee. Any who, I do NOT feel that my proposal for an oral debate with the Judge (who has OVER 30 years of "limited time" debate experience) is unreasonable, unworkable, or unfair. I was NOT the one on the asking end of this matter. I was approached by them, NOT the other way around. Even though I have NEVER participated in a limited time debate, and even though they were dead set on having things go "their way", REGARDLESS of how I felt, I would still meet them somewhere between my proposal and the Judge's **IF** the hame headed Judge would just go on the record, and assure me that I would NOT be required to sit down and shut up BEFORE I had fully presented an assertion OR responded to an assertion, if I went over their sacred 20 minute time allotment (under the Judge's rules). But, noooooo, they are too skeered I will take too much time presenting the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine OR refuting their man made theory that evolved out of pagan Rome a couple centuries AFTER Christ concerning their God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit being three separate and distinct CO-EQUAL, CO-ETERNAL, CO-EXISTENT "persons" who are joined together in some sort of mysterious union and are only one as "they" collectively function as one unite to form the "Hear, O Israel, the LORD, our God, is ONE LORD" of the Bible. Bro. Les, it appears to me that these guys just want an opportunity to put on a dog and pony show in order to try and hold their own. Their numbers must be shrinking, and they have damage control in hight gear. Using their convoluted and twisted theology, with all their slide rule explanations, frog hair splitting, and psycho babble, they probably can convince some of their folks that they actually know what they're talking about. And in an environment where time limitations actually work in their favor, they would come in like the Harlem Globe Trotters and attempt to slam dunk it in order to dazzle their choir. They're NOT interested in the Truth in its entirety, as you already know, they are interested in being recognized and seen of man, and in making themselves look good in front of a crowd. Well, the Bible is pretty plain about what awaits those who seek after such rewards. At any rate, **IF** I'm going to discuss or debate a matter ... whether on line, one on one, or in front of a crowd..., I'm going to discusso the debate a matter ... REGARDLESS of how much OR how little time is required for the Truth in its entirety to be adequately addressed. That's the bottom line. **IF** God ever does put it on my heart to make participating in oral debates in front of crowds a matter of high priority, I probably will have to learn the rules and abide by them, but until that time comes, I'm going to continue doing what ever ... and how ever ... I feel led of God to do it. **IF** a few squirrels get sideways with me, and act like they've fallen out of their tree, so be it. I don't sweat the small stuff, as I usually stay too busy trying to keep the main thing, the main thing. Have a great week end ... God bless! - Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bro. Gaston: brother bobby i find it funny that all these cambelites are callin you names rather than refutin this great truth we have lol lol

Bobby: Brother Gaston, I don't intentionally try to stir up confrontations with people. I much prefer the open, honest and relaxed kind of Bible discussions and studies that I am currently involved with some people in a city south of here. These people really love God and His Word. Not one time has there been a cross word, or a confrontation. We've kept everything open, honest and operating on a very professional level. And the way we've done that is by going directly to the Word of God, without any scripts, charts, study guides or anything else. Not one time did I tell anyone what they needed to do or how they needed to believe, nor them me. The Word of God does all of that, as I knew it would, because I've seen it happen too many times before with people who are genuinely honest and open when it comes to the Word of God. Not one time did I talk down to these people or try exalt myself or make them feel like I thought I was the cat's meow (and I pray to God that I don't come across that way in what I do on the Internet). At any rate, we meet in the back of their church, in one of their Sunday School rooms, and begin with prayer. And, while sitting around a table in a very relaxed atmosphere, we read two chapters from the Bible at every meeting each week. Then we just talk about what we've read. We started with the history book of the "original" New Testament Church, the Book of Acts. Right now, we're in the Book of Revelation. And I'll tell you what the Word of God has done ... NOT Bobby Richardson, but the Word of God ... and, of course, the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Three of the four of these men have been re-baptized, but in the precious name of Jesus this time, and three of them have received the Holy Ghost ... the Bible way. The fourth man said a week or two ago, that God is dealing with him about some things, and that he feels like he is going to be making some major changing in his life, and his religious beliefs and convictions. Now, Bro. Gaston, I've never told the man one thing concerning what I thought he needed to do. It has all been as a result of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost. Any way, mean while back on the ranch, generally speaking, I am a fun loving, easy going, people loving, person. And I am NOT one to try and impose my beliefs on others ... and I always try my dead level best to live my life open and honest before God without making others feel uncomfortable, inconvenienced, or put out, when I'm around. However, when it comes to the Word of God ... even when dealing with my own flesh and blood ... I always do my best to tell it just like the Word says it. That way, if they have a a problem with anything, it's between them and God ... not with me and my opinions. Deep down inside, I'm so soft hearted, that I would probably let everybody in heaven ... except for the devil and his sure enough die hard, hard core crew of God haters. But that is NOT my decision. We're all going to stand before a just God, and be held accountable from His Holy Word, based on the life we've lived. That's the simple facts of the matter. **IF** I tell people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear ... OR **IF** I mis-handle or mis-represent the Word of God just so people will like me, or say nice things about me ... somebody ought to take me out behind the barn and whip me with the dirty end of a calf rope. What stokes my fire is when somebody goes to bad mouthing this precious Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. When that happens, I'll go to the mat in its defense. But it won't be in a dog and pony show where the deck is stacked in their favor. And, listen, Brother, these guys really and truly count on those time limits. It is a fact, without time limits, their man made doctrine wouldn't hold up to scrutiny under the microscope of the Word of God. I believe they know that, and that's why they're so adamant about the time limits. And I'm just not sure I could do justice to the Word of God in a few 20 minute spurts. While, I realize, they may think I am just whimping out, I am probably more anxious to debate the Judge than he is me. He really needs to be dealt with. But I refuse to put myself in a situation where I could be hamstrung by the clock, and be made to sit there, unable to set the records straight, knowing what I know about their doctrine, as a former trinitarian. I'm not itching for a fight, but if the Lord deals with me about this matter in that way, I will get things set up, and start having a few mock debates, with a stop watch running, just to make sure I can get and/or keep my time within their sacred guidelines. Should that happen, I'll let everyone know. God knows I'm not scared to take Larry on. But God also knows I'm not sure I can stay within their sacred time limits. And, as you may have noticed, not a single one of them has even hinted that I would not be held to that 20 minute limit, or that I would be allowed to finish up, if I needed extra time in making a point, or responding to something Larry presented. That let me know that they were going to strictly enforce their time limits. That also let me know that their objections about fairness between, what they consider a misguided, misled novice (me), and their 30+ year veteran, was a farce. Think about it for a minute. If you had 30+ years experience of oral debating ... with the time limits ..., and someone who had never played by those rules did not want to be held to the strict compliance of those rules on their first time out (but were being invited by the person with 30+ years experience to a debate), would you make a big deal out of it, and try to make it look like that person just didn't want to debate you, because they didn't to be held to strict compliance of the time limits? I honestly don't believe I would.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Les: Brother Bobby, Thank you for your response to my note about those eggheads who are hell bent on forcing you to abide by the rules of religious debating. Mark Hamby, in the 70's, who was very practiced and active in the oral debating arena, and at that time a member of the UPC, openly put to shame the doctrines of the Church of Christ zealots and their half truths. Maybe, Judge Larry was one of the ones who fell by the axe of Mark Hamby's expertise and zeal for debating the truth. It might be a good thing if you could find a copy of the Hamby debates from that era, and listen to them so that you could better prepare yourself for any upcoming debates if you ever do agree to the official rules of public religious debating. Just a thought. I used to have copies of those debates, but over the years I have found that they are no longer in my posession. Somebody out there in cyberspace should have access to them. Be careful though, that that "spirit" of winning the point or debate, does not interfere with the leading and the love of the Lord. It is a real spirit, and you can see how easily it can become part of the debate when you are dealing with nutheads like Larry's crowd. I've followed your debates long enough to know that you are careful to follow Jesus, and this is why I have high respect for you and all your efforts to defend and to stand by the truth of the Word of the Lord.


Bobby: Brother Les, as far as this limited time oral debate with Larry is concerned, my flesh says, "go for it". But, in all honesty, the Spirit of God has NOT given me a "release". I'm right where God has place me, doing exactly what God has called me to do, and for me to move without the "release" would be making a move in the carnal. My days of trying to put round pegs into square holes ended at mile marker 7 back in 1985. Sure, I could be like Balaam and allow the carnal to influence me go on, anyway. But I'm not. What God has called me to do, I am doing, and He is blessing it. And as I explained above, if God puts it on my heart to step into the spotlight of the time limited oral debate arena, I'll do it. And I'll do it to the best of my ability. But unless or until I know its God leading me, I'm going to stick to doing what I know God has called me to do, unless, of course, someone wants to discuss or debate the Bible with me in person ... without time limits (whether there's a crowd there or not). Shortly after God called me out of the honky tonks, we moved to Florida. The 16 years we spent down there was sort of like going off to Spiritual boot camp, and then right on to the front line from there. I went through some of the most trying times of my life there. Even those of my own family didn't really know or understand. I distinctly remember one time when my wife and children came back home for a visit, she called me one morning about 2 AM and woke me up to tell me that her and our three daughters weren't coming back down there (thinking that if they didn't come back down there, I'd come dragging on back up here). Brother, it was like somebody ripped my heart right out of my chest. The only thing I could think to say was, "you picked a fine time to leave me, Lucille" (a line from an old Kenny Rogers' song), and I hung the phone up. I promised God that night that I would sleep under a highway bridge and pick up beer cans to eat, before I would be forced into making a move without a "release" ... or hearing from God about it. Not everyone understands what I am talking about, but I believe you know and understand this "release" I am speaking of. Without it and a man would be very foolish to make a move in the flesh. But with it, a man would be very foolish to not follow the leading of the Spirit of God. By the way, although I was torn apart that night my wife called, and honestly did not know what was ahead for us, the next afternoon she and the girls came driving up. I did not know whether they were coming or not. But one thing was certain, I wasn't going to be forced into going against the most solemn commitments I made to God at mile marker 7 in 1985, to go, do, say and be whatever ... and where ever the Spirit of God leads. I meant those words in 1985, and I still mean them to this very day. Long story short, the "release" did come, but it came years later, and we are back home. Brother, the reason I even bring this up is because this matter with the limited time oral debate is a whole lot like the option I was given on the phone that night. It is their way or no way, and I refuse to allow anyone to try and force .. or intimidate ... me into doing something without that "release" I've mentioned. One more thing, while not everyone believes in this kind of stuff, or maybe thinks of it as just being some kind of 6th sense or something, God does give me some Spiritual insight, or discernment, about some things from time to time. And I say this without fear or favor, but this matter with Jason, Larry, Stan, Jeff and the limited time oral debate stuff has been pegging the needle (so to speak) that they are not genuinely interested in open and honest presentation of the Truth in its entirety. But, instead are using this dog and pony show environment to make a mockery of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and the genuine operation of the Holy Ghost, AND as a means to further their practice of deceit and guile in a pious orchestration of their man made doctrine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Greg: Keep up the good fight Brother Bobby, and dont let the mindless rantings of the ignorant wear you down. I'm standing with you on the rock in the light dressed in full armour with the sword of the spirit that is the word of God. No weapon formed against us can prosper. your brother in Christ, Greg.


Bobby: Bro. Greg, Thanks for your encouragement and support. I really appreciate it. However, while it is good to have people in your corner for help, support and encouragment, I learned during my 16 years in Florida, as a result of basically walking this road alone, and finding myself in a number of situations with my back against the wall, that there are times when a person must be able to do as David did in 1 Samuel 30:6, "And David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the LORD his God." During my sojourn in the Great State of Florida, I developed an incredibly strong bond with my Bible. There were many times when I would find a place to be all alone with just God and my Bible, that I would literally fall on my face, weeping and sobbing with my face buried in its pages. And there were also many times when I would ask God to show me something in His Word that would help me at that precise moment, and would just close my eyes and open my Bible up to a place at random, and read whatever appeared when I placed my finger on a page and opened my eyes back up. And, there were many times when the hair on the back of my neck would stand up as I would read something that addressed my immediate situation to a tee, and I would apply it to my life and that immediate situation. Even in those low points of the lowest times of my life, I never entertained the idea of giving up and going back to the way things used to be. While there were times I did not know what to do or which way to turn, that one thing always remained constant through it all ... I would rather die than give up and go back to the way things used to be. You see, I really believe I got my "last call" at mile marker 7. And it's not that my life today is lived as a result of fear or obligation, but, rather, it is lived with a very deep conviction, that at mile marker 7, God pulled back from the very edge of certain destruction. And the burning desire I have to live for Him supercedes EVERYTHING else, any more. It's not that I would want to give up anything near and dear to me, but if there is anything that means more to me than my commitment to, and relationship with, God, it would be closer to me that He is, and I just can't afford to have that happen. There's not a doubt in my mind that I would be in my grave today, lost and undone, if I hadn't made the right choice at mile marker 7. Again, Bro. Greg, I appreciate your words of encouragement. God bless! Bobby

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Ralph: One thing can be said with all honesty that much can be learned by such debates and scriptures are being read and studied by all interested people. And all things considered I learn a good deal about things that, in one way or another, were twisted around by Jehovah's Witnesses, et al..etc. I can appreciate the wise things said. And I even learned the I.Q. of a sack of claw hammers. I do beleive they have the same I.Q. as a sack of pall peen hammers and that familair bag of rocks. Ralph.


Bobby: You know I've heard it said that a wise man tries to learn something from everyone they meet. It has been my experience that, more often than not, a person really can learn something from every one the meet. If it is nothing more than what not to be ... do ... or say. My manner of speech on the computer is like my manner of speech really is ... or at least, I think it is, because when I sit down in front of this computer I try my best to communicate through this keyboard exactly what I would verbally say if I was actually talking to someone. And, yes, I can be a real cut up at times. As a matter of fact, I love humor and I like to laugh and be happy. I always have. It breaks the ice and tension lots of times ... AND it also makes other people laugh, and it can brightened their day and cause them to be happy OR happier. Yep, I am convinced happy people are merry ... and merry and fun to be around, and "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones." Proverbs 17:22 Besides, in my part of the world, it easy to pick up a whole lot of good one liners. hee, hee


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Robert: Bro Bobby, It seems Jason, Jeff, and Stan are trying their best to "patch up" Hafley's refusal to answer your questions. I just keep wondering why they refuse to take up the "banner" and attempt to answer the questions Hafley refused to answer?? It seems You have hit that proverbial nail squarely on the head in this matter by stating. "AND ya'll can't get your hero to answer the remaining seven questions of the following eight (nor will you or any of your cohorts, for that matter) ... "These so-called "defenders of Truth" seem to find it easy to chide and ridicule you, but care little to engage their "enemy" in open and honest and in-depth discussion of God's Word. They falter and fall quickly in the face of legitimate challenges from the Word by disciples capable of independent thought. Thus, those who DO enter the "den" will quickly flee back to their caves when they see their views are going to be subjected to serious and in-depth examination.

Those who lob granades and then run to their caves to hide are spiritual terrorists, pure and simple. They slander from afar, and then disappear when we seek to engage them. They will enter the "den" just long enough to plant a bomb, and then run for the hills like cowards. They want people to think they are defenders of the faith and contenders for Truth, but they will flee like yelping pups when actually faced with someone who can and will challenge their notions. They will also throw out barbs here and there, as long as they can get away with it. But as far as opening the door for open & honest dialogue about our differences ..... it will be a frigid day in hades before they would even consider it.

They seem to advocate rule by intimidation, and favor brainwashing their disciples, thus, they have attacked, ridiculed, taunted, and mocked Bobby. Why? Because when he is allowed to have free and open discussion with them he will get RESULTS. People begin thinking, and they FEAR that.

Mr Cox stated, "Why correspond privately with one who has a settled opinion, when the debate can be held before a public who will see the truth contrasted with error?" It seems that Cox and company think public debates reach more people that written debates. If this is true, I wonder why Mr Hafley doesn't make available the 30 plus yrs of his public debates on his web site? After 30 plus years of debating it seems he could make available more than the one debate (HAFLEY-WILKIN DEBATE TAPES concerning "Water baptism, to the penitent believer is for (in order to) the remission of sins.) Bobby has shown he is more than willing to make a written debate available for ALL to read and study, not just the few that could attend a public debate. http://hometown.aol.com/clmgr1951/myhomepage/travel.html

Well, I'm probably rambling so will stop, but I just felt "reflective" this morning and was motivated to respond. May God richly bless you. Bro Robert



Bobby: Praise the Lord, Bro. Robert! It is mighty strange that nobody ... not a single one of them ... would answer those seven remaining questions, while they had an opportunity to do so BEFORE the web page was put up that documents just how silly they all acted about this whole matter, AND just how empty, shallow and hollow their man made theology really and truly is. I am convinced now, more than ever, that they depend very GREATLY upon those time limitations in carrying out their champaign of guile and deceit via their (muzzled) dog and pony road shows. And I'd put the farm up that they would consider it immature and strange, too, if someone got sideways with them if they objected to having their preaching muzzled by a goofy stop watch. At any rate, if I were them, and felt as strongly as they claim they do about their doctrine, I would have just had to answered POINT BY POINT instead of making like it was beneath me to do so unless in an oral debate. Furthermore, if I were them, I would be down right embarrassed knowing email communications, documenting EVERYTHING, is on a web page out there for the world to see. It is listed in AOL's Hometown "Christianity" Community as follows ...


Bobby Richardson Scripturally refutes Larry Ray Hafley ....
Non-Denominational layman, Bobby Richardson, Scripturally refutes, Larry Ray Hafley, an accomplished Church of Christ preacher, evangelist and experienced Bible debater, with OVER 30 years under his belt.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


NOTE: This looks like it's going to be about it. However, I still hold out hope that Hafley, or one of his cohorts, will come forward and demonstrate they have the honesty, integrity, courage and commitment to answer my questions concerning their theology ... AND to "Come now, and let us reason together," in the Scriptures, in an open, honest and indepth manner, as opposed to all of the haranguing, tirades and "dog and pony show" hoopla we've witnessed here. OR, at the very least, will answer the questions and meet me somewhere between Hafley's time limited proposal and my unlimited proposal. Why is every one of them scared to answer those questions, or to debate me without their stop watch??? Sounds mighty fishy, doesn't it? At any rate, thanks to them, the Information Super Highway now has a new bill board. And all a person has to do is visit AOL's Hometown general home page ... http://hometown.aol.com/ ... OR their "Christianity" community home page ... http://hometown.aol.com/ht.ssp?cid=11151&p=1 ... and type ... Larry Hafley ... or ... Bobby Richardson ... in the search bar ... and ... POOF! There it is for the world to see! Word for word documentation ...

Bobby Richardson Scripturally refutes Larry Ray Hafley ....
Non-Denominational layman, Bobby Richardson, Scripturally refutes, Larry Ray Hafley, an accomplished Church of Christ preacher, evangelist and experienced Bible debater, with OVER 30 years under his belt.

Anyway, here's what looks like is the last on this matter ...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark: Brother Robert is an articulate well spoken individual who ,obvious to me, is filled with the Spirit of Truth and Love. He has nailed it here in his pointed assessment of those who are the Wolves in Sheep's clothing. The division in the body of the Church today maintained by Denominationalism and the perversion of the Truth by the likes of Hafley and those who stand with him are what are keeping so many of the Lost Sheep from realizing the Truth is NOT contained in Religion but is to be found in the Bible which requires no interpretation, only the burning hunger for righteousness for Truth to be revealed. Those who seek WILL find and to those who knock the door Will be opened but not by man made theory and conjecture but through the will of the Father. The false profits seem to prevail today because so many who are lost remain so following them. Where will they be on Judgment Day, on the right hand or the left hand side? I pity them in their wilful blindness, Eternity is a long, long while to not be in the presence of Love. Mark

Bobby: I agree. Brother Robert, evidently, is a very astute, Spirit-led, wise and studied man.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Seeking: hello brother Bobby Richardson, I'm glad i decided to study with you, i learned a lot and it's all scriptual, that's how you come into true knowledge of God's word. i feel this study has been a blessings in more ways than one! I would like to have more studies with you. if that's at all possible, please respond to my email. May God forever bless you, LOVE YOU, and protect you. yours in Jesus Christ, Seeking the truth


Bobby: Thanks for your kind words ... and vote of confidence. Below is a web page I have set up as sort of an introduction, and it lists my web pages. It should appear as a clickable link. If not, you can just copy and paste or type the URL into your browser window and get to it like that. Please visit it at your earliest convenience. Thanks ... and God bless!

http://hometown.aol.com/bobby39629/myhomepage/writing.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Les: Praise the Lord, Brother Bobby! Wonderful! What a hoot, for you to have the opportunity to disarm Larry's half truths and parroted opinions about this Wonderful gospel and truth of the Word of the Lord! It makes me chuckle to imagine how it would make Larry and his group of misled souls feel to see his own words torn down and refuted by scripture, point by point, verbatim from the Words of the King, and posted on a web page for the whole world to view! God does have a sense of humor, doesn't he! I say, go for it! And, please, keep me on your list of those who receive copies of all your "stuff" or, provisions of truth! Love and prayers,


Bobby: Bro. Les, I guess I sort of felt like Elijah must have felt when the Lord used the ravens to send him some bread. Since these guys are up to their arm pits in guile, deceit and false doctrine ... and since their hearts are harder than pharoah's ... and since the Lord knew I really wanted to finish putting the icing on this cake, He moved on Brother Robert to send me a boat load of bread. I've already got the Judge's first round affirmation (seven pages) scanned onto a Word Pad document. When I get it all scanned, all I will have to do is just go back and POINT BY POINT insert my Scriptural refutations to his false doctrine, right down the line ... then copy and paste to an email form and onto a web page ... and KABLOOM! It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll just need to set aside the time to do it. I mean, an actual oral debate transcript where he puts his best foot forward, and starts things off in the affirmative ... on the very subject I wanted to debate him on .... who'd ever have thunk it could have happened like that? And these boys don't believe in miracles. hee, hee What an absolute riot!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Bro. Wade: I LOVE IT! Hey, from time to time we get people who want to debate doctrine. I have little time to deal with them even though it would be worth while. When I get these care to take on the task? Blessings!


Bobby: Ain't it something, Brother, how these guys have acted?? They don't know if they are plowing or planting most of the time, and are probably only concerning in making sure the sheep they're fleecing just keep on thinking they do. That has to be the reason why they got all sideways with me about the stopwatch stuff, and acted like their rules of debate MUST be strictly adhered to, otherwise there would be utter chaos and confusion. Can you believe that? Naw, they ain't foolin' me. They don't want anybody ... who knows a good bit about what the Bible does have to say about some stuff ... having free reins to expound upon the Truth in its entirety, as it relates to their theology. The way they've acted still makes me just shake my head in totally amazement. At any rate, about the contacts you get, send 'em on, Brother, I'll work 'em in some how. While I try to keep the main thing the main thing, by focusing my attention on the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, I do, when called upon, deal with other subjects, and really enjoy digging into the Word, to find out what the Bible really has to say about something ... as long as I aint just being yanked around by somebody.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *