Andrew K. Stephens

Great News! I have updated my book and its better than ever! I address more Scriptures and dig a little deeper philosophically! Its great for beginners, with the first half walking simply over the topic. And offers the seasoned more depth by the end. amazon.com/Christ-Centere…

If regeneration means being born of the Spirit (John 3:5-8) then wouldn't that mean regeneration and being children of God (sons and daughters of God) are inseparable. The point is, Galatians 3:26 says we are sons of God "through" faith! That means faith precedes regeneration!

@KirkWilson @Jondaphemp Every system of doctrine has its own words to capture Biblical ideas, (the Trinity).Whatever your belief system is it has it too! So thats a weak point. Resistable Grace is based on J12:32 saying all are drawn to Christ.Yet we know not all will be saved.Thus its a resistable draw

@AndrewKStephen1 @Jondaphemp “Resistable Grace is Prevenient Grace” are completely made up terms that are literally not found in scripture. And before you say that the ideas are found in scripture, that is literally a matter of Biblical interpretation. This is one of the reasons why I reject both systems.

Calvinism OR Arminianism is a false dichotomy.

@Jondaphemp @KirkWilson Dude. Prevenient Grace was first written about by Augustine. The Second Council of Orange in 529ad affirmed it! For this reason Catholics have always claimed Prevenient Grace, which is why Luther and Calvin was against it!

@AndrewKStephen1 @KirkWilson Prevenient Grace IS a reformed Word LOL Next youll be telling me that the WCF isnt reformed.

@Jondaphemp @KirkWilson Resistable Grace is Prevenient Grace which is not a reformed word. And Conditional Election refers to being chosen "in Christ" by faith, which is found in the early church. The early church held tents that span the spectrum of the different shades of Arminianism.

@AndrewKStephen1 @KirkWilson Yes, but they used the Biblical definitions of those words, not the reformed definitions

@QuestionTrinity It does not mean cause to exist! One's essence is One's existence! It what makes you what you are-existing. Hypostasis is what makes you unique from others that have the same kind of Nature. God has 3 Hypostasis (uniquenesses from eachother) but 1 Essence (same spark of existence

“The distinction of the Persons is recognized in the causative and the caused.” This clearly means caused to exist.

@QuestionTrinity Thats because you are misusing the terms. The more proper terms is that the Father is Unbegotten, while the Son is Begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. Some of the early church writers may have used the word cause at times, but they meant on hypostatic level! Not the Essence level!

It’s amazing how little modern Trinitarians understand about the historical Trinitarian teachings. Example: Only the Father has aseity. This is simply fact, yet most modern Trinitarians decry such a claim. “All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except causality.”

@KirkWilson Well i dont get why you say its a false dichotomy. Unconditional Election&Conditional Election; also Irresistible Grace&Resistable Grace are exclusive ideas. They cant coexist. So thats a dichotomy. The early church held free will & Election which falls into an Arminian umbrella

@AndrewKStephen1 Nope I don’t adhere to either one. I don’t believe in total depravity (neither did the early church fathers btw). I’m a traditionalist not the rigid legal framework of those soteriologies.

@YahwehGraced ..being a copy and equally a Platonic Singularity in addition to the Platonic Singularity that was seen as God. The Trinitarians were bringing the theology of God away from Greek philosophy by warping the Platonic language to match the Bible's monotheism!

@YahwehGraced ..Father! 4. If you actually study the history of Nicea, ironically, it is the opposite of what you say! The Greek philosophy was warping the theology of God into Arianism, or to saying Jesus was eternal but lesser than the Platonic Singularity seen as being God, or as Jesus ...

List of specific parts that Trinity gets wrong: 1. Co equality John 14:28. Yeshua’s own words were “The Father is greater than I.” Scripture does not reconcile this into co equality. Trinity has to explain it away. 2. Co eternal in the same sense John 3:14, Proverbs 8:22-25 and Colossians 1:15 describe Yeshua as begotten, firstborn, brought forth, beginning. A son has a source. Trinity’s co eternity axiom requires denying what those texts plainly say. 3. The Spirit as a third co-equal person Scripture consistently calls it the Spirit OF YAHWEH, Spirit OF the Father, Spirit OF Yeshua. Belonging to someone is not the same as being a co-equal separate person alongside them. 4. Homoousios, same substance That specific Greek philosophical category appears nowhere in Scripture. It was imported from Greek metaphysics and imposed on Hebrew texts that never framed divinity that way. Trinity sounds like someone trying to fit biblical teaching into Greek philosophy instead of letting the Scripture speak for itself.

@CertainSpeaks .. belief in the Trinity goes way back before Nicea! Whether right or wrong, it is a historical fact that Christians held to the Trinity at least by 100ad!

@CertainSpeaks ..one substance and of one condition and of one power inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned under the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How They are susceptible of number without division." As you can see the

P1- The Christian faith was "delivered" to the holy ones in the 1st century. — Jude 1:3 P2- Trinitarianism did not exist untill the 4th Century, about 300 years after Jesus apostles. C- Therfore, Trinitarianism is not part of the Christian faith that was "delivered to the holy ones." References: Letter of Jude- about 65 C.E Constantinople Council- 381 C.E