Occasionally I get requests from regular readers of my website and blog to donate to my ministry.  I appreciate the gesture, but I am uncomfortable saying, say “Sure, send me your money.  Here is my address.”  So I’ve come up with an idea that allows you to give, and me to benefit from your generosity without feeling awkward.  If you have benefited from my ministry and would like to express your gratitude, rather than sending me money (which God knows I have more than I know what to do with—NOT), purchase a book for me from my Amazon wish list (my shipping address is pre-programmed).  I am an avid reader.  More books means more material for my blog. 

For anyone who buys this poor man a book, I say “Thank you!”

56 Responses to “Ministry Resource List”

  1. jasondulle Says:

    Today I received three books from my wish list: There is a God by Antony Flew, How Much Does God Know by Steven Roy, and Christianity Without the Cross by Thomas Fudge. To the giver, I say “thank you!” I can’t wait to read them. I’m sure they contain great blogging fodder.

  2. jasondulle Says:

    One more book came in: The Design of Life. This is a textbook on Intelligent Design. I’ve heard great things about it. Thank you!

  3. CJ Says:

    Have you read CX w/o the cross yet? what did you think?

  4. jasondulle Says:

    I just finished it yesterday. Very informative and enlightening when it comes to the history of the UPC and early Pentecost. I can’t say I entirely agree with the author that the UPC has eliminated the cross. While it’s true that some within our ranks rarely talk about it and seem to ignore its significance, this is not true across the board. If anything, I think many in the UPC are just guilty of presupposing the cross, so they focus on Acts 2:38 instead because it is our theological distinctive. Of course, eventually, a presupposed doctrine can become a forgotten doctrine. All I can say is that I have been part of five churches (two of them were large and prominent), and in none of them was the preaching of the cross left out of the kerygma. Acts 2:38 is always the focus in preaching, but only because we believe that is the way the atonement is appropriated in our lives.


  5. CJ Says:

    I would agree. I would say most movements focus on their distinctives, unfortunately to the detriment of the cross, and to new believers. Because of this, it seems to be what happens to the 2nd generation of believers in any movement.

    I think that in many ways the UPC movement is at a crossroads, where many will either reform (which they call backsliding) or become a dying movement of religious people. I have had good church experiences with in the UPC, and was saved in a non-UPC oneness pentecostal church, but… I see a growing trend to relegate righteousness to something else outside of Christ, whether it be hair (which is a big one) or clothes, or denominational affiliation. Of course other movements (baptist, evangelical, non-denom) do it in other way, with other distinctives. At the end of the day, I still think it is unacceptable.

  6. naz Says:


    I would like to echo your thoughts about how our denominational distinctions can be to our detriment. I think we have become too dogmatic about issues that are not black and white in the scriptures. There definitely are absolutes that we must be dogmatic about. But when it comes to some of the application issues of scripture, people must be given freedom and latitude to choose to do what they believe is right. Otherwise what you end up with is a cult and not a church. I think there is something seriously wrong if I walk into a place and everyone looks the same. The body of Christ is supposed to be united in the Spirit not in the external appearances. We need not lose our individuality when we become part of the body of Christ. As an analogy, if you think of the human body, all its parts do not look the same. The leg is quite different from the nose for example.
    I am a former UPC church member, and I can also say that although I still believe the Acts 2:38 message, I am more aware and sensitive on how I preach the message making sure that the love and grace of Jesus Christ is always at the forefront. If we are not careful, we can do damage to God’s plan of salvation, which is supposed to be a message of grace and regeneration, reducing it to a from of “doctrinal legalism” if I can use such a term. What I am saying is that we too easily dismiss people’s genuine faith and experience with God because they don’t exactly fit our textbook plan of salvation. I’ve always struggled with this because I know sincere regenerated people who love God and haven’t been baptized in Jesus Name but in the titles, for example. Are they not saved because of the way they were baptized ? Is that what the scriptures actually teach ? Are we saved by our mode of baptism or by Jesus Christ through baptism ? This is what I mean by doctrinal legalism.
    Again, we need to be prayerful and mindful of God’s purpose and His Word when we exclude or condemn well meaning people or cause a stumbling block for their faith. For this, we will be personally accountable to God.

  7. I noticed we got some of the same wishes. lol I got Flew’s book a few weeks ago. I have been reading McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, Boteachs Broken American Male. What do you think of Thomas F. Torrance’s 2 Vol work on Atonement and Incarnation? What about Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian?

  8. jasondulle Says:

    Flew’s book was interesting. His conversion from atheism to deism is quite an amazing story, and quite an amazing journey. Let’s hope he completes the journey to Christian theism before his life ends.

    I haven’t read the others you mentioned.


  9. Roger Olson is an Arminian. I have a couple of his works now and am going to purchase more. I am really liking his style too.

  10. James Harrison Says:

    Beloved Brother and Saint Jason Dulle;

    I am a member of the UPCI and I am trying to enter the ministry to advance the Kingdom of God (Eph:3:7: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of His power). I have looked over your ‘Oneness Theology’ (Joh:10:30: I and my Father are one) and find it to be Godsent (2Tm:2:2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also). I am asking if I may use your work to advance the cause of the ‘One True God’ amoung the many nations whom are lost (Isa:44:6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Isra’el, the Redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God). I would like to note that my request is not grounded in the desire of human profit; for man gains nothing in the flesh, but gains the treasures of Heaven by the Spirit (1Co:10:33: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved). As we are both servants of the Almighty and called to do His will unto the lost of the world, I deeply bequest of your writtings (Ga:6:10: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith)! In all cases of use, I will ‘always’ refer to the authorship of your name in light of Christ Jesus (Ph’p:2:4: Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others). I find that your tools can be mass circulated beyond a few that may see it @ onenesspentecostal.com (1Co:3:9: For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building)! My beloved brother and Saint in Christ Jesus, we are to aid one another, correcting one another in the light of the Lord, lest we fade to our former bondage of the flesh (Ga:5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage). I will await for your return letter of approval and I pray that the Spitit moves within you to harken to joint fellowship in our Lord Christ Jesus (Ro:12:10: Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another).

    In the one, holy, and saving name of Christ Jesus;

    + Bro. James Harrison


  11. jasondulle Says:

    Hi James,

    You can use any materials I have.


  12. jasondulle Says:

    I just received four books from my ministry resource list, purchased by “Jeff”:

    –“In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tought Questions When it Counts”
    –“How to Get Your Point Across in 30 Second or Less”
    –“How do you Know You’re not Wrong?” by philosopher Paul Copan
    –“Why I Became an Atheist” by ex-evangelical John Loftus.

    Thanks Jeff! Maybe the first book will help me keep my posts and comments shorter too! :)


  13. Danzil Says:

    Jason, I read “Christianity Without The Cross” some time ago. while I found much of the information fascinating, i was suspicious about Fudge’s motives and angle so I contacted David Bernard and a few other UPCI ministers about the book and received some good feedback. I think that it is unfortunate that faithful UPCI ministers did not have the vision to document such interviews for posterity. It is important to get the thoughts of our ministers from their own mouth while they are still with us so that we don’t have to rely on someone who does not have our best interest at heart when they document our history.
    I really appreciate your dedication to dialogue and publication brother Dulle.
    And I really wish you would consider putting your articles and lessons on CD.
    Please, Please consider doing so if for no one but me. I have some very important uses for them. We’ll talk.

  14. jasondulle Says:


    Given Fudge’s background, surely he had a horse in this race. While I think he was unfair in some ways, he was spot on in others. My main takeaway from reading the book was that this organization was founded a lot of theological diversity, much to the consternation of some of the original members. It created conflict from the start, and eventually, through political action rather than theological persuasion, the majority view became the only acceptable view within the organization. It seems to me that the merger of ’45 was an experiment doomed to failure from the start. It’s hard to “fellowship the difference” on an issue as important as soteriology.


  15. Aaron Deskin Says:

    a invite to CARM Oneness board for any here, especially JASON DULLE.

    I see your writings as false ,as antichrist, as non Oneness, as heresy.


    Eternal Son, son is God, two persons of Jesus all seem to be error, as well as the general Philosophical ideas in your postings.

  16. jasondulle Says:

    Aaron, you are free to disagree with my interpretation, and free to compare it against other Oneness interpretations, but please do not misinterpret me to be teaching two persons of Jesus. That is inexcusable.

  17. Aaron Deskin Says:

    Jason, I have found your studies simply a attempt by you to try and cut your teeth on some new found idea or doctrine, which I surmise, will be your demise.
    Reifying Natures = Two Persons
    SIMPLY IS SUCH A TEACHING and others have seen such and spoken of it on CARM and I see such proof when you liken the common teaching of natures as persons.
    iT IS NOT ONLY ON THIS ALONE THOUGH, you have fronted common Apostolic teaching and teachers an attempted to put your own theories to the forefront as if a correct view and the Oneness doctrine (which you really don’t hold ) as …well old hick ignorant teaching.
    “On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature. What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.” What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.” Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities. On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another. The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.

    The problem with the traditional OP explanation is two-fold. First, while OPs have tried to avoid the conclusion that God is “two persons,” they have ultimately turned Jesus into two persons. ”

    I FIND YOU TO BE A LIAR, IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO SAY YOU DON’T HOLD IT, rather you try to say Oneness is really teaching the same thing as triniarians and then say you are Oneness (but I Guess not of us ignorant one’s).

    I have told several Ministers and Pastors of your teachings here in Indiana and your philosophical ideas and made sure several know exactly what kind of person you are in sheeps clothing, masquerading as Apostolic.
    I see your fall coming, it will be like other men who think they need to conjure up some NEW doctrine or think you got a better way to explain it, yet attack the truth and front men like Bernard and others who have been teaching this way and superior to your puny ways.

    The harm you do in your smart aleck way of speaking about our so called Oneness error, shows me you are really a pretender.

  18. jasondulle Says:


    Your view of my theology, my personal integrity, and my intentions is troubling to me. But I am also bewildered how a person with integrity can tell another person that what he says he believes he does not in fact believe. Perhaps you could accuse me of poorly expressing my views in writing, but to conclude that I am either lying about what I believe, or that I am a Binitarian/Trinitarian posing as a Oneness believer is preposterous.

    No, I do not believe in two divine persons, and in my own estimation my writings make this clear. I believe in one divine person who exists as both God and as man simultaneously via two distinct natures, and thus He functions as both God and as a man simultaneously. This existential/functional distinction includes a distinction in God’s mental functioning: In His cosmic mode of existence according to His divine nature God is conscious of Himself as God, and in His human mode of existence according to His human nature God is conscious of Himself as man.

    This should hardly be controversial in Oneness circles. It is more than obvious that there is a psychological distinction between Jesus and the Father. The question is how we explain this. Trinitarians explain it by invoking two distinct divine persons within a single divine substance. Oneness believers explain it incarnationally; i.e. by an appeal to Jesus’ humanity. We have rightly appealed to the human nature that Jesus assumed as the cause of the (psychological) distinction between Father and Son. Where I think we have gone wrong is in treating the human nature as the source of the distinction, rather than just the cause of the distinction. Natures are not personal, and thus natures are not conscious and capable of doing anything. Only persons are capable of such. In Jesus, God is simply utilizing the human nature to personally exist as man, and to personally function as man.

    So we have a single divine person who is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: in a divine way according to His divine nature, and in a human way according to His human nature. In Christ God is conscious of Himself as a human being in a human way due to His acquisition of and use of human nature. As God continues to exist beyond the incarnation, He continues to be conscious of Himself as God in a divine way due to His divine nature. While I admit that the way I cash this out is a variation on the way we have traditionally done so, the end result is still the same: one person existing in distinct modes. The deviation from the traditional Oneness explanation is so slight that I think it hardly deserves to be controversial. Perhaps I am wrong, but to claim that I am deviating from Oneness theology, or that I am not a Oneness believer, or to malign my integrity and motives is just plain wrong. I would expect better treatment from a fellow Oneness believer.


  19. Jason- from IL Says:

    HI Jason, I think you explain the oneness view very well in your articles. While it took me some time to fully understand the distinctions you were making apart from many traditional nestorian type oneness understandings of christology, once I fully comprehended what you were saying I found your view to be SO sound theologically and logically that I adopted it as my own….until further revelation of course lol. Love your stuff! I refer your writtings to a lot of friends for study and don’t question your integrity or the fact that you are a fellow Oneness believer one bit! Keep on keepin on brotha! =)

  20. Would you like pertinent review copies from InterVarsity Press? If so, let me know!

  21. jasondulle Says:

    Hello Adrianna,

    Yes, definitely.


  22. Dylan Downs Says:

    I really think it’d be interesting to see Jason debate Matt Slick. I respect his ministry and it has been a major asset to me, but he sorely misrepresents the Apostolic Pentecostal view.

  23. Casey Brown Says:

    I have found Jason’s website and ideas to be very interesting. I do not see at all how he as misinterpreted the oneness view of God. He may have a slightly different opinion, but if you were to interview 10 oneness pastors you would probably get 10 different opinions on the more finite ideas of the Godhead.

  24. Edward Graham Says:

    I am here wondering which of Jason’s writing has Mr. Aaron Deskin read, because I don’t share his viewpoint. I have being reading Jason’s theological views for sometime now and they express the biblical text with much integrity. a bit out of the box but so was Paul the apostle as well, maybe if Mr. Deskin was around in Paul’s time he would have said the same thing about Paul when you look at his greetings and his benedictions in his many epistles. To call Jason a liar and saying the he doesn’t believe what he believe is cause for concern coming from one who claims he apostolic. Maybe he should share his views that we may all see it. What Oneness Pentecostalism is seriously lacking is intellectuals who seriously dissect the Scriptures for the benefit of us all, this is proven when we see the scarcity of apostolic writers, an apostolic bible commentary, devotional etc. with the plethora of apostolics how is it that a group of say 25 or so can’t come together and write a study bible? Is the difference in beliefs a major factor? Whether one is pre-trib or post-trib etc. To criticize a person who has faithfully represented the biblical text in the like that Jason has done is very worrying.

  25. Aaron Deskin Says:

    Jason has attacked “Traditional Oneness” saying we hold two persons and not one person as Jesus.
    If he says different then he lies!!
    He has gone against Apostolic Oneness writings and veered off into cultic ideas and out of writings by Bernard and others that hold Oneness truths and he wanting to have his own doctrinal ideas steps out of the norm.
    Maybe Jason will tell us where he stands on the Son being God. That Jesus derives his deity as Son and not as Father.

  26. jasondulle Says:

    Aaron, you are off-base. While I have attacked the tendency toward a Nestorian view of Jesus (or Nestorian-sounding language used to describe Him) that has long existed within our ranks, this is proper (unless you want to hold that Jesus is two persons). And I am not alone in this. Daniel Segraves has done the same. Indeed, he is my theological mentor in this regards.

    Can you please explain what cultic ideas I hold to?

    Where do I stand on the Son being God? I would think that should be clear. The Son, Jesus, is none other than YHWH Himself incarnate. I don’t even know what it means to say that Jesus “derives his deity as Son and not as Father.” The Son and the Father are simply two modes of existence of a single divine person, YHWH.


  27. Billy Martin Says:

    Whoa, you had some fellow hot under the collar.

  28. Nkorni Katte Says:

    Dear Jason,

    I have been in trinitarian churches all my life, yet I have always befriended oneness people and worshiped with them very often, so I am familiar to “oneness theology”. I want to say that I like the way you present the God head. You are strong voice in the current oneness movement. Someone wrongly attacked you in this blog by claiming that you have attacked Bro David Bernard. Your attitude has been right I have never read anything where you attacked Bro Bernard. Instead I believe that you have provided new ways of explaining some concerns that Bro Bernard had difficulty with. I have also realized that Bro Bernard is using your terminology.

    God bless you.

    Bro Katte

  29. David Bernard has no difficulty in explaining anything…. Oneness and Aaron Deskin is correct in his criticsims. He may be coming on strong in his zeal but which of you have not at some time? But he is correct. It seems that Jason Dulle teaches different than we have taught in the past. Mr.Dulle teaches the doctrine of Apollanirainism and Jesus does not have a genuine human spirit but a divine Spirit only. My concern is that he uses the false assumpttion that the trinitarains use in using the term person. God is a person because of the human person he incarnates. Not the other way around. God is more than a person in and of himself, a person is created being. the pronoun” Himself” is not exactley the word you could use for God either since it refers to male gender.

  30. jasondulle Says:

    Manuel, I do not teach Apollinarianism. Apollinarius taught that Jesus was less than fully human in both constitution and function. I deny both of those things.

  31. Nkorni Katte Says:

    I think in Bro Bernard’s book. He said the ” human nature ” prayed to the Divine nature. But most recently in the debates Bro Bernard agrees with Jason. He frames his just like Jason and said natures do not pray persons pray.

  32. Nkorni Katte Says:

    I think in Bro Bernard’s book. He said the ” human nature ” prayed to the Divine nature. But most recently in the debates Bro Bernard agrees with Jason. He framed his argument just like Jason and said natures do not pray persons pray.

  33. Yes persons pray and natures do not pray! So then does God pray? Persons also die, does God? The term person is not a problem for Oneness! The problem is *persons of God! If we have two or three persons of God, we have two or three Gods. Lets go ahead and say we have one real man in the incarnation and one real God. Do we have two Gods? NO! do we have two men? No! What do we have then? The incarnation! Stop being afraid! I have been using this for years and have never been contradicted by any trinitarian. Jason told me in an email: He no longer believes:”Jesus has a human spirit.” I hope and pray he has changed his mind concerning that false doctrine. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can email me at mlculwell@yahoo.com

  34. Jason, please tell us does Jesus have two spirits? One Human and One divine?

  35. jasondulle Says:


    Answer me a question and I will answer you. How many persons are in Christ: one or two?

    And what do you think a spirit is (and provide me with your reasons for your answer).


  36. Jason, Thank you for being honest and admitting you are an Apollonarist!

  37. You are not going to answer me or you would have!

  38. You believe God the Father pretended to be a man with no human spirit….. To answer your question: There are no persons in Christ! Jesus is a person! God’s person. God as Spirit is the Ultimate divine being. Jesus human being and spirit is not another person of God. Jesus is the Only person of God’s One divine Spirit.. Jesus has a human spirit or he is not a real man.

  39. Jesse Says:

    To: Manuel Culwell
    Every human has a spirit. Jesus’ Spirit was the One Spirit of God. Jesus therefore had a spirit and meets that qualification of humanity. When He died the spirit left Him, later it raised Him. I see nowhere that this means Jesus was not fully human. Jesus Spirit may have been different but not every human is the same either. My spirit is different then yours and so on. We are still both humans though. So was Jesus.

  40. Jesse Says:

    I would also like to point out that Jason never said or conceded that he was an Apollonarist. He simply didn’t reply. Then you assumed that meant you were right. What he actually said was (and I paraphrase) “please define what you mean by spirit, so I can give you an accurate answer that would put us on the same page”. Also I think there needs to be a definition of person here to understand Jason’s question “How many persons are in Christ: one or two? “. Are you defining person as a human? If that is the case then God (before incarnation) would not even be a person at all! Are you defining a person as a spirit? If that is the case then any born again human would be two persons. Are you defining a person as a mind or controlling consciousness? I think therefore I am? That is what I believe. Jesus and God are the same person because they share the same mind. God just took on a human nature in hopes that we would take on a God nature. : )

  41. Jesse Says:

    Both David Bernard and Jason understand that the answer to distinction in Christ is His dual nature. I think Jason’s main point here on his site is that we just need to be careful that we don’t make his dual nature into two separate consciousness minds. Because that would make Jesus beside God and thus contradict the old testament.

  42. Jesse Says:

    And so there is no confusion when I said “so that we can take on a God nature” I didn’t mean that we could be God. Just that we should conform to the nature of Christ.

  43. Manuel Culwell Says:

    Jesse why are you answering for Jason Dulle? Did he tell you to? I agree with David Bernard’s view and why I answered Jason Dulle because he did not agree with Bernard’s View.I am oneness but I am not part of the UPC. He never answered because he does not have an answer. He thinks if Jesus has a human spirit and a divine spirit then he is two persons just like trintiarains who have a mix hybrid of neither God nor man. Natures is a coput term.

  44. jasondulle Says:

    Manuel, I did not answer because I have been working two full-time jobs and living off of a few hours sleep each night for the past several months. Once my work schedule lets up, I’ll try catching up on some of the comments.


  45. jasondulle Says:


    If you got on this blog and said, “Jason Dulle believes Jesus is only one person, not two,” you would not get any reactions other than “Amen!” I believe Jesus is just one person, and that is why I confess Jesus as having only one spirit. Where we differ is not in our understanding of Jesus, but in our understanding of “spirit.” I understand “spirit” to be synonymous with “person,” and hence I affirm Jesus is one spirit. For me to confess two spirits in Christ, then, would be to confess two persons in Christ, which is the error of Nestorius. You and many others, however, understand “spirit” to refer to a component of a nature that belongs to a person, and hence conclude that Jesus must have two spirits since He has two natures.

    We believe the same thing about Jesus (He is one person), but simply understand the meaning of a key term differently. So to pretend as though I am advocating some far-out position is simply disingenuous.


  46. jasondulle Says:


    I do not hold to the same views as Apollinarius. The only similarity is my confession that Jesus has one spirit (divine Spirit) rather than two, which is tantamount to confessing that Jesus is one person rather than two. To stop there and accuse me of Apollinarianism, however, would be premature and off-base, because I am not affirming that Jesus lacked something essentially human, nor am I saying that Jesus functioned in a less-than-fully-human manner. He was truly and fully human, and functioned as such. Indeed, I’m not even saying that Jesus’ spirit is not human (in function, experience), but rather that He did not have a separate human spirit (ontology). His spirit can be and should be considered human in virtue of its union with human nature (in the same way that our spirit is human in virtue of our union with human nature).

    The defenders of Chalcedon were just as opposed to Nestorianism as I am, so they would have opposed saying Jesus had two spirits as well IF they shared my anthropology. But they didn’t. They saw spirit as part of nature, and thus distinct from person. And if they are right about that, then I would fully agree with them that Jesus possesses both a human spirit and a divine spirit because we are both committed to the same goal: confessing the full humanity of Jesus without splitting Jesus into two persons. We both agree that whatever belongs to the person, Jesus possesses one of, and whatever belongs to nature, Jesus possesses two of. We just disagree on what category “spirit” belongs to. So the difference is not conceptual, but terminological.


  47. I do not care about Chalcedon! It is not the scriptures Jason. I believe your doctrine is Apollonarianism. You hold the same false doctrines as alot of trins. I debate . Your view must be Jesus was not a real man but God pretending to be a man. I could care less who Chalcedon or Chelsea Clinton did not like! It means about the same thing in case you do not understand my point as far as the bible is concerned.

    I do not agree with your theory:” a spirit = a person”. I frequently have to give trintarians a good going over with the seven spirits of God (being a person) I would hate to do that to you now. Please do not back peddle. If a spirit is a person then God is seven persons. The passage gives us insight into the the fact God’s spirit is not like any person known and you cannot use that nonsense on me.

  48. jasondulle Says:

    I care about Scripture as well, which is why I also care about Chalcedon, because I think it is a great reflection on the Biblical data concerning Christ’s identity.

    Your charge of Apollinarianism does not hold for the reasons I have already provided; reasons you did not respond to. I am not Apollinarian, and oppose Apollinarius’ view of Christ. My view is closest expressed by Cyril of Alexandria. And in my view, Jesus is not God pretending to be man, but God become man.

    I’ve always said you can disagree with me on spirit = person. But I think that is the best philosophical and Biblical understanding of what spirit is, and that is what drives my Christological articulation. I am not denying anything essential to Christ’s humanity, but merely that Christ is two persons. And if I believed that spirit was distinct from one’s persona, then I would affirm two spirits in Christ; one for each nature.

    But I can see that we aren’t going to get anywhere on this topic, so this will be my last response to you.


  49. Aeg4371 Says:

    Over the past two years,I’ve read many of your work..As a oneness born and breed ,I liken your expression of Oneness theology to Algebra/trigonometry where as much of our understanding of oneness theology I liken to basic math..I understand you speak more of the technical implications of all that is stated about God.I do not think you should post on CARM as most posters are several years away from a basic understanding on the nature of God.You I think express oneness theology in way that quite frankly withstand a many of trinitarian rebuttals.Most Oneness I find that disagree with you can not see past their preconceived. notion of sounding trinitarian.

  50. Dave Says:

    Enjoyed reading your post “Assessing the Chance Hypothesis for the Origin of Life”. Excellent information! –> Here is a book that might be of interest to you “There is a God: How an Atheist Scientist changed his mind” http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Atheist-Scientist-Changed-ebook/dp/B00U5FS92G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1428874480&sr=8-2&keywords=john+m.+kinson

  51. THE TAKEAWAY Says:

    John M. Kinson is a non person. Non persons have no credibility.

  52. cdavidragland Says:

    Why do you say that John M. Kinson is a non-person, The Takeaway?

  53. Adjudicator Says:

    John M. Kinson, the pseudonym is a non person; a caricature concept like the non-entity the non-person perpetuates is not only unreasonable but irrational as well and while the book they claim describes the non-entity, science fiction writers always describe that which only has existence in the imagination; that’s the way Moses wrote the first few books in the bible and describes how magic tricks, that lead Moses to become an appointed one for the elders who tricked him at the burning bush to join their ranks, taught Moses that magic tricks were called miracles to prove God thereby deceiving the masses and the Egyptian Pharaoh who actually didn’t buy the nonsense Moses was selling and kicked him out of the castle which only lead to more magic tricks and deceit; albeit, the Exodus was a grand finale.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 426 other followers