Dear Tom Raddatz,

I have taken the time to answer your questions below. I have to admit that when I received this inquiry, that was also sent to many other pastors of Reformed Baptist churches, I was concerned about your motives. I have since prayed for you and believe it to be a good thing to answer your questions. However, I need to make some thing very clear from the outset. That is, I cannot "convince you" of the triunity of God's nature only God the Holy Spirit can accomplish that. Thus I have prayed that God would be pleased in His Sovereignty to do just that.

QUESTION A1: Let me ask you- Why did God tell Abraham he had past tense made him a father of many nations before Abraham even had any children?

A1. Because God in eternity past had made a decree concerning His comprehensive plan for the creation, fall and redemption of the human race. That plan included the language that you are asking about and therefore God could state His plan for Abraham's life as something that had already been determined. (i.e. past tense)

QUESTION A2: Would I have to stop believing this (or at least not be able to believe it applied in Genesis 1:26) in order to be of the Trinitarian persuasion?

A2. I cannot see any relationship to the question or answer of A1 in relationship to Genesis 1:26. So given that statement the answer would be NO.

QUESTION A3: Do you also believe, as I, that if we truly believe in something then we will filter our perspectives through, and conform our thoughts and responses to, that belief?

A3. Most definitely. It is called a presupposition

That is why , for example, we must interpret Genesis 1:27 in light of Genesis 1:26. God has given us the truth of plurality in the Godhead.Which he expects to form as a presupposition in our thinking. The Holy Spirit arranged the words of scripture in a specific order for His specific purposes.

QUESTION A4: Therefore, without putting words into God’s mouth, could you please search His word, as I have done for you, and quote where He said as you allege, that the Eternal Father was talking to the Eternal Son, in distinction of persons, or any such specific language? Could you provide any scripture anywhere that would give us any other such specifically stated clues as to who that “us” was whom God was talking to in Genesis 1:26?

A4. Without putting words in God's mouth? Okay here goes...

Heb 1:8-12
8 But of the Son He says,

Who is the speaking? The Father

Who is he speaking to? The Son, whom he calls God.

"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

How long will his throne endure? Forever and ever!

But the man who you claim to be a student of ( David Bernard) says in his book "The Oneness of God" on page 121,

"The Son's reign will have an ending, for when the Church is presented to God and when Satan and sin and death are finally judged and subdued, the role of the Son will cease"

At this point It is very evident that at the very least, David Bernard is a false teacher.

9"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

10And,

"YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

In reference more specifically to your question of the "Us" and the "Our" of Genesis 1:26

Who is speaking? God the Father.

To whom is he speaking? "Heb. 1:8 But of the Son He says,"

To what is he speaking? Creation

11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."
NASU

Here the same 'God" that is called the "Son" that was present at creation is told that his years will not come to an end.

i.e. Eternal Father, Eternal Son

Mic 5:2
2"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
NASU

QUESTION B1: Where did you got this Trinitarian terminology from if not the Bible and if not from resorting to history as you have testified you have not done?

B1: During the debate the statement that I made in reference to history was that I did not attempt to appeal to church history to prove the Trinity

. Instead I used only the bible.

To more directly answer your question I suppose I got my terminology the same place you got yours.(Oneness) Men have used human language to try and describe what God is like. If you object to that explanation than if you are going to be consistent you should refrain from using the terms Bible, Omnipotence, Oneness, Pentecostal. Apostolic, incarnation, etc. For none of these are found in the bible.

QUESTION B2: By stating that you have not resorted to history, are you implying that you have made these terms and definitions up yourself out of thin air without any influence whatsoever from the historical formulations of the Trinity and it’s terminology by Christian-Platonic Philosophers? Sir, would that not be plagiarism?

You might be better off scratching this question in light of the above answer. :)

I would also remind you that modelism was invented long before Pentecostalism was.

QUESTION B3: Were you not aware that the doctrine of the Trinity is by no means a distinctive feature of certain "Christian" faiths? Were you aware that all Trinitarian "Christians" MUST trace their roots, NOT directly to Christ and the apostles, but to pagan philosophers who compromised strict Biblical monotheism with pagan Trinitarianism?

B3. This is precisely why I began the debate in the very first chapter of the very first book of the bible. So that these kind of straw man arguments might be avoided. I would also add that I am not bent on using the term "trinity" . I am okay with any terminology that accurately reflects the teaching of God's revelation.

QUESTION B4: Surely you are aware of the scriptures warning God's people of defining Him by the doctrines, and philosophies of man, are you not?

Maybe you can quote me a chapter and verse on this one. I am not opposed to the principle you have stated however I am very careful what I attribute to be the words of God.

QUESTION B5: If you really want convince us of the Trinity doctrine, is it unreasonable for us to request you to demonstrate to us that you can describe God without resorting to history, but to describe and define your perspective of God with Bible terms and definitions only? (Which would mean without resorting to terminology and/or descriptions invented after the writing of the Bible.)

B5. In light of the answer I gave to Question B1 you should no longer find this question to be of any relevance. Unless of course you are willing to do the same and then we can just end this whole discussion and just stick to what the bible says and I suppose we would then be in agreement with every other cult who claims to teach only what the bible says.(i.e. J.W.s)

QUESTION B6: Failing this, would it be out of line to ask you to please be honest enough with yourself and us to admit you cannot state, defend, declare or define the doctrine of the Trinity without resorting to history, or putting words into God’s mouth?

B6. Maybe you can answer this question for me since you are guilty of the very same thing.

2 Cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

QUESTION C1: Do you agree that Paul was speaking of himself, or was he speaking of another person here? If he was speaking of himself, why did Paul use such language as to be speaking in the third person? Was he misleading us? If he wasn't speaking of himself, who was he speaking of?

C1. Yes, Paul was speaking of himself.

QUESTION D1: Do you love your body?

D1. Yes

QUESTION D2: Why, in describing the relationship between God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, did God choose to use a relationship (Father/Son) that consistently signifies precedence in time, if, as the Trinity dogma demands, the Son is coeternal, and eternally begotten?

D2. I have already pointed out from scripture

The "Me" is distinct from the "One"who will go forth. And the "one who goes forth is eternal. The problem that you will continually run into has to do with your hermeneutic. You constantly, just like David Bernard, resort to natural revelation to interpret special revelation. You need to reverse your method of interpretation.

QUESTION D3: Why then don't Trinitarians accept the scriptures that both in analogy and explicit statement declare that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was made in process of time?

D3. First of all I dont reject any "scriptures". Secondly, the passages that you have quoted refer to the incarnation. The nature of the Son of God being joined with the nature of the Son of Man.

QUESTION D4: So, if God explains to us, in His own word, and in no uncertain terms, that which we have therefore manifestly not taken upon ourselves to fashion God in our image, that the Head of Christ is God, then who are you to question and deny that God and Christ are anything more than one body, with one name, though there are distinctions in manifestation and bodily position and function, though specifically NOT distinction or division of persons in the Godhead?

D4. If you listen to the debate you will find that I am the one that raised this verse. The verse is making the distinction not I.

I think you need to read your question again. What kind of distinction is there if not in persons? You say "bodily position and function" that doesn't sound like a distinction to me. That just sounds like God doing one thing today and another tomorrow.

Key point

The analogy is for the purpose of teaching us something about the relationship between a man and his wife. If I were to take your definitions of the Oneness theology then I am forced to conclude that the wife is the husband! nonsense! And that man is Christ!

1 Cor 11:3
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
NASU
David Bernard says on page 66 of the above mentioned book, "If there is only one God and that one God is the Father (Mal. 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the Father"

QUESTION E1: In Rev. 5:6 it says the lamb 1) stood as it had been slain- is that literal?

E1. No, This language is symbolic.

QUESTION E2: In Rev. 5:6 it says the lamb has seven horns and seven eyes- is that literal? Are you expecting to see Jesus literally looking like a lamb slain with 7 horns and 7 eyes?

E2. I am expecting to see the wounds in his body that Thomas saw and touched.

QUESTION E3: Without putting words into God’s mouth then, can you point to scripture where God’s word demonstrates this symbolic scene is, or is even meant to be, evidence of distinct persons?

E3. Although the language is symbolic the symbols are given to represent something or someone. For example we both have agreed that the symbol of the lamb is meant to be Jesus. The evidence for the distinction of persons is clearly given in verse 7.

Rev 5:7
7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

Who is the He? Jesus

Who is 'Him who sat on the throne? Obviously someone other than Jesus.

QUESTION E4: Without such specific statement from God, and without putting words in God’s mouth, how is it then that Rev. 5:6 is any proof text at all of distinct persons in the Godhead?

See answer to E3

(QUESTION F1:) Could you please demonstrate THROUGH SCRIPTURAL QUOTATION ALONE a definition of the distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son of God according to and in statement and defense of the Trinity dogma?

F1. I have already shown several passages (at least three) that show a very clear distinction between the persons.

QUESTION G1: Now, if we are punished in flaming fire with everlasting destruction for not obeying the gospel, can we still be saved without obeying the gospel? Obviously not, correct?

G1. Correct

QUESTION G2: Mr. Cook, since you have expressed concern for we Apostolic’s souls, my question to you is- could you be so kind as to please quote for me from the scriptures any specifically stated alternate method by which we can OBEY the gospel, other than that which Peter summarized in Acts 2:38, and Paul expounded on in the book of Romans and elsewhere?

G2. Why would anyone want to undermine the clear teachings of scripture?

QUESTION G3: How other than Acts 2:38 does the scripture say to obey the gospel?

G3. Ah now this is the crux of the issue. You believe that you are saved because of your obedience where as the bible teaches that we are saved unto obedience. Those that believe then obey.

Repentance and faith are gifts from God

Rom 4:1-5
4:1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
NASU

Eph 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
NASU
2 Tim 2:24-3:1
24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
NASU

Saving faith will always be accompanied by works and obediance. You dear sir have put the cart before the horse.The cart being obedience the horse being faith. Ephesians 2:8, 9

QUESTION H1: Mr. Cook, what scriptural witnesses could you bring to court in corroboration and defense of your Trinitarian interpretation of, and which is based solely on, Matthew 28:19?

H1. I would the whole bible. My question to you is are you willing to disobey the clear teaching of this verse?

QUESTION I1: If you do not hold to this view, could you please explain to me why not, and why you would still defend the Trinitarian baptism formula?

I1. Scripture must be harmonized. If you listened to the debate then you have already heard what a believe to be an irrefutable explanation to this question.

Your interpretation would have us believe what Jesus really said was

Matt 28:19
19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of Jesus, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
"These titles sum up different roles of God or modes of His revelation; by it's singular referenceto "name", it focuses upon the one name of God revealed in the New Testament. That name is Jesus." (David Bernard's explanation page 139)

QUESTION I2: If you do hold that position, then I have some additional questions for you.

QUESTION I3: If Peter was wrong on the day of Pentecost, why didn’t any of the other apostles correct him?

Please refer to the debate where this question is addressed very thoroughly.

QUESTION I4: If Peter was wrong on the day of Pentecost, why did the Lord send him to Cornelius’ house to perpetuate the same error?

n/a

QUESTION I5: If Peter was wrong on the day of Pentecost, and we should obey the Lord rather than the Apostles, why is it written that Jesus both opened up the Apostles understanding (Luke 24:45), and that Jesus prayed for those who would believe on Him through their word (John 17:20), and why was the Lord working with him with signs following (Mark 16:20)?

n/a

QUESTION I6: If it is better to obey the Lord Jesus than the Apostles, why does Acts 2:41-42 make such commendation of those who “continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine”?

n/a

QUESTION I7a: What does the word “therefore” mean to you?

17A. "because of"

QUESTION I7b: Why did Jesus say- “….All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye THEREFORE, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the (singular) name…”? Matt. 28:18-19.

17B. Because God is one and yet He is three in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. The "Therefore" exists to be the motivating factor to obey Christ's command.

QUESTION I8: One of the ways that Trinitarians “write -off”, or make of none effect the scriptures that command being baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, is that they claim they mean “in the authority of” Jesus Christ. How can being “buried with Him in baptism” (Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12); or being baptized to “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27) possibly, scripturally, only mean “in the authority of Jesus”?

I8. The three verses that you have sited are not referring to water baptism. This is where your confusion is coming in. All three are referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:5
5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
NASU

QUESTION I9: Can you show me even one Biblically stated purpose for being baptized “into” the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Or are those who do so, strictly scripturally speaking, just getting wet?

I9. Water baptism is an outward symbol of the inward reality of baptism by the Holy Spirit. When someone is baptized they are being publicly identified with the Only True God. Water baptism is for those who are already saved.

QUESTION J1: Is that what you believe?

J1. Yes this is what I believe and I would compare Romans 10:13 and Acts 22:16

QUESTION J3 Mr. Cook, is this the public confession you have made, and wish to continue to be party to?

I can only speak for myself. If you wish to know my position further feel free to watch an 8 hour debate with the church of Christ that is on my website. www.unchained.cc

QUESTION J4 Is this the confession we would be expected to make if your proselytizing us into your Trinitarian faith is successful?

n/a

QUESTION J5 Is this the public confession your public debate with Mr. Bernard was intended to make us accountable to?

n/a/ like I said if you want to know my position read the 1689 Confession or watch the debate.

I believe that concludes the questions that you have sent me. I would be very surprised if you post my response on your website. In fact if you check out the quotes that I have listed in David Bernard's book no have no other choice that to repent if you truly love Christ.

Thank You and good day,

Pastor Gene Cook, Jr.

I have invited Bishop Trout to a debate on the subject of "Tongues". I have not yet heard from him. Maybe you can let him know that I am anxiously awaiting his reply.

Please continue with my Response to Pastor Gene Cook's first reply