Continued from Cook's Final
Dear Pastor Gene Cook, Jr.,
I apologize for the delay in getting back, but since I didn't get the impression you wanted to hear from me anymore, I wished to leave it alone. After thinking and praying long and hard about replying at all with my conclusion, I finally felt I owe this, if nothinge else, for those who have followed along. For the scripture does say to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), and that whether they will hear, or whether they will forebear (Ezek 2:5). So in reply and in conclusion...
1) It is written again-
Mat 5:22 ...whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.
2) For the record, the gentleman you referred to held the position he now holds since before being invited to our conversation in this dialog- just in case any one got the impression you persuaded him of anything. Furthermore, I was aware of that very position of his when I included him as a witness to this conversation. He had told me that his Pastor holds a limited view of Oneness, that the people in his church would not call themselves Oneness, and that his position is that understanding the Godhead is not a matter of salvation. Personally, just because I don't agree with someone, doesn't mean I don't respect him or her and count him or her as fools- either publicly, or privately.
You will notice that I also invited an Assemblies of God Evangelist, who is adamantly Trinitarian, to witness the discussion. So the plain, simple fact is- I have not enjoined merely a bunch of purely like-minded yes-men as if for moral support.
Furthermore, since you have made such strong statements against the Oneness doctrine, calling us false teachers and telling us to repent, I find it curious that you would attempt to count an individual's position (who basically straddles the fence on this issue) as being "pleasing" in any manner!
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion...
Eph 4:4 There is... 5 One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism,
I would think you would at least agree with me, as my A.O.G. friend does, that either Oneness or Trinity is entirely in error, and there is no middle ground on this issue- one or the other (or God forbid both) is idolatrously presenting "another Jesus."
2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
And all this I have previously shared also with the individual we are talking about, who is witnessing also these very words. Nevertheless, I still don't call or count him as a fool, or disrespect him for standing on what he sees in the word of God, just because I disagree with him, and personally think he is involved in dangerous compromising error.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I personally do not see how one can earnestly contend for the faith when they can't be adamant about what the object of that faith is or is not.
3) You have an 8-hour debate on your web site. You have a link to your debate with David Bernard on your web site. So you must believe that there is nothing damaging to your position in either of those debates. They are both lengthy, so the length of my posts can't be an issue. You challenged me to post your responses to my questions feeling I wouldn't because you presumed your reply to be conclusive against my questions. So I am left with no alternative than to believe that either you will also post or link our entire discussion on your site likewise, or that what I have written to you is either too damaging to your position for you to post it, or that you are unwilling to deal with the issues I've presented to you openly, honestly, and ethically. Yes sir, this is a challenge to you to post or link our entire conversation to your web site, because I doubt you will, just as you doubted I would and challenged me to. I do hope you prove me wrong in that, at least.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Once again, thank you for your time.
Return to Beginning of Debate
Return to Watchman On the Wall Home Page