25 November 2009

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - The Trinity Have you ever questioned the complexity and validity of the Trinity? God’s truth is simple yet God is vastly more complex than our limited understanding can ever know. You may be thinking, “If God is so hard to understand, why should I believe that you do understand him? Well, the answer to that question is, my understanding of God is limited to what He has given to us to know Him by, the Holy Bible. Even with the Holy Bible my understanding is still limited due to my humanity. To help me better understand I also look to people who have done a lot more study on topics and compare their works to the Holy Bible to make sure that what they are saying is correct per what is taught to us in the Holy Bible. Using the works of two men who have done a great deal of Bible study and teaching (James R. White and Ron Rhodes) along with my research and study, this article goes over the validity of the Trinity. I believe that Jehovah is God. Jehovah is the only true God and there are no other gods. I believe also in the Trinity because the Bible teaches us the doctrine. It does not specifically use the word "Trinity," however it does teach the three pillars that make up the doctrine of a Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make up the, Trinity. First, there is only one true God, Jehovah, Creator of all things. I believe Jehovah as the only one true God is the first pillar of the Trinity. Second, I believe that there are three divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I realize Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, but a Jehovah Witness would agree that the Father and the Son are not the same person. Finally, the third pillar, is the point on which a Jehovah Witness and I are in direct disagreement, is the Bible’s teaching of the full equality of these divine persons. This would include the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Note that I am not asserting that there are three persons that are one person. I am also not saying that there are three beings that are one being. I am differentiating between the terms “being” and “person.” The Bible teaches that all things have being, but only God, humans, and angels are personal. I as a human being am one person, Victor Pearson. My being makes me human, my personality differentiates me from all other human beings. Since my being is finite and limited, only one person can properly subsist in it,...
JimJesus, Abiogenesis is a Farce This article is dedicated to a tweeter named, JimJesus. JimJesus is a self-proclaimed atheist and said that he has more faith in Abiogenesis than he does Christ Jesus. JimJesus said that he was once a Christian yet he never had a real personal relationship with Christ Jesus. I did a little research on abiogenesis per JimJesus’ recommendation and here’s what I found to enlighten my tweeter friend. JimJesus, did you know that Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’, but evolutionists like you today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. ( Dickerson, R.E., Chemical evolution and the origin of life, Scientific American 239(3):62–102, 1978.) Did you know too that Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’. (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.) I think that you of all people JimJesus would know that abiogenesis is simply a ‘revival of the antique notion of spontaneous generation’ because it ‘… suggests that given the primordial soup, with the right combination of amino acids and nucleic acids, and perchance a lightning bolt or two, life might in fact have begun “spontaneously”. The major difference is that according to what biologists customarily called spontaneous generation, life supposedly began this way all of the time. According to the “soup” suggestion, by contrast, it began this way only once in the immeasurably distant past.’ (Johnson, P., Weekly Wedge Update, April 30, p. 1, 2001.) You have to realize (like Ridley, M.) that the early forms of life, and how natural selection could shape them, are ‘so obscure at the primordial stage that we can only guess why complexity might have increased’. Darwin thought about the question inconclusively. He once wrote to the geologist Charles Lyell about a question ‘which is very difficult to answer, viz. how at first start of life, when there were only simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisms profit them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any speculation on the subject.’ We have more facts now, but they are still inadequate, and Darwin’s answer still holds. (Ridley, M., The Cooperative Gene; How Mendel’s Demon Explains the Evolution of Complex) When confronted with this evidence, supporters of abiogenesis argue that science must be naturalistic, and we have no choice but to tell the best story we have, even if it is not a complete or even accurate story. (Johnson, P., Reason in...

Victor E. Pearson

With the commission from God to point people to and teach them the truth, I have created this blog to glorify God and to do His will. I am pleased that you are open minded to learning about Christian views on faith, morality and God.

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments