(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Man, the title of my sermon tonight is Oneness, Motilist, Heretics, Oneness, Motilist, Heretics. Now this is the third part in a series because I preached on this on Wednesday night. I preached on it this morning and I'm preaching on it tonight. It just seems fitting to have a trilogy of sermons dealing with the subject of the Trinity. And I'm going to say the same thing tonight that I said this morning. If you were not here on Wednesday night, you need to listen to that sermon. In fact, let me just ask for a raise of hands. Who was not here on Wednesday night? Put up your hand if you weren't here on Wednesday night. Okay. Who was not here on Wednesday night and you haven't listened to the sermon yet. You haven't heard Wednesday night's sermon. Listen, I really want you to listen to that sermon. Download it. Get it on YouTube. And if you have any trouble, yes? You listen to half of it. All right. Good. You're on the right track. You know, I'm just making a point about this because if anybody needs a CD or something, I could burn you a CD of it. I just want to make sure that everybody in our church knows what the truth is and gets that doctrine. And I don't want to have to do a big long review right now and re-preach all that or re-preach what I did this morning. So I encourage you, if you weren't there, listen to the sermon. Listen to the preaching. I will do just a super quick review tonight, but I want to get into new material. The title of the sermon is Oneness Modalist Heretics. Who are they? Where do they come from? Where does this doctrine come from? What are they basing it off of? Well, we talked about on Wednesday night just what the book of John alone says. This is just a super quick review. We talked about the fact that Jesus over and over again in the book of John makes a big distinction between him and the Father. He talks about how he obeys the will of the Father. He doesn't do his own will. He does the will of the Father. He doesn't just testify of himself, but the Father testifies of him as well. He does the works of the Father. The Father loves the Son. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. The Son is going to return to the Father. And there's just a mountain of evidence. Then this morning, we kind of focused on the Old Testament. And we showed just a lot of Old Testament evidence. Let us make man in our image. We went to Psalms and even showed just really powerful scriptures from Psalms that the apostles are constantly using to affirm the deity of Christ, but how they clearly teach that there is the Father and the Son, that they are not the same person, but that there's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and those three collectively make up one God. There's one God, and that one God is made up of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost. These three are one. And obviously there's a closeness there between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We don't want to go too crazy ripping them apart and end up with three deities or three gods. There's only one God, but the Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father, but the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Ghost is God. But they are different. And look, we could use all kinds of illustrations to illustrate the Trinity. Every illustration will fall short, but at least they can help people begin to wrap their mind around the Bible's clear teaching. So no illustration is perfect, but for example, the illustration that I grew up with was that of an egg that says that there's the shell, the yolk, and the white, but it's just one egg. It all makes up an egg, but the shell is not the yolk. The yolk is not the white, but it's all egg, right? It's all the egg. Another illustration that I think is helpful is to understand that we, in the image of God, are also a trichotomy because we are made up of body, soul, and spirit. So if I were to die right now, the spirit and the soul would depart my body, and there'd be nothing but a body laying here, right? And if the police came to you and said, would you identify this body? And you said, that is Steven Anderson, you would be accurate. But yet if I walked up to someone in heaven and I was introduced in the soul, in the spirit, as this is Steven Anderson, that would also be accurate. But yet, is the soul the body? Is the body the soul? No. Is the soul the spirit? No, the Bible talks about dividing the soul and spirit asunder. So these three collectively make up Steven Anderson, but they are distinct from one another. They are separate from one another. They're not equivalent to one another. Same thing with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They collectively make up only one God, but they are distinct and different one from the other. So that's what we really talked about on Wednesday night, this morning. Tonight I want to talk about where this doctrine came from, where the heretics in our church that were cast out got this doctrine from, and just what does it mean? What are the conclusions that we draw here about who they are, what they were doing? What's this all about? First of all, let me just get into a little more scripture on the Trinity that I didn't get to this morning. Right there in 2 John, we can see some evidence right here of the fact that the Son is not the Father. Look at 2 John 3, the Bible says, Grace be with you, mercy and peace from God the Father. So we have the term God the Father in the Bible. It says, From God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. So there's a distinction made between God the Father and the Son of the Father, who is Jesus Christ. Jump down if you would to verse 9, it says, Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. So notice the first half of that verse says they don't have God in general. Then the second half gets specific and says that the one who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both, both, that's two things there, right? Both the Father and the Son. You say, well, why didn't he mention the Holy Ghost? Because the discussion in the books of 1 and 2 John is about the Father and the Son because you have Jews and people that are acknowledging the Father, but they won't acknowledge the Son. And then John's telling them, if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father. But if you acknowledge the Son, you have the Father also. So the Bible's clear that the Father and the Son are distinct from one another, but that they're both God. The Bible says in 2 Peter, flip back just a few pages while you're in that vicinity, 2 Peter 1 verse 17, this is a reference to the Mount of Transfiguration. And in 2 Peter 1 verse 17, it says, for he received from God the Father honor and glory. When there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Go to Matthew chapter 3. Matthew chapter 3 is another place where the voice came from heaven and said, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Matthew 3. This voice came from heaven in multiple places in the Gospels, but two of the most famous are Jesus' baptism and Jesus' Transfiguration. And it says in Matthew chapter 3 verse 16, and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened on him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him, and lo, a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. So here we have a great example of the Trinity, because you have the Son of God being baptized. Then you also have the Spirit of God descending upon him, and then you have the voice from heaven from the Father saying, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And there are lots and lots of verses. We already covered a lot on Wednesday and Sunday morning. Just of all the different instances where all three are mentioned in one verse, lots of places where all three are mentioned. Here's another one that I didn't go over. Go to 2 Corinthians chapter 13, 2 Corinthians chapter 13, and again, there's just a multitude of examples where you'll find all three mentioned in one verse. The Bible says in 2 Corinthians chapter 13 verse 14, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen. There you go. The Trinity right there. Because often the Father is just referred to as God. Now the word God does not always mean the Father. Sometimes God is referring to the Son. Sometimes God is referring to the Holy Ghost, because they're all God. And we do not for one second deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. God was manifest in the flesh. Under the sun he saith, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. But there is a difference between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And so when we see the word God, the context will tell us whether we're talking about the Father, whether we're talking about the Son, whether we're talking about the Holy Ghost, or whether we're talking about all three, whether we're just talking about God in general. And we can tell that from the context. In this context, because you got the Spirit and Jesus right there, we're clearly talking about the Father. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. That's talking about the Father. The Word was God. That's talking about God in general. Okay. Now I heard someone else put it this way grammatically, and I think this is a good way to illustrate the grammar of John 1.1. What if I were to say to you, and again, no illustration is ever going to be perfect, but I'm just throwing this out there as an example of what's happening grammatically in John 1.1. What if I said to you, in the Garden of Eden, there was a woman, and the woman was with the man, and the woman was man. That would be a correct statement, because if I said she was man in the sense of that she was mankind, she was human, then that would actually make sense, okay? But if I were to just tweak that just a little bit, it would stop making sense, because what if I said, well, in the Garden of Eden, there was a woman, and the woman was with the man, and the woman was a man. That wouldn't make sense anymore, would it? Just like what the Jehovah's Witnesses, false Bible version where they say, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a God, destroys the meaning of the verse. Or what if I put the in front of it, and said, in the Garden of Eden, there was a woman, and that woman was with the man, and that woman was the man. No, because if I say, well, the woman is the man, no, no, no, that's not true, but she was with the man, and she was man, in the sense that she was human, okay? So and again, that's just something to throw out there as an example of how that grammar can work, that the word man can be used in two different ways, because often the word man is just referring to all of mankind, whether male or female. Other times, man is specifically referring to a man, a male gender man, and it's the same exact thing with the word God. Sometimes God is referring to all three in one, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Other times the word God is just referring, like when Jesus said, I'm ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God, that's how it's being used. It's being used to just refer to the Father. Other times it's clearly referring just to the Son, and other times it's clearly referring to all three, or just to the Holy Ghost, et cetera. Go to Acts chapter 20, Acts chapter number 20. Let's get into the oneness modalist heretics. Who are they? Where does this doctrine come from? Now, one of the guys in our church that was promoting this false doctrine, Tyler Baker, he claimed, oh, I got this from reading the Bible all on my own. I just got it from just reading the Bible alone. But then he qualified that by saying that he found one verse, and then he started asking his friends Rick and Elliot about it, and then they indoctrinated him into this oneness heresy, this modalist heresy. I believe that probably, and it's hard to speculate between the three. They all kind of want to take credit for being the archeritic. I don't really know which one of the three is really the instigator or the one. It's almost like Jonadab, the friend of Amnon. One of them's like, hey, I saw this weird thing in the Bible, and the other one basically riles him up even further. I don't know which one is the one, but I have a suspicion it's probably Elliot, because Elliot is the one who admittedly watched debates between oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians and was telling people in the church van, and more people came to me this morning and said that they heard him talking about watching these debates between these oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians and how the oneness was just destroying the Trinitarian, you know. Well, that's where it's coming from, but they all were teaching each other about this and yada, yada, yada, but what does the Bible say? Let's look at this first of all in Acts chapter 20, because a lot of people are shocked by this, but look at Acts chapter 20 verse 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made you overseers to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock, watch this, also of your own selves. So he's talking to a group of elders, he's talking to a group of preachers and he says, you know what, even amongst your own selves, he said, shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. We're watching and remember that by the space of three years, I cease not to warn every one night and day with tears. So he's saying that even amongst preachers who seem to be doctrinally sound, who seem to be good guys, he's saying even amongst you guys, some of you guys are going to start teaching perverse things, they're going to rise up and he says they're grievous wolves is what they are, wolves in sheep's clothing. The Bible tells in 2 Peter chapter 2 verse 1 that there were also false prophets among the people even as there shall be among you who will privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. So I know this is shocking to people who maybe didn't grow up in church or you haven't really been around that long, but this is not the first time that this has happened and this is not going to be the last time where you think that somebody's doctrinally sound, you think that somebody believes like us, you think that somebody believes the truth and they start going into heresy and preaching lies. That's what we're looking at here. That's what we just experienced. Not the first time. It's not going to be the last time. And people are criticizing us like, well, how did you not know that they were bad and why did you hire Tyler Biggus? Well, you know what? Why did none of the apostles know that Judas was bad? You're not always going to know. Even the apostles at the last supper when John leans over to Jesus and said, Lord, who is it? Peter's like, ask him, ask him. And then he asks and he says, it's the one that I give the sop to after I've dipped it. He dips the sop, hands it to Judas, says that thou do is to quickly Judas gets up and walks out of the room and nobody still knows that he's the traitor. They're all saying, Lord, is it I, is it I? And then they say, well, Judas is, oh, he's just buying something. He was just sent to go buy something. There's no way that it's him. Nobody suspected him. So you have to understand that there are always going to be infiltrators. They're always going to be Judases. They're always going to be heretics. There will always be grievous wolves that come in, wolves and sheep. Look, they're in sheep's clothing. What do you think that means? It means that they look like us, act like us, talk like us, but what is their goal? The Bible says they will speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them. And this is exactly what we saw happen in our church, a concerted effort of taking certain people aside and building a faction, building a little clique, a little separate group, and indoctrinating them into this heresy, never talking to me or many other people in the church that were never approached with this. It was only certain people that were carefully selected to be approached with this. Go to 1 Kings Chapter 1. 1 Kings Chapter 1 is the Bible story. You know what? This is one of my favorite stories in the Bible. When I use the word story, obviously it's a true story. It's history. It's fact. But we call them the Bible stories because they are a lot of really great stories in the Bible. In this story, it's when Solomon takes the throne. These few chapters have always been one of my favorites as I'm reading. I love how Solomon gets in charge, he cleans house, he uses a lot of wisdom, he deals with a lot of problems, and God just gives him such great wisdom. He's a powerful leader in his early days. In this story, there's a guy named Adonijah, which is one of Solomon's brothers, who decides that instead of submitting to the will of God, who chose Solomon, and submitting to the will of his father, who chose Solomon, he's going to exalt himself and that he's going to be the king instead. So it says in 1 Kings Chapter 1 Verse 5, then Adonijah the son of Hagith exalted himself, saying I will be king. We see pride there. We should not exalt ourselves. Whoever exalts themselves is going to be a base, the Bible says. They're going to be humbled. They're going to be brought down. He's exalting himself. He's lifting himself up. Instead of other people ordaining him, anointing him, promoting him, he exalts himself. He promotes himself, and he says I'll be king, and he prepared him chariots and horsemen and fifty men to run before him, and his father had not displeased him at any time in saying why hast thou done so, and he also was a very goodly man and his mother bare him after Absalom, and he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah and with Abathar the priest, and they followed Adonijah, they following Adonijah helped him, but Zadok the priest and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and Nathan the prophet and Shimei and Rei and the mighty men which belonged to David were not with Adonijah, and Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoaleth, which is by Enrogal, and called all his brother and the king's sons and all the men of Judah the king's servants, but Nathan the prophet and Benaiah and the mighty man and Solomon his brother he called not. This guy selectively called certain people and other people he did not call. He knew that guys like Benaiah and Nathan the prophet and David's mighty men were not going to go for it, so he kept it from them, he didn't approach them, he didn't contact them with it, he went for the ones that he believed he could subvert. That's exactly what these guys did, and I said it before and I'm going to say it again but I'm going to clarify it more. They went after, number one, people that were in their tight-knit little social circle, their clique, and by the way we should avoid having those type of cliques, we need to socialize with a lot of people in the church, not just a certain little group, should branch out, amen? So number one, they taught it to their little group, number two, they taught it to people who were new to our church, and number three, they taught it to people who were young because these are the people that they felt they could subvert because they're good buddies, they're close friends, well they're going to be blinded by friendship so they're going to have their guard down and they're not necessarily going to see the red flags right away. Young people or people that are new to our church are going to be easier to persuade most likely. One of these guys, Elliot, he said, well, you know, and he used a lot of flattery for the McPhails, for John and Jesse McPhail, and here's what he said, well if I were just approaching these people that were easy to subvert then why did I approach the McPhails because they're so smart, they know the Bible so well, they're so godly, you know, why would I pick them then if I were trying to subvert easy target? But here's the thing, we're not saying that they chose people that were easy to subvert, we're saying that they chose people that they believed would be easy to subvert. Now here's the thing, when they approached the McPhails they were both 19 years old and had been going to our church for less than six months. That looks like a pretty good target if you're trying to draw away disciples after yourself, if you're trying to beguile unstable souls. Now look, I'm not saying the McPhails are unstable because they didn't fall for it. I'm not saying they were an easy target. They argued with them and said, let me out of the car, I'm done, is what Jesse said. They said, this is the voice of a stranger, let me out of the car. So this is not, because some people said, well, you know, if they only chose certain people to approach, they were saying, well I feel bad because I'm one of the people they approached. But look, that doesn't mean you should feel bad. First of all, who was approached by people with the oneness thing? Put up your hand nice and high, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. So yeah, like at least nine people that are here tonight, that's not kind of the ones that are throwing out saying, hey, they talked to me about this, they taught this to me. So here's the thing, they approached people that they thought they could subvert, people that are young, people that are 19, 20, or people that had been in our church for a few months or longer, and so that's who they went to. But isn't it interesting that they never came to me, they never came to people that have been in our church a long time, they didn't go to Brother Garrett, they didn't go to Chris Segura. And what you have to understand is that, you know, Chris Segura, Garrett, myself, we're down here all the time. It's not hard to find us, it's not hard to talk to us when you're on staff. I know some people out there have a hard time getting a hold of me, but you know, when you're on staff, you know, how many conversations do you think you've had with Tyler Baker in the last six months that you've worked here, Chris? No, I mean like conversations, just talking. Every day you talk to him pretty much? No, no, no, I'm not talking about this, I'm saying, I know that's my whole point, they didn't approach you about this. But my point is, my point is, how many times have we just been standing around here talking about something where we just bring up a doctrine, we bring up something, yeah, I mean it's daily is what he said, daily, why, you know, we're down here, hey, did you hear about this, hey, what's going on, hey, I saw this in the Bible, hey, I found this Bible, I mean I'm constantly preaching to these guys all the time. I walk in here, I'm preaching to Garrett, I'm preaching, you know, we're preaching to each other, we're down here, we work together. So isn't it amazing that Tyler Baker never said, hey, guys, let me show you a scripture, let me get your take on it. He never asked me what I thought, he never asked Garrett what he thought, he never asked Chris what he thought, he never asked people who are long-time church members, he didn't ask people that he didn't think he could corrupt with it, okay. Now go to 1 Timothy 6, this supposedly according to Tyler Baker, he got this doctrine from just reading his Bible, he was reading his Bible in 1 Timothy chapter 6 and he was perplexed by this verse and so he went and asked his pastor about it, no, so he went and consulted with Garrett Kirschway, no, so he went and consulted with other people in the church who've been saved for a long time, who've read the Bible 10 times, 15 times, 20 times, I mean who here has read the Bible more than 10 times, put up your hand, yeah, okay. So he didn't go to any of these people that have read the Bible more than 10 times, he goes to Rick Martinez, a new believer and he goes and asks him what it means and then they delve into it and then they get Elliot involved and they all start digging it, that's their story, that's their version, that Tyler's reading 1 Timothy 6, this was like his aha moment for modalism, you know, sort of like the story where Martin Luther's reading the Bible and the just shall live by faith and the light bulb comes on his head, this was that moment for him, okay, are you there in 1 Timothy 6? This was his big aha moment, he never brought this verse up to any of us, only secretly to those that he's trying to subvert and his cronies, 1 Timothy chapter 6, it says in verse 14 that thou keep this commandment without spot unrebucible until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ which in his times he shall show who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power everlasting, amen. So he read these three verses and he consults with Rick Martinez and Elliot Ray, what do these mean? And then that just led them on this exciting path of discovering oneness Pentecostalism and led to Elliot going on YouTube and watching these debates and getting all the arguments for oneness from the Charismatics and look, I got all the notes on the history of the Pentecostal oneness movement, that's where we're going next but hang tight for that. First Timothy is one of the first books of the Bible that I memorized. When I first started memorizing whole books of the Bible, I got on this plan that said, hey, you can memorize the New Testament in five years, I'll admit it, here I am 12 years later and I'm not done. I'm kind of stuck at the halfway mark because I learn new chapters, I forget old chapters so I'm halfway through so five years is turning into like 20 years on that but I'm still working on it, amen. If I had a little more character and self-discipline, I'd be done but we're all human. The spirit's willing but the flesh is weak. But anyway, I got that plan that said you can memorize the New Testament in five years and it said start with First Timothy, that's what I did. So I've had this book memorized for a long time, I think most Christians have read this book a lot. This is a really famous book. I know when I was a kid, they used to tell us read your Bible every day till you get something out of it. I was being lazy as a teenager so I'd go straight to the books where I know I'm going to get something out of it real fast. So I'd go straight to Proverbs, I'd get something in like two verses, I'd go straight to First and Second Timothy. This is a book that I've read a ton of times, you've read it a ton of times. First Timothy 6 is a really famous chapter. Have you ever read this and just walked away with any kind of a strange doctrine or oneness? How in the world are they getting this out of this? Here's the Teilertarian view of this chapter. It says, here's what they're saying. They're saying that in verse 16, when it says, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man has seen nor can see, to him be honor and power of everlasting, they're saying that to whom no man has seen nor can see is Jesus. So Teilert walked away from this verse and said, no man has ever seen Jesus. Yeah, that's what he said, it's in his video. He said, this was the moment that set him to question the Trinity and led to him rejecting the Trinity and embracing modalism. This verse, because he said, no man has ever seen Jesus and no man can see Jesus. Now, I don't even know what to say, I mean, it's just like, yeah, they did. That which we have seen and heard, our hands have handled him. They put the, you know, they touched him, they saw him, they ate with him, they drank with him, but no, no, no. And he said, man, back when I used to believe in the Trinity, I used to use that verse, no man had seen God at any time. And I would say, hey, that's the father. Nobody's ever seen the father at any time. The only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the father, he had declared him. But Teilert said, then I read this verse and it's saying that nobody's ever seen Jesus. And that's when I realized that Jesus is the father. I mean, wow, crystal clear. Case closed. Oneness. Modalism. No, not so fast. Jesus is mentioned at the end of verse 14. And we are talking about Jesus, which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only potent of the king. Look, by the time we get to whom no man has seen nor can see, we're not talking about Jesus anymore. And look what it says, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto. It is the light which no man can approach unto. Jesus could be approached, no problem. Handle me, he said to Thomas. Come handle me. A spirit hath not flesh and bone as you see me to have. But the light that is God the father, look, God is light. And a lot of times it will say like we showed this morning from Acts 7, where Stephen looks up and he sees the glory of God the father, and then he sees Jesus standing at the right hand of the father. But he sees the glory, why? Because the brightness, the light was so bright that Moses' face shine just from catching a glimpse of his hinder parts. Because no man could even see his face and live, the father that is. The light which no man can approach unto, whom no man, and that's God, the father, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power everlasting. It's not Jesus whom no man can see or can see. It's the light that no man can approach unto, which is God the father, whom no man hath seen nor can see. That's not that hard. You know, why didn't he come and ask me? I could have told him that. You could have told him that. Lots of people could have told him that. But he approaches these two people that are, you know, according to their story that are the ones who led him into this doctrine. Go if you would to Revelation chapter 1. Revelation chapter 1. And again, we're going to get into the history of oneness Pentecostalism in general, but I'm just right now given the history of how this crept into our church out of their own mouths, how they got this. Another big thing that they just keep hammering and keep bringing up is this thing about the throne. It's just the throne, the throne, the throne, the throne, the throne. There's one throne. I saw one of their supporters online saying, there's only going to be one throne, buddy. There's only, you know, and one guy sitting on that throne. So this is a, this is a big thing for them. And I already demolished this on Wednesday night because I showed in chapter 5 crystal clear that the lamb comes and takes the book out of the hand of him that's sitting on the throne, showing that the lamb is not the one sitting on the throne. The lamb takes the book out of the hand of him that sits on the throne. But here's what they showed today. It says, I am Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1.8. I'm Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come the almighty. And they say, well, who's talking here? Jesus. So Jesus is saying that he's the Alpha and Omega. He's the beginning and the ending, and he's the almighty. Well jump to verse 4, I'm sorry, chapter 4. Jump to chapter 4, beginning of verse number 8. The Bible says, and the four beasts had each of them six wings about him, and they were full of eyes within, and they rest not day and night, saying, holy, holy, holy, Lord God almighty, which was and is and is to come. And when those beasts give glory and honor and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth forever and ever, the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power, for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. So they'll go to verses like this and say, well, Jesus says that he's the Alpha and Omega. Jesus says he's the beginning and the ending. And then him that sitteth on the throne says, you know, I'm Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last, similar things. Some of the things are identical that they say. Or they'll point to this chapter and say, well, the Bible says that him that sitteth on the throne created all things, and we know Jesus created all things, ergo, Jesus is him that sitteth on the throne. It's the son of God on the throne. It's the lamb on the throne. Here's why that logic falls apart. Go to Ephesians chapter 3, Ephesians chapter 3. First of all, it's no surprise that both God the Father and Jesus Christ, the son of God, would both say, I'm the beginning and the ending, I'm the Alpha and Omega, I'm the first and the last, because they're both God. I mean, that doesn't prove that they're the same person. You know, I've got brown hair, you've got brown hair. I'm 5 foot 10 inches tall, you're 5 foot 10 inches tall. I weigh about 185 pounds, you weigh about 185 pounds. I live in Tempe, you live in Tempe. So we're the same person, case closed. No, the same attribute, especially because you and I don't have as close connection as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So obviously they're going to share the same attributes, since Jesus is the image of the invisible God, since Jesus is God every bit as much as the Father is God, of course they're both the beginning and the ending, because in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, but they say, well, the guy who's sitting on the throne, he's the creator. Okay, but what does the Bible say in Ephesians 3.9? And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hidden God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. So God the Father created all things by Jesus. So Jesus was used by the Father to create all things. God the Father created all things by Jesus. So is it accurate to say that God the Father is the creator? Of course. Ephesians 3.9 tells us that. Is it accurate to say that Jesus is the creator? Of course, because it says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. So God the Father did not create anything without Jesus. Without Him was not anything made that was made. He created all things by Jesus Christ. That's why there are verses such as Colossians 1, which will identify Jesus Christ as the creator. Hebrews 3 identifies Jesus as the creator, when it says, for this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, and so much as he that has builded the house hath more glory than the house. For every house is builded by some man, but he that built all things is God, referring to Jesus. He that built all things is God, referring to Jesus. Of course Jesus is God. So that falls apart pretty fast. I'm not going to spend too much time on the throne thing, because it's too silly. It's too easily debunked. I'm not going to insult your intelligence. I just showed it to you. I just proved it wrong. I showed you Revelation 5 on Wednesday night, case closed. That's the coup de gras right there. So I'm not going to sit here and just beat that into the ground and go to every mention of throne, because I'm not going to answer a fool according to his folly. And I don't want to spend any more time on 1 Timothy 6, because I already feel a little dumber just after having even brought it up. But if you would, let's go now to Matthew 28, and let's get into the history of oneness Pentecostalism. Let's get into the history of modalism. Where did this doctrine come from? We personalized it to our church, but now let's just talk about it in general. Where did this come from? And yes, that's where these guys are getting it, if they're watching these debates on YouTube and filling their mind with all this garbage. Now you say, is it new? Is it a new doctrine? Well, modalism has been around for a long time. There's nothing new under the sun. And this was a big issue based on historical documents back around the third century, fourth century AD. There was a lot of talk about the Trinity versus modalism. So we know that there was a version of modalism that was popular back in those days. Well, over time, it was forsaken. People realized it was false. People got away from it. And so it died off for a long time. For a long time, there's really no evidence of anybody believing in it or a lot of people believing in it. I'm sure there were always people who believed in weird stuff. But in general, it wasn't really a big thing. It wasn't really a big issue, okay? And if we were to go into the 1700s, the 1800s, nobody really believed in it. Nobody cared. It wasn't a big issue. Everybody just acknowledged the Trinity except for just a few cults that started up in the 1800s and so forth. And they didn't go modalist. They were more just like denying the deity of Christ. So where we see this doctrine rear up its ugly head in modern day, its modern manifestation goes back to the Pentecostal movement around 1913, 1914, okay? And I'm going to give you the history of this. Now, let me just make this clear. There's no Baptist church, and I did a bunch of research, Baptists don't believe in modalist. Now there are bozos in our church and other churches that believe in it. But there's no Baptist denomination and no Baptist church that we can find that teaches this. And that's why I didn't ever think I was going to fight this battle. This is a battle I never thought I'd fight because it's just not even a thing amongst Baptists. It's not even a thing amongst anybody except for Oneness Pentecostals. And Oneness Pentecostals have so many other heresies, they're so far from us, you never thought that it would come in. For example, Oneness Pentecostals believe that you have to be baptized to be saved, that if you don't speak in tongues, you're not saved. So they've got some really radical doctrines, and so they're nowhere near being a Baptist, not even close. Southern Baptists all believe in the Trinity, Independent Baptists, everybody. So where did this Oneness Pentecostal movement come from? The only denominations or large groups or churches or even just a church who believes in it are Oneness Pentecostal churches. Now how many of these Oneness Pentecostal churches are there? Well there are estimated to be approximately 25 to 30 million Oneness Pentecostals. I heard one person say that about one-fourth of Pentecostals in America are Oneness Pentecostals. So don't get me wrong, there are a lot of Pentecostals who are not Oneness. The majority of Pentecostals are not Oneness. But it's still a substantial group of Pentecostals who fall under this. The largest Oneness Pentecostal denomination is called the United Pentecostal Church International or UPCI. They have 40,000 churches. Did you get that? 40,000 churches. This is why I've run into this out so many like 30 times. I know a lot of you have run into it as well. They have 40,000 churches, 3.75 million members, and they have a church in virtually every country on the planet almost. So it's a pretty big denomination there. But there are actually a total of 1,053 different denominations of Oneness Pentecostalism in the U.S. Now Oneness Pentecostalism, they all teach baptism must be in the name of Jesus only. There's no regeneration, and if you don't speak in tongues, you're not saved. Those are kind of the distinctives of the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Now how did this movement start? Well, it all goes back to the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles. Now in the 1800s, there were foreshadowings of the Pentecostal movement with the Quakers and other revivals where there were people who got pretty ecstatic in their utterances and got pretty wild at these revivals. The Latter-day Saints, of course, with Joseph Smith started out pretty charismatic. He toned them down a little bit, but they still speak in tongues and do all that, and they go back, of course, to the mid-1800s. But the Pentecostals as we know them today, Assemblies of God and all the other different denominations, they go back to this thing called the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles. It was a big revival in L.A. They had like 300 to 1,500 people coming per night, and it really took off. It really got popular. It started spreading like wildfire. And so in 1914, this led to the founding of the Assemblies of God, big Pentecostal denomination. It's still the biggest Pentecostal denomination today. Well, in 1916, they had a big controversy about modalism, and they voted out the modalists. So 585 pastors in the Assemblies of God in the early days voted for the Trinity. 156 of them voted for modalism, and they were excommunicated. They were cut out of it. They were thrown out of it. And they went off and started their own denomination. How did the Pentecostals get into oneness? Because the Azusa Street Revival wasn't about oneness, it was about speaking in tongues and ecstatic utterances and miracles and healings and all these different wild and crazy things, and it was extremely unbiblical, of course, but that's what it was. Well, after that, this Pentecostal movement began to spread, and in 1913, you have this event called the Arroyo Seco 1913 Camp Meeting. This was a massive gathering of Pentecostals, the Arroyo Seco 1913 Camp Meeting, and in that meeting, there was some baptism going on, and a preacher got up to speak at the baptism, and his name was R.E. McAllister, and he got up and he said, you know what? It's interesting that when you read Matthew 28, it says to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but in the Book of Acts, they're always baptizing just in the name of Jesus. What's up with that? He just kind of put it out there. He didn't form any conclusions. He didn't say it's right, wrong. He just threw that out there and just said, you know, isn't that interesting that it's different in the Book of Acts? Well, this set off a firestorm. So the whole modern manifestation of modalism or oneness doctrine all goes back to Matthew 28. It's where it started with a question about baptism. Why did Jesus tell them to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then in Acts, they're baptized in the name of Jesus only? So it set off a firestorm. People were perplexed. People were upset. People were trying to figure out what's going on. What's he talking about? Well, a guy named John Shape, a preacher, he spent the whole night just agonizing over this, praying and reading his Bible. And he said that he received a supernatural revelation from God that told him that basically the name of the Father is Jesus. The name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. So that's why they baptized the name of Jesus because that is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So he woke up. He got up the next morning. He didn't wake up because he stayed up all night. But he got up the next morning. He's running around the campground telling everybody, hey, Jesus is the name of the Father. I've got it. I've got the answer. And he started telling everybody this. That's where it started. Well, obviously, you needed some big name preachers in order to pick up steam, not just one guy running around a campground screaming. So some big name preachers named Frank Ewart, Glen Cook, Garfield Haywood, they started teaching it. And when these big names started teaching it amongst the Pentecostals, it took off. It caught on to the point where the Assemblies of God had that split where 156 pastors went with it. So they formed a bunch of different spinoffs. Those 156, they broke off from the Assemblies of God. They started all their own denominations. One of the big ones was called Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. There was another one called Pentecostal Church, Inc., Emmanuel Church in Jesus Christ, Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ. These are all oneness groups. Well, a whole bunch of these oneness groups, they all merged in 1945 to form the largest oneness denomination, UPCI. And that's why I said they have all these 40,000 churches. That's the biggest one. I told you about their heresies. So let's talk about this issue of baptism. This is the last thing I want to cover tonight. It's very important because this is laying the axe to the root of the tree. This is where this whole doctrine comes from in modern day is from this issue of baptism. And of course, I'm not going to re-preach my sermon from Wednesday. In the name of does not mean that there's one name for all three. It actually means by the authority of, on account of, or representing, or on behalf of. That's what in the name of means. So when the Bible says to do it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it's not one specific name. It's saying you're doing it on behalf of the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the Son. You're doing it representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. You're doing it by their authority. That's what that means. Now, a lot of people have said to me, well, since I doubt Tyler Baker's salvation now, what about the fact that I was baptized by him? Or what about the fact that he baptized my kids? Do I need to be re-baptized? And my answer to that is simply no. Because Tyler Baker was not baptizing in his own name. He was not baptizing by his own authority. He was not baptized representing himself. He was baptizing representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And that baptism was between you and the Lord. Because it was in the name of, not Tyler, it was in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So I have always had the same position on baptism in this regard. If you've been baptized in deep water after salvation, you're baptized. Now, if you were unsaved when you got baptized, you need to get baptized again. Because a baptism before salvation is not baptism. But if you were saved when you got baptized, you're baptized. And because people have come to me with this question over the years, well, I was baptized by this guy, and later he turned out to be a heretaker. I was baptized by this guy, and I don't even know if he was saved, or he's a false teacher, or whatever. Look, my position is, it's not in his name. It's in the authority representing God, not him, between you and the Lord. Also I'll say this, that if someone was baptized, and as they were dunked, the person said, I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is still a scriptural baptism in the sense that they don't need to be re-baptized. Why? Because I could baptize someone in utter silence, and it'd still be a scriptural baptism. Because it doesn't say, when you baptize, say these words, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as you dunk. Does everybody get what I'm saying? It's sort of like when the Bible tells us to pray in Jesus' name. It's not saying that we have to, at the end of every prayer, tag on, in Jesus' name, amen. Now I think it's great to say that at the end of the prayer, just to acknowledge to you and everyone else, and to the Lord, that you're praying in Jesus' name. And it makes sense when you're dunking people to say, hey, I'm doing this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But you know what really matters is, if I'm saved, and I'm praying to the Lord, and Jesus is my mediator, I'm praying in Jesus' name, whether the words in the name of Jesus come out of my mouth or not. And where the Pentecostals and the Charismatics get this wrong, they think that in the name of Jesus is a magic formula, or that it's like a magic spell, that it's a magic word, like an abracadabra, hocus pocus, open sesame, that basically, if they say in the name of Jesus, that's going to give them power. But let me ask you this, and this is what Garrett, and I know I talked to some people today, they listened to Garrett's sermon, and part of it went over their head. And so that's why I want to break this down again, to make sure you get it, because this is what Garrett was saying in his sermon, is that if you're not saved, okay, and you're one of these Holy Roller Charismatics, and you say, hey, in the name of Jesus, be healed or whatever, that's not going to give you the power to heal. That's not going to give you the power to do anything just because you said those words. Those words are not a magic formula. And that's why when the sons of Siva tried it, in the name of Jesus, come out of him, they got beaten up, and it didn't work. Right? So the point is, I could literally say this, I could literally say, let's say we had 100 baptisms lined up. Now the most people I've ever baptized at one time was I baptized 26 people at the Atlanta Soul Winning Marathon, and it took a long time. It was just like one after the other. Who was there when I did that in Atlanta? It was just like one after the other. It gave me a whole new appreciation for the day of Pentecost, 3,000 baptisms. And every single time I dunked somebody, I said, I baptized you, my brother, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and I said something along the lines of buried in the likeness of his death, or raised in the likeness of his resurrection, raised to walk in the goodness of life. But let me just be perfectly honest with you. If I had 200 people to baptize, if I had 250 people to baptize at one time, you know what I'd probably do? I'd probably say, all right, I'm going to baptize all these people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then just start dunking them. They get in, dunk them. Next, dunk them. Next, dunk them. Are you going to tell me that? I mean, do you really believe that you have to say those words with every dunking, or you didn't say the formula right? No. Because it's not a chant of a word, it's the fact that you're doing it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It's the fact that that's what you believe, that's what they believe. Look, when you're getting baptized, it's between you and the Lord, because it's in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Does everybody understand what I'm saying? So I hope that helps clarify that point. So I could dunk people in total silence as long as I know and they know that we're doing it in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So I have a relative who, I was at their baptism, and when they got baptized, an independent Fundamental Baptist preacher who does not believe in the Oneness Doctrine, he believes in the Trinity, he dunked them, and he just said, I baptized you in the name of the Lord Jesus and dunked them. Look, I wouldn't say, hey, get baptized again. It's the Pentecostals that made this weird conflict that isn't even there. Are you listening? The Pentecostals are the ones who said, oh, there's this contradiction, how do we figure this out? Let's pray all night and figure it out. There's no contradiction, friend, between Jesus saying to baptize, and go to Acts 19, between Jesus saying to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus, the book of Acts, it's not a contradiction. Why? Because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost includes Jesus, because Jesus is the Son. Basically I've ever baptized, I baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. There's not a single person that I've ever baptized that I didn't baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. You know why? Because I baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and he's the Son. This whole controversy, this idiot, this bozo, what's his name, R. E. McAllister, who got up and said this dumb thing, oh, isn't that interesting? What are you talking about? Nobody even thought that was a problem. Nobody even cared. They just baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and they knew that the Son is Jesus. Piece of cake. But then comes this issue of, well, and they literally called it at the 1916 meeting of the Assemblies of God, the new issue. We got to deal with the new issue. But I had you turn to Acts 19, right? Acts 19. The Bible says in verse number 2, and I'm revisiting some material from Garrett's sermon because some of it didn't click with people. Most people I think it clicked with, but some people didn't quite catch this. Sometimes you need to hear things a few times. It says in verse 2, he said unto them, he found certain disciples in verse 1. Verse 2, he said unto them, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? And they said unto him, we've not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were you baptized? Now let me help illustrate this to you, okay? So Shane, come on up here, and I'm going to use you as an illustration here just to represent. So I'm Paul, and I come across this disciple, right? And I ask him a question. And I say to him, hey, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? He says to me, what do you say to me? What did they say? They're like, I don't even know if the Holy Ghost even exists, basically, right? Is everybody getting this? So I ask him, hey, Shane, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? And Shane's like, I don't even know if the Holy Ghost exists. I don't even know whether there be any Holy Ghost. My next question in this interchange is, unto what then were you baptized? Now if the apostles were going around and baptizing in the name of Jesus only, Jesus only, I baptize you in the name of Jesus, okay, how would that question make any sense? That question would make no sense because then if I said unto what then were you baptized, you could answer me and say, well, what's that got to do with the Holy Ghost? I was baptized in the name of Jesus. I mean, wouldn't that be a legitimate question? Unto what then were you baptized? But okay, now let's think of it from they're baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. And he says to me, hey, I don't know whether there is a Holy Ghost. But I say to him, unto what then were you baptized? That makes sense because how could you be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and you've never even heard of the Holy Ghost? You understand what I'm saying? Go ahead and have a seat. So how can you be baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost and then say, well, I don't even know if there is a Holy Ghost. Does everybody see what I'm saying? So were the apostles just not mentioning the Holy Ghost at all in regard to baptism? No, they were mentioning it. Now whether or not they said the words, as they dunked, I baptized you in the name... That's what they were doing. That's what Jesus told them to do and that's what they were doing. The Bible doesn't record what words they said as they dunked people. That's a straw man, okay? So you can baptize and be baptizing both in the name of Jesus and the Holy Ghost. It's the same thing because Jesus is the Son and He's included in the Matthew 28 command. But if you say, well, I'm baptizing you in the name of Jesus only, now that's a weird baptism. That's strange at that point. Does everybody see what I'm saying? So there's a straw man that says, oh, you're saying the apostles all got it wrong in the Book of Acts. No, no, no, no, no. I did not say that. This is what I said. I said that as an interpretation tool when you're studying the Bible, what do you go with? The story about what they did or do you go with the statement from Jesus? I mean, Jesus stated one wife per husband. One man, one wife, that's marriage. But then we have stories about people having multiple wives. What's the answer? They did wrong. Story or statement, which do you trust? The statement. We're going to use the statement to interpret the story. So I'm not going to go by what the apostles did in the Book of Acts. I'm going to go by what Jesus said in Matthew 28. I'm going to go with the statement, not the story. Now that's been misconstrued of, oh, the apostles did it wrong. No, no, no. That's not what we're saying. We're saying we're going with the story, not the statement. I'm sorry, good night. That's the opposite. We're going with the statement, not the story. And here's the thing. We're going to use the statement to interpret the story. And if we use the statement to interpret the story, what we walk away believing is that, oh, well, when they baptized the name of the Lord Jesus, they also baptized the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost. But that's just not what Luke felt was relevant because the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts are teaching a certain thing that God led those authors or that author to write. They're different things included in different books because God emphasizes different things in certain books. So in the Book of Acts, the Lord through Luke is emphasizing Jesus because there's a lot of dealings with Jews and they don't believe in Jesus. So that's kind of the big thing is like, hey, you crucified Jesus, so get baptized in the name of Jesus. But there's no exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost. That's just a made up doctrine that nobody even thought of until 1913 at some crazy wild-eyed Pentecostal camp meeting. Does everybody see that? And so I don't believe people need to be re-baptized. I don't believe that the apostles got it wrong. I don't believe that baptism has to be accompanied by certain words. Now I'm going to keep saying Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost because at least we're teaching people. People see that, they hear that, they understand. Here's what we're doing. Let me tell you what I'm about to do and then I do it. It's just a teaching tool, that's all. You don't have to say the magic words. Same thing when you pray. You could pray and just say amen and as long as you're talking to the Father through Jesus the Son and you know that and you believe that, then it's in Jesus' name. Let's bow our heads and have a word of prayer.