There is one ultimate and absolute God and that person is God the Father.
The personal name of God the Father is Yahowah.
Jesus is the word of God and the son of God but he is not the ultimate God.
Jesus is subordinate to the Father and sits at his right hand.
I maintain biblical monotheism by advocating that there is one person who is the ultimate God and without equal.
The Jewish people correctly understand true monotheism.
“Hear oh Israel, Yahowah is our Elohim, Yahowah is one.” (Dueteronomy 6:4)
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate, individual, and distinct beings.
The Trinity hypothesis contradicts scripture and defies logic and reason. It is irrational and incoherent and does
not maintain monotheism.
I am not a Unitarian. I believe that Jesus has a divine nature and a divine position subordinate to the Father. He is
the Savior of the world and the exalted and glorified Son of Yahowah.
THE SACRED NAME
The Bible reveals the sacred name Yahowah which specifically refers to the God of Old Testament Judaism and
New Testament Christianity. The sacred name differentiates Yahowah from other gods and identifies the true God
of Jesus Christ.
I am not associated with the Sacred Name movement nor affiliated with Messianic Judaism.
Using the sacred name is not essential for salvation but I prefer to address the creator as Yahowah and his son
as Yahowshua. I also use the names God and Jesus and find that quite acceptable. In his writings, Paul uses the
generic Greek name for God which is Theos.
The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible and authoritative word of God.
Churches which removed the inerrancy clause from their doctrinal statement and believe that the bible contains
errors are creating a “hermeneutic of suspicion” towards the word of God.
The Bible is free from historical, scientific, and theological errors.
I tentatively accept the Byzantine textform as the most faithful and accurate copy of the original New Testament
By contrast, the Nestle-Aland version of the Greek New Testament (27th ed. 1993) which is the same text as the
United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (4th ed. 1994) appears to contain numerous errors and omissions. It
is known as the “critical text” and is a shorter version than the Byzantine. For the most part it follows the Westcott-
Hort critical text published in 1881 which relied heavily upon codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both from the fourth
I am not a King James Only advocate. The King James version contains numerous errors that need to be
corrected. It is based upon the “Received Text” which is very close to the Greek text published by Erasmus in
1516. However, only a small number of Greek manuscripts were available to Erasmus which limited his ability to
produced an accurate text. The “Received Text” or “Textus Receptus” has approximately five thousand
differences with the “critical text” and that is considered rather substantial.
An alternative to the “Received Text” is “The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text” (1982) by
Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. This text was considered tentative and has subsequently been shown to
Another text is “The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform” by Maurice Robinson and William
Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing 2005). This is probably the most accurate text of the New Testament available.
For an English translation, Gary Zeolla's “Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament” (3rd ed. 2012) is a
helpful companion to Robinson's Greek text. While it is not a smooth translation and appears a bit wooden at
times, it does preserve the literalness.
The Byzantine text is longer than the “critical text” published by the United Bible society and therein lies much of
the controversy. The critical text brackets certain verses such as the ending in Mark and does not consider it part
of the original autographs. But based upon the Byzantine text, Robinson correctly argues the the ending in Mark
should be considered inspired scripture.
The similarities between the Greek manuscripts outweigh the differences by a wide margin. There is
approximately 85 percent agreement between the 5000 Greek manuscripts. I am confident and accept on faith
that the entirely of the original autographs are among the extant Greek manuscripts. The restoration of the
original autographs remains an ongoing project.
While I have a personal preference for the King James Bible, I am aware of the fact that it does contain translation
errors such as the omission of the sacred name in over seven thousand places in the Old Testament. And yet I
still consider the King James Bible to be the finest translation in the English language.
I believe that salvation is based upon grace, faith, and works.
We are not save by grace alone, faith alone, or works alone.
We are saved by grace, faith, and works.
Catholics have added penance and purgatory as a requirement for salvation and Protestants have subtracted
works as a requirement of salvation.
Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for sin and no penance or purgatory is necessary.
Works are a requirement for salvation but we are not saved by works alone. Paul says that we will be judged by
our works and therefore works plays an important role in salvation. Nowhere does Paul say that we will be judged
by our faith.
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone) must be rejected because it directly contradicts the word of
God. James, the brother of Jesus, clearly states that a man is not justified by faith alone.
The bread is the literal body of Christ and the wine is the literal blood of Christ. This is the miracle and mystery of
I reject Martin Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation which says that the the bread and wine are not the literal
body and blood of Christ but that Jesus is present in these elements. Calvin took a similar position but with some
And I reject Zwingli's doctrine of non-substantiation which reduces the bread and wine to mere symbolism. The
majority of Protestants accept his position and are taking an empty Eucharist.
For over 1900 years the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have correctly understood the Eucharist as the
literal body and blood of Christ. However, a person can accept this position without having to embrace the
doctrine of transubstantiation which was a good faith effort to explain the Eucharist. But how does one explain a
miracle and a mystery.
If you accept Christ as your savior, repent of your sins, get baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit, you are a
member of the church which is the body of Christ.
I do not believe that membership in a particular church organization such as the Catholic church is necessary for
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church both claim to be the one true church but I don't believe that the body
of Christ is restricted to either one of these churches. The body of Christ encompasses all true Christians
regardless of their particular church affiliation.
And I believe that the Holy Spirit can at any time raise up a body of believers that constitute a church of God.
A literal hell does exist and will be the fate of those who suffer the second death.
I reject the belief that the wicked will be tormented and tortured in hell for eternity.
Death is the ultimate fate of the wicked.
The ordained priesthood and pastoral ministry is exclusively for men.
Women should not be ordained and given authority over men in the church.
Female theologians and women in general should not be allowed to teach men in church or seminary. Jesus
never chose a female apostle nor commissioned women to preach to men.
Other ministries that do not involve teaching men or having authority over men are open to women.
Women are authorized by scripture to teach woman and children.
We should honor women in the church and value their contribution to the body of Christ.
Jesus Christ will return to judge the living and the dead.
Setting specific dates for the second coming of Christ is not biblical.
I advocate pre-millenialism and reject Catholic amillenialism and Prostestant post-millenialism.
The theory of the post tribulation rapture should be rejected along with dispensationalism.
I do not subscribe to hyper-preterism, historicisim, or full-futurism. My position can be best described as partial
preterism and partial futurism meaning that not all prophecies in the New Testament were fulfilled in the first
century and not all prophecies that have already been fulfilled in the first century will have a repeat fulfillment in
the future. In other words, I reject the idea that the Olivet prophecy in Matthew 24 requires a double fulfillment.
Although we cannot completely rule it out, it is doubtful that any particular prophecy in the Bible specifically refers
to the twentieth and twenty-first century.
The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 does not appear to be a direct fulfillment of any bible prophecy
nor is it necessarily a sign that we are living in the end times and that the second coming of Christ is imminent.
The majority of Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled either in ancient Israel or in Christ. Mixing fulfilled
Old Testament prophecies with unfulfilled New Testament prophecies is bad eschatology.
There is no biblical necessity for a temple to be built in Jerusalem prior to the return of Christ. But a temple could
be built and sacrifices might be offered.
The complete Olivet prophecy does not await a future fulfillment. Partial preterists are correct that the Olivet
prophecy was fulfilled in the first century except for the return of Christ and portions of the book of Revelation
await a future fulfillment.
The second coming of Christ can occur at any moment.
CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM
I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian.
The Calvinist belief in limited atonement has no place in Christian theology.
The Calvinist doctrine of double predestination is one of the worst heresies in the history of the church. The idea
that God decided before a person was born that he or she would be doomed is utterly repulsive and completely
contradicts God's love.
And the Calvinist belief in “eternal security” or “once saved always saved”is completely refuted by the sixth
chapter of Hebrews. The Bible does not guarantee salvation.
While the Reformation did have some positive effects upon the church, it also created some of the worst heresies
in the history of Christianity.
Today the Protestant churches are in desperate need of a deep reformation and lasting repentance from false
doctrine, liberalism, and secularism.
Most Protestants pastors are playing church, pretending Christianity, and reaping a harvest of false conversions.
Instead of coming out of this world, most Protestants became the world.
While it is my hearts desire that all men be saved, the bible does not specifically state that salvation is universal.
The second century theologian Origen was a universalist and and Carl Barth was a hopeful universalist. But Barth
was not a universalist in the true sense of the word. He only hoped that all men would be saved and we can all
share his sentiment.
I sincerely hope that all men will be saved but some might reject Christ and lose their salvation.
If every man and woman will be saved, then why did God create a place called hell.
The case for univeralism has not been proven and therefore does not warrant belief.