Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
God had given instructions to Moses that he will visit the sins of the fathers onto the children
Exodus 20:5 NIV
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
We actually see the judgements carried out on children after the pronouncement of Moses at mount Sinai
Numbers 14:33 NIV
33 Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the wilderness.
Joshua 7:
Joshua said, “Why have you brought this trouble on us? The Lord will bring trouble on you today.”
Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them.
But later in Jeremiah God actually says that everyone shall die for his own sins
Jeremiah 31:29-30 NIV
29 “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
Did God change his mind?
Troy Day
Philip Williams Glynn Brown Neil Steven Lawrence Jared Cheshire Philip Williams John Mushenhouse ## God’s Immutable Knowledge in Jeremiah 31: A Response to Open Theism
The open theist interpretation of Jeremiah 31:29-30, which claims God changed His mind about generational judgment, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of divine omniscience and confuses phenomenological language with ontological reality. When God declares “In those days they shall say no more, ‘The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,'” this represents not a modification of eternal divine purpose but rather a shift in the *application* of judgment within a specific historical covenant context. Classical theism maintains that God’s knowledge is not sequential or temporally bound; therefore, God eternally knew both the principle of generational consequence established in Exodus 20:5 and its particular suspension under the New Covenant inaugurated through Christ. The open theist erroneously assumes that divine foreknowledge and divine immutability are incompatible, yet Scripture consistently demonstrates that God’s unchanging nature coexists with His knowledge of all contingent events across redemptive history.
Furthermore, the text itself provides no indication that God discovered new information or was surprised by historical developments requiring Him to revise His eternal decrees. Rather, Jeremiah 31 represents God’s intentional proclamation of a *future covenantal restructuring* wherein individual moral accountability replaces corporate generational liability—a transition entirely consistent with God’s predetermined redemptive plan. The New Covenant framework explicitly prioritizes personal responsibility before God, as seen throughout the New Testament epistolary literature and the teaching of Jesus. God’s announcement of this principle through Jeremiah demonstrates His sovereign prerogative to restructure the application of justice according to His eternal counsel, not evidence of theological uncertainty or epistemic limitation.
Finally, open theism’s insistence on reading Jeremiah 31 as divine error correction undermines the theological coherence of biblical anthropomorphism. God employs human language—including expressions of intention, purpose, and even apparent reconsideration—to communicate with temporally-bound creatures, yet such accommodation does not necessitate actual change in the divine intellect or will. The decree recorded in Jeremiah 31 was eternally known and willed by God; its expression through prophetic proclamation fulfilled its communicative purpose without implying that divine omniscience had previously lacked this knowledge. To argue otherwise transforms biblical theology into a system of divine trial-and-error, fundamentally compromising God’s transcendence and the reliability of His redemptive promises. @followers @highlight
Philip Williams
Troy Day we need to distinguish between Christ, the Heavenly King of Israel and the Father who knows the future.
Troy Day
Philip Williams John 10:30: Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” This is often cited to show the divine unity.
Isaiah 9:6: The prophecy about the Messiah says the child will be called “Mighty God, Everlasting Father,” implying Christ is the Father manifested.
Colossians 2:9: It states, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” indicating the whole Godhead is in Christ.
John 14:9: Jesus says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
Jared Cheshire Jevan Little
Jevan Little
Troy Day yes?
Philip Williams
Troy Day Christ is the Father manifested. But I didn’t know that you were a Oneness Pentecostal! Wow!
Troy Day
YOU SEE John Mushenhouse that Philip Williams Jevan Little + Glynn Brown got NO clue HOW to answer our @followers on this one
Glynn Brown
Troy Day keep my name out of your mouth.
Troy Day
John Mushenhouse seems LIKE unable to answer again Glynn Brown is resorting to threats and bulling over the internet BUT no theology @ all
Troy Day
Glynn Brown do you mean: Can you understand English?
What do you intend with you bulling and harassments here?
Are you able to produce even 1 theological comment?
Or as John Mushenhouse stated, this is all you got?
Frank Shearer
Troy Day
John Mushenhouse
Jared Cheshire what if had said this about Glynn Brown —- “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. Mat 23:15 or You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. John 8:44 — would you call the speaker a bully and needed to change the way He was addressing others. The problem is this with your statement Jared and I will let the Lord speak here as well — Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Matt 22:29.. — My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, James 1:19
Glynn Brown
Troy Day you act like a spoiled child.
And I meant what I meant ,can you understand English?
Troy Day
Frank Shearer yes?
Troy Day
as you can see John Mushenhouse nothing theological from Glynn Brown again – just his usual winning and crying #GrowUp
Jared Cheshire
John Mushenhouse Troy has been getting antagonistic in his old age. Calling people out and badgering them before they even have a chance to speak. I just find it ironic that he called a response to that bullying. 😂
John Mushenhouse
Jared Cheshire so that doesn’t justify your lack of biblical knowledge.
Glynn Brown
John Mushenhouse comparing Troy Day to Jesus is ridiculous. I hope you’re not defending his childish antics,and false accusations and outright lies. Jesus wasn’t referring to believers ,he was referring to self righteous unbelievers. This is the exact opposite of what Troy is doing. His actions are unbecoming. Why does he keep trying to bring you into every conversation? Is he unable to handle a conversation without you?
John Mushenhouse
Glynn Brown what about Paul turning false teachers over to Satan. They were once believers who made a shipwreck out of their faith. Many today would go all mushy is we turned false teachers over to satan or adulterers. It is biblical. Paul did tell us to imitate him in two different places.
Glynn Brown
Troy Day are you a oneness heretic?
Glynn Brown
Troy Day more childish attention seeking. Act like an adult for once.
Thomas Khisa Otindo
Media: https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.1997-6/93118771_222645645734606_1705715084438798336_n.png?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=23dd7b&_nc_ohc=HtgQ3e87DkQQ7kNvwEaiyoR&_nc_oc=AdkldIIG8FitteKddUzAIVWFmt8Op4JXxfe5Q3POLYDRC2FaoMq4ck7t8w1oDxyiX7E&_nc_zt=26&_nc_ht=scontent-fra3-1.xx&edm=AOerShkEAAAA&_nc_gid=zUAVRgwFaOW2eS4DUtZ7Ew&_nc_tpa=Q5bMBQEdLEzBdMlE-YF0vojC0kxUtC6puisRmbX6yC8sEmgaL0u8X4o4kCi4MeC56253FnT7gdXRuUYO3w&oh=00_AfjiRxl7xOQSHN-9Q78S_MLu0zbXv-53nHBIlwkXbhMyvA&oe=691C233B
Kenneth R. Marsh
Could it be that when Jesus said if you seen me you’ve seen the Father is said to show the like the Father the Son is God. Jesus the Son is not the Father but He is God just as the Father and the Spirit are God.
Troy Day
Kenneth R. Marsh what do you mean by saying all THIS as a @highlight
Kenneth R. Marsh
I’m sorry if I offended or did something wrong. I don’t understand what you mean by @highlight. I was just making an observation about the topic you all were discussing on a public forum.
Kenneth R. Marsh
What is a @highlight and how am I saying “all THIS as a (sic)i@highlight? I ask again.
Troy Day
Kenneth R. Marsh Many scholars make only selective use of the traditional criterion of multiple attestation, excluding its application to the diverse and apparently independent accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Yet, Jesus’s post-resurrection message in the first-century sources that report it consistently focuses on mission (Matt 28:19; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8; John 20:21–23) and, in connection with this mission, the empowerment of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8; John 20:22) or Jesus’s presence (Matt 28:20).
The coherence of these sources need not rely on verbatim agreement: comparison with other ancient biographies shows that the Evangelists’ ancient audiences would not expect these reports to recount Jesus’s words verbatim.3 That Luke can summarize the heart of the commission in different wording in his own two accounts,4 clearly meant to be read together,5 confirms that he never expected anyone to think otherwise.
Still, if Jesus spent any substantial amount of time with his disciples (Acts 1:3), he probably did repeat some key themes multiple times and in multiple ways (1:4–5). Did Jesus himself command baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)? Or at the least, did he provide the raw material that quickly led to trinitarian belief among his followers? (For Matthew, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presumably evokes Jesus’s own baptism and experience of the Father and Spirit in Matt 3:16–17; cf. already Mark 1:10–12.)
Far from being a late development, as has often been supposed, Jesus’s divinity or Jesus as an object of worship appears in the earliest extant examples of New Testament Christology. While we cannot expect Paul to reflect later Nicene language, he often applies biblical language for YHWH to Jesus: for example, Zech 14:5 in 1 Thess 3:13; Deut 6:4 in 1 Cor 8:6; Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9–11; and OT day of YHWH language in 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16.6 Granted, his status appears subordinate to that of the Father in Paul (for example, Rom 8:3), but this remains the case even in the late first-century Christology of John’s Gospel https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/craig-keener-jesuss-trinity/
Troy Day
Jared Cheshire what is your stance on this post before our @followers
Moses Bishop
Media: https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.1997-6/93118771_222645645734606_1705715084438798336_n.png?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=23dd7b&_nc_ohc=HtgQ3e87DkQQ7kNvwEaiyoR&_nc_oc=AdkldIIG8FitteKddUzAIVWFmt8Op4JXxfe5Q3POLYDRC2FaoMq4ck7t8w1oDxyiX7E&_nc_zt=26&_nc_ht=scontent-fra3-1.xx&edm=AOerShkEAAAA&_nc_gid=UqgZxqC1u6bt7q59JYb4Vw&_nc_tpa=Q5bMBQFopxpW6wNbndUsZxMXOG0vW7ppVpCR3AUfgnlZeZv28Ae_XHV1izhmKSMnabp-kfb9b5qMNnKKSQ&oh=00_Afg947K0otRMxNVEGTIXdM4Ez9E5wfKBKHQB478OAgLN-A&oe=691EC63B
John Mushenhouse
Jared Cheshire they give back – plus he may no longer tolerate nonsens.
Troy Day
Jared Cheshire Rasiah Thomas Many scholars make only selective use of the traditional criterion of multiple attestation, excluding its application to the diverse and apparently independent accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Yet, Jesus’s post-resurrection message in the first-century sources that report it consistently focuses on mission (Matt 28:19; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8; John 20:21–23) and, in connection with this mission, the empowerment of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8; John 20:22) or Jesus’s presence (Matt 28:20).
The coherence of these sources need not rely on verbatim agreement: comparison with other ancient biographies shows that the Evangelists’ ancient audiences would not expect these reports to recount Jesus’s words verbatim.3 That Luke can summarize the heart of the commission in different wording in his own two accounts,4 clearly meant to be read together,5 confirms that he never expected anyone to think otherwise.
Still, if Jesus spent any substantial amount of time with his disciples (Acts 1:3), he probably did repeat some key themes multiple times and in multiple ways (1:4–5). Did Jesus himself command baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)? Or at the least, did he provide the raw material that quickly led to trinitarian belief among his followers? (For Matthew, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presumably evokes Jesus’s own baptism and experience of the Father and Spirit in Matt 3:16–17; cf. already Mark 1:10–12.)
Far from being a late development, as has often been supposed, Jesus’s divinity or Jesus as an object of worship appears in the earliest extant examples of New Testament Christology. While we cannot expect Paul to reflect later Nicene language, he often applies biblical language for YHWH to Jesus: for example, Zech 14:5 in 1 Thess 3:13; Deut 6:4 in 1 Cor 8:6; Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9–11; and OT day of YHWH language in 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16.6 Granted, his status appears subordinate to that of the Father in Paul (for example, Rom 8:3), but this remains the case even in the late first-century Christology of John’s Gospel https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/craig-keener-jesuss-trinity/
Jared Cheshire
Troy Day your response is a textbook example of trying to overwhelm people with volume rather than substance. The tone, tagging, and condescension are part of the problem, but even setting that aside, the argument itself collapses under basic textual scrutiny. Since you aimed to sound scholarly, let us at least deal with the scholarship accurately.
First, appealing to “multiple attestation” for the resurrection commissions has nothing to do with whether Yeshua ever taught the later Trinity doctrine. The passages you cited deal with mission, empowerment, and Yeshua’s ongoing presence with His disciples. None of them contain a Trinitarian formula. Repeated themes do not magically equal later doctrinal developments. Coherence in message is not evidence of the Nicene Trinity. That is a category mistake.
Second, Matthew 28:19 as it appears in modern Bibles is not an unquestioned text. The earliest citations of Matthew by Eusebius, one of the most prolific quoters of the Gospel before the fourth century controversies, consistently render the verse as: “Go and make disciples of all nations in My name.” The Trinitarian formula does not appear in those citations until after the Arian-Nicene debates. Even if one wants to defend the longer reading, it proves nothing about Yeshua teaching a triune metaphysical being. It only proves later scribes shaped the text to align with the theological battles of their day.
The same is true for the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 to 8. The earliest Greek manuscripts and the Peshitta read exactly as you were shown: Spirit, water, and blood. No Father, Word, and Holy Spirit. No heavenly witnesses. No triune formula. The so called Trinitarian clause first emerges in late Latin manuscripts centuries after the apostles, precisely during the period when theologians were desperate for a verse that clearly supported the developing doctrine. The Greek manuscript tradition does not have it until roughly a thousand years later. Early church fathers did not quote it, even when debating the very doctrine it would have settled instantly. That silence speaks for itself.
You can appeal to Paul all day long, but none of the passages you cited articulate Nicene metaphysics. Paul applies YHWH language to Yeshua because Yeshua is the manifestation and expression of YHWH. That is fully consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. It does not require the later philosophical framework of three divine persons in one essence. In fact, Paul repeatedly distinguishes Yeshua from the Father in ways that Nicene categories struggle to account for. Yeshua is subordinate, sent, empowered, exalted by Another. None of that agrees with the later claim that the Son is coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial. Quoting Paul does not rescue the Trinity. It only shows an early exalted Christology within a strict monotheistic framework.
Your argument also ignores the most basic issue: later councils and creeds shaped the way certain passages were interpreted, and scribes occasionally adjusted the text accordingly. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact in textual criticism. The Trinity as defined at Nicaea and Constantinople is not taught by Yeshua. It is not present in the earliest manuscripts. It is not expressed in the Hebrew worldview. It emerges from post biblical philosophical synthesis, and the textual additions you rely on are evidence of that process, not proof against it.
You attempted to dress up your comment with scholarly language, but scholarship requires dealing honestly with the text, the manuscript evidence, and the historical development of doctrine. When those are placed on the table, the conclusion is simple and straightforward.
To answer your one coherent question in all that mumbo jumbo: No, Yeshua did not teach the Trinity.
Now would you like to have a substitive discussion without all of your innuendo and ad hominem?
Jared Cheshire
John Mushenhouse You sure about that? I have an interacted with him hardly at all the last year. In our interactions in the past 10 years I have always been respectful. We used to have good discussion even when we disagreed. The last couple years every time he tags me it’s in some derogatory manner. Which is one of the reasons why I have not engaged very much the last year.
Troy Day
Jared Cheshire Excellent theological analysis. The distinction between divine omniscience and the application of judgment across covenantal periods is crucial here. This avoids both the extremes of denying biblical language of divine response and compromising God’s transcendence. Nevertheless, you are quite wrong agani! This is a nuanced issue that touches on the heart of the open theism vs. classical theism debate. My distinction between divine accommodation (phenomenological language) and ontological reality is well-taken. However, it’s worth noting that even classical theists like Pinnock have grappled with how divine foreknowledge relates to genuine human response. The key may be recognizing that Jeremiah 31 announces a covenantal shift rather than divine revision—a framework both traditions can affirm