God’s Immutable Standards

He just said that the deity of Christ is everywhere in the New Testament—but then he turns around and admits that Jesus never actually came out and said it, except in one scene?

So what is it? Either it’s everywhere—or it’s hidden until the very end of Jesus’s life. He can’t have it both ways.

And here’s the deeper issue: Wallace is treating all the parts of the Gospels where Jesus explains who He is—as somehow unclear, insufficient, or even misleading. He’s implying that when Jesus said things like “the Father is greater than I,” or “I can do nothing of Myself,” we’re supposed to set all that aside and wait until the trial scene to finally figure out who He really was.

That is not honoring Scripture as fully sufficient. That’s treating God’s Word like a puzzle where we need to ignore 90% of the pieces and still claim we see the full picture.

But the Bible says all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine. Not just one verse that seems to match your theology.

So if we ask our question here—Does Wallace honor the sufficiency of Scripture?—the answer is no.
He fails God’s first standard.

 

2. Don’t Add to or Subtract from God’s Word

Deuteronomy 4:2 says: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

And Proverbs 30:6 says: “Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

These are moral commands, not optional suggestions. God is telling us: don’t mess with My words. Don’t add anything, don’t take anything away. Just believe what I’ve said, and obey it. Why? Because they are spoken with meaning, reason, and determination.

But Dan Wallace doesn’t obey this. In fact, he does exactly what these verses warn against.

He looks at Mark 14:62, where Jesus is on trial, and says that this is where Jesus finally “comes out” and claims to be God. Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power,” and Wallace claims that proves Jesus is deity. Then he doubles down and says, “He’s not sitting on a different throne—He’s sitting on God’s throne.” So according to Wallace, that makes Jesus God.

But that is rewriting the Bible. It’s adding ideas that are not there.

Let’s look at what the Bible actually says. The high priest asked Jesus a direct question:
“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
And Jesus answered, “I am.”

Now stop right there. The word “Christ” means “Anointed One.” And in the Bible, that always refers to someone who is chosen and empowered by God. Not someone who is God. Never. Not once is God anointed. He is the one who either anoints or decrees who is to be anointed. Why? Because anointing bestows authority upon someone who does not have that authority inherent in his person, and thus needs authority officially given to them to rightfully wield that power and authority. 

And that is precisely what is being taken away by Trinitarianism.

Therefore, to affirm that He is the Christ—which Jesus clearly and emphatically did, and not in any veiled mysterious words—is not a claim to deity. It is the exact opposite. Jesus is saying, “Yes—I’m the one given authority and sent by God.”

But Wallace wants to turn that answer into a secret code for “I am God.”
That’s adding to Scripture. And it’s taking away the plain meaning of the word “Christ.”

And there’s more. Wallace also tries to use the phrase “Son of Man” as a hidden reference to deity. That would make God a human offspring. Wouldn’t the serpent be proud of that conclusion? But Jesus is quoting from Daniel 7, where a human figure is brought before God—called the Ancient of Days—and that man is given authority.
He doesn’t already have it—he receives it.

And later in the same chapter, that same authority is given to the saints—God’s faithful people. Daniel 7:18 says:
“The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom…”

So, if receiving authority from God makes someone God, then that would make all the saints into gods too. But, even though the serpent believes that, no typical Trinitarian will admit to believing that. So again, Wallace’s interpretation doesn’t hold up. He doesn’t follow God’s standards of morality, but his interpretation does follow the serpent’s playbook.

The Bible even says that Solomon sat on Yahweh’s throne in 1 Chronicles 29:23.
But no one claimed Solomon was Yahweh.

So the pattern is clear.
The throne is shared by God’s appointment, not because someone shares His nature.

Wallace’s interpretation falls apart because he’s basing it on human reasoning, not on Scripture.
He wants to make Jesus into God by nature or by position, instead of letting the Bible show us the truth: that Jesus was exalted because of his obedience.

Philippians 2:8–9 says: “He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death… therefore God also highly exalted him.”

Not because He was already God, but because He submitted Himself fully to God.

To say Jesus was exalted because of His deific nature is to deny the very reason God gave Him that exaltation in the first place. It’s the same mistake all Trinitarians make—mistakenly giving credit to Jesus’ identity instead of honoring and recognizing it as being solely because of His faithfulness.

Isaiah 53:10-12: “10Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him. He has caused him to suffer. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he will see his offspring. He will prolong his days and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand. 11After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied. My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself; and he will bear their iniquities. 12Therefore I will give him a portion with the great. He will divide the plunder with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was counted with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many and made intercession for the transgressors.”

God says Jesus was His righteous servant and that because He made His soul an offering for sin, He, God, gave Him, Jesus, “a portion with the Great.” That is God’s way of saying Jesus did not have a portion with the great until God gave it to Him. That is God saying, “Jesus is not inherently God. Jesus was given His greatness.”

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Jesus overcame as a man, just like you and me.
That’s what makes His obedience so powerful.

And when Wallace ignores all of that—ignores the meaning of “Christ,” redefines the throne, twists Daniel 7, and subtracts from what Jesus actually said—he is not handling God’s Word faithfully, let alone morally.

He is treating Scripture like something that needs to be upgraded or corrected. That is a moral failure. That is calling God’s words not good enough. That is Wallace deciding he can determine good and evil contrary to what God calls good and evil.

And as we saw before, that’s doing the very thing the serpent did in the Garden.
Adding, subtracting, twisting, and reinterpreting the words of God.

He fails God’s second standard.

3. Live by Every Word that Comes from God

Daniel Wallace says, “The deity of Christ—it’s everywhere in the New Testament.” (2:59)

And then he adds, “Matthew starts out… ‘God with us’… ends with ‘I am with you always’—what are we supposed to conclude from that?” (2:21–2:55)

Well, sorry to upset your apple cart, Dr. Wallace, but Matthew actually starts out with something far more foundational—and we can be sure Matthew intentionally put it there in his opening words. As Wallace certainly knows, the Greek word for “genealogy” in Matthew 1:1—Matthew’s real beginning—is γενέσεως (geneseōs)—literally genesis, or beginning:

Matthew 1:1: “The book of the generation [genesis or beginning] of Jesus Christ, the son of David…”

Wallace likes to highlight Mark 14:62—where Jesus says “I am”—and treats it like a climactic, hidden revelation of deity. But he conveniently ignores Jesus’s many clear statements of dependence and subordination, like:

John 5:30: “I can of myself do nothing…”

John 14:28: “My Father is greater than I.”

Mark 10:18: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one—God.”

That kind of selective quoting—just like ignoring Matthew 1:1—violates the command to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. You can’t just cherry-pick what sounds right and toss out the rest. That’s not living by every word—it’s dishonest proof-texting. It’s rewriting God’s message to fit a human theory.

Matthew’s Gospel isn’t introducing an incarnated deity—it’s explaining the origin of the Messiah. That origin is rooted in human ancestry, through David and Abraham. Matthew 1:1 is not just a prelude—it’s Matthew’s doctrinal foundation: Jesus began by birth, in history, through real lineage.

If Wallace were honest, he would let that foundation stand. However, not being satisfied with what God said, Wallace—like the serpent in the garden—adds a mythological spin rooted in pagan ideas, just as we see in Acts 14:11, when people said, “The gods have come down in the likeness of men.”

Trinitarians today repeat that same pattern. They leap over Jesus’s real beginning and go hunting for cryptic phrases to make Jesus into something the Bible never plainly says He is.

But here’s the problem. Matthew was written well after Jesus’s resurrection. So if the incarnation were already known and accepted by the early church, then Matthew had every opportunity—and every reason—to say so.

But he didn’t.

Instead, he told the truth:

Matthew 1:1: “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

That’s not the language of eternal deity descending into flesh. That’s the language of real, traceable beginning—perfectly aligned with 2 Samuel 7:11-14, where God promised to raise up a human son of David.

According to Matthew, Jesus didn’t descend from heaven as God—He began on earth, born to Mary, just as God foretold.

And this is why interpretations like Wallace’s must be called what they are: moral failures, not just academic errors or misunderstandings. When God’s moral framework is dismissed and man’s desire to reshape the message takes over, it’s no wonder the result is confusion and distortion. That’s the same thing the serpent did in the garden—and sadly, it still goes right over most people’s heads.

It’s the same mistake others make when interpreting John 1 using pagan philosophy instead of Jewish prophecy. Just as “the Word became flesh” doesn’t mean God turned into a man—but that God’s purpose and promises were fulfilled in the life and obedience of Jesus—so too, Jesus’s birth was the fulfillment of what God had been planning all along.

God never said He had to become human. What He said was that He would raise up and exalt a faithful man—His Son and Messiah—to His right hand in glory.

This isn’t about divinity collapsing into humanity—it’s about the fulfillment of promises like Psalm 8 and 2 Samuel 7, as confirmed in Hebrews 2:

Hebrews 2:6–9: “What is man, that you think of him? Or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor… But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor…”

That is what God calls exaltation. Not incarnation, but the elevation of a faithful human Son.

Once again, the supposed implication of deity vanishes when we let the rest of Scripture speak.

Now, about that “God with us” in Matthew 1:23 and “I am with you always” in 28:20—Wallace says, “What are we supposed to conclude from that?”

Here’s the answer: we’re not supposed to jump to metaphysical conclusions and fall into false dilemmas. Scripture already gives us the explanation.

John 8:16: “Even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me.”

John 16:32: “Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”

If God was with Jesus—and Jesus was with the people—then yes, that explains “God with us.” The scriptures already thoroughly explain, so why search elsewhere? Answer: unbelief. Why don’t you hear: because you don’t believe.

John 10:24-27: “24The Jews therefore came around him and said to him, “How long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. 26But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

And when Jesus said, “I am with you always,” He didn’t mean He had become omnipresent. He said:

Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the middle of them.”

And just a few verses earlier, He explained how:

Matthew 18:18–20: “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven… For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the middle of them.”

Also:

John 14:23: “If a man loves me… my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”

So how does this presence work? By the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:4, 11, 13: “Now there are various kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit… But the one and the selfsame Spirit produces all of these, distributing to each one separately as he desires… For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…”

Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body and one Spirit…”

And then Paul gives a clear example of this kind of spiritual presence:

1 Corinthians 5:3–4: “For I most certainly, as being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him who has done this thing. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together with my spirit…”

No one claims Paul was omnipresent because of that. So why should we claim Jesus is, just because He said “I am with you”?

The Bible’s explanation is better: Jesus is present by the Spirit, by God’s power, not because He is God by nature, but because God made Him both Lord and Christ.

Acts 2:33, 36: “Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus… both Lord and Christ.”

So when we let every word of God speak—instead of cherry-picking phrases, and claiming they mean things they don’t really even say—we see that Jesus being “with us” or “always present” proves His faithfulness, not His deity.

God was with Moses. God was with Joshua. And now, God is with Jesus—because He is the faithful Son who carries out God’s will.

Hebrews 3:1–6 says: “Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession: Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as also Moses was in all his house… Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant… but Christ is faithful as a Son over his house.”

It doesn’t say Jesus was worthy as God—but worthy like Moses—by being faithful to the One who appointed Him.

Unless someone can show that God Almighty needs to be “appointed,” or prove Himself “faithful” to a higher authority than Himself, like Jesus did, then Hebrews 3 once again confirms: Jesus is not God. He is the faithful Son.

In Scripture, sons are always distinct from their fathers—and always subordinate to them.

Exodus 20:12: “Honor your father and your mother…”

Matthew 15:4: “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.”

You simply can’t be inferior to someone and still be Almighty God. And Jesus was clear—His authority was given to Him. It was delegated, not intrinsic.

And this is the truth that Trinitarians keep trying to erase—by using the serpent’s playbook: redefining words, creating false dilemmas, and tossing out the plain, repeated, consistent explanations that God Himself gave us.

He fails God’s third standard.

 

4. Listen to Jesus—He Has the Final Word
   Wallace says: “You can’t come away with saying these books don’t affirm the deity of Christ.” (2:55–2:57)

But let’s take a closer look at what he’s doing. Wallace relies on a two-part strategy:

First, he never quotes Jesus plainly saying He is God. In fact, he even admits that no such quote exists.

Second, he completely ignores the many direct statements Jesus made that clearly distinguish Him from God.

Let’s take John 10:33-36. The Jews accused Jesus by saying:
“You, being a man, make yourself God.”
But how does Jesus respond? He doesn’t affirm their accusation—He corrects it! He quotes Psalm 82 and then says:
“Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:36)

That is not a claim to be God. It’s the exact opposite. Jesus affirms that He was sanctified and sent—He is the one set apart by God and sent into the world. That’s the role of a human Messiah—not the identity of God Himself.

In another place, Wallace points to Mark 14:62–64, saying this is where Jesus finally reveals His deity. But even there, Wallace twists the trial scene—because Jesus never says, “I am God.” Instead, He calls Himself the Son of Man, a figure from Daniel’s prophecy—still subordinate to the Ancient of Days.

But even clearer than that is John 5:18–47. There, the Jews accuse Jesus of “making Himself equal with God.” And how does Jesus respond? He denies it—over and over again:

John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing of Himself…”
John 5:30: “I can of Myself do nothing…”

Wallace ignores those words. But worse—he literally denies them! He corrects Jesus, as if he knows better. That’s not just bad theology—that’s moral failure. It’s the servant trying to correct the Master. And Jesus warned us plainly about that attitude:

Luke 6:46: “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?”

Remember 2 Timothy 2:13: “He cannot deny Himself.”
Why? Because it would be immoral. It would be a lie.

So let’s ask the obvious question: If Jesus were actually God, would it have been moral for Him to say, “I can do nothing of Myself”?
No. That would’ve been deception.

And if Jesus were actually the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, wouldn’t He have said so when directly asked?

But He didn’t. Not once.
He was asked many direct questions, and He always answered truthfully—sometimes in parables, sometimes with another question, but never with deception.

Only when we look through Trinitarian glasses do His words seem evasive. But that’s not because Jesus is hiding something. It’s because Trinitarian theology reads something into the text that was never there.

That’s why we’re commanded in Mark 9:7 to do this:
“This is my beloved Son. Hear Him!”

Not “hear your professors,”
Not “hear your creeds,”
Not “hear your councils,”
But: “Hear Him.”

And what did He say?

He called Himself the Son of Man.
He said He was obedient to God.
He said He was sent by God.
He said He was anointed by God.
He said He was empowered by God.
He said He was exalted by God.

He never once said He was God.

So let’s be real: If Jesus was God by nature, He would’ve been morally obligated to say so—especially when asked. But He didn’t. And that tells us something very important.

He wasn’t hiding. He was telling the truth.
And that truth is this:
Jesus is the Son of God—but He is not God.

Wallace doesn’t listen to Jesus. He listens to tradition.
And that means he fails God’s fourth standard.

 

5. Let Scripture Explain Scripture
   Wallace says the best defense of Christ’s deity is a book called Putting Jesus in His Place. (3:02–3:22)
   Later, he cites it again: “Bowman and Kamanshvski have argued…” (7:36–7:41)

Now, I’m not against writing or reading books. But let’s be honest: when someone quotes books more than Scripture—and worse, when those books openly contradict what the Bible actually says—that’s not just bad theology. That’s moral rebellion.

This tactic is nothing new. It’s the exact same strategy we see in Genesis 3 and Matthew 4.

In Genesis, the serpent twisted God’s words, saying:
“You shall not surely die…” (Genesis 3:4)

In Matthew, Satan quotes Scripture—but with a corrupt purpose:
Matthew 4:5–6: “Then the devil took Him… and said… ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written…’”

The devil quoted the Bible—but not to obey it. He quoted it to justify a lie.

Wallace is doing the same. He quotes the Bible, but then replaces the plain meaning with something entirely different—something foreign to Scripture. In doing so, he puts himself on the wrong side of God’s moral test.

Because from the very beginning, God has always tested His people this way:
Will you let My words define truth?
Or will you define it for yourself?

The moment we exchange God’s direct Word for speculation, we’ve already lost.
But to go one step further—and negate what God said—that’s not just error.
That’s rebellion.

And that’s exactly what Trinitarianism does. It doesn’t rest on clear Scripture—it rests on selective proof-texts, philosophical scaffolding, and outside traditions that contradict the Bible’s own explanations.

This is not just a difference in interpretation.
It is moral rebellion—disguised as theology.
And like all rebellion in Scripture, it doesn’t start by openly denying God’s words.
It starts by claiming to explain them “better.”

But Scripture warns us—again and again—not to go down that path.

Proverbs 30:5–6: “Every word of God is flawless… Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.”

Deuteronomy 12:32: “Whatever I command you, observe to do it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

So here’s the challenge.

If Wallace wants to defend the Trinity, then let him show it from Scripture—clearly, directly, and in the words God gave.

Let him show one verse that says:
“God is three coequal persons in one essence.”
Not implied. Not inferred. Just clearly stated.

He can’t. No one can.

And even the Roman Catholic Church, which invented the Trinity, admits it’s not biblical.

Listen to what Catholic scholar John L. McKenzie wrote:

“Trinity: The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of “person” and “nature” which are Greek philosophical terms; actually, the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as “essence” and “substance” were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. The ultimate affirmation of trinity of persons and unity of nature was declared by the Church to be the only correct way in which these terms could be used..”

That’s from the Dictionary of the Bible, written by a Jesuit priest.
In other words, even defenders of the doctrine admit: the terms don’t come from Scripture.

So we ask:
Will we let Scripture explain Scripture?
Or will we accept traditions that directly contradict it?

Wallace fails God’s fifth standard.

 

6. Be Led by the Holy Spirit

At no point in the video I’ve been referring to do Wallace or McGuire mention the Holy Spirit guiding their interpretation. Their whole method is based on human reasoning—replacing what the Bible clearly says with man-made knowledge interpreting what they claim, but at best is only implied. That means they are not depending on the Spirit of God at all. Instead, they’re following the serpent’s same old playbook.

If their message really were Spirit-led, it would match what the Spirit already gave us through the prophets and apostles.
But it doesn’t.

Paul warned us not to go beyond what is written:
1 Corinthians 4:6: “…that in us you might learn not to think beyond the things which are written…”

And again:
2 Corinthians 10:5: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God…”

But Wallace builds his whole theology on those kinds of imaginations—using Greek words and concepts, human logic, and abstract formulas the Bible never gives us—not once.

Being led by the Spirit doesn’t mean discovering some new doctrine hundreds of years later and forcing it back into Scripture.
It means believing and obeying what God has already revealed and explained, without adding to or taking away from it.

Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it…”

Revelation 22:18–19 gives the same warning.

Now think about this:
The same Spirit who said,
Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one,”
would never turn around and say, “Actually, God is three coequal persons in one essence.”

That’s not Spirit-led.
That’s a contradiction.
And since it is a commandment, it is disobedience.

Jesus said:
John 16:13–14: “…when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth… He will glorify Me, for He will take from what is Mine and declare it to you.”

He said this to the apostles and the apostles who were never led to define, explain, or even mention such a thing as a “Trinity of three persons in one substance.” Trinitarians make Jesus’s promise to His apostles into a lie. Let God be true!

The Holy Spirit glorifies the Father by testifying of the Son, not by inventing new ideas that Jesus and the Father never said or explained.
And any “spirit” that does not remain consistent with what Jesus and the apostles actually confessed is not the Spirit of God:

1 John 4:6 gives us the final test: “We are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God doesn’t listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”

Wallace doesn’t listen to the apostles.
He overrides them.
That’s not the Spirit of truth.

He fails God’s sixth standard.

Summary

We have pointed to Matthew 15 and Mark 7, which show how the Pharisees added to God’s Word and made worship of no effect. Let’s read that again here:

Matthew 15:7–9:  “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.
In vain do they worship Me,
teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’”

In modern Judaism, which is a continuation of the system Jesus renounced, that same tradition of “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men” continues, with each generation revising and adding their own moral rules.

And now we’ve seen that Trinitarian scholars do the same.
Catholic theologian John L. McKenzie openly admits that the Trinity was not taught in Scripture—it was invented in the 4th and 5th centuries using Greek philosophical terms that don’t appear in the Bible at all.

But this isn’t just a coincidence.
This is the same rebellion Paul warned us about:
Someone coming and preaching a different Jesus.

The pattern is clear.

The true trinity—the real trio at work—isn’t Father, Son, and Spirit.
It’s the serpent in the garden, the Pharisees who added to God’s law, and the Church councils that institutionalized that same defiant spirit as so-called orthodoxy.
And that same spirit lives on today in much of Protestantism.

1 John 4:1-3 “1Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.”

He didn’t say, “Jesus God” has come in the flesh. He said “Jesus Christ” did. That’s the anointed man, the one all power was given to, that’s the one he said came in the flesh. It is a different Jesus to say that God came in the flesh.

And now you know what spirit the Trinitarians are following is: the one both Paul and John warned about, not the one that is aligned with the scriptures.

That’s why Paul said he counted all his Pharisee credentials as dung. (Philippians 3:8)
He didn’t just walk away from that system—he condemned it as darkness,
because he had seen the light.

Yes, the doctrines of the serpent, the Pharisees and Trinitarians may look different.
But the root is the same: man placing himself above God’s Word and claiming God meant things that He never said.

And Paul warned us clearly:

2 Corinthians 11:3: “But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

And again:

Galatians 1:6–10: “I marvel that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you…
to a different gospel—
which is not another…
If anyone preaches another gospel,
let him be cursed.”

This is not just about doctrine.
This is about obedience.
God’s truth vs. man’s tradition.
Spirit vs. flesh.
Christ vs. the serpent.

And every generation must choose.

Pastor’s Report

August 6-7, 2025, Son of God conference, Pastor’s Report

Successful Son of God Conference

Dear Brother Tom, We’re thrilled to share that the Son of God conference on August 6-7, 2025, was a huge success! Many received healing, deliverance, and were blessed by your teachings. 

Conference Impact: 

• Great testimonies and joy were shared. 

• Many were touched by the truth about the Son of God doctrine. 

• The brothers and sisters are eager to continue learning. 

Financial Update: The $1,500 was used for: 

• Food and drinks 

• Projector and PA system 

• Transportation 

• Internet and electricity etc.. 

Gratitude: We’re grateful for your love and support. Your teachings have deepened our understanding of the Son of God doctrine. 

May God bless you abundantly. 

Sincerely, Ibrahim and Edward