The Mark of Maturity - A Response to Dromstorm

The following is a long-form response to Adam (Dromstorm,) from his video titled "Seth, Stephen, Martin, I love you". I was initially writing a comment, and, as it turned out, I had much more to say to him than initially expected. If you would like to watch the video, it is linked below. As he made a public post, so I will as well. Thank you.

Seth, Stephen, Martin, I love you

*   *   *

Good evening, Adam.

I will start by pointing out that, as a human being, I believe that I have been very much conscious and aware of the feelings of all parties involved. I would go as far as to say that my feelings have been completely ignored as we have gone through this entire process. I have listened repeatedly to Norm, Peter (apologies about the mispronunciation,) Jason, and others, claim that we are 'not being kind,' or are unfairly putting people down. I am hearing the same claim from you in this video. Now, if you present proof to the statement, it will be the first (I stress, first) time that I will have heard an actual reference to something that has truly left my mouth, that I should apologize for. I have asked many in the non-preexistence sect many times previously to give me something to apologize for, and I will. I have messages from Jason, asking him personally. He dodges. I have asked Norm publicly, in comments. He dodges. I have asked Peter Meye, and he also conceded that I 'haven't exactly' done that. 

I have even thanked Peter for understanding that this is a Scriptural argument, and not a personal one. Even the term 'sect,' which Martin had tried titling 'Tory,' to take away the impact of 'sect,' out of respect for the parties involved, has ended up having the opposite effect, with many in the sect taking it personally. What else are we supposed to do? Stick to 'sect,' I guess, so I have, per 1 Cor. 1:10-13. We're asked by Paul, thus, God, to expose, rebuke, and entreat. When we did this, we were told that we were not loving, caring, or peaceful, because we didn't want to endorse something that isn't true. It was especially frustrating for US, as human beings, to deal with people making claims about us and then saying, "You know what you said," and refusing to elaborate. What kind of communication is that? And how do you think it's going to make another human being react?

Now, you claim that there are 'jokes' we've made that have been slanderous. First, a joke, especially in someone like Seth or myself, need be taken with a grain of salt. Scripture is where my heart is at, and where it's always been. If I've made a joke that hurts someone's feelings, they have not brought it up to me, though I've explicitly asked more than once. That said, I know my humor can get out of hand, so if I've hurt someone with a joke, I'm sorry. I should stress that it is a joke, and I've grown up surrounded by meme culture and nihilism. Please have some grace on me in that regard. Moreover, I should clarify that, most of all, we joke about OURSELVES first and foremost. I call myself an absolute idiot almost 100% of the time, and no, I'm not 'joking' when I say it. In this, I never, not once, will go along and say, "Norm's work in the body is weak." Or, "Peter's work in the body is sub-par." In contrast, I've seen Norm calling my works the works of a child, Jason say I'm teaching demonic doctrine, and Tomasz, who owns the discord, calling me arrogant after watching them insult me -- when I was going there to thank Aaron for his work! Would you like to make a video on that, Adam?

I am especially annoyed with Jason's claim, because, as you point out in the first few minutes of your video, our point is Scripturally sound, and very much holds weight when held up to the intense scrutiny that it has been put under. I would say that what I am guilty of is getting frustrated during some of these discourses, when I should be keeping in mind that all is of God, and these brothers will come to understand the truth in due time. But being told that you are bringing demonic doctrine into the body of Christ, without justifiable Scripture to prove the point, would frustrate anyone in Christ.

Now, concerning your response to the Scriptural terms: I have a massive respect for your candid nature on the matters, and what you are apprehending and what you aren't. It damn near moves me to tears that someone who disagreed is listening to the refutations we're making. More people should take the time to do what you're doing.  I mean, Jesus, given how much my brothers have lied about me, I almost wish I was wrong, so they'd talk and be normal with us. But I can't sacrifice terms like "adapted," or "dispatched." I mean, come on! And how many times "Yahweh appears" to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Yahweh can be seen on the throne, in Job 1. I mean, the evidence just stacks so clearly, it's nearly impossible to un-see. I read the verses in trying to understand their view, and there are too many gaps and things I have to reason on. When I have to rely on my own reasoning, I check out of the view. That's how I dropped hell, trinity, eternal soul, and more.

One point that you bring up is that this view closely correlates these Two, to the point where they are called 'one.' When (if) Seth, myself, Martin, Knoch, Gabe, or others talk about this truth, we are referencing the same truth Jesus says, in John 10:30 - "I and the Father, we are one." Obviously, this does not mean that they are literally 'one,' or there would be a definite article in front of the term 'one' in Greek. This is a spiritual imbibing of their spirit. Similarly, you can say, "Me and my Father, we are one." You and the Creator of you are one. You and Christ are one. Their spirit is dwelling in you - righteousness for holiness (Rom. 6:20-23, 8:9-16.)

Now, you use the term co-creator in your video. I will reiterate a point that Scott Hicko made on this aspect, being that God says that He alone is the Savior (Is. 43:11,) and yet, not one thing is saved apart from Christ (1 John 4:14.) Similarly, God says that He alone is the Creator - Is. 44:24, and yet not one thing is created apart from Christ (Col. 1:15-17.) These statements are justifiable because of what Christ says in John 10:30.

Moreover, I have gone into great detail explaining John 1:1, and why it does indeed concern Christ. I covered it with a longer quote from A.E. Knoch in my old articles responding to Aaron (which you yourself can scrutinize, and hopefully find that they were indeed with respect and love for Aaron himself,) and I will be uploading an article in my newer responses to him that will cover the verse again. Moreover, I have released TWO videos now that discuss the Greek of this verse. I would recommend reading John 1:1-14 straight through, and try pairing John 1:3 with 1:10. The exact same terminology is used, but instead of the figure, being the Word, we have the pronouns of our Lord (1:14.) And, finally, "The Word of God" is directly said to be Christ's name (Unv. 19:13,) which is why I will not say that "Word of God" is a "blueprint" for God's foreknowledge, because if that were the case, then eeeeeverything is the 'word of God,' and saying that 'it becomes flesh,' concerning the Christ, would be an irrelevant statement.

Now - concerning your claim that we are being hypocritical in stating that 'eternal torment' can be believed by someone in the body of Christ -- I AGREE! I made a long, 50-minute video indicting the view that Seth, Gabe, and Martin are holding on that front, and yes, I do find it to be hypocritical, and ignorant to blatant Scriptural texts. I've been very public on the matter, and I don't at all find that the scriptures that Martin referenced in his video on the subject to somehow match his claim. The doctrine of eternal torment directly contradicts the notion that God is righteous, or has a righteousness in Christ, and yet righteousness is critical to the doctrine of justification by faith - the core of our evangel. Thankfully, none of them actually believe in eternal torment, but making excuses for it is indeed a hypocritical notion, and I was greatly disheartened to see Martin's case when he made it. Does Martin, Seth, or Gabe's personal feelings on the doctrine of eternal torment disprove Phil. 2:5-8? No. Could it harm the point they're making? Sure. Does it mean that they are intentionally being hypocritical? No. And I can confidently say that none of them have expressed anything toward me concerning the non-preexistence sect except concern and care for their brothers, which is why, when making content, they are so strictly sticking to Scripture.

Continuing through your video, yes, "F" for fellowship. I've met Mark twice. Chill guy. He gave a good talk at the conference. I've no issue with Peter, Jason, Norm. I have continually gotten the sense that they don't care for their brothers, in being willing to speak rudely of me behind my back. In that, I am not "on the verge" of disappointment in our brothers - I AM disappointed in them, for being so willing to reason and interpret instead of rest and enjoy, the text, as well as make false claims about myself, and my co-host, Seth. Norm calling my writings childish? The man should know better. He himself is a writer, and should know how difficult it is to write on such a difficult text, that only God wills you to understand anyway. I suspect he did not even read the text Aaron was writing about, and made assumptions about us with binitarianism! Hypocrisy? Tomasz claiming 'arrogance' when he's spent approximately 20 minutes speaking to me reveals a hypocrisy in the idea that he is a gracious host on discord, as he boots his own brethren out of personal disdain. Hypocrisy? Jason calling a doctrine 'demonic' when there is textual evidence to the matter! Hypocrisy? These disappoint me the most, because they are rooted in fleshy emotion, not a real love. I have reasons (and actual listed examples, here, see) for believing the care my brothers say they have to be disingenuous.

I don't want to see that in the body. I don't like going near people that don't seem to act real. I have a respect for Peter Meye, who was willing to discuss it. I have a respect for Aaron Welch, for defending his stance. I have a respect for Liam, who has stuck to trying to understand the Scriptures the entire way through. I never want to understate the respect I have for these brothers for trying to peacefully present the doctrine they believe, as inconsistent with Scripture as it may be. I don't say the last sentence with insult, but with care, as me and Seth have gone live and repeatedly refuted the points they have made, using the verses Gabe presented in his statement (and more.)

*   *   *

Now - in relation to the response video that Seth hosted, that myself and Gabe were a part of.

First, apologies that we are mispronouncing your name. It is not intentional. Though it's been a while since me and Seth made that video, and much of it slips my mind, I do recall having trouble with your name. Thank you for the clarification, and the next time I reference you in a video, I will assuredly work to get it right. I usually say "Adam" to avoid the mispronunciation, but alas, I can't get away with that forever.

Next, in reference to cursing. I do not believe that using swear words in the body is inherently wrong, but situational, and usually varies from person to person. This is a subject that will always seem to come down to reasoning and feeling, as opposed to Scriptural fact, and we are entreated by Paul not to discriminate these things (Rom. 14:1.) Thus, I’m not going to say much beyond the following: if someone swears, they swear. If they don’t, they don’t. I don’t believe either ideal says more or less about a person. For example, I’ve spent the last eight years of my life in a public school, as well as one of the worst cities in the country (being Baltimore.) In Baltimore, people swear about everything, from the time of day to the shoes they wear. I think the milieu a person is placed in will drive this factor more than anything, which is, I think, one of the reasons that Paul himself says that he has ‘become all to all’ (1 Cor. 9:22.)

In that, I pray that you don’t see Seth saying ‘f**k this’ or ‘f**k that,’ or my saying ‘God damn’ to be a legitimate curse on another, when oftentimes it is a crutch/placer word (and, ironically, there are studies that show that one who swears more often turns out to be more honest by nature. More of that wonderful contrast that God brings to the table, in my opinion.)

Concerning you making an example of a KJV user, it’s not my place to comment on that, nor do I know the person to whom you are referring. If they are purposefully using an incorrect translation of the text, there is reasonable doubt, and you, I believe, would be fully justified in making a video exposing a lie. Of course, your heart is in the right place, but I pray that you can see that me, Seth, Scott, Martin, and others are doing the same thing, in using the text to correct someone. I’m not going live with Seth saying, “Peter Meye is not a believer!” and the people making claims like that in the comments sections should be ashamed of such claims – it’s why me and Seth are going live, and not the entire comment section.

Now – concerning the speculation made in the response video itself. I arrived, as you may recall, a little over an hour into the video. I haven’t gone back and watched anything Seth said, and I don’t speak for him, so I won’t. What I will comment on is what I said when I arrived, being that: you are allowed, especially in Christ, to tell a brother that they are wrong about something. If we didn’t, nothing would get done. Our apostle does it, and thus we are allowed to do it. This is not slanderous, and your video’s claim, that me and Seth are teaching Binitarianism (which is a claim that directly denies the points me and Seth have made,) is indeed incorrect, and me and Seth are allowed to say that. That is what I came in to discuss, and that is what I will reaffirm, even today.

As for your statement on “Pre” or “Non-Pre” Bethlehem advocates, I will politely decline. I don’t think we’re at a point in this eonian calendar to be making up new names for things. There’s the Scriptural truth, and then there is what is not stated in Scripture. The text in Scripture vehemently disagrees with the declarations made by Jason and Peter, that Christ is “not divine” (John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28, 1 Cor. 15:22-27, Eph. 1:10, Phil. 2:5-11.) This means that, by definition, they are ‘dissenting,’ and thus are establishing themselves as part of a ‘sect.’ Christ is parted! It is not my fault, nor my responsibility for this, in pointing out these simple facts.

We’ve said this a hundred times before: the term ‘Tories’ is not offensive. It is light in comparison to what Paul would say, being that they are ‘swerving as to the truth’ (2 Tim. 2:17-18,) ‘incorrectly cutting the word of truth’ (2 Tim. 2:15-16,) ‘offering vain questionings, causing strife’ (2 Tim. 2:23,) that ‘they should be gagged,’ in agreeing with the circumcision (Titus 1:11, John 6:41-42, 8:57,) and that they are ‘dissenting’ as to established truth (1 Cor. 1:10-13.) In comparison to what God says through Paul, the term Martin gives, out of care for those whom he calls brothers, would dare I say be decidedly tame. If it will satisfy the non-preexistence sect, I will call them ‘the nonpreexistence sect,’ and drop the adherence of respect that I’m trying to have for their character in using the term ‘Tories.’

Concerning the motivation of our brothers, I have no doubt in my mind that they seek to understand the text, first and foremost, and understand Who they are worshipping. The reason ‘Tories’ has been presented by Martin is because he was first introduced to this teaching through Aaron Welch, who presented it as an attack against the Trinitarian doctrine. It is, I admit, a bit of an oversimplification, sure, but you can also view this as Martin’s way of rationalizing such an absurd teaching that defies many obvious proof texts. Moreover, Martin, myself, Seth, Gabe, and others are acutely aware that they are indeed brothers. It is the Adversary that is fooling them that I loathe. It is he whom I will enjoy locking up in the lake of fire for 1,000 years for deluding my spiritual kin. I fucking hate him for it, and thankfully our Lord will make sure he gets what’s coming to him.

We are fighting the spiritual powers that are distracting Peter, Jason, and Norm, not Peter, Jason, and Norm themselves. These brothers are accountable, but not responsible, for their stated beliefs, as all are. They may consciously be seeking to understand the text, but in the process they are subconsciously limiting God. Their misguided view is causing much damage to Christ, in limiting the time that He is the Image of the invisible God. Goodness, Norm has even said that Christ was not the Son of God until His ministry! I mean, look. You may know Norm better than I do, but there’s no excuse for such a doctrine! It is indeed demonic in nature, as there is never a time that Christ is not called the ‘Son of God.’ It is so outside of the sphere of Scriptural truth that, at some point, you must ask: Can you blame Martin for believing that there are ulterior motives on this subject? He’s posted videos a number of times publicly asking those in this sect to present verses, and they never do! Mark finally gave one, and it was out of context! If you asked someone to give you a verse six months ago, and they didn’t give you one, and you heard radio silence, what else are you to do except fill in the blanks? Martin’s not so stubborn as to hear another’s reasoning, and, as you likely saw, he clarified Mark’s intent to his viewers, that there was not a Trinitarian motivation, and added that Mark indeed learned this from a Bible college, which does indeed have hundreds of demonic doctrines floating around.

That said, you can’t honestly claim that this view does not come from a disdain for the Christian doctrines. You yourself noted that Binitarianism was a prime motivation for the belief. Aaron Welch painted it against Trinitarianism. And Mark has painted it against Christian tradition. All are motivated by disdain for Christianity, as opposed to love for truth. Peter Meye has said that he wants to clarify that ‘Jesus is just like one of us,’ though God disagrees (Matt. 8:27.) There’s plenty of proper reasoning that Martin, and even myself and Seth, have to claim that this is an over reaction to the Trinity. Nonetheless, no matter the root, this is a sect, and Martin is not wrong to be presenting the facts, nor is he wrong, as a human being, to have an emotional reaction to something so abhorrently false being spread around by people he does indeed care about.

Now, to continue, I don’t believe that you are above giving or receiving grace, in focusing on the brother first, truth later. If I were in your shoes, I’d do the same thing. I have done that before. Of course, I don’t hold it against you. Moreover, I don’t hold it against you that you were in agreement with the non-preexistence teaching. Justification is rooted in grace. You’re justified, Adam, so it never happened. I’m deeply appreciative of the fact that you could acknowledge, not me, or Gabe, but your Father above all else, and see what He is saying concerning His Just Representative, His Image, Effulgence, Expression.

Now – concerning your final point, that it is ‘wrong’ for others to have hurt feelings over something. I have not said this. I have, in fact, made a video stating the opposite, that God is emotional. He Himself states that His feelings get hurt (per terms like ‘offense,’ and verses like Eph. 4:30, where it is apparent that you can cause sorrow to the spirit of God.) I will never tell a brother that it is wrong to have feelings about something, but I will always entreat one that those feelings must be sourced in something. If they are not sourced in something, then, while understandable, they are irrational, and should be corrected. This is an instance where the assumption is that Martin, myself, or Seth, are out to insult and laugh at brothers, when we are, at most, laughing at the false celestials that are trying to corrupt God’s beloved – of which I firmly believe that Norm, Peter, Jason, Mikael, and others, are included, regardless of the relativity of the fact that they are a part of a sect.

This last part I stress, because, as you and I have talked personally, you’ve seen that I have emotional issues bottled up inside of me, that are difficult to express without feeling like I’m hurting someone, or doing the wrong thing. This feeling is irrational, and limits legitimate and/or justifiable emotions that I regularly feel, and I’ve learned to allow emotional irrationality to find its logical extreme before pointing out that, by definition, it is founded on nothing. If I would fault our brothers for anything, it would be, like myself, adhering to this emotional irrationality that is founded on nothing, as opposed to directly discussing these truths. I’ve tried confronting these people directly. Norm stopped all contact with me. Jason evaded every attempt to discuss it. Only Peter, Liam and yourself took the time to engage. We need more Scriptural fact, and less opinion-based interpretation. The emotions can fall into place on God’s time, but this precedent should be first and foremost in the mind of every saint.

And we are His saints – His chosen, His achievements, His beloved, His believers, His ecclesia, His display, His temple, His sons. He is intimately working with each of us, and I’ve repeatedly affirmed that this truth marks the difference between a spiritual maturity and a spiritual immaturity, as opposed to the difference between ‘believer’ and ‘non-believer.’ Thank you, again, for speaking your mind on all of this, and I do believe that you are surpassing us all in your spiritual growth, by the grace of God. Keep putting out strong exhortations, brother. As I love to say – your wreath of righteousness will be too big for your head!

   - GerudoKing

P.S. If you would like to read more on any of this topic, and see more of the refutations I've given (in love, with no provable, conscious, or intended slander,) you can visit the 'The Beginning of Christ's Pre-existence' tab on the left. Every article I've written on the pre-existence is linked at the bottom of the article, as well as the more recent responses to Aaron Welch's articles. Grace and peace.