My Orthodoxy: Affirmations and Denials Against Unaccountable Online Slander

Recently, there has been a concerted effort on the part of a small segment of the Reformed world to smear my name and accuse me of gross deviant heresies of the first order of magnitude (Arianism, Gnosticism, Polytheism, Paganism, denying the Trinity, etc.). These are not tertiary. These slanderous accusations are deeply offensive and completely out of touch with reality. There is no ecclesiastical accountability for these online accusations that now just sit out there like land mines. I can do nothing to appease some men. (As examples, a representative group of pastors in an association of churches not my own were already given a different version and refused to read it; another man basically said it doesn’t matter what I affirm or deny, the only reason I would even write such a document as this is to give myself more “plausible deniability via obfuscation;” another, “I’ve read enough already;” or still another, “I’m not going to spend money on that [book],” which very clearly explains my views, as he was told.) However, I can give the rest of the world a statement that touches directly on some of the charges I have been accused of believing and teaching. I do this for them. They can then pass it around to whoever will listen. Nothing I say here is a revision or change of anything I’ve ever believed or taught. It is simply clarification directly pointed at the charges unaccountably circulating on the internet via gossip. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). Here then are my affirmations and denials.

Statement #1: Doctrines of God, the Trinity, and Christ

I affirm from the heart every paragraph, phrase, and word of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith –Chs. 2 and 8 on the doctrine of God, the Trinity, and Christ in the context in which they appear. For a detailed affirmation and denial of Ch. 2 especially as it regards divine simplicity, immutability, and impassibility, please consult the excellent “Doctrine of God Statement” put out by the Reformed Baptist Seminary, with which I fully agree.

I deny that the oneness of God or the threeness of God is more ultimate than the other. Rather, I affirm that the oneness and threeness of God are equally ultimate and mutually inform one another.

Statement #2: Monotheism

I affirm “monotheism,” as historically understood in Christian theology in the last five centuries since it was coined, as it teaches that there is only one uncreated, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable God, who is a Spirit, perfect in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 4; cf. Deut 6:4; Isa 44:6). This one God exists in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, constituting the Holy Trinity. The eternal power and divine nature of the one true God is evident in creation to the consciences of all human beings (Romans 1:19-21). Biblical monotheism is both ontological and covenantal.

I deny that “monotheism” excludes the existence of created spiritual beings designated as elohim or theoi in Scripture (e.g., Ex 20:3; 1Cor 8:5). “Monotheism” should not be overemphasized to obscure the biblical reality of these beings and their derivative, analogical nature. I further deny that “monotheism” as a term is fully adequate to describe the biblical revelation, though what it does speak to is certainly true. But deism, Islam, and Christless Judaism are all “monotheistic.” Perhaps a better term for the biblical data would be triunotheism (i.e. trinitarian monotheism).

Statement #3: The Triune God as Creator

I affirm that the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is the sole Creator of all things, visible and invisible, including all spiritual beings referred to as elohim or theoi in Scripture (Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Col 1:16). God’s divine nature (essentia Dei) of incommunicable attributes (eternality, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc.) distinguish Him as the one true God, wholly unique and infinitely distinct from all created beings.

I deny that any created being, whether called elohim, theoi, or otherwise, shares the divine nature of the Triune God. I further deny that acknowledging the existence of created elohim undermines the unique supremacy of the Triune God as the Creator and Sovereign over all (Isa 43:10; John 1:3).

Statement #4: Elohim and Theoi

I affirm that the biblical terms elohim (Hebrew) and theoi (Greek) are used to describe both the one uncreated Triune God (theos) and certain created spiritual beings, otherwise called angels, demons, or other heavenly entities such as Satan (e.g., Ps 8:5; 82:1; 1Cor 8:5; 2Cor 4:4). Elohim and theoi have different contextual uses and meanings in the Bible – sometimes functional, sometimes ontological. When used of created beings, these terms can sometimes denote communicable attributes (e.g., power, authority, or spirit-nature), but in no way ever imply ontological equality with the one true and living God.

I deny that the use of elohim or theoi for created beings implies that they share the divine nature (essentia Dei) of the Triune God. I deny that these terms must always be understood to bear the same concept in every occasion (this is the word-concept fallacy); instead, words can be used with different meanings, and use and meaning must be determined by context. I deny that the biblical use of these terms must always originate in the ontological status of the one true God. When these terms are used for created beings, they reflect a functional designation applied analogically to created beings who participate in some aspects of God’s communicable attributes and have a role and relationship between the heavenly and earthly realms (e.g., Ps 82:6; John 10:34-35).

Statement #5: Polytheism

I affirm that the Bible acknowledges the existence of created spiritual beings designated as elohim or theoi (e.g., Deut 32:17; Ps 82:1; 1Co 8:5). These beings exist as real entities under the sovereign authority of the Triune God who created them.

I deny that the existence of these created elohim or theoi constitutes polytheism as understood in pagan religions, where multiple gods may be worshiped as independent deities. I further deny that these created beings are worthy of worship or that their existence diminishes the unique supremacy of the Triune God (Ex 20:3; Isa 42:8). The term “polytheism” is wholly inadequate to describe the biblical worldview, as it fails to distinguish the Creator from His creatures.

Statement #6: Henotheism and Monolatry

I affirm that the biblical faith requires exclusive worship of the Triune God alone, as commanded in Scripture (Ex 20:3-5; Deut 6:13-14). He alone is worthy of any and all worship. While other elohim or theoi exist, they are never legitimate objects of worship.

I deny that terms like “henotheism” (worship of one god among many equals) or “monolatry” (worship of one god while others exist) adequately describe the biblical religion. They presuppose a plurality of ontologically equal or gradated deities among whom one is merely preferred. These terms fail to capture the absolute distinction between the Triune God’s uncreated nature and the created nature of other elohim, as well as the exclusive worship due to God alone based on divine nature and creative acts (Isa 44:24; Rev 4:11). Scripture knows no such peers—every elohim or theos besides YHWH is a created, derivative, and condemned usurper (Deut 32:17; Isa 44:6-8; 1Cor 8:4-6).

Statement #7: Idolatry

I affirm that biblical idolatry is often the worship of truly existing created entities that have immorally desired the worship of themselves. Idols themselves have no real existence, but are rather like houses into which the entity is caused to reside through ritual and incantation.

I deny that idolatry (the Second Commandment) is the same sin as having other gods before the LORD (the First Commandment). I also deny that it is ever permissible for a Christian to engage in idolatry.

Statement #8: The Divine Council

I affirm that the Bible openly, regularly, and explicitly discusses a heavenly divine council (Ex 15:11; Deut 32:8-9 LXX/DSS; 1Kg 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Ps 2:2; 82:1-8; 89:5-7; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 4:17; 7:9-14, Neh 9:6; Eph 6:12; Rev 4-5; etc.) defined as a group of the heavenly assembly of created spirit beings (elohim/angels/watchers/sons of God) over which Yahweh alone presides, but to which he has delegated administrative authority over the cosmos and the nations. I affirm that God is absolutely sovereign over this council, doing all his holy will among the host of heaven (Dan 4:35). I simultaneously affirm that God uses secondary means—instrumental intelligent moral heavenly and earthly agents with real wills to perfectly carry out all his holy will (Gen 50:20; Dan 4:17).

I deny that any created being—in heaven or on earth—ever thwarts God’s sovereign will or decree (Dan 4:35).

Statement #9: The Angel of the LORD

I affirm that “Jesus saved a people out of Egypt” (Jude 5), and that this language directly harkens back to the Angel of the LORD in Exodus 23:20-21. I further affirm with many orthodox Puritans, Reformers, and Fathers before me that the Angel of the LORD is Christ. I affirm that the majority of the NT’s burden is to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is this Angel now come in human flesh. He is the Name, the Glory, the Word of God—all titles given to the Angel. I affirm that the eternal Word of God manifested himself in space and time in an angelic form (soma; 1Cor 15:38-41) as a sent messenger, and likely permanently manifested himself, rather than poofing in and out of space and time (i.e. when he was not here on earth, he was up in heaven), until the incarnation, at which time this manifestation ceased. We don’t know what an angelic nature is and the Scripture is silent on many details of this manifestation. Nevertheless, I affirm that this manifestation was not a phantom, a mirage, a projection, a hologram, an apparition, a hallucination, a husk, a mask, a shell, a disembodied-possession, or a meat-suit. It was a real entity that (at least when here) had feet (Gen 18:4), could eat (Gen 18:8), wrestled with people (Gen 32:24), was worshiped and accepted that worship (Gen 16:7-13; Ex 3:2-6; Josh 5:13-15; Jdg 6:11-24; 13:3-23; etc.). He is Yahweh (Gen 16:13; Ex 3:14; Zech 3:1-2; etc.). He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 48:15-16).

I categorically deny that this was univocal to the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14). Rather, it was analogous, merely a type. I further deny that this was an incarnation, as “caro” by its very definition means “human” flesh. The incarnation is unique because the Son added to his Person for all time a human nature, so that he has both a human and divine nature in one Person—Jesus. In other words, I deny that the angelic manifestation was as a human being. I deny that this angelic nature was permanent, but was rather simply a temporary manifestation of soma (not sarx) until the coming of Christ in the flesh (sarx). This was not a hypostatic union by definition, as the hypostatic union is the permanent union of human flesh to the eternal Son of God. I therefore deny that Jesus Christ has three natures: God, angelic, and human. I deny that the eternal Word somehow morphed his essential nature and essence into an angel or a man. There is no ontological change in the Son of God who is a subsistence of the One True God.

Statement #10: Impassibility and the Second Person

I affirm that God in his divine essence and nature is impassible. I affirm that Jesus Christ—the God man—was passible (he suffered, wept, etc.). I affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God. With Cyril I say, “In Christ, the impassible God suffered.” I further affirm that the Angel of the LORD is the LORD. I affirm that “LORD” (YHWY) directly relates to “I Am” (Ex 3:14-15); it is a name. With the Fathers, I affirm that LORD can refer to the Father and Son distinctly even in the same verse (e.g. Gen 19:24). I affirm that the LORD in his essence and nature is impassible. I affirm that sometimes the language of passions in the OT as it relates to God is figurative. However, when the OT speaks of God as having certain passions, it is often the Divine Angel of the Lord that is in view, and so, in his manifestation as an Angel in space and time (ad extra), he is expressing the passions and affects of a being in space and time just as humans do.

I deny that this in any way makes God or the LORD in the essence or nature passible or mutable. God in his essence and nature simply “is.” He is the unchanging one. This includes the Son in his essence, because it is the same essence. He does not change. The Son of God never suffers ad intra (internal, inward) in his eternal nature. But in his ad extra (external, outward) manifestation as Angel, he manifested the griefs and passions appropriate to God’s eternal character as a real time response to the cursed world and human sin, although he did not suffer for human sin—that was solely the work of the God-man Jesus.

Statement #11: Simplicity and the Divine Persons

I affirm that 2.1 of the Confession speaks to God’s essence, nature, and being. I deny that this paragraph speaks to God’s persons or subsistences; that is 2.3. I affirm that the three persons or subsistences are the one true God. I affirm that the three are also real subsistences, distinct from one another (the Father is not the Son, etc.). In sum, I affirm Nicaean and Chalcedonian theology.

I deny that the divine nature (essentia Dei), essence (essentia), or being (ousia/substantia) ever “becomes” something else. However, “the Word became [egeneto from gignomai, “to become”] flesh” (John 1:14), meaning that the subsistence called the Second Person became something, namely, a human being. To deny this is Docetism. I deny that the Word manifesting as an Angel or becoming human in any way compromises God’s divine simplicity. I deny that Nicaea, Chalcedon, or the Confession attempt to say a single word about Christ in the OT. Attempting to use them to address OT Christophanies is extra-confessionalism.

Statement #12: Plagiarism

I affirm true affection for my late friend Dr. Michael Heiser. I regularly cite, source, footnote, quote, and otherwise talk about my friend.

I deny that I agree with everything Mike taught. I actually had many disagreements with him, including his Molinism—explaining God’s knowledge of the future, and what at times seemed to be a hesitancy to let the NT interpret the OT. I categorically deny that I plagiarized my friend on a podcast discussion. What does that even mean? It was a discussion between friends, not an academic paper for publication. I even talked about Mike in that very episode!

Statement #13: Hermeneutics and Extra-Biblical Sources

I affirm Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) as the final authority (LBC 1.10), with the “analogy of Scripture” (analogia Scripturae—the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture with clearer ones) and “analogy of faith” (analogia fidei—where later revelation is allowed to interpret prior revelation) as governing principles. Extra-biblical sources (ANE, Jewish, archaeological) are subordinate tools — illuminating context, grammar, and culture — but never normative for doctrine. I affirm that Jesus taught us how to read the Scripture, giving us a Christ-centered hermeneutic for the entire Bible (John 5:39; Luke 24:27; 44), for he is its major Actor from Genesis to Revelation.

I deny that using such sources is “Gnostic,” “pagan,” or “un-Reformed.” The Reformers (Calvin, Turretin) and Puritans (Owen, Goodwin) freely cited Josephus, Philo, and rabbinics to clarify Scripture, not to override it. To reject this is to bind consciences beyond the Word.

Statement #14: Gnosticism

I affirm that Gnosticism is a diverse and ancient religious and philosophical movement, a gross perversion of Christianity that emphasized salvation through special knowledge (gnosis). It is one of the most pernicious and destructive heresies in history.

I deny that it is promoting Gnosticism to quote or cite extra-biblical, ANE, or Jewish material. I deny that I have a “hermeneutic of Gnosticism.” Everything I’ve ever taught is public, scholarly information available to everyone. There is no secret knowledge that I’m imparting about anything, much less about salvation. Just because someone hasn’t heard about something before, it doesn’t make me a Gnostic. It simply makes them ignorant.

Statement #15: Arianism

I affirm that Arianism is a gross perversion of the person of Christ—the eternal word of God. It denies the divinity of Christ by denying his eternal deity, teaching that the Son of God was created by the Father.

I deny that the eternal uncreated subsistence called the Son of God manifesting as an angel is a resurrection of the Arian heresy just as I deny that him becoming a human is a resurrection of the Arian heresy. There is no ontological change in the essence of the Son of God in taking on a temporary angelic soma.

Statement #16: The Reformed Fringe

The Reformed Fringe is a podcast and social media interactive platform started by pastor Jon Moffitt and myself. It has been attacked as deliberately choosing words that shout “heresy.”

I affirm by “fringe,” that we openly and freely discuss topics that are on the boundaries, edges, periphery, and sometimes altogether out of bounds for discussion in many communities. Different communities may have different definitions of what those topics could be. For us, it is topics that in our Reformed world are often mocked, overlooked, misunderstood, forgotten, or stigmatized. By “reformed,” I refer to the ecumenical creeds and confessions of the Reformation, particularly (though not exclusively) as expressed in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The goal of the podcast has always been to discuss and provide answers to “fringy” topics from a position of a generally Reformed Christian worldview. People are increasingly thinking about fringy topics and are asking good and necessary questions that deserve answers. I affirm that it is vital that those with better theology address them without mocking or scorning, facing such topics openly, honestly, and from an informed biblical perspective. For if we won’t, then where will people go to find the answers? There is a reason Ancient Aliens has been a perennial ratings juggernaut for over 20 years. This is our apologetic ministry to the “fringy” world.

I deny that we major on minors, elevate tertiary and secondary issues above the majors, or promote bald-faced or even minor heresy through these platforms.

Statement #17: Orthodoxy and Unity

I affirm my commitment to the historic Christian faith as expressed in the ecumenical creeds (e.g., Nicene Creed, Apostles’ Creed) and Reformed confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, 1689 London Baptist Confession). I even wrote a book on the Creeds and another on the Solas! I affirm from the heart that Christ taught us that he is the center, meaning, and purpose of Scripture (John 5:39; Luke 24:27; 44) and it is my life’s goal and desire to make him known as best I can. Our hearts are warmed and opened through the knowledge and reception of him as taught in all of God’s word by faith alone (Luke 24:32).

I fundamentally deny any accusation that I am a false teacher causing division. Rather, fully subscribing to Chs. 2 and 8 of the Confession means that it is those accusing me of heresy, of believing what I clearly do not, these are sowing division in the church. It must stop. Doug Van Dorn (Nov 7, 2025)