My Response to the GRN Letter

Note: Sections in red are direct quotes from the GRN letter I will be responding to.

Opening Statement and Summary of the Core Issues

Before addressing any of the issues in detail, it is important for you to know that we made sincere efforts to pursue peace and clarity with the GRN privately. Many have asked me to respond to the public statement released about my theology and my departure from the GRN. I waited for several weeks because I hoped the situation could be handled privately and with charity.

On December 1, my elders and I sent the GRN board a careful and documented response outlining where their claims were factually incorrect and asking them to make the necessary corrections for the sake of unity and truth. Our desire was genuine reconciliation and peace among brothers.

On December 3, they replied with the following message, "We stand by our statement as written." With that response, it became evident that they did not see a path forward for continued conversation or clarification. Yet the accusations they published have led many to misunderstand what I believe and teach. When brothers grasp my theology accurately and then disagree, I welcome that. Honest disagreement strengthens the church.

The issue here is different. When someone presents your beliefs in a form you do not recognize, you cannot be held responsible for their conclusions or for their critique of a theology you do not actually hold. Before anyone can evaluate or challenge a doctrine, it must first be represented fairly. Much of what the GRN board attributed to me is something I would also reject if those views were mine. But they are not. They are not what I have taught, written, or confessed. Statements pulled out of context or interpreted uncharitably are not evidence against me. They reflect a failure in representation by those making the accusations.

Because of this, and because many have asked for clarity, I need to respond. I also need to set the record straight about the events surrounding my resignation. The GRN’s public explanation does not give the full story. Important facts were omitted, and key details were framed in ways that supported a predetermined conclusion.

My purpose is not to attack anyone but to speak honestly, supply the needed context, and correct the mischaracterizations that have caused so much confusion and harm. My theology has not changed. My convictions remain confessional and historic. What follows is a clear account of what I believe, what actually happened, and why I can no longer remain silent.

These matters are difficult because the men involved are brothers in Christ whom I care for.

But the way my theology and actions were portrayed in the GRN statement was not accurate. Views I have never held were attributed to me, and conclusions were drawn that assumed wrongdoing where none existed. Remaining silent would leave the impression that I accept the GRN’s characterization. I do not.

Note: As to why I will be including Doug Van Dorn in the remainder of this letter: 

It is important to note that we are not concerned directly with Doug Van Dorn, as he nor his church are a part of our association. Our concern with Doug pertains to the content that Jon has created with him; there are numerous instances in which Jon has agreed with and affirmed Doug’s statements on air; Jon has also repeatedly defended Doug’s teaching publicly. Many of the statements and quotations included below are from Jon directly. Others were made by Doug but with Jon’s agreement and consent and without repudiation, recantation, or repentance. 

A Brief Summary Before the Details

Before we walk through the GRN statement line by line, it is important to say this clearly. What the GRN presented as my theology, and Doug Van Dorn’s theology, is fundamentally inaccurate and slanderous. The views they describe are not our views. The conclusions they draw are not ones we recognize. The theology they attribute to us is something we have never taught or affirmed.

In their first public communication, originally posted on Justin Perdue’s X account, the claim was made that “much of the subject matter is tertiary and speculative in nature, yet Jon elevated these doctrines to a place of primacy and made them a major thrust of his public ministry”. This framing has been repeated throughout the GRN's communication, but it simply does not reflect reality.

The entire purpose of Reformed Fringe and Kingdoms Unveiled was stated at the beginning of nearly every episode: “Two Reformed Baptists trying to pull the clutter off the Bible so we can see the power of Christ in the gospel.” (~0:32)

The aim of those programs was to teach biblical theology, clarity, and to help believers understand how Jesus and the New Testament read the Old Testament. It was never a ministry built on elevating tertiary doctrines, nor was it ever the center of my pastoral work. To suggest otherwise imposes a narrative that does not match what was said, taught, or done.

If the GRN pastors did not know me, had no access to me, or only interacted with me through the noise of social media, I would take a different tone. But that is not the case. These men know me. They spoke with me. They had full access to Doug and me. They received every clarification we offered. And they still chose to ignore those clarifications and present a narrative that is not true.

Their own actions reveal this. What follows is a summary of the central issues that must be understood before reading the detailed response.

1. My Clarification Letter Was Approved by the GRN and Then Used Against Me

On September 19, I published a letter clarifying my theological commitments. That letter reflected no change in theology. It simply addressed confusion that had arisen online.

Tom Hicks edited that letter. The entire GRN board saw it and approved it before it was posted. The Theocast board, including Justin Perdue, also approved it. They all had the opportunity to request revisions. No concerns were raised.

After it was posted, Tom publicly encouraged others to take my words at face value.

Later, the GRN statement treated this same letter as evidence of dishonesty, even though they themselves helped shape it and affirmed it. 

2. Doug and I Provided a Five Page Clarification Letter on October 13

Doug and I sent the GRN board a detailed five page clarification addressing every concern that had been raised (I’ve included this letter at the bottom of this post).

They received it long before releasing any public accusations. They had the opportunity to engage with it. They had the opportunity to correct misunderstandings or ask questions. They chose not to.

The very next day, I was informed that they did not want to review the letter. I was told they did not care what Doug believed and that my explanation was not part of the discussion.

3. Doug Offered to Publish Anything They Needed and They Refused

Doug specifically asked me to communicate to the GRN board that he was willing to do whatever would help. He told me he would publish anything they believed would bring clarity. He offered to produce whatever statement they thought was necessary. He was ready to serve in any way that would promote peace and understanding.

The GRN board rejected every offer.

After their public accusations went out, Doug released his affirmations and denials on November 7. These directly refuted the errors he was accused of. They matched the clarifications we had already provided in private.

The GRN board refused those clarifications as well.

4. What the GRN Then Released Was Not Christian Disagreement

It was a collection of quotes taken out of context, uncharitable interpretations of our material, and conclusions about our theology that neither of us holds or has ever taught.

This is not how Christian brothers resolve theological concerns.

This is not how unity is pursued.

This is not how clarity is sought.

Doug and I are here to show that what was written about us is simply not true. It is not accurate. It does not reflect what we believe or what we have taught. And it does not reflect how Scripture calls pastors to treat one another.

What follows is the full documentation.

---

My Response to the GRN Letter:

September 19: Jon issued an open letter about his theological commitments and asked for forgiveness for his lack of clarity in how he spoke relating to the doctrine of God. At no point in that letter did Jon recant, repudiate, or repent of any statements made on the podcast or in his articles, but sought simply to “clarify my heart and my convictions.” While this letter was posted on Jon’s personal website and linked with his X and Instagram accounts, the same day, he posted a defense of his and Doug’s teaching on Facebook.

The letter they refer to did not reflect any change in my theology. My convictions have remained the same throughout this entire process. In that letter, I simply acknowledged that some people were confused by online discussions and that clarity was needed. I never suggested everyone was confused, and I certainly never admitted to teaching anything unorthodox. I was offering clarification, not repentance.

What makes the GRN’s later criticism so difficult is that the letter was not something I wrote independently. Tom Hicks personally edited it. The entire GRN board saw it and approved it before it was posted. The Theocast board, including Justin Perdue, also approved it. They had every opportunity to request revisions or express concerns. None were raised.

Then, after it was posted, Tom publicly encouraged others to take my words at face value:

But the GRN did not. They acted as though they had not helped shape the letter, had not affirmed it privately, and had not approved it for publication. And instead of receiving my words “at face value,” as Tom himself urged, they later treated the very same letter as evidence of dishonesty and evasion. Their critique contradicts their own prior approval and erases their own involvement in producing the letter.

To affirm this letter privately, publicly commend it, and then turn around and use it against me is neither consistent nor honest. It reveals that the issue was never the letter itself or the clarity it provided, but that a conclusion had already been reached before the letter was ever released. It seemed as though no amount of explanation would have been accepted, or if anyone was willing to seek clarity.

Once that decision was made, even the words they approved became ammunition against me. Instead of allowing a brother to be understood on his own terms, they reversed themselves only after determining I needed to be removed. The very statements they once affirmed became the basis for their accusations. This is not how Christian brothers work through disagreement, and it does not reflect a desire for truth, but a verdict already set.

As to why I only posted the letter on 𝕏 (and not on Instagram): that is where the confusion had taken place, so I posted it there to help offer clarity. I did not share Doug’s post on 𝕏 because he did not have an account there at the time and had not posted his article there. I shared Doug’s post on Facebook because I believed he was being falsely accused, and others needed to hear his clarity as well.

September 29: An update was then issued on Reformed Fringe where Jon announced he would no longer be on the podcast. On this podcast episode, titled “Important Update…, ” Jon announced he was exiting the podcast “not for any bad reasons” and communicated that he was simply too busy. Jon went on to say how much he enjoyed the podcast, will continue to be part of the online community, and he hopes the Lord will “continue to bless it” while Doug Van Dorn takes it over.

This description is accurate, but I am not sure why it is being used as evidence of a problem. My decision to step away from Reformed Fringe was something I discussed with the Theocast board. We agreed together that it would be wise for me to focus my time and attention on one podcast for the sake of stewardship and long-term direction.

My public announcement reflected that conversation. It was not a rejection of Doug or of the content we produced on Reformed Fringe. It was simply a practical decision about time and focus.

I also made it clear to the Theocast board that I would not cast any shade on Doug or the Reformed Fringe material because I did not believe we had done anything wrong on that podcast. There was never any conversation in which I agreed to refute, repent of, or repudiate anything we taught. That kind of language only appeared later, and it was not connected to my decision to step away.

October 18 - November 1: The board began working on a public statement that briefly articulated the overarching concerns shared by the board and expressed by network pastors in the October 14 meeting. During this time, the board was also awaiting Jon’s letter of resignation, which was received on November 1.

This section leaves out essential context.

In the days before the October 14 meeting, the board presented me with accusations about Doug Van Dorn’s theology and told me I needed to distance myself publicly from Doug and from Reformed Fringe. I read the material they referenced and did not agree with their assessment. I asked for clear proof of the danger they claimed existed.

On October 13, the three board members sent me their documented concerns and informed me that I would meet with them the next day, along with several churches. I had less than twenty-four hours to read and respond to three separate letters. Doug and I worked for hours through every point they raised, and I sent a full written response to the board at 8:30 p.m. that night (I’ve included this letter at the bottom of this post).

When we met the next morning, I was told they did not want to review my letter. They said they were not interested in what Doug believed. They wanted to know what I believed. I explained that this was exactly what my written response addressed. The letter was never discussed.

I was then placed in a meeting with five GRN churches. Each church read a prepared statement accusing me of harming the network, misleading their congregations, and being unfit to serve as vice president. They stated that if I did not resign, they would all leave the network. I was not allowed to address anything they said.

After that meeting, I met with the board and asked one direct question: Do you agree with their call for me to resign? All three board members said yes. I resigned because it was plain that there would be no real conversation about the accusations against my association with Doug. The verdict had been reached before I ever entered the room.

The rest of the churches in the network were not informed. Several pastors later told me they had no idea any of this was happening and did not even know I had resigned until the board posted a public statement on social media. None of them ever saw my written response.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that I was pushed out in an effort to preserve the network. This process did not reflect the kind of careful, brotherly handling of controversy that should mark Christian leaders.

November 3: The GRN Board shared the draft of their statement with the other elders of Grace Reformed Church (the church where Jon Moffitt pastors). The board received no pushback or negative feedback from those elders prior to the statement being released publicly.

Note: The following was written by the elders of Grace Reformed Church.

The GRN Board has stated that the elders of Grace Reformed Church “offered no negative feedback or pushback” after receiving the draft of the public statement on November 3rd. That description of events is not accurate and leaves out important details. Everything unfolded very quickly and with limited clarity. At the time, the elders of GRC were still reviewing the Board’s letters, Doug’s paper, and Jon’s own material. We had not yet completed our evaluation or fully understood the accusations being made against him. Even so, we met with members of the GRN Board at Jon’s request in order to hear their concerns directly. That conversation raised further questions and required additional time to sort through. Less than one week before the public release, we were shown the draft statement. It was not presented as something open for revision or input. It was given to us before we had finished our own review of the issues, and it was released publicly soon after we received it. Because of the timing and the manner in which it was presented, there was no real opportunity for the elders of GRC to offer feedback, request changes, or engage in further discussion before its publication. Upon receiving the draft, we immediately sought clarity on the grounds for calling Jon to repentance. We were told that the concern involved Jon raising tertiary issues to a level of primacy. We expressed concern and confusion and asked for further explanation, especially since we were repeatedly assured that Jon was not being accused of teaching anything heretical. The response we were given was that the statement was already finalized and would be released as written. Any perception that the elders of GRC affirmed the letter or agreed with the reasoning behind it is a misunderstanding. During this period, Jon himself received the draft only days before it went out, with no opportunity to clarify or correct anything. He was simply told that it was being released. Once we completed our own review of the material, spoke again with Jon, and had all the relevant facts in front of us, we concluded that the accusations against him were incorrect. Two days after the GRN announcement, we issued our own statement to that effect. We provide this clarification to ensure that the public record reflects what actually occurred and to correct the misunderstanding that the elders of GRC affirmed the Board’s statement or participated in its formation.

This is the message sent by the elders to the members of Grace Reformed Church on November 6:

In light of recent events and public questions surrounding Jon’s resignation from the GRN, the elders have written a full response so the church can have clarity and peace. The attached letter explains what happened, why it matters, and where we stand. We encourage you to read it carefully. Read letter here

It is also worth noting something that anyone evaluating this situation should understand. Grace Reformed Church is a confessional church. Our elders, teachers, and members hold one another to the standards of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, and we rehearse those commitments publicly and regularly. My congregation is not theologically careless. They are well taught, well read, and serious about confessional integrity. If I had drifted into the kinds of doctrinal errors being alleged, my own elders and members would have confronted it quickly. That is the very purpose of a confessional church.

For the GRN to present themselves as protectors of orthodoxy while implying my own church either cannot recognize error or is blindly following me, disregards the very structure and responsibility of a confessional congregation. My elders were as surprised by the GRN accusations as I was because nothing in my preaching, writing, or teaching resembles the doctrine being attributed to me.

This leaves only two possibilities: either an entire confessional church has unanimously embraced heresy without recognizing it, or the GRN fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented what I actually teach. Anyone familiar with my ministry and the accountability built into our confession knows which of those is more plausible.

I want to address their specific concerns regarding my theology below:

ON THE ELEVATION OF TERTIARY AND SPECULATIVE MATTERS Example #1: Kingdoms Unveiled “Genesis 6 and the Sethite Heresy” This episode, in its title and its content, elevates a tertiary doctrine not defined by the creeds or our confession (i.e., the angelic view of Genesis 6) and makes it a test of orthodoxy. Jon states: “…the conclusion I come to is this: if you believe that the sons of God are not literal gods… if you believe that the giants were just some big men… if you reject the supernatural view of Psalm 82… then you’re embracing anti-orthodox [views], you’re going against church history, you’re playing with heresy… If you reject all of that, you’re actually embracing a Jewish opposition to Jesus… Jews who hated Jesus and wanted Him out of the Bible…” (~3:18–3:54). “…the naturalistic interpretation… was… a direct attack against the deity and claims of Jesus Christ to be Israel’s Messiah. Therefore, in persisting in naturalistic arguments for this… the church has unwittingly adopted a dangerous antichrist [exegesis] that was created to keep Jewish people from converting to Christianity” (~6:13–6:32, stated by Doug and affirmed by Jon).  Jon continues: “…if you are embracing a Sethite/ruler view of Psalm 82, you’re having a problem with Jesus, because Jesus is the one who is affirming that this is the actual translation of it.…We’re showing the history of this is an anti-Jesus perspective: if you hold the Sethite view, if you hold the ruler view in Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, it was invented… to divert people away from Jesus” (~38:48–39:08). This excerpt is especially problematic because it collapses multiple passages and binds a particular view of Genesis 6 to an overly-developed and speculative view of the divine council–and if one does not hold this view in total, he is against Jesus.  Important note of clarity: A particular view of the divine council (i.e., whether it is the heavenly host or earthly magistrates) is not our concern; nor is a particular interpretation of Genesis 6 (i.e., the angelic or Sethite views). In other words, we think there is room for brothers in the Reformed tradition to charitably disagree on these texts and remain within the bounds of orthodoxy. Jon concludes by saying: “…the change came after Jesus’ resurrection, 100 years after it. You have rabbis who want to shut down Christianity… and so they change the meaning of the text. And so if you hold a non-supernatural view of Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 82, you’re actually holding an anti-Jesus perspective. That’s the argument, and I think it’s pretty sound” (~44:12–44:48). This elevation would set many faithful Christians outside the bounds of orthodoxy, including: Julius Africanus, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Voetius, Turretin, a Brakel, Poole, Henry, Owen, Gill, and many others. Augustine, for example, comments, “But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men.” And also, “Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority.” Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 304-5. Calvin also states, “Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition.” John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 238. These quotes aren’t given to prove one side over the other but to demonstrate the danger in calling the view espoused by these fathers of the faith as a “heresy".

This is not an accurate representation of what Doug and I were doing in that episode.

The point of the episode was to explain the history of how the Sethite and ruler views arose, not to create a new test of orthodoxy for Christians today. From the beginning of the episode, we frame the whole conversation as historical work: “The sons of God, the Nephilim and Jesus Christ, why the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 was deliberately changed in the 2nd century AD and why it should matter to Christians.” (~1:46–2:01)

We repeatedly say that we are tracing a later rabbinic shift that tried to blunt Christian claims about Jesus, not attacking every Christian who has inherited those later readings. You can hear this clearly when I restate Doug’s argument for listeners:

“So you are saying that rabbis are watching people convert and they are converting based upon the reality that Jesus was not just a good teacher… they do not like this because people are leaving Judaism and they are converting to Christianity, and so to stop that they are really removing the connection between Christ’s deity to Him being God and just a man… they are going back and changing these particular passages and saying, all right, if you hold this view that this view is speaking of the sons of God, then you are accursed as well, is that a proper understanding?” (~16:57–18:07)

Doug answers by pointing to the rabbis, not to modern Christians, as the ones attacking Christ: “What they were trying to do… was to keep the Jews from believing in Jesus Christ.” (~39:34–39:39)

Later, I make the pastoral point very directly that we are dealing with history and tradition, not accusing modern believers of conscious heresy:

“The reason why it matters is that Doug and I are trying to help people understand… we have inherited a tradition and we have said, well, it is the Sethite view… we think that the Sethite view has always been the interpretation, it is actually the exact opposite of that… this happens quite a bit in history where everybody assumes, well, this is what the Bible has always taught because the church has believed this for so long.” (~19:25–20:07 and ~43:02–43:22)

And Doug explicitly refuses to treat Christians who hold the Sethite view as malicious:

“It is not that the Christians that are using these arguments have something malicious in mind, I would never say that… what they do not understand is that they are using rabbinic anti-Christ exegesis and they are using that unwittingly.” (~39:14–39:34)

That is the heart of the episode. We are saying:

• The rabbinic move in the second century was anti-Jesus

• Later Christian readers often adopted that exegesis without knowing its origin

• We want believers to know the history, not to condemn them as enemies of Christ

Near the end I say:

“The change came after Jesus’ resurrection, 100 years after it. You have rabbis who want to shut down Christianity, they do not want Christ to go forward, and so they change the meaning of the text, and so if you hold a non supernatural view of Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, you are actually holding an anti Jesus perspective, that is the argument and I think it is pretty sound.” (~43:29–44:48)

In context, that is a historical argument about the origin and trajectory of certain interpretations, not a formal declaration that every brother who currently holds a Sethite or ruler view is a heretic or outside the faith. In the same episode we comfort listeners who feel overwhelmed and point them back to how Jesus and the New Testament authors read these texts, not to a new test for whether they are Christians.

So to say that this episode “elevates a tertiary doctrine” and “makes it a test of orthodoxy” ignores the actual point we make over and over. We are exposing a historical polemic against Jesus and urging the church to be aware of it, not excommunicating every Christian who was never taught that history. 

One more point of clarity: the title of that episode, “Genesis 6 and the Sethite Heresy,” was chosen with the kind of bold wording that’s pretty common in podcasting to grab people’s attention. Looking back, I can see that this was not the wisest choice. The title has been lifted out of its context and treated as if it were a formal doctrinal verdict against every believer who holds a Sethite view, which is not what we said in the episode and not what we intended. At the time, no one was attacking our theology in the way they are now, and we did not anticipate that a marketing decision would later be weaponized against us. If that title has caused more confusion than clarity, I regret that and am sorry for it.

It is also important to note the actual historical record. For the first several centuries of the church, every early Jewish and Christian source that comments on Genesis 6 affirms the angelic view.

Across roughly the first four to five centuries, the angelic interpretation is the universal, uncontested, and assumed reading in both Jewish and Christian sources. There is no evidence of any Sethite or ruler view among Christian writers during that period. None.

The first major shift away from the angelic reading does not appear until Augustine, who adopts and popularizes a naturalistic interpretation in City of God (Book 15). Even then, Augustine acknowledges that he is departing from the earlier tradition.

So when Doug and I say that the later naturalistic readings have a different origin, we are simply stating what the historical record shows. The angelic view is not a fringe position. It is the oldest, broadest, and earliest Christian position by a wide margin.

Example #2: Reformed Fringe “What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn’t Mean” Here, Doug Van Dorn argues (and Jon affirms) that many Reformed people read the Bible like Unitarians if they don’t embrace a particular view of God the Son becoming an elohim. “It really troubles me that guys read the Old Testament like Unitarians. What do I mean by that? That they don’t recognize there is more than one person being discussed—one person of the Trinity—sometimes even in the same passage… But when, for example, Jacob says ‘my God, ’ ‘my shepherd, ’ ‘the rock, ’ or ‘the angel,’ he actually has Jesus in mind—because he knew Jesus. He’s not thinking like a Unitarian, where there’s only one God in one person. And yet that’s how we so often speak as evangelical and Reformed Christians when we talk about the Old Testament… [The Second Person of the Trinity] took the form of a created elohim—an angelic being. He is the eternal Word of God who entered the universe he made, to manifest by his word. He became one of those creatures and is called the God of Israel. Now, this is different from the incarnation. Totally different. Because in this case, he became an elohim, not a human. He became an ish, not an Adam—an angel, not a man. But he still truly became one of them… Jesus came to the patriarchs as one of those elohim. And the second you say those elohim don’t exist, you’re saying he doesn’t exist…Even if you argue that the other elohim are not like him—that they lack the incommunicable attributes of Yahweh—you still must affirm that he is both Yahweh and elohim, united in one person. That’s the triune nature woven throughout all of Scripture. And I get fired up about this because this is how Jesus taught us to read the Bible—and we don’t do it. It creates unnecessary problems and divisions, causing brothers to attack each other when they actually agree on nearly everything—except semantics. And that semantic problem comes primarily from not seeing Jesus in the text” (~30:59-35:35). We will directly address the high-level theological claims made here later in this statement, but it is quite a strong assertion that other brothers don’t read the Scriptures or teach with Trinitarian consistency unless they hold Jon and Doug’s view that God the Son became one of the elohim. Starting a ministry that majored on what is “fringe” and explicitly elevated tertiary and speculative matters to a place of primacy inevitably sparked controversy and division. The present situation is the fruit of this activity. Starting such a ministry is especially unwise for a board member of a confessional network, as it will inherently detract from the network’s core mission. The controversy created has led to the public questioning of the orthodoxy of GRN and her churches, which in turn required the network to take up and address the matter privately and repeatedly to Jon over the past number of months before ultimately addressing it publicly.

This is not an accurate reading of what Doug and I were saying in that episode.

First, the phrase “read the Bible like Unitarians” was clearly defined in the clip itself. Doug was not calling Reformed brothers Unitarians. He was describing a reading habit, not a theological category. At ~31:05 he explains exactly what he means:

“What do I mean by that? That they don’t recognize there is more than one person being discussed… sometimes even in the same passage.”

He is describing how many Christians unintentionally flatten Old Testament theophanies, treating them as if every divine appearance is automatically the Father. 

Second, the claim that we teach the Son “became one of the elohim” is not presented as a new doctrine or a requirement for orthodoxy. The entire segment is a historical and exegetical discussion about how the Old Testament describes the Angel of the Lord, using the biblical category of elohim, which Scripture itself applies to Yahweh, angels, and certain heavenly beings. Doug even differentiates it explicitly from the Incarnation:

“This is different from the incarnation. Totally different.” (~33:50)

Nothing in this episode requires anyone to adopt our exact framework. The point was to help people see that the Old Testament’s own language is richer than the way many evangelicals have been taught to read it. That is not creating a test for orthodoxy. It is explaining a biblical pattern.

Third, the idea that this ministry inherently “detracted” from the network’s mission is also inaccurate. I repeatedly made clear to the board that I did not believe the content we were discussing was harmful, and every major conversation and timeline concern arose only after online controversy broke out, not because of any sustained or documented issues raised earlier by the network.

Finally, the paragraph concludes by suggesting months of private warnings and corrections. That is not an accurate description of what happened. Yes, there were occasional conversations and emails from a few pastors in the network who had questions about certain articles or podcast episodes I had produced. I engaged those brothers directly and gladly. But these were not formal charges, nor were they framed as evidence of heterodoxy. They were normal theological conversations, the kind that happen in any pastoral network.

There was no ongoing pattern of correction, no sustained engagement with defined concerns, and no formal process communicated to me at any point. The first time anything resembling formal accusations appeared was in the final days of October. To portray the situation as a long pastoral process that culminated in necessary public action does not reflect the actual timeline or the real interactions that took place.

Reformed Fringe did not create controversy because it elevated tertiary doctrine. The controversy arose when misunderstandings, rapid assumptions, and online rhetoric were allowed to shape the narrative before any genuine conversation had taken place.

While we all may have different convictions on tertiary and speculative matters, it is an entirely different thing to raise these convictions to a place of prominence in our public ministries. Paul repeatedly warns us against doing so:  “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9). “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths” (1 Timothy 4:7a). “Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels” (2 Timothy 2:23). “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ… Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head…” (Col. 2:8, 18-19a). “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words…” (1 Timothy 6:3-4). These verses ought to make godly pastors and teachers exercise care lest they stray from the primary doctrines of God, Christ, and the gospel, and stir up division and friction through the overemphasis of tertiary doctrines. Again, the concern stated here is not that Jon holds certain tertiary beliefs, but that he (along with his co-host, whom he repeatedly affirms) calls into question the orthodoxy of those who do not hold those same beliefs. This is not a sound way of doing theology in public and should be avoided.

This section is a serious misuse of Scripture. Paul’s warnings in Titus, Timothy, and Colossians address false teachers, ascetic mysticism, Gnostic speculations, empty philosophy, and quarrels about the Mosaic law. None of those categories has anything to do with teaching on the Angel of the Lord, explaining how Jesus reads the Old Testament, or tracing the historical interpretation of Genesis 6, Deuteronomy 32, or Psalm 82.

To apply these passages to my work is to imply that I am promoting myths, false doctrine, or spiritual speculation. That is fundamentally not true. My teaching has focused on biblical exegesis, how the New Testament interprets the Old, and how certain readings developed historically. These are legitimate areas of theological study and do not resemble the errors Paul condemns.

It is also not accurate to claim that I was elevating tertiary doctrine or stirring up foolish controversy. In the episodes referenced, I repeatedly said that many believers do not know this history, that Christians hold various views in good faith, and that none of these places anyone outside the faith. The point was to show the historical background of certain interpretations, not to judge the orthodoxy of Reformed brothers. This is clear in the transcript.

Taking phrases from that discussion and portraying them as if I were attacking the faith of others removes them from their context and creates a meaning that was never intended. It is neither careful nor charitable. It is not how Paul’s warnings are meant to function.

I must say this plainly: using these passages against me is a misuse of God’s Word. It assigns motives I do not have, errors I do not teach, and places serious biblical condemnations on work that is nothing more than straightforward exegesis and historical theology. This is not accurate, and it is not just.

ON SPECIFIC TEACHINGS THAT OUGHT TO BE RECANTED, REPENTED OF, AND REPUDIATED As we continually examined the content of the Kingdoms Unveiled and Reformed Fringe podcasts, we found some of the teaching not only elevated tertiary issues, but also compromised historic Christian orthodoxy pertaining to primary doctrines: the doctrines of God and Christ. This is the heart of the matter and what is most important to us. Jon issued a clarification in which he stated his own positions positively and expressed regret for being misunderstood (as linked above). However, we are not addressing his intention but the actual content of what he has taught, platformed, and affirmed. We believe Jon’s intentions have been good. We do not believe he would intentionally teach anything contrary to the creeds or our confession. We do not think Jon is a heretic, nor have we ever called him one. The two articles posted by Doug Van Dorn (linked above) following the previous GRN statement included accusations that he and Jon had been called heretics. Due to the timing of these articles, the implication was that the GRN made such a charge. This implication was picked up and stated as fact, with many online flatly accusing GRN and Justin Perdue (due to his Theocast resignation) of calling Jon a heretic. We deny these accusations. Jon’s and Doug’s clarifications demonstrate they seek to hold to orthodox doctrine. Yet, one’s claim that he is confessional and orthodox does not inherently mean that everything he teaches is so. When one makes propositional statements that undermine primary doctrines, the specific statements themselves must be recanted, repudiated, and repented of. It is one thing to acknowledge that teaching was unclear; it is another to acknowledge that it was wrong. Jon has not done the latter.

This conclusion is not accurate. The fact that someone refuses to accept clarification does not mean the teaching itself is wrong, nor does it obligate me to “repent” of something I have never taught. A clarification is only “unclear” to the person who will not read it charitably. Many pastors, scholars, and seminary professors have read the very same materials and have found no doctrinal error in them. To say that my failure to “repent” proves the statements are wrong assumes the very point in question. I have repeatedly explained what I believe, why I believe it, and how it aligns with Scripture and confessional orthodoxy. The issue is not my refusal to repent of false doctrine. It is the unwillingness of some to read what I actually wrote rather than a version of it shaped by misunderstandings and assumptions.

ERRORS CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF GOD Elohim Jon has repeatedly stated and written that the other beings called ‘elohim’ are ‘real’ gods; they are ‘literal’ gods; they are ‘divine’ beings; they are ‘properly’ called ‘gods’ stating, “They are truly gods in the proper sense…” And elsewhere: “Normally, God speaks to an elohim (a divine being), who delivers the message to a prophet, who then speaks to people.” This language conveys that these beings possess a divine nature, not just a spiritual one. It makes clear ontological claims and raises legitimate questions about henotheism and polytheism. As the Nicene Creed begins, “We believe in one God…” As our confession states, “The Lord our God is one, the only living and true God. ” As many of our catechisms include, “Are there more gods than one? No.” Jon and Doug clearly state that they deny henotheism and polytheism. But their statements concerning the nature of these beings are confusing at best and must be recanted. This is not picking theological nits. The pastoral folly of this confusion is clear at the 7:10 mark of the Reformed Fringe episode titled “What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn’t Mean” when Jon states that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Doug stops Jon and says that in light of their discussions his mind went to the ‘other elohim’ they had been discussing. Doug then says that Jesus alone is fully ‘other elohim’ (the meaning of which is covered under Christological errors below).

The accusation that I teach other elohim share Yahweh’s nature ignores everything I have written and clarified, including the statement both the GRN board and Theocast board approved as a faithful expression of my theology. I have been explicit and consistent: elohim is a biblical category for spiritual beings, not a statement of divine essence. Only Yahweh is God by nature.

As I wrote plainly on my website in the very material they are citing:

“Thus, while the Bible at times applies the word elohim to created beings, it never confuses them with Yahweh. They may share the title, but they do not share His essence. Yahweh defies all categorization. He is the eternal, uncreated, unchanging, sovereign, and holy God, the One who simply and absolutely is, the timelessly eternal ‘I AM.’”

To claim that I teach otherwise is to disregard the context of my words, ignore my explicit clarifications, and reverse what the board previously affirmed as orthodox. This is not a problem with my theology. It is a failure to read it honestly.

In the Reformed Fringe episode, “What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn’t Mean,” (linked above), it is stated that God the Son became a created elohim and is “one of them” (~33:30-33:50). It is asserted that the second Person of the Trinity became one of the gods and functions like they do, at least in the era of the old covenant. This is another example of the confusion being sown. We wholeheartedly affirm the real existence of other real spiritual beings (e.g., Satan, holy and unholy angels, demons, evil spirits, etc.). However, the creeds and our confession are clear–there is only one being who is properly divine. All other beings are called ‘gods’ analogically, metaphorically, improperly, or in a diminutive sense.

This summary of our episode is not accurate. The point being made was that in the Old Testament the Son temporarily appeared in an angelic form. Scripture repeatedly identifies the Angel of the Lord as a visible, personal manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ. Saying the Son “became” an angel in this sense does not mean He assumed an angelic nature or entered into a hypostatic union with a created being. The incarnation is unique. Only in the incarnation does the Son permanently and personally take on a human nature.

In the Old Testament the Son took on a created angelic form for a time in order to reveal God and act on behalf of His people. This was a real appearance, not a mere symbol, but it was temporary and not an incarnation. It is analogous to the incarnation only in a loose and accommodated sense. It shares the idea of visible revelation, but it does not involve a union of natures or any change in the divine essence.

To present this as if we taught that the Son took on the essence or nature of a created elohim is to remove our words from their context. We made the distinction between these temporary angelic appearances and the permanent incarnation repeatedly, both in the episode and in the written material we submitted to the board, but they rejected to discuss together. 

This is simply the historic Christian understanding of the Angel of the Lord. It does not imply multiple divine beings. It does not confuse the Creator with the creature. It recognizes that the Son sometimes revealed Himself in an angelic form prior to taking on human nature forever in the incarnation.

Loyalty versus Ontology Jon has repeatedly asserted that when the Lord makes statements about there being no other gods besides him (or similar), he is talking about loyalty, not ontology. (For example, see the 28:06 mark in the Reformed Fringe episode “What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn’t Mean.”) In other words, Jon contends that God is calling his people, Israel, to worship him alone; he is not making categorical statements about his nature versus the nature of the ‘other elohim.’  But, this does not square with many instances in the Scriptures where this language is used. Deuteronomy 4:35 (and surrounding) cannot be reduced to an issue of loyalty or allegiance.“ To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.” The Lord is distinguishing himself ontologically from all the other gods. He is not just doing more for Israel than the other gods are doing for their nations; they are not in his class. Other gods are not gods in the proper sense. The Lord alone is the true God, not just for Israel, but for all. Isaiah 45:5 is especially helpful because, in this verse, the Lord is not even speaking to an Israelite; he is speaking to Cyrus, the king of Persia. “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me.” Cyrus does not know the Lord, nor is he in covenant relationship with him. In this instance, the Lord is not calling one of his covenant people to be loyal to him above any other god; he is making a strong pronouncement about who he is. He is entirely unique, in a class all by himself. There is no other being who is like him, ontologically. Jon’s statements on the podcast also contradict his open letter of clarification, where he states, “the primary and overwhelming use of Elohim in Scripture refers to Yahweh, the one true and living God…[These other beings in the spiritual realm] may be called ‘gods’ in a lowercase sense because they exist in the spiritual realm, just as Yahweh is spirit.”14 These statements cannot stand together. Jon has not just been unclear. He has contradicted himself and yet, has never owned ways he was wrong. More importantly, he has contradicted Scripture, and yet, has never recanted. Stripping the Bible of these categorical, ontological statements diminishes God and robs him of his glory. This ought not be done.

This section presents my view in a way that I have never taught. It combines two different categories as if they were the same, and then concludes that I am contradicting myself. I have never denied the ontological uniqueness of Yahweh. In fact, my open letter, sermons, videos, and articles all state the exact opposite. I have said repeatedly that Yahweh alone is uncreated, eternal, self-existent, and incomparable. This is the heart of my theology, and the GRN board already affirmed that in writing.

Here is the actual issue. When I have explained certain passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, I have made the point that the immediate emphasis in those specific texts is often about covenant loyalty, not metaphysics. That does not deny ontology. It simply recognizes the context. Saying “no other god besides me” can refer to loyalty without denying the reality that Yahweh alone is God by nature. Both categories exist in Scripture. I have affirmed both repeatedly.

This is exactly what I wrote in my open letter:

“The primary and overwhelming use of Elohim in Scripture refers to Yahweh, the one true and living God. These other beings may be called ‘gods’ in a lowercase sense because they exist in the spiritual realm, just as Yahweh is spirit.”

My statement is clear. Yahweh alone possesses the divine essence. Other elohim do not. To say I “contradicted myself” requires ignoring the rest of that same paragraph and everything I have taught on the doctrine of God.

Regarding the texts they cite, I agree completely that Deuteronomy 4 and Isaiah 45 speak ontologically. God is without equal. He alone is the Lord. Nothing in my teaching denies this. The problem is not that I have stripped the Bible of ontological statements. The problem is that GRN has stripped my words of their context. They are collapsing two categories, then accusing me of confusion because I recognize both.

My position has been consistent. Yahweh is utterly unique in His being. The other elohim are real spiritual beings, but they are creatures. The biblical emphasis on loyalty does not diminish God or His glory. It simply reflects the context of those passages. To claim that I have denied ontology is a misreading of my work, and it contradicts the very statement they themselves approved and affirmed as orthodox.

ERRORS CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST Along with many saints throughout history, we wholeheartedly affirm that the Angel of the Lord is the second Person of the Trinity. Christophanies, pre-incarnation manifestations of the second Person, are widely recognized throughout the Old Testament. Teaching on Reformed Fringe and in Doug Van Dorn’s writing pushes far beyond any historical understanding by positing the assumption of a created elohim nature (or angelic nature) by God the Son. This is novel theology and introduces a whole host of Christological problems. These are not simple mis-statements one could conceivably find in an informal, non-academic podcast—they are found in Doug Van Dorn's published writings, and therefore represent a cohesive system of thought behind his statements. As our concern is not with Doug directly, these statements are quoted here because they have been shared, restated, or affirmed by Jon. “It is actually also true that [God the Son is] the only one who is fully human and fully other elohim. That’s right. And the reason I say that is… he’s not half human, half elohim… he’s fully, fully, and I guess I could add a third ‘fully’ because Jesus… has all the communicable attributes of other elohim. He has the full set of attributes of [a] human being, but he also has the full attribute set of what it means to be God himself” (“What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn't Mean” ~8:24–9:43; emphasis added). Here, language of the hypostatic union is being used to describe the way in which God the Son took on the nature of an elohim. “He is the eternal Word of God who came into this universe that he made to manifest by his word and he became one of those creatures and he is called the God of Israel… This is different from the incarnation. This is totally different from the incarnation because he’s becoming an elohim, not a human. He’s becoming an ish, not an adam. He’s becoming an angel, not a man. But he still nevertheless became those things. And he was one of them… Jesus came to the patriarchs as one of those elohim. And the second you say those elohim don’t exist, you’re saying he doesn’t exist… Even if you argue that the other elohim are not like him—that they lack the incommunicable attributes of Yahweh—you still must affirm that he is both Yahweh and elohim, united in one person” (“What ‘No Other Gods’ Doesn't Mean” ~32:06–34:59; emphases added). These statements were made by Doug with Jon’s visual and verbal approval and affirmation. Again, this is language of the hypostatic union used to describe the second Person taking on the nature of an elohim. In addition, parallels are being drawn to the incarnation. “Related to this is that when we look at this from different language used of him, we quickly learn that this mediary is assuming the created properties of an angel—the Word became an angel (Passing the Impassible Impasse, p. 13).” This language is ontological, not phenomenological18, and ought not be used about anything other than God the Son becoming a man. “Second, the only begotten Son has taken on, in the OT, the form and image of an angel in a way that is directly analogous to taking on the form and image of a man. Not in a way that is univocal (one to one), for he is not taking the form of a son of Adam—a human. But again, it is analogous. Once more we use this language of ‘form’ and ‘image’ because it is the language used of Christ becoming a man in the NT. However people want to talk about this, assuming created properties of a human, assuming the form of a male human, becoming a man, or whatever, this is the same language we would want to use for him in the OT with regards to an angel. The Word became human even as the Word became an angel… In becoming an angel, the Second Person of the Trinity thereby accepted to take on those attributes and qualities of that kind of created being, in a way analogous to his agreeing to take on the properties of a human being” (Passing, p. 27). This language draws very strong parallels between the Son of God taking on the form and image of a human and him taking on the form and nature of an angel. Doug states this is not univocal language, but then defines it in univocal terms by saying that the only difference is in the form, not the manner of assumption (“this is the same language we would want to use for him in the OT”). "The parallels are obvious, but what really was happening here with Jesus? What does it mean that he was ‘transfigured’ with his face shining ‘like the sun’ and his clothes ‘white as light’? Commentators all agree that something of his divine glory was being revealed, that the veil of the flesh was being lifted to show his true glory. But what does that really mean? Was the veil of the flesh being removed to show merely an anthropomorphism of God? Was the physical reality of the flesh giving way to a semblance of the essence? It can't be his glorified human body, because he hadn't earned that yet; he had to be raised from the dead to receive this body. In fact, what the Apostles saw was what Moses and the elders of Israel and others in the Old Testament saw of the divine glory. They all saw the Angel of the Lord – the Son of God in a supernatural form, with a supernatural body… In other words, the Apostles were being shown Jesus in a typical supernatural form, similar to the way he manifests in the heavenly realm, as other supernatural beings from the heavenly realm appear from the perspective of those on earth” (The Angel of the Lord, pp. 209-210). Here, it is posited that what is revealed at Jesus’s transfiguration is his elohim/angelic nature. This is especially problematic because it necessarily entails the person of God the Son possessing three natures simultaneously (that of God, man, and created elohim). Doug has recently issued affirmations and denials (again, linked above) and stated he believes this “angelic nature,” was “likely permanently manifested…until the incarnation. ” Not only is this a novel view denied by Reformed theologians, it is also inconsistent with his own view that Jesus manifested this assumed nature at the transfiguration. This is speculative theology at best. At worst, it denies chapter 8 of our confession which states unambiguously, “The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, of one substance and equal with Him who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He has made, did, when the fullness of time was complete, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities of it, yet without sin…so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man” (2LCF 8.2). We confess that there are only two natures in Christ, very God and very man in one person. There was not a third “assumed” nature prior to or concurrent with this where God the Son “became” an elohim. You cannot claim that you hold to every line of chapter 8 of the confession while teaching things directly contradictory to it. This is disingenuous and goes against the very heart of the confession, which has “no itch to clog religion with new words.” The language in all of the above quotations is contradictory to Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions of Jesus Christ, as well as to our confession (chapter 8 on ‘Christ the Mediator’). This teaching posits a third nature assumed by the second Person of the Trinity that the creeds and our confession do not allow. This novel theology of God the Son taking on the nature of an angel and possessing three natures raises real and problematic questions about the Trinity, the uniqueness of mankind as being made in God’s image to be his vice regents, the role of Jesus as the one mediator between God and man, and the centrality of the redemption of mankind in the eternal plan of God. Consider the witness of our confession, the Nicene Creed, and the Scriptures: Jesus is the mediator between God and man (2LCF 8.1, 8.2). God the Son is the one “who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man” (Nicene Creed). “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people”(Hebrews 2:14-17). God the Son partook of flesh and blood—for our sake. Surely it is not angels that he helps. When God the Son took on flesh, he did it to redeem and restore and reclaim his image in mankind. This cannot be said of angels. We have nearly two thousand years of the history of the church seeking to interpret and understand the Scriptures. We should be exceedingly careful of any theological novelty at this point. Such ideas must be thoroughly tested against Scripture, the creeds, confessions, and historical interpretations prior to being confidently taught. When tested in this manner, this idea of God the Son taking the nature of an angel must be rejected.

Response to the Christology Accusations

Every accusation in this section was directly answered in the clarification document I submitted to the board, titled “A Response to Recent Critiques of Doug Van Dorn’s Paper on Impassibility and the Angel of the Lord.” The board received this document before issuing its public statement. It explains plainly that neither Doug nor I teach a third nature, a double incarnation, or a second hypostatic union. These claims are not only false, but they were also explicitly denied in the very material the board read and in Doug’s affirmations and denials posted well before they posted their document. 

1. We explicitly reject the idea that the Son assumed an angelic nature

From the document provided to the board:

“The most repeated concern centers on the phrase ‘the Word became an angel.’ Critics interpret this as the Son assuming an angelic nature. This misunderstands the language and the intent.” “Doug’s use of ‘became’ is analogical, not ontological.” “The angelic form was a temporary mode used for revelation. It was not a permanent nature and it was not a hypostatic union.”

This directly refutes the charge that we posit “the assumption of a created elohim nature.” We explicitly deny it.

2. The document distinguishes manifestation from incarnation

Again, from the same document:

“The angelic form was temporary while the human nature in the incarnation was a permanent assumption. The Angel is a true but temporary analogical anticipation of the incarnation, the same divine Person revealing Himself through a created medium.”

This statement shows we affirm the incarnation as unique and unrepeatable. We do not teach multiple incarnations or multiple natures.

3. We affirm the classical doctrine of the hypostatic union is unique to the incarnation

The document continues:

“Appearances of the Angel of the Lord belong to the category of personal manifestation, not hypostatic union. When the Son appeared as the Angel, He manifested Himself through created form. This did not involve assuming a new nature.”

Nothing in our teaching suggests the Son united Himself to an angelic nature. The GRN is accusing us of holding something we specifically and repeatedly denied.

4. We affirm divine simplicity, immutability, and impassibility

The document is explicit:

“We are united in affirming that the Lord our God is one, simple, immutable, and impassible.” “Doug’s project does not redefine God’s essence. It seeks to show that the Son manifests the divine presence without any change in the divine nature.”

There is no division of essence. There is no composition. There is no ontological change in God.This is plain, careful, confessional language.

5. The GRN quotes only “phrases,” not the explanations that follow them

Every quote they highlight was addressed in detail in the clarification document. The GRN removed the explanations, removed the distinctions, removed the affirmations of orthodoxy, and then treated selected phrases as if they were doctrinal claims. That is not a fair handling of theological language, and it is not how brothers should assess one another.

6. The board had this document, approved the theology in it, and later reversed course

This is important. Before their public announcement, the board had:

• this clarification document

• my open letter

• Doug’s affirmations and denials

They offered no objection to these clarifications at the time. They affirmed my theology. Only later did they reverse their position and claim I was teaching errors that I had already denied in writing.

7. My Christology has been consistent

Both in writing and in teaching, I affirm:

• one divine essence

• one eternal Son

• one hypostatic union

• one incarnation

• no angelic nature assumed

• no ontological change

• no confusion of Creator and creature

Nothing in mine or Doug’s teaching proposes a third nature, a double incarnation, or a double hypostatic union. The accusations contradict the very document the GRN had in hand and refused to acknowledge.

Conclusion

When you step back and look at the whole picture, a clear pattern emerges. Every time Doug and I sought to bring clarity, the GRN either ignored it or later used it against us. My September clarification letter was edited, approved, and publicly commended, then recast as evidence of dishonesty. Our five page clarification on October 13 was received and then explicitly set aside. Doug’s public affirmations and denials on November 7 directly answered the charges and were simply dismissed. At no point did the board slow down, revisit their conclusions, or invite us into a real process of brotherly examination.

That is not what it looks like when men are seeking the truth together. It is what it looks like when a verdict has already been reached and the evidence is arranged to fit it. Doug was painted as dangerous. My continued friendship and partnership with him was treated as proof that I was unfit to lead. The narrative had to end with Doug discredited and me removed, and anything that did not support that outcome was ignored, minimized, or left out of the public account.

I do not say that lightly. I am a pastor. Doug is a pastor. We both shepherd real people who have been confused and shaken by what the GRN published. It is one thing to disagree with a brother’s actual theology. It is another thing to misstate it, refuse clarification, and then issue public accusations that do not match the record. Whatever else you may think after reading this response, it should be unmistakable that the GRN did not pursue clarity, reconciliation, or unity. They pursued an outcome that served their own internal priorities and predetermined narrative. In doing so, they chose to portray Doug as a threat and to cast doubt on my integrity for refusing to disown him. This was not about the truth. It was about control.

I cannot accept their narrative, because it is not true. I cannot take responsibility for doctrines I have never taught or repent of errors I have openly rejected. I cannot pretend that a process which ignored our clarifications and closed the door on our responses was pastoral or biblical.

What I can do is give you the documents, the timeline, and the actual words we wrote and spoke, and ask you to judge based on that, not on a curated summary designed to tell a particular story.

In the end, Doug and I will entrust our names, our work, and our churches to the Chief Shepherd, who sees and knows all things. My desire is not to destroy the GRN, but to tell the truth. I remain committed to confessional, historic Christianity and to preaching Christ to weary sinners. I will continue to do that work with a clear conscience before God. My hope is that those who read this will see the difference between honest theological disagreement and what has been done here, and will refuse to participate in the slander of brothers whose words have not been fairly heard.

---

This is the letter I referenced above, written on October 13, 2025

A Response to Recent Critiques of Doug Van Dorn’s Paper on Impassibility and the Angel of the Lord

Preface

This response is written in the spirit of brotherly clarification and love for the truth. The discussion surrounding Doug Van Dorn’s paper on divine impassibility and the Angel of the Lord has generated concern among those committed to the doctrines of classical theism and confessional Reformed orthodoxy. My intent is not to stir controversy but to clarify misunderstandings and to demonstrate that Doug’s proposal, properly understood, does not violate the foundations of our shared confession but seeks to express them faithfully in biblical terms.

We are united in affirming that the Lord our God is one, simple, immutable, and impassible, and that the eternal Son is the Mediator through whom the Father reveals Himself to His creation. The following sections aim to restate Doug’s position carefully and respond to the major objections raised by several brothers who have read his work with concern.

I. Introduction: The Aim of Doug’s Paper

Doug’s essay attempts to answer a long-standing theological question: How do we reconcile the biblical language of divine emotion and mediation with God’s immutability and impassibility?

The paper explores how Scripture’s own witness—especially through the recurring figure of the Angel of the Lord—reveals the Son as the personal Mediator of divine presence and affection. Doug’s aim is not to redefine God’s essence, introduce a new nature, or undermine simplicity, but to show how the pre-incarnate Son truly engages creation in a way that preserves both divine transcendence and immanence.

The difference between Doug and his critics lies not in the substance of theology but in the mode of description. His analogical and phenomenological language has been misread as ontological, leading to unnecessary alarm.

II. Clarifying the Language: “The Word Became an Angel”

The most repeated concern centers on the phrase “the Word became an angel.” Critics argue that this suggests the Son assumed an angelic nature, creating a “third permanent nature” beside the divine and human. This interpretation misunderstands both Doug’s language and intent.

Doug’s use of “became” is analogical, not ontological. When we say the Angel of the Lord is an analogical manifestation of the Son, we mean there are both similarities and differences between the Angel and the incarnate Christ.

Similarities: In both cases, the eternal Word of God makes Himself truly present through a created medium. The Angel and the man Jesus are both real creatures, yet in and through them the divine Person acts, speaks, and reveals Himself in a way unique among created beings.

Differences: Angels and humans are distinct orders of creation. The angelic form was a temporary mode used for revelation, even if that mode lasted between Adam and the incarnation, while the human nature was a permanent assumption in the incarnation that lasts throughout eternity. Thus, the Angel is a true but temporary analogical anticipation of the incarnation — the same divine Person revealing Himself through a different, non-permanent created medium.

This is consistent with the historic understanding of theophanies or Christophanies—visible manifestations of the invisible God. Doug’s intent is to make this classical doctrine more tangible, not to replace it. The language of “form” and “image” is drawn directly from Scripture and from the incarnational pattern that the Son fulfills. The analogy is pedagogical: the same divine Person who appeared in angelic form is the one who later became flesh. It is not a metaphysical equivalence but a typological correspondence.

Understanding Hypostasis and the Hypostatic Union

In classical Christian theology, the word hypostasis simply means “person”—a concrete, personal subsistence of the one divine essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods or three parts of God, but three hypostases (persons) who share one and the same divine nature. Each acts personally yet inseparably, revealing the one God in distinct ways. When the Bible speaks of God walking in the garden, speaking face to face with Moses, wrestling with Jacob, or standing before Joshua as the Commander of the Lord’s army, it is not describing a created angel acting independently of God; it is the divine hypostasis of the Son personally revealing Himself in a visible, mediated way. These are acts of personal manifestation, not changes in the divine essence.

By contrast, the hypostatic union refers specifically to what happened in the incarnation: when the eternal Son, this same divine hypostasis, permanently assumed a human nature into union with His divine person. In the incarnation, the Son united two complete natures, divine and human, in one person forever. That is unique and unrepeatable.

Doug’s argument is that the Old Testament appearances of the Angel of the Lord belong to the first category—not to the second. They are acts of hypostasis (the divine Person appearing and acting in creation), not acts of hypostatic union (the divine Person assuming a human nature). When the Son appeared as the Angel, He manifested Himself through created form to reveal God and mediate His presence. The same divine person who would one day take flesh was already making Himself known to His people, not by a change in the Divine Essence, but by the free act of His personal self-revelation.

In light of these distinctions, Doug’s argument stands firmly within the bounds of classical Trinitarian and Christological thought. By framing the Angel of the Lord as a personal manifestation of the Son’s hypostasis rather than as a hypostatic union, he preserves both divine simplicity and the uniqueness of the incarnation. The Son’s appearances in the Old Testament reveal the same unchanging divine Person acting freely through created media to make God known, without division, addition, or alteration in His essence. This understanding not only resolves the confusion surrounding the phrase “the Word became an angel” but also strengthens the continuity of God’s self-revelation from the patriarchs to the incarnation, displaying the same Lord who was with Israel in the wilderness now dwelling among His people in flesh.

III. Divine Simplicity and the Essence–Person Distinction

Another critique alleges that Doug divides God’s essence and persons, making the essence impassible while the persons are passible. Such a division compromises simplicity.

Doug recognizes the classical distinction between the one divine essence and the three personal subsistences within it. His intent was to describe, in line with Trinitarian orthodoxy, how the Son personally manifests the one divine essence to creation without implying change or composition in God. Jesus weeps and yet the divine nature is impassible. As Cyril of Alexandria said, “The impassible God suffered.” 

To speak personally of the Son’s mediation does not divide God into parts; it recognizes that God’s actions ad extra are inseparable yet personally appropriated. The Father sends, the Son reveals, and the Spirit applies. This has always been the language of orthodoxy. Doug’s distinction is pastoral and hermeneutical (not ontological in the essence) designed to help readers understand how God can be both impassible in essence and personally engaged in covenantal history, without suggesting any ontological separation.

IV. Divine Impassibility and the Reality of Divine Affections

Many of the critiques worry that Doug’s model compromises impassibility by literalizing divine emotions in God’s essence. On the contrary, his goal is to preserve impassibility while taking Scripture’s emotional language seriously.

Doug builds upon the classical distinction between passions and affections.

• Passions are creaturely responses—changes imposed from without.

• Affections are divine actions—voluntary expressions of the divine will consistent with God’s unchanging nature.

By identifying the Angel of the Lord as the personal mediator through whom God expresses His affections, Doug safeguards both truths: God is unchangeable in His essence, yet genuinely relational in His revelation. When the Angel of the Lord grieves, burns in wrath, or shows compassion, these are not changes in the divine essence but manifestations of the Son’s mediatorial affection within creation.

This framework keeps biblical realism intact. The Son is not a distant abstraction but the personal self-revelation of God. Through Him, the unchangeable God truly engages His people without undergoing change Himself.

V. Jewish Sources, “Two Powers,” and the Memra

Another critique is that Doug leans too heavily on Jewish targums and “Two Powers in Heaven” traditions. These sources, however, are used illustratively, not authoritatively.

Doug never grounds doctrine in these texts. He uses them historically to show that pre-Christian Jewish interpreters recognized a divine Mediator distinct from and yet identified with Yahweh. This parallels the biblical portrayal of the Angel of the Lord and provides cultural context for understanding how early Christians read the Old Testament Christologically.

Such background work is a legitimate part of historical theology. The Reformers themselves used patristic and rabbinic commentary to shed light on biblical patterns. The Reformed Peter Allix, Gerard DeGols, and John Owen each used patristics and rabbis heavily as this talked about this very subject. Scripture remains the ultimate authority; these parallels simply demonstrate that the concept of a divine Mediator was not alien to ancient Israelite thought.

The “Two Powers” language, properly handled, reinforces rather than contradicts Trinitarian faith. It shows that the seeds of plurality within the Godhead were already being discerned in the Old Testament revelation itself.

VI. The Term “Christophany” and Classical Categories

Some critics object that Doug downplays the term “Christophany,” calling it overly abstract or academic. This criticism misses the nuance of his point. Doug does not reject the theology behind the word; he questions its communicative value.

His concern is that “Christophany” has become, for many modern readers, a technical term detached from the concrete narratives of Scripture. By emphasizing the biblical title “the Angel of the Lord,” Doug invites readers to encounter the same reality Christ’s pre-incarnate presence—but in the language of the text itself.

This is not a rejection of classical theology but an effort to make it vivid and accessible. He fully affirms the substance of the term while preferring a vocabulary rooted in the biblical storyline.

VII. Hermeneutical Method and Exegetical Concerns

Some accuse the paper of various hermeneutical errors—such as appealing too strongly to background material or collapsing biblical “word” language into a single concept. These charges misunderstand Doug’s approach.

He is not engaged in lexical theology but in canonical theology. His method traces the unfolding revelation of God’s Word—the memra/logos—across redemptive history. The Targums, ANE backgrounds, and later traditions are used to illuminate that trajectory, not to control it.

Doug’s approach is consistent with a Reformed hermeneutic that honors both the analogia fidei (Scripture interprets Scripture) and the analogia Scripturae (the unity of redemptive revelation). The so-called “background” merely helps modern readers see what earlier generations of interpreters took for granted: that Yahweh revealed Himself personally through His Word, His Angel, and ultimately His Son.

VIII. Orthodoxy, Novelty, and Pastoral Motivation

Finally, some label Doug’s proposal “novel” or “unsafe.” Such language is unfortunate and unwarranted. Doug’s work is not an attempt to revise orthodoxy but to retrieve and restate it. He affirms the Nicene and Chalcedonian boundaries fully.

The “novelty” lies only in his phrasing, not in his theology. He seeks to express ancient truth in a fresh, biblically grounded way. His pastoral concern is genuine: he wants believers to read the Old Testament with wonder, recognizing the personal presence of Christ there.

It is better, therefore, to view Doug’s essay as a retrieval project, not a speculative innovation. It invites the church to rediscover the coherence of God’s revelation from Genesis to Revelation, a God who is both impassible and intimately present through His Son.

IX. Communication and the Need for Charity

Theological precision matters, especially when addressing sensitive doctrines like simplicity and impassibility. But we must also remember that clarity of expression and clarity of intent are not the same thing.

Doug’s intent is orthodox, confessional, and pastoral. The misunderstanding arises largely from reading his analogical language as literal metaphysics. Charity requires that we read one another according to intent, not suspicion. Brothers should not treat every unfamiliar phrase as dangerous. Our confessions anchor us in truth; they also invite exploration of mystery. Doug’s project, rightly understood, is well within that space.

XI. Conclusion: Unity in the Mystery of the Triune God

All of us who engage in this discussion confess the same Lord: the simple, immutable, impassible God who has made Himself known in His Son and by His Spirit. We all stand under the same confessional commitments, and we all desire to see the church strengthened in her worship of the one true God.

The debate over Doug’s paper should not divide brothers who love the same Christ. The Son who appeared as the Angel of the Lord is the same who became incarnate for our salvation. His manifestations in the Old Testament do not threaten divine simplicity; they magnify divine grace. They show that the God who cannot change nevertheless draws near to dwell with His people.

Let our conversations about such profound mysteries be marked by the humility that the mysteries themselves demand. And may we, together, recover a high and holy view of the Triune God who reveals Himself without change, loves without passion, and saves without division.