Open Letter on My Theological Commitments

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I want to address the questions and concerns some of you have raised about my teaching. My aim is clarity, charity, and fidelity — not innovation, but faithfulness to Scripture as understood in the Reformed tradition. I have “no itch to clog religion with new words.” I wholeheartedly desire unity with my brethren who differ from me on secondary matters. 

My Hermeneutical Commitments

I fully hold to a Reformed hermeneutic: grammatical, historical, theological, and therefore Christ-centric. I believe the Scriptures are God’s infallible Word, and I approach them in the manner handed down through our confessions and doctrinal heritage.

In particular, I affirm the key principles emphasized in our Reformed tradition:

1. Scripture Interprets Scripture (Analogia Scripturae) — the Bible is its own best interpreter; obscure passages must be read in light of clearer ones.

2. The Rule of Faith (Analogia Fidei) — no passage may be understood in a way that contradicts the overall teaching of Scripture.

3. Christocentric Reading — all Scripture points to Christ (Luke 24:27).

4. Covenantal Framework — the storyline of Scripture is structured by God’s covenants (Redemption, Works, Grace).

5. Law–Gospel Distinction — we carefully distinguish what God requires from what God freely gives.

6. Historical-Grammatical Method — we honor the plain sense of the text in its context, while recognizing the depth intended by the divine Author.

7. Confessional Boundaries — we interpret within the guardrails of our confessions, which faithfully summarize the teaching of Scripture.

This is the framework by which I interpret the Scriptures.

I have no desire to import foreign frameworks and impose them on the Bible, whether from Ancient Near Eastern mythology or extra-biblical texts like the book of Enoch. While I have read portions of Enoch, it is not the source of my theology. My intent is for my theology to rest on Scripture alone, interpreted by Scripture as a whole, in harmony with the Reformed tradition.

At the same time, I recognize that at certain points my conclusions may appear to align with some drawn by scholars who use a faulty ANE hermeneutic. But agreement in certain outcomes does not mean I agree with them in method or trajectory. I believe my conclusions arise from the classical Reformed hermeneutic. You may think otherwise, and that is fine, but my desire is to stand squarely in the Reformed tradition with respect to hermeneutics.

Not all within the Reformed tradition agree on every aspect of the outcome of their agreed upon hermeneutic. Faithful interpreters who share the same hermeneutical principles have disagreed on issues such as Christ’s descent into hell, or between the tri-covenantal framework of 1689 Federalism and the bi-covenant framework of men like Benjamin Keach and John Gill. In other words, using the Reformed hermeneutic does not guarantee identical conclusions at every point. Even if my conclusions happen to overlap with certain ANE scholars in some areas, it does not mean we share a hermeneutic or trajectory. My hermeneutic is Reformed, and my conclusions grow from that soil alone.

Trinitarian Convictions & the Word Elohim

I affirm wholeheartedly the historic doctrine of the Trinity: one God in three Persons (Father, Son, Spirit), equal in power, glory, and essence. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I also want to give greater clarity on how I understand the biblical use of the word elohim.

The primary and overwhelming use of Elohim in Scripture refers to Yahweh, the one true and living God. He is eternal, uncreated, sovereign, and the only God to be worshiped. There is none like Him, nor will there ever be. The one true God is not in any category or class. He alone is the great and self-existent “I AM,” the ground of all created being. When Scripture speaks of Elohim in this sense, it describes the covenant God of Israel — the Creator of heaven and earth — who alone possesses all divine attributes and glory.

At times, however, the Bible applies the same word elohim to other beings in the spiritual realm — angels, demons, or even the spirits of the dead. These are created, finite beings who depend on God for their existence. They are not like Yahweh in essence or glory. They may be called “gods” in a lowercase sense because they exist in the spiritual realm, just as Yahweh is spirit. While Yahweh acts and manifests Himself within the spiritual realm, neither heaven nor the highest heaven can contain Him (1 Kgs. 8:27). Though the spiritual beings who exist within the spiritual realm are called “elohim,” the similarity is only linguistic. The biblical writers use the same word, elohim, not to equate these beings with Yahweh, but to describe the nature of their existence as spiritual creatures rather than earthly ones.

This is why Scripture so often qualifies Yahweh as the Elohim — the “God of gods” (Deut. 10:17), the “living God” (Jer. 10:10), the eternal Creator. Only He possesses the full meaning of the word. When lesser “gods,” the fallen spiritual beings, attempt to draw worship, they are exposed as false gods, because there is only one true and living God who is to be worshiped.

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.”

Clarifying “Two Yahwehs”

I do not wish to defend the phrases “two powers in heaven” or “two Yahwehs” as helpful categories. I agree wholeheartedly that this language, when left without context, is confusing at best and dangerous at worst. To say that there are “two Yahwehs” without explanation sounds like polytheism, and that is not my belief, nor has it ever been.

The point I have wanted to make is that the historical debate around these terms is part of historic Christianity. What later Jewish interpreters coined as “two powers in heaven” was their way of wrestling with difficult Old Testament texts where the name Yahweh seems to be applied to more than one person in the same passage. For example, Genesis 19:24 describes Yahweh raining down fire from Yahweh out of heaven. How does Yahweh reign down fire from Yahweh? These are not two Yahwehs. Rather, God is doing something by God. Historically, a number of church fathers thought that God the Father reigned down fire from God the Son. In Against Heresies 3.6.1, Irenaeus said, “For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.” In other words, God reigned down fire from the Son.

The early church understood what many Jewish interpreters eventually rejected: passages that seem to imply two Yahwehs point to the mystery of the Trinity. The Jews abandoned the “two powers” idea because they recognized it led to the conclusion that the Angel of the Lord is Yahweh — a conclusion that pointed forward to Christ. Christians, on the other hand, have always affirmed these passages, not as evidence of multiple gods, but as glimpses of the triune God revealed in the New Testament.

Thus, my conviction is the historic, orthodox confession: Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God — and yet there is only one God. Likewise, Yahweh is the divine name that can be applied to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, while there is only one Yahweh. The name may be applied to more than one Person, but never to more than one God.

Why I Have Pursued This Topic

I have pursued this topic because I am deeply convinced that many Christians today have been lulled to sleep by the very satanic forces Scripture warns us about. The enemy has numbed our spiritual senses so that we no longer see the dangers pressing in around us. We downplay morality and ethics while embracing forms of sensuality that Paul says should not even be named among us (Eph. 5:3). We neglect the supernatural power of the gospel and the ordinary means of grace because we are consumed with entertainment, sports, careers, and the distractions of this age.

As a result, our hearts and minds are weakened daily. If all we see are physical problems, then Christ and His gospel become reduced to a salvation ticket only — not the daily power to grow, sustain, and protect us in the midst of warfare. To stand strong requires spiritual strength. And to be spiritually strong, we must see that we are in a real spiritual battle.

My desire has never been to stir controversy for its own sake, but to awaken the church to the reality: the weapons of our warfare are not legalism, nor harsh preaching, but the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly, many churches today neglect the means of grace — the preaching of the Word, prayer, and the sacraments — because they treat their problems as merely relational, cultural, or psychological. But Peter tells us to be sober-minded and watchful, because our adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8).

All I have ever wanted is to start a conversation about the real spiritual war we face with real spiritual powers. Yes, our King is sovereign, and no god or demon can stay His hand. But while we wait for the coming of His kingdom in fullness, we must heed the warnings of the apostles: these lesser powers can still wound, hinder, and destroy us if we attempt to live in our own strength. Christ has not left us without weapons. He has given us His gospel and His church, so that through the means of grace we may resist the devil, stand firm in the faith, and live with hope until He comes.

In conclusion

My aim is not novelty but faithfulness — to God’s Word, to the gospel of Christ, and to the Reformed tradition we confess. I am grateful for those who have raised questions with honesty, and I pray that this letter serves to clarify my heart and my convictions.

In Christ, Jon Moffitt